[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2936-H2942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               COMPARING 104TH CONGRESS TO 103D CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of topics we wanted to 
talk about tonight, and have with me my colleague from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth], and we may have others joining us. But what we were going to 
do is talk about some of the difference between the 103d Congress, the 
Congress that was here in 1993 and 1994, and contrast that with the 
current Congress that was elected and began to serve in 1995.
  If you look back 2 years ago, which was my first term in Washington, 
and think about the changes, in 1993 the President had just passed the 
largest tax increase in the history of the country and then turned 
around and tried to nationalize or socialize medicine.
  At the same time, the bureaucracy did not want to get left out of the 
action, and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
came up with a proposal that said if you smoke in your own house and 
you have a domestic employee, then you must have a smoke ventilator in 
your own kitchen.
  The EEOC, meanwhile, came out with a ruling that one of the most 
dangerous hazards in the workplace today is religious symbols. So if 
you were working at the Ford plant and you had a ``Jesus saves'' T-
shirt on, or if you had a necklace that had a Star of David, that was 
offensive. EEOC decided it was time to go after those dog-gone 
religious symbols in the workplace. That was the kind of thing that we 
had going on in the 103d Congress.
  Now, contrast that with the 104th Congress. We have a Congress that 
has cut staff by one-third, reduced its operating expenses by $67 
million, and put Congress and all of its Members under the same 
workplace laws as the private sector.
  Now instead of debating should we reform welfare, we are debating how 
to reform welfare; instead of debating should we balance the budget, we 
are debating how to balance the budget. And when the crisis with 
Medicare came that was pointed out to us by a bipartisan committee, 
this Congress did the responsible thing and acted to protect and 
preserve it.
  This Congress, Mr. Speaker, is night and day compared to that that 
was the 103d Congress. But we have our criticism. A lot of the 
criticism comes from the press and its allies over at the White House, 
Mr. Clinton. What we were going to do tonight is talk about some of the 
criticism.

  Education, apparently Republicans do not have children, we do not 
care if they get educated or not. Seniors, apparently we all came from 
test tubes and none of us have moms or dads and we do not care what 
happens to their Social Security or Medicare, according to the 
President. Of course, the environment, we want to pave Old Faithful and 
level the Rocky Mountains.
  But what is really going on with these issues, Mr. Speaker? We want 
to talk a little bit about the environment tonight, we want to talk a 
little bit about taxes and the middle class, and we will continue 
through a series of discussions to talk about some of these other 
issues.
  I will yield the floor to Mr. Hayworth at this time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Georgia. I am heartened by the 
fact that other colleagues from the majority join us tonight to talk 
about a variety of topics.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct. There 
could not be a greater difference in Government than the difference 
that exists between the 103d Congress, held captive by the proponents 
of big Government and more and more centralized planning and more and 
more taxation and more and more spending, and those of us now in the 
majority in the 104th Congress, unafraid to offer America, Mr. Speaker, 
a clear, commonsense approach to Government, an approach which really 
beckons and harkens back to our founders, an approach typified in the 
first act this Congress passed, which simply said this: Members of 
Congress should live under the same laws every other American lives 
under.
  Indeed, as my friend from Georgia pointed out, with a litany of 
progress on a variety of issues, there is one inescapable fact that we 
confront at this juncture in the second session of the 104th Congress, 
and that is the criticism, the carping, the complaining, of liberals, 
both in this city and nationwide, of the powerful special interests who 
have as their mission in life the maintenance of the welfare state, the 
maintenance and enhancement and growth of centralized planning; those 
disciples of big Government who now would criticize the new commerce in 
this new majority and paint our agenda, indeed, our contract for 
America, as somehow being extreme.

  Mr. Speaker, it is time to point to this simple fact: The only thing 
extreme about the agenda of the new majority is the fact that it makes 
extremely good sense.
  I take, for example, the comments of my friend from Georgia, who 
talked about the fact that in the wake of the 1992 election the 
incoming President, as one of his first acts, chose to proposed and 
this Chamber approved by one vote the largest tax increase in American 
history. Emboldened by that victory, our friend at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue worked in secret to devise a plan of government, 
that is to say, socialized medicine.
  The American people said ``Enough,'' and in November 1994 gave this 
new Congress a mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, I can vouch as one who watched with interest my 
colleague from Georgia and my other colleagues here who served in the 
103d Congress and served valiantly to point out the absurdity of the 
extremism of those who always endorse the liberal welfare state, I saw 
with my eyes their valiant efforts.

                              {time}  2115

  But more importantly, through the votes of the good people of the 
United States of America with a new majority, we have moved to do 
simple things, ironically, the same things that a candidate for the 
Presidency, who was ultimately elected in 1992, talked about. My friend 
from Georgia remembers this well. Remember the campaign rhetoric: I 
will balance the budget in 5 years?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Larry King Live, June 4, 1992.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. My friend from Georgia offers the attribution. And if 
he would continue to yield, we would know that the President has had to 
be persuaded by Members of his own party to offer a phantom budget that 
would come into balance in 7 years, and using a personal analogy that I 
am sure my friend from Georgia can appreciate,

[[Page H2937]]

since he is a physical fitness buff, the budget that the gentleman at 
the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue now advocates to try and bring our 
budget into balance would be akin to me saying I need to go on a diet. 
I think we can all acknowledge that fact. I think I am going to lose 50 
pounds over the next 2 months, but I am going to lose 2 of those pounds 
in several weeks' time, and I will save the 48 remaining pounds for the 
final 2 days of the diet. It just does not work.

  Theoretically, you can write down numbers on a sheet of paper, but 
what this new majority has offered is a clear, commonsense plan to 
bring this budget into balance in 7 years, which this President vetoed; 
a clear, commonsense plan to reform welfare as we know it, which this 
President vetoed; and now yielding to my friend from Georgia, I would 
gladly listen to his points.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important really when we do 
have a dialog to be factual about it. We have been accused of cutting 
student loans, and yet our budget calls for increasing student loans 
from $24 to $36 billion. We have been accused of cutting Medicaid, and 
yet our budget calls for an increase from $89 to $124 billion. Of 
course, we have been accused of cutting Medicare, but our budget goes 
from $180 billion to $290 billion. I think it is important that when we 
talk about this that we divide the facts from the rhetoric.
  Now, one of the things that we have been trying to do with our 
reforms is to balance things, and I know our friend from Michigan [Mr. 
Ehlers] is here, and we wanted to talk about yes, there are things we 
are trying to fix, but we are not trying to destroy things, 
specifically in the environment. I do a lot of camping, and I plan to 
continue to do a lot of camping. I have 4 children, and my 12-year-old 
daughter last year started hunting with me. My 10-year-old son is 
coming along, and I want that environment there for them. I want there 
to be plenty of species out there. I want the endangered species to be 
protected. I want private property rights to be protected as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I really get offended when the President accuses us of 
trying to gut environmental legislation when the Clean Water Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency all 
were created in the early 1970's under a Republican administration.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman yielding 
me time, and I would like to take a few moments to talk about some 
Republican ideas on the environment.
  As the gentleman correctly pointed out, we have been criticized 
severely over the past 2 years for some of the actions taken and some 
of the votes that were held, but I would like to discuss from my 
perspective, first of all, as a scientist. I am sure the gentleman is 
aware of my scientific background. Perhaps not all of my colleagues 
are. But I would just simply mention I have a doctorate in nuclear 
physics, and I worked in the field for a number of years, both in 
research and teaching, before I entered the political arena. That does 
not make me an environmentalist or an ecologist automatically, but it 
at least indicates that I have the ability to establish fact from 
fiction when dealing with environmental issues.

  Mr. Speaker, back in 1968, I first became concerned about the 
environment, and I noticed a little notice in the newspaper in Grand 
Rapids, MI, my hometown, that there was going to be a meeting to 
discuss environmental issues. I went to that meeting. There were a 
group of citizens concerned about some pollution that was taking place 
at that time in various areas of the State, and we formed an 
organization called the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and 
I served as a charter member of that and I have also served on the 
board.
  That whetted my interest in what was happening to the environment, 
and I had a good deal of interest in government but had never thought 
of running for office. But when our county developed a severe landfill 
problem and we had the possibility of raw garbage piling up in the 
streets, I decided to run for the county commission, and I used that as 
a means to straighten out the solid-waste situation in my county. It 
took the work of a lot of other people, too. I do not want to claim the 
credit for it. But it shows what a citizen activist who is concerned 
about the environment can do.
  The interesting thing is, when I was elected to office and came up 
with some solutions, I soon lost many of my environmental friends who 
thought I was going to be a total purist and save the world. The 
gentleman knows as well as I, from working on issues here, there are 
many sides to issues and you have to use a reasonable, logical 
approach. When you are faced with mounds of garbage coming in the gate 
and the threat of it piling up on the sidewalks, you have to make some 
tough choices.
  But over a period of time, we managed to totally revamp the solid 
waste disposal system. In fact, I suggested renaming it the solid waste 
storage system, because the gentleman knows as well as I that if you 
put it in the landfill, you have not disposed of it; you have simply 
stored it, and it is still there to create problems in the future. But 
in any event, we did resolve the environmental issues, and I will not 
go into all the details of that.

  Later I moved on to the State senate. I was made chairman of the 
Environmental Affairs and Natural Resources Committee, and in the 
course of several years, with the help of John Engler, who was senate 
majority leader at that time, now the Governor of the State of 
Michigan, we got landmark legislation passed and probably had more 
environmental legislation passed in those 4 years than at any time in 
the history of the State of Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I am giving this not to brag about my accomplishments 
but simply to point out that those people who think the environment is 
a Democrat issue and not a Republican issue are sorely mistaken. We 
have different approaches perhaps, but I believe that we can accomplish 
a great deal in the end on the environment by working together.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to emphasize what the gentleman is saying by 
pointing out that President Theodore Roosevelt started the National 
Park System, and, of course, he was a great Republican at the time.
  Mr. EHLERS. He was a great Republican, and also started in some ways 
the political meaning of the term conservationist. I always love to 
point out to my friends that the root word for conservation is the same 
as the root word for conservative and that any true conservative should 
be an environmentalist, because it is important for all of us to 
conserve what we have for the advantage of future generations.
  During my time in the political arena and working on environmental 
issues, I have learned some lessons which I just want to share with my 
colleagues here. First of all, the environment is extremely important. 
I can perhaps draw an analogy to something that we discuss here an 
awful lot: The balanced budget. We approach this, as Republicans, from 
the standpoint that we want to protect this economy, this Nation for 
our children and grandchildren. It is simply not right for us to 
continue to live in debt and expect our children and grandchildren to 
pay that debt. We want to leave them a promising future and not a huge 
debt. Well, that is also true of the environment. That is one of the 
reasons I am a confirmed environmentalist .
  It is absolutely wrong for us to leave a polluted country to our 
children and grandchildren and to other future generations. We have to 
give them the same resource opportunities that we inherited from our 
ancestors. We have to give them the same clean environment that we have 
inherited from those who came before us. That is why the environment is 
very important to me. I want my children and grandchildren and their 
grandchildren to inherit a clean country, a clean planet, and to be 
able to have enough resources to use and enjoy this planet.
  Mr. Speaker, another lesson I have learned is that energy, energy and 
energy use, are probably the single-most important component of the 
environment. Not everyone realizes this. But once you begin analyzing 
the sources of pollution, where it comes from, a lot of it is from 
improper use of energy or inefficient use of energy, and that is 
something this Congress has to spend

[[Page H2938]]

more time and energy on, just recognizing the importance of energy and 
working on the efficient use of energy.
  Now, let me make it clear, I am not here talking about energy 
conservation. Some people confuse those. Somehow they think if they are 
freezing in the dark, they are helping the environment. Well, that may 
be true, but it certainly is an uncomfortable way to save the 
environment. What I am talking about is simple, common-sense efficiency 
of use of energy which can result in less pollution and less cost and a 
better environment. Everyone wins in that situation.
  Another lesson I have learned is that we have to work together on the 
environment. This is not a partisan issue. I happen to believe that the 
current Congress is far too polarized on many issues and sometimes 
polarized on the environment. But they should not be. The Congress 
should recognize this is a universal problem. The public certainly 
recognizes. Eighty percent of them favor a clean environment, and we 
should work together on this issue and recognize it is not partisan but 
it is important.
  As a scientist, I have also learned that correct science is 
essential. You cannot ignore science and say there is no problem. You 
also should not manipulate science to prove your point of view, if it 
happens to be wrong. The facts are the facts, and you have to deal with 
it.
  But another issue that arises when you are dealing with environmental 
issues is what I call trans-scientific issues, issues that do not have 
a ready scientific response because the problems are so immensely 
complicated, and there we simply have to use our best judgment in 
trying to come up with a workable solution.
  Something else that has developed in science is tremendous 
improvements in detection of toxic materials or other sorts. But out of 
that comes a big mistake very frequently. A good example is the Delaney 
clause, which was passed years ago, said no substance used for human 
consumption can have any carcinogenic or mutagenic element in it at 
all. Well, as our detection methods got so much better, and we can now 
detect one part in a quadrillion, that law no longer makes any sense.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield on that, I think that that 
is a real important idea or concept.
  How it has been explained to me is that if you take, say, a wading 
pool that kids are in, not a swimming pool but a wading pool, the 
little blue, pink plastic kind, and you pour a gallon of pesticide in 
there, then back in the 1930s, that is what they detect. But today, if 
you take an eyedropper and into mom and dad's big swimming pool, 34,000 
gallons, and you put a little drop of the pesticide in that pool, today 
we could detect it. Yet in many, many cases, that trace of pesticide is 
negligible, it is noncarcinogenic, it will not hurt anybody. But 
because our technology is so advanced, we can detect it, and yet our 
laws have not kept up with that.

  That is what revamping the Delaney clause is all about, and it is so 
important because there are so many fertilizers that have been taken 
off the market because of this red tape interpretation of the Delaney 
clause, and yet other countries are still using those pesticides. So it 
is affecting us already, and we do need to resolve the issue, again, in 
a balanced way, protecting the consumer above everything else, but also 
utilizing the technology for our advantage and not against it.
  Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that comment, because 
that is precisely what has happened. I am certainly not arguing for 
putting toxic materials in food or using the wrong fertilizers or 
anything like that. I am simply saying that our laws have to keep up 
with scientific changes, and if you demand a zero tolerance, as we did 
originally with the Delaney clause, it is a mistake, because there is 
no such thing in this life as zero risk.
  Mr. Speaker, that leads to my next point, and that is, we have to 
learn as a nation to prioritize, to decide what is good and what is 
bad, and recognize, everyone has to recognize that there are certain 
risks to every part of life. For example, it is commonly assumed by 
many that natural is good. Something that is natural is good. Something 
that is artificial is bad. That is not necessarily true. For example, 
peanut butter. Perhaps I should not mention this in the hearing of 
those who are from Georgia. But peanut butter is a fairly carcinogenic 
material, and the lab tests have shown that. And if we truly enforce 
the Delaney clause, we would probably have to ban peanut butter.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I do want to ask how you people in Michigan consume 
peanut butter. I would like to know more about that.
  Mr. EHLERS. Well, in fact, everyone consumes peanut butter, and that 
is why it has not been banned. It is a food staple for so many people. 
I am simply pointing out that what we have to do is analyze the risks 
in every situation and prioritize the risks. There is a great deal of 
concern, of course, in our Nation about toxic waste, but yet, if you 
analyze in a hard-headed manner what really are the environmental risks 
we have today, what is the highest environmental risk, you are likely 
to find that there are many things other than improper disposal of 
waste that are higher up on the list.

                              {time}  2130

  For example, urban sprawl with its destruction of habitat, and 
destruction of habitat of course is key in the endangerment of species, 
and that leads to something that my colleague from Maryland sitting 
here is an expert on, the Endangered Species Act. These are all very, 
very complex issues. We have to look at all aspects of these and 
recognize precisely what the problems are, and what the dangers are, 
and what this leads to, as my final point in this list before I 
summarize, and that is what we need is common sense regulation. That is 
something I have strived for throughout my legislative career.
  It is very easy to adopt what is called the command and control 
approach where you simply say something is bad, let us regulate it out 
of existence. If you do that without looking at the benefits and the 
costs, you can go down a very dangerous path, dangerous both in terms 
of health and our economy.
  What we, what I, typically did in the Michigan Senate, when we 
encountered a problem, I would get representatives gathered. I would 
get scientists together, environmentalists, industrialists, everyone 
possible, get a representative group together, sit down in a room and 
pound it out, week, after week, after week, educate each other about 
the problem and come up with a solution.
  Mr. Speaker, frankly, that is what I believe that we have to have the 
Congress doing as well. That really results in good common sense 
regulation which gives the maximum return on laws and the maximum 
return on the investment of time and energy as well as money.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I wanted to illustrate 
that on a true case that happened in Riverside, CA, where the residents 
in a neighborhood were not allowed to dig fire trenches because it 
would endanger kangaroo rat habitat. And so fire breaks were not dug, 
and a fire came. Thirty homes were destroyed, but, in addition to that, 
over 20,000 acres of kangaroo rat habitat was destroyed.
  Clearly, using what you are saying, common sense approach, this 
certainly does not benefit the home owners, but it also defeated the 
whole objective, which was to protect the rat.
  So we can clearly, without endangering the animal, we can clearly 
have more flexibility of the law and get away from the command and 
control which leaves out common sense.
  Mr. EHLERS. Let me give an example, too, that occurred in Michigan.
  Years ago it was discovered that the Kirtland's warbler in Michigan 
was an endangered animal. Everyone loved the Kirtland's warbler, a 
wonderful bird, beautiful song. It was endangered because of some very 
peculiar mating habits. This bird is very selective about its habitat 
for mating. It would only mate in jack pine trees which were less than 
6 feet tall. As the forest grew, the jack pine were too tall, and the 
birds would not mate. So they were becoming extinct.
  The initial approach suggested setting aside vast acreages so that 
there be at any given time enough jack pine available so that the birds 
would nest and proliferate. In fact, a different approach was 
developed, and that was to

[[Page H2939]]

use smaller acreage and provide for selective cuttings of timber in 
such a fashion that there is always ample jack pine of the appropriate 
height.
  The Kirtland's warbler has flourished. It is no longer endangered. It 
has become a major tourist attraction in that area. So we find that we 
have improved the habitat for the Kirtland's warbler. It has benefited 
the community as well, and it is a good example of meeting the needs of 
the environment, meeting the needs of the endangered species, and yet 
not with any undue takings, or anything of that sort.

  Mr. Speaker, that is what I mean by commonsense regulation. There are 
ways of handling most of these problems if we simply take the time to 
address them properly and study them thoroughly, use scientific 
evidence, and do not get all wrapped up in rhetoric, or taking sides, 
or polarizing the issue.
  Now this will not be true in every case, but it is true in many 
cases. Sometimes we will have really tough issues, but if we remember 
our environmental principles of saying the environment is very 
important, we have to find a solution, let us find the best possible 
solution, I think it will serve all of us well.
  Well, I have given this as an example of a Republican approach to the 
environment, and I think it is the approach that we have to take here, 
that we have to follow, get away from some of our polarization.
  To summarize, I would make a few key points. First of all, we must 
protect the environment; we have no choice about that; for the 
betterment of our planet and for the benefit of our children, 
grandchildren and future generations. We must do it scientifically. We 
cannot do it haphazardly. We have to analyze the risks as best we can 
and not simply say, ``Oh, that is a terrible danger, let us address 
that and ignore something over here that might be even worse.''
  We must do it in priority order. We have to develop a method of 
prioritizing the demands, the problems in the environment, so we are 
putting our money where it makes sense, and we must use common sense in 
doing it.
  But above all, we must do it for our children, our grandchildren and 
for any future generations. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  We have also been joined by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest] who wanted to comment on a couple of points as well.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to just 
say a few things.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about a number of issues, one of 
which is policy relating to environmental issues. The gentleman from 
Michigan, the gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from Georgia, I 
think, all discussed the direction that we need to move in. The 
gentleman from Michigan said we need to protect the environment. There 
is no one in this room that wants to dirty the air, and I do not think 
there is anybody in this room that says the water is too clean, and I 
do not think there is anybody in this room that wants to do away with 
species that we are able to enjoy in the wild so that in years to come 
they will become extinct.
  But there is a way that we can go about doing this in a fundamental 
manner that will bring more people into the process, and in the long 
run and in the short run, I believe, we will be more successful.
  A hundred years from now, and I am sure that there are people out 
there listening, Mr. Speaker, that knew people that were alive in 1896. 
And we will know people that will know people in 2096. I am not sure 
any of us will know people that are alive in 2096, but our great 
grandchildren, perhaps our grandchildren, will know people that will be 
alive in the year 2096. So a hundred-year time span is not very long. 
And for us to protect the resources that we have right now, I think, is 
crucially important so that future generations will be able to enjoy 
the blessings that we have inherited.
  Now in order to do that I do not think you can do that from a 
centralized authority like the Federal Government. We have been 
accumulating more and more responsibility with the States and the local 
governments and even private citizens. So, we create environmental 
legislation which is important for a lot of reasons.
  For example, about 40 percent of the pollution problem in the 
Chesapeake Bay, where I come from, the Chesapeake Bay watershed; I live 
on the eastern shore of Maryland; about 40 percent of the problem in 
the Chesapeake Bay is air deposition. That means air pollution, and 
there is very little you can do about that, and about 60 percent of 
that air pollution which pollutes the Chesapeake Bay from the air is 
from automobiles.
  We are increasing the number of cars every year; we are increasing 
the number of people that live in the watershed every year. So we have 
to begin to find solutions to problems that are difficult to 
solve because very often, if not always, the problems are as a result 
of increased population.

  The way to do that, I think, is to begin cooperating and consulting 
with these environmental pieces of legislation, with the State 
government, with the local government and private citizens developing 
policies that can actually work. Future generations will not care who 
cleaned up the pollution, or even who polluted. The fact is they are 
going to live with what we do.
  One other comment about clean air and clean water. Very often the 
Republicans are tagged with causing gridlock in Washington, with 
causing partisan politics in Washington, especially when it relates to 
environmental issues. I would just like to send this message, and that 
is gridlock. Arguments in Washington are not bad. You do not see the 
North Koreans arguing. You do not see gridlock in Cuba. What you see 
here in Washington is an argument about the best way that America 
should move forward. These arguments are actually bringing out more 
information. In fact, I would say that the people with the most 
credibility in Washington right now are not the ones with long years 
behind them. They are not the powerful committee chairmen that might 
have been elected in the 1950's. We do not have that anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, the people with the most power in Washington right now 
are the ones with credibility, and people with credibility are people 
with information. If we can begin to share information from Member to 
Member and develop legislation so that we can share responsibility, 
cooperate with the States, have consultations to do the best that we 
can with environmental legislation, then I think we are going to move 
forward to protect the environment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, 
first of all, I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Maryland. 
We serve together on the Committee on Resources. It is no secret that 
we may not agree on every single jot and tittle with reference to 
policy.
  Yet at the same time I am heartened by the fact that the gentleman 
from Maryland, as well as my friend from Michigan and my friend from 
Georgia, all recognize this central theme, that it is not 
centralization of power or a one-size-fits-all philosophy that oft 
times is outdated with reference to new technologies that develop, but, 
instead, the realization that there must be a spirit of conciliation, a 
spirit of cooperation and the notion that is really quite common 
sensical when you think about it, the acknowledgment that Phoenix is 
not the same as Philadelphia, that Monroe, LA, may not be the same as 
Grand Rapids, MI, that Savannah, GA, may not be the same as St. Louis, 
MO. There are different issues that confront us all.
  So in that spirit, even while there may be some disagreements on how 
we get to a cleaner environment, how we recapture for the American 
people the true spirit of conservation, let us start with that premise, 
and also what the gentleman from Michigan talked about, and that is the 
sense of balance that must be there, preservation of the environment, a 
true spirit of conservation, and at the same time a preservation, if 
you will, of the fragile rural economies this Nation has; for example, 
in the Sixth District of Arizona.
  So it is a challenge. It is not easy to face up to many of these 
questions, although common sense will rule the day, I believe, and we 
will ultimately come to some agreements. But let us also categorically 
reject even amidst the gridlock that my friend from Maryland talked 
about this need on the part

[[Page H2940]]

of some within this body and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to 
try and demonize those who will take another approach, indeed along the 
same lines of the school lunch debate, really the school lunch scare, 
and with reference to the mediscare debate. I have yet to see starving 
children in the streets or the elderly thrown in the streets. And by 
the same token, I do not believe the vast majority of Americans are 
turning on their taps and drinking sludge.
  So let us articulate up front that, while there may be some slight 
differences in approaches, the bottom line remains true for members of 
the new majority. We want to find constructive, common sense solutions 
that preserve the environment, that preserve the economy and do exactly 
what the gentleman from Maryland talks about, offers an environment to 
generations yet unborn that is clean and that may be used, not only for 
emotional well-being, but for economic well-being for that is the 
challenge we face in the last decade of the 20th century.
  So I am heartened by my friend's remarks and look forward to working 
with him, even acknowledging some differences along the way. I yield to 
my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. What is important though is we bring our laws up with 
our technology and bring our laws up with other levels of government to 
realize that when the Environmental Protection Agency started in the 
very early 1970's, it was just about the only and certainly the premier 
environmental protection agency in the country. Today in Georgia, in 
Maryland, in Michigan, and Arizona you have narrow groups. You have 
your own Environmental Protection Agency, which probably is about 10, 
15 years old at this point.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to speak to the Association of State 
Environmental Protection Divisions a couple of months ago. I was a 
little bit worried because I was afraid that, well, I do not know if I 
am walking into a lion's den or not. They said, ``We are ready. We can 
handly this. We can probably do a better job of attacking pollution 
cleanup because we are closer to the sites, we can work with turning, 
or the State legislative, we can get it turned around. Do not run from 
it, but do not get in our way, either.'' I think that is important.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would just 
like to comment on this little discussion, and especially commend the 
gentleman from Marylandy [Mr. Gilchrest], who is, I believe, without 
doubt, the wetlands expert of the Congress. He knows a great deal about 
it, and has made some very important contributions to that.
  As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the 
founding of the West Michigan Environmental Council. That group plus 
another group were instrumental in making Michigan the leader in 
writing State laws, in many cases before any other State or the Federal 
Government had. We wrote a wetlands law in Michigan over two decades 
ago. Michigan still is the only State that has been delegated authority 
by the EPA to administer its own wetlands law, and is not subject to 
Federal wetlands law.
  It has always puzzled me why other States have not done that because, 
precisely as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, each State is 
often better able to judge the situation within their State. Michigan 
is a very wet State. We are surrounded by Great Lakes, we have many 
inland lakes, we have many wetlands, and we have developed a wetlands 
law that works very well. I do not want to imply that it is without 
trouble and without dispute, but I can tell the Members from my 
experience in working with that and slogging through wetlands and 
working with the laws and working with the people, we managed to work 
things out.
  Mr. Speaker, I was astounded when I came to Washington and discovered 
the antagonism toward the EPA in most parts of this country with regard 
to wetlands. I think part of it is, as the gentleman from Arizona 
mentioned, we have tried to pass one-size-fits-all legislation, and 
certainly the wetlands requirements in South Dakota and Arizona are 
different from those in Michigan and in Maryland. I think it is 
important for us to recognize that. It is also important for the States 
to take on that responsibility, as Michigan has done in passing its own 
wetlands law.
  Similarly with takings laws, that is a real legal morass, and I 
regret the takings legislation that passed this body earlier this year, 
because I think, again, it was an attempt to be a one-size-fits-all, 
and it certainly did not fit my State. We have struggled with that for 
years with the wetlands law, with the Sand Dune Protection Act. We have 
come to a reasonable working arrangement on that, and keep working on 
trying to improve it.
  Again, realize that the real objective is to protect the environment 
and work in a common-sense fashion that works, that gets the job done. 
When you were talking about clean water and clean air a moment ago, I 
was reminded, when I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1966, the 
Grand River, which was a beautiful river flowing right through 
downtown, was filthy. No one would swim in it. No one boated on it. No 
one would think of catching fish from it. Now the river is clean enough 
so it has become a major fishing attraction. People boat on the river, 
and some even dare to swim in the river.

  So we have made considerable progress in the past couple of decades, 
and I think it is a tribute to the progress we have made. We should 
never forget that. We have cleaned up most of the biological pollutants 
in the water and in the air. Now we are working on the chemical 
pollutants. It is a much tougher problem and much more scientific in 
nature. We have to, as I said earlier, use good science to do that.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman points out, though, the 
need for honesty and integrity in the debate is so important. We have a 
Superfund bill we have been trying to get reauthorized now for 2 years, 
and while we are speaking, only about five of the national priority 
sites get cleaned up each year. Only 12 percent of the polluted 
national prioritized sites have been cleaned up, after 15 years and $25 
billion of Superfund law. It is broken. Let us fix it. There is going 
to be a little bit of disagreement between the manufacturers in the 
private sector and the environmental community, but I would suspect 
there is still 75 percent or 80 percent of the issue that could be 
moved forward right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very frustrated by the fact that in Washington, we 
always have to have this debate from both sides of any issue, ``The sky 
is falling,'' and the other side wants to accelerate the fall, join me 
in this fight. It is very difficult in that kind of atmosphere to have 
an honest debate.
  I know the gentleman from Maryland has been in the very center of 
some of these things.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is correct 
about the Superfund situation. I think this Congress has begun the 
process of resolving the vast differences in that complex piece of 
legislation so we can have as our priority spending the money on 
cleanup costs rather than litigation costs.
  I would like to mention just one thing to the gentleman from 
Michigan. I know Michigan has assumed the enforcement of the Federal 
wetlands regulations, and Maryland is about to do the same thing. I 
would like to make a comment on wetlands, the Endangered Species Act, 
and these other pieces of environmental legislation which are sometimes 
very emotionally discussed.
  In the State of Maryland, as a result of the Chesapeake Bay improving 
and having clean water, much of that is attributed to wetlands 
filtering out a good deal of the nitrogen that comes in as a result of 
farming, or filters out a variety of other pollutants that get into the 
groundwater and spawning areas for fish, but wetlands is key to the 
economic boom in Maryland. There is about $2 billion worth of tourism, 
commercial fishing, recreational fishing, hunting, boating that comes 
to the State of Maryland as a result of the type of environment we 
have, so wetlands regulations help us to manage our resources.
  The Endangered Species Act, which in the State of Maryland is 
actually stricter than the Federal Endangered Species Act, that might 
cause some alarm for some people, but for the State of Maryland, it 
assumes that our rural areas, through certain management tools on the 
Federal, State, and

[[Page H2941]]

local level, when we work in a pretty cooperative consulting fashion, 
ensures that our number one industry, or number one and number two 
industries in the State of Maryland are fishing, tourism, and 
agriculture. To save these particular industries, we need to work 
together and now apart.
  We do need to recognize the differences in a regional way, but people 
in Louisiana want clean water, as the people in Maryland want clean 
water, so it is the consulting process. It is getting involved from all 
the different levels, including elected officials getting involved in 
the consulting process.
  I just want to close with this one point, Mr. Speaker. I read 
recently a book from a Montana mayor, and I can't remember his name, 
the mayor of Missoula, Montana, wrote a book about community and place, 
and how we can reconcile the difference, especially that seem to become 
political differences. The essence of the book, without going into it, 
and I recommend the book to people to read, it is called ``Community 
and the Politics of Place,'' I think that is the name of it. But the 
essence of the book is, he said that America used to be a frontier. 
People used to be able to go places if they did not like where they 
were. if they had religious differences or had any kind of quarrel or 
wanted to seek adventure, they could go to the frontier that seemed 
endless. Now America does not really have a frontier. America is 
filling up with people, and we are a prosperous Nation, so the next 
frontier will be the frontier that is based on our ability to consult, 
to cooperate, to use our intellectual skills to manage the limited 
resources that we have so that they will still exists for future 
generations. We cannot do that and argue.

  My son told me a couple of years ago when he was in high school, when 
he sort of was getting ready to look at the world, he said the world to 
him seemed like two people in a big truck driving down the highway at 
90 miles an hour, and the highway ended at a huge precipice, a 10,000-
foot drop, and the people were not only not paying attention to where 
they were going, they were arguing.
  So if we are going to be legislators that are going to deal with the 
problem of the Nation, we have to, together, set the example so we can 
cooperate here and disseminate that sense of policy to the rest of the 
country.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
simply wanted to comment that I agree wholeheartedly with that. I 
think, getting back to the theme of what we have been talking about, we 
are simply trying to demonstrate that we are Republicans are trying to 
develop a responsible approach to the environment here.
  I appreciate the comments that have been made. I thank the gentleman 
from Maryland especially for his views on wetlands, and obviously, it 
is very similar to Michigan. There is just one minor correction, by the 
way. Michigan has its own wetlands law, whereas Maryland and New Jersey 
will administer the Federal wetlands law.
  It was interesting, when I was in office there I heard a lot of 
complaints about the wetland law, and one legislator proposed repealing 
the Michigan wetland law. The two groups that argued the most against 
that were the sportsmen, who think the wetlands law is wonderful, 
because Michigan has great hunting and fishing and so forth, and 
business. They said, ``We know this law. It works for Michigan. We do 
not want to be under the Federal law.'' That shows how each State can 
design the law that accomplishes the goals better than we can with a 
one-size-fits-all approach from Washington.
  I think we have to set a minimum standard, but encourage the States 
to go beyond that. As Republicans who are talking about devolution of 
power, of letting the people in the communities have a say, I think 
this fits in beautifully with that.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate 
the gentleman making this point, and I simply want to make this point 
that I think it transcends almost every debate we have here, and it is 
a philosophical point of view that I think rings true with the majority 
of the American people.
  As you relate to us the experiences of Michigan, as our colleague 
from Maryland relates the experiences in his State, certainly none 
among us would argue that at certain time in our history, the Federal 
Government has played a genuinely worthwhile role in serving as a 
catalyst to deal with some dramatic issues, but history does not occur 
in a vacuum.
  Therefore, the challenge for us at this juncture in our history is to 
ask this question: Who do we trust? Do we trust the American people, do 
we trust local officials, elected by the people close to home, 
officials elected to State government, the State agencies that have 
grown up in the last 25 years to confront these problems, or do we 
always and forever turn these problems over to Washington bureaucrats 
to offer a Washington solution which may fit Washington, DC, but which 
might not fit Washington State? that is the essence of the debate that 
we have on a variety of topics.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan for drawing that distinction yet 
again when it comes to environmental legislation, the true meaning of 
conservation, and what it will mean to protect and preserve the 
environment as we move into the next century.
  Mr. EHLERS. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, we need both. Take clean 
air, for example. We have to have a Federal law, because the transport 
across distances is so huge, but we also need local law to regulate how 
this is applied locally, and do it in a commonsense fashion. Only with 
everyone working together are we truly going to achieve a clean 
environment.


               the urgent need for meaningful tax reform

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to touch base on the tax 
situation, with April 15 approaching quickly. I will yield to the 
gentleman from Arizona on this, but I want to start off with a couple 
of fun facts, first, about out tax system, because if you are like many 
of your American friends this last week or two, you took time filling 
out your tax form.
  On an average, it takes 12 hours for you and your family to fill out 
your tax forms to the degree that you can, and then you take it to your 
accountant, and pay anywhere from $150 to $700 or $800, depending on 
where you are and how much you own and so forth. If you are a small 
business, it takes you 22 hours.
  Here is a statistic that I really like, Mr. Speaker. The IRS has 480 
tax forms, and 280 of them are forms that tell you how to fill out the 
other forms. That is absolutely absurd. The West Publishing Co., one of 
the official publishers of the Federal Tax Code, published the 1994 Tax 
Code in two volumes. Volume 1 contains sections 1 through 1,000, and it 
is printed in 1,168 pages. Volume 2 is page 1,500--1,500. We have a 
1,564-page Tax Code, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely absurd. The need for 
tax reform is urgent, it is great, it is right now. It is appropriate 
to look at while we are trying to balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend the gentleman from Georgia.
  In this Chamber where it is oft decried, the level of verbosity that 
often emanates within this Chamber, you have not seen words, Mr. 
Speaker, until you take a look at the Tax Code. The gentleman from 
Georgia talked about it. By wording, the Tax Code as it exists today 
consists of 555 million words, 555 million words in the last 10 years. 
In the wake of tax reform of a decade ago there have been 4,000 
changes, resulting in the verbiage piling up.
  Mr. Speaker, if you think you are paying by the word, that is 
certainly the case. Because in the wake of our last tax increase, the 
largest tax increase in American history, the President of the United 
States, who talks about tax breaks for the middle-class, offered a tax 
increase so regressive that with the retroactivity attached to it, 
people who had passed away still owed more from beyond the grave due to 
retroactivity.
  It is the height of absurdity when the American family in 1948, an 
average family of four, surrendered about 3 percent of its income in 
taxes to the Federal Government, to where last year the average 
American family of four surrendered virtually one quarter of its income 
in taxes to the Federal government. That affects everyone.

[[Page H2942]]

  Mr. Speaker, we need to make a change. We have taken a look at 
priorities and we see that clearly, in the wake of these expenditures, 
Washington's priorities have totally gotten out of whack.
  Mr. KINGSTON. What is so important is that the average family in the 
1950's paid 3 percent and today pays 24 percent in Federal income 
taxes. When you add in the other taxes, State and local taxes, the 
average middle-class family pays about 25-percent taxes.
  I had an opportunity to talk to a driver with UPS, United Parcel 
Service, in my district. He said, ``My wife works. She teaches school 
and has a good job, and I get a lot of overtime driving this truck. We 
have got three kids, and at the end of the month we do not have 
anything because it goes into washers and dryers and taxes and 
regulations and so forth.''
  That is the story of the middle-class American family today. All they 
are doing is working for the government. Then we turn around and make 
them fill out a tax form that is absurd, which they cannot do.
  Mr. Speaker, you are on the Committee on Ways and Means. I bet you 
most Members of Congress cannot even fill out their own tax form. I 
believe that is real important. If we cannot do it, we who are setting 
the law, what do we expect of the American people?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend would yield, there is something 
fundamentally wrong when the average American family pays more in taxes 
than on food, shelter and clothing combined. There is something wrong 
when Washington sends its resources to pay for 111,000 IRS employees, 
and yet can only have 6,700 DEA employees and only 5,900 border patrol 
employees.
  What does that say to the American people? The Washington bureaucrats 
are saying, ``Oh, we do not have time to staunch the flow of illegal 
drugs. We do not have time to guard the borders, though that is one of 
the prerogatives of the Federal Government as mandated in the 
constitution. But we do have time to audit you, Mr. and Ms. America. We 
do have time to cast aspersions on your honesty. We do have time to try 
and find our way into your pocketbook again and again and again and 
again.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing ignoble or dishonorable about hard-
working American taxpayers hanging onto more of their hard-earned money 
and sending less here to Washington, DC. Indeed, in the days to come 
once again, I know my friend Georgia disagrees with this notion, we 
extend our hand in cooperation to the minority. We extend our hand in 
cooperation to the President of the United States.

  We have talked the talk for too long. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is time 
for us to walk the walk. We voted that way in this Chamber. We hope 
that those who would give lip service to these ideals would join with 
us and get about the business of governing. The American people deserve 
no less.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked to repeal the 1993 Clinton tax increase 
on Social Security recipients. We have worked to increase the earnings 
limitations for American seniors. We have worked to increase the estate 
tax threshold from $600,000 to $750,000, and we have worked to end the 
marriage tax penalty and the capital gains tax, and the President 
vetoed that. Along with that, he vetoed a $500 per child tax credit for 
middle-class families.
  Right now in America households all over this land, from Maine to 
Miami to California, you can reach in your pocket and say here is $500 
that was a dividend for my work this year, but it was vetoed by this 
President of the United States.
  We are not going to stop, Mr. Speaker, and talking about taxes is 
going to take a lot more time. We have with us the gentleman from 
California who wants to talk about another waste of manpower and money, 
and that is illegal immigration, so I want to yield to him.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to echo my colleagues' 
comments. My wife runs our family business which happens to be an 
income tax business. I heard a lot of talk in 1993 that the Clinton tax 
increase was only going to be a tax on the rich and the seniors who 
were wealthy. Well, I do not think the Members of the House really 
realized what they were doing. I will say this, and I need to say this 
so that I can go home to my bride in California this weekend.
  The fact is that she showed me one individual and talked to one 
individual who was a classic example of the so-called tax on the rich. 
This person made less than $14,000 a year, but because he happened to 
be a Latino who had very strong religious beliefs, he did not divorce 
his wife. He was married and filing separate. Eighty-five percent of 
his Social Security is being taxed.

  You remember in 1993 they told those of my colleagues who were here, 
this is only a tax on the wealthy Social Security recipients; it is not 
on the poor. Well, this man would like to ask: Would somebody in 
Congress tell him how rich he is?
  I think that that is one issue that is not discussed enough and we 
need to start bringing it up. As somebody who is involved in doing tax 
returns for the working class in my community in San Diego, Mr. 
Speaker, I hope to bring up more of those items, talking with the 
constituents who are being taxed by this Congress under the guise of 
taxing the rich, when it is the working class that is getting harmed by 
this unfair and unjust legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, another item that is unfair and unjust is that we have 
been trying to address this last week the fact that this Government of 
the United States has in the past rewarded people for coming across the 
border and breaking our immigration laws and then getting welfare, free 
education and free medicine, to the point where it is costing the State 
of California immense amounts of revenue, and the Federal Government 
has been walking away from this expense. The people in States across 
this country are paying this expense because the Federal Government has 
ignored it.
  Mr. Speaker, with the passage of H.R. 2202, Mr. Smith's bill, we are 
finally now seeing this Congress recognizing its responsibility under 
the constitution to address the fact of illegal immigration. But there 
is one part of the illegal immigration issue, Mr. Speaker, that has not 
been addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just ask that we all consider the fact that 
giving automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens is a problem 
we need to address. My bill, H.R. 1363, will address that, and we hope 
to work on that in the very near future.

                          ____________________