May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4489

present through hearings and ultimately at the end of May for a vote in

early June, a budget resolution which

will show the American people just exactly how we can get to a balanced

budget after 7 years.

TRIBUTE TO FEDERAL

EMPLOYEES

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ENSIGN). Under a previous order of the

House, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DELAURO] is recognized

for 5 minutes.

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, it’s been

nearly 2 weeks since a terrorist’s bomb

ripped a hole in the Murrah Federal

Building and ripped a hole in the heart

of the Nation. The images of bloodied

children being carried from the rubble

will stain our collective memory for a

long time to come. How could it happen here, we asked.

Through media reports, we have

come to know the children who were so

brutally murdered—we know their

names and faces—Baylee Almon, Colton and Chase Smith, Aaron and Elijah

Coverdale and Ashley Eckles. They

have become our children, too.

And, we have learned about other

victims of the bombing, as well. We

know that more than 500 people who

were working in the Murrah Building

on that awful day were federal employees. Many were killed. Federal employees were at the Social Security Administration, helping seniors in their retirement; they were there at the Housing and Urban Development Office,

helping families find affordable housing; they were there at the BATF and

the Secret Service helping to enforce

our laws and protect our people.

To understand the scale of this tragedy, one need only to talk to employees at the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, which had approximately 90 workers in the building

at the time of the attack and suffered

the greatest loss of life. At last report,

32 HUD workers have been pronounced

dead, two are hospitalized and another

3 are still missing.

To understand the scale of this tragedy, talk to employees at the U.S. Secret Service. All six of their employees

assigned to Oklahoma City are now

gone: Mickey Maroney, Alan Whicher,

Kathy Seidl, Donald Leonard, Cynthia

Brown and Linda McKinney. Together

they leave behind 6 spouses, 6 parents

and 11 children.

Too often, we in this Nation, and, in

particular, in this body, have been

guilty of forgetting who these people

are—they are not nameless, faceless

bureaucrats. They are husbands and

wives, brothers and sisters, and they

are parents.

One of the 32 HUD employees who did

not survive the Oklahoma blast was

Lanny Scroggins. Lanny was a decorated Vietnam veteran who spent the

last 23 years as a Federal employee,

helping others. How is it that Lanny

Scroggins could survive the jungles of

Southeast Asia, but be taken by a terrorist’s bomb while at work in America’s heartland? No one has the answer.

But, while Federal employees were

the victims in Oklahoma City, they

were also the heroes: Federal employees from FEMA pulled survivors from

the wreckage and helped feed the hundreds of rescue workers.

Federal employees from the FBI,

BATF and Secret Service launched a

swift and sweeping investigation that

brought the primary suspect into custody within hours of the explosion.

But Federal employees are heroes

every day. Every day they work to

take care of our seniors, to house our

poor, to enforce our laws, to bring food,

shelter and clothing to those stricken

by natural disasters and manmade

atrocities, like the one in Oklahoma

City.

And, yet, for these heroes there are

no Congressional Medals; no parades

down Main Street; no statues in town

square. Instead, these heroes too often

are belittled as bureaucrats. In debate

on this House floor, Federal employees

have been the target of overblown political rhetoric, on both sides of the

aisle.

We don’t know what impact our

words have on deranged individuals or

the lunatic fringe groups we’ve read so

much about over the past few weeks.

We do not know. Wouldn’t it be best to

err on the side of caution? Let’s not

rely on others to do the right thing, let

us do the right thing and leave nothing

to chance.

Make no mistake, there are groups in

this country who are waging a war

against Federal law enforcement. For

many of these fringe groups, law enforcement has become the enemy. They

are not ‘‘jack-booted Government

thugs,’’ as the National Rifle Association asserts. And they deserve better

than to have voices of hate on our airwaves advising listeners about ‘‘shooting them in the head.’’

We need to have congressional hearings in the wake of the Oklahoma

bombing on the increasing threats

against Federal employees. By doing

so, we don’t politicize a tragedy. Rather, we live up to our responsibilities to

address this tragedy and make sure it

doesn’t happen again.

And, we also need to look at the

words we use. All of us in this body

want to cut the size of the Federal

Government. But our goal in reducing

the size of Government should be to

make it work better for people. We

should be able to make those arguments based on the facts, without demonizing Federal employees—without

belittling their contributions.

The Federal employees who were

killed in Oklahoma City dedicated

their lives to serving us. Now we

should serve their memory by standing

up to the forces that seek to divide us

with words of hate.

DISTRICT APPROVAL OF FIRST 100

DAYS OF 104TH CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Iowa

[Mr. LATHAM] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority

leader.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would

just like to take the opportunity tonight to reflect a little bit as to what

we heard back on recess. I personally,

in my district in northwest Iowa,

which is primarily agricultural, held 16

town meetings and attended four agricultural hearings. And, Mr. Speaker, I

will tell you, the people in the Fifth

Congressional District of Iowa are 100

percent behind what we did in the first

100 days in the new 104th Congress.

People told me to keep going, do not

give up the fight, continue the ideas

and the motivation behind the Contract With America. They were very,

very pleased to hear what we did on the

very first day as far as reforming this

Congress itself, how we do business,

cutting the number of people in committee staff, cutting the number of

committees, limiting the terms of the

chairs of the committees and subcommittees, limiting the term of the

Speaker himself, and, most importantly, on the very first day when we

passed the Shays-Grassley Act, it held

Congress subject to the same laws that

the rest of the country has to abide by.

Also, we received tremendous support

at every meeting for the items in the

contract itself, when you talk about

the balanced budget amendment, the

welfare reform, doing away with the

outrageous regulations that we have

had in the past few years, having the

first vote forever in this body on term

limits, something that people have

tried for years and years and it was

never allowed to happen before.

But, again, Mr. Speaker, the people

in the Fifth District of Iowa told me to

continue the fight. They believe that it

is a refreshing wind blowing through

Washington when you have a group of

people who go to Washington and work

very, very hard to make real change

and reform, and, most importantly, to

keep their word as to what they said

during the campaign. It is a major

change. People are responding. People

do not believe the liberal pledge that

they are getting from Washington.

They know the facts.

I have another gentleman here,

would you like to comment, the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I

thank the gentleman.

I, too, have a district which is somewhat similar to the gentleman’s. My

district, which is in the very heart of

the State of Georgia, stretches from

the middle of the State all the way to

the Florida line. I have three military

installations in my district, two Air

Force bases and a Marine Corps logistics base, and the balance of my district is made up primarily of agriculture and agribusiness industry as
H 4490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 2, 1995

well as some heavy manufacturing industry.

You know, we cover 32 counties in

my district, and I did not get to all of

them during the 3 weeks, but I got to

most of them. I had a representative at

some 15 town hall meetings that we did

and another probably eight or nine

civic club speeches that we gave. And

everywhere we went, I heard the same

echo of what you have just said, and

that is we appreciate what you folks

did during the first 100 days. We are

proud to see that Congress has finally

done something in the first place, but,

more importantly, has done what it

said it was going to do.

I talked a lot about the fact that on

September 27 of last year, we on the

Republican side of the aisle made history in American politics. We not only

made promises to the American people,

but we were willing to put those promises in writing. For the first time in a

long time, a group of politicians, the

first time ever in American political

history, a group of politicians came together and made promises to the American people and did every single thing

we said we were going to do. And I kept

hearing that over and over again in my

district, not only that you made those

promises and we are proud you kept

them, but also, like you said, we do not

want you to quit doing what you did.

You have made a great start, but in

order to get this country turned

around, we have got to keep putting

common sense back into Washington.

Something that has long been missing

up here. By doing what we did, we put

a lot of common sense back into Washington, and I made a pledge to my folks

in the Eighth District of Georgia that

we are going to continue to do that.

There were a couple of things that

were of particular importance to the

folks in my district. No. 1 was the balanced budget amendment. They were

extremely disappointed that the Senate was unable to pass the balanced

budget amendment, which is so crucial

to the financial stability of this country. Congress over the past 25 years has

shown it cannot balance the budget itself, and the people of this country demanded that a balanced budget be

passed, and unfortunately we were not

able to do that. But they have encouragement because of the fact that we in

the Republican Conference have made

an unconditional pledge that we are

going to balance the budget of this

country by the year 2002. While the

folks in my district do not like to have

their programs cut, nobody does, the

folks in my district are willing to share

in the reforms that have got to be

made in order to get this country back

on track and in order to get to that

glide path to a balanced budget and in

order to ultimately balance that budget by the year 2002.

The other program that is extremely

important to the folks in my district

was the welfare reform bill we passed

here in the first 100 days. I think, and

the folks in my district absolutely

wholeheartedly agree with me, that

that is the cornerstone of the contract,

and that is the most important thing

that we did during the first 100 days.

We have too many people in this country who need to go to work, who would

go to work if work were available and

if they did not have the incentive to

stay on welfare, and folks out there are

absolutely tired of the failed and dismal welfare system that we have in

this country.

b 1745

They were really pleased and encouraged by the fact that finally a group of

Congressmen were willing to stand up

and say, by golly, we are going to reform this program, and we are going to

put dignity back in the welfare system.

And we are going to require those folks

who can work that are on welfare, that

are getting food stamps, to go to work.

And the blue-collar folks out there, the

white-collar folks, all the way up and

down the line, the folks who work hard

every week and pay taxes every week

are simply tired of that system, and

they were extremely encouraged by

what we did with our welfare reform

package.

And I made another promise to them,

that we are going to continue to work

on that type of reform in this Congress.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from San Diego [Mr. BILBRAY].

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very

much. I represent the 49th District of

California. It is a beautiful district

that stretches from my home town in

Pearl Beach on the Mexican border up

north to the beautiful wooded hills of

La Jolla, from the communities of

Ocean Beach and Pacific Beach on the

blue Pacific to the foot hills of the Sierra Nevadas, what we call the San

Diego foot hills.

And I was greeted by citizens at

every community that we were visiting, very, very encouraged with the

factors that my colleagues have said,

that there was some credibility given

back to Congress, something that had

been lacking for so long; the fact that

promises were made, promises kept,

something that was rare and unseen for

a long time.

And one of the encouraging things

was the fact that we have actually

heard people say that there may be

concerns about our legislative agenda,

about specifics, but at least they feel

that Congress cares and that Congress

is listening. And I think that one of the

things that shocked the people I spoke

to was that rather than what has happened for the last 100 years in this

country, where freshmen were brought

in and stuck in corners and not allowed

to speak, that the new voices of the

people’s concerns were muted, this

time for the first time in the history

that anybody remembers, the freshmen, the new wave of fresh faces was

not only not stopped, they were absorbed and they were actually embraced. Many of us in the freshman

class have been encouraged to participate on this floor the first day, allowed

to serve on committees and actually

had chairmanships, which really kind

of astonished people, that the voices of

the American people are being heard

and are being incorporated and that we

do not fear the change for the good.

Frankly, I have got to point out that

one of our frustrations was that, as I

came in to San Diego and enjoyed the

beautiful blue waters of the Pacific, we

also are reminded what a failure our

Federal Government has been at times,

especially with issues of environmental

quality which are very, very important

to those of us in San Diego and California for good reason. We are blessed by

the Lord of having one of the most

beautiful environments in the world.

But at the same time that I had to

state how much we enjoy our environment, I have got to point out that we

were greeted this week to over 30 million gallons of untreated raw sewage

from a foreign country, Mexico, that

our State Department and our EPA department found reasons to ignore and

not to stop, that you or I would be

fined very quickly by our own Government and by our own Federal agencies.

But they have turned their head on a

major environmental disaster that is

occurring again and again and again

for those of us that live along the border.

All I would say is that next week,

when we talk about the Clean Water

Act, that we start recognizing that the

Clean Water Act, for those of us in San

Diego County, is a misnomer. We look

at the Federal bureaucracy and the

Federal agencies that have administered it, too quick to fine American

citizens, too quick to find fault with

other people, and too seldom are willing to tackle the real tough problems

like 30 million gallons of raw sewage

pouring from a foreign country, polluting wildlife preserves, killing wildlife

in an area of endangered species that is

quite critical and closing almost 10

miles of California beach front.

So I hope that those of us, as we next

week start addressing the Clean Water

Act, will be brave enough to have the

guts to rise up and say, it is a good

start, but we darn well have to improve

this act to make sure it protects the

environment and that the agencies

that are working on this must be held

responsible for pollution problems such

as we face in San Diego County.

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman.

I, like both of you, I think when I

was back at my meetings, the balanced

budget amendment was paramount.

Very disappointed what happened in

the Senate, encouraged by the idea

that it will be brought up again and

probably passed in the next 60 to 90

days. If not, it will be brought back

again next year.

In my district, in the 30 counties in

northwest Iowa, it is absolutely essential that we have a balanced budget
May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4491

amendment. And I thought it was interesting, when we had a lot of discussion on welfare reform, how far ahead

the people in my district are compared

to what is being spewed about on the

floor here in the House about supposedly cuts in funding for school

lunch programs.

Every meeting I said, OK, how many

here raise your hands if you believe

that a 4.5-percent increase is a cut?

And obviously we had no hands go up.

Apparently the new math that has

taken place in Washington has not hit

Iowa, because we still understand what

real math is and what the truth and

the facts of the matter are.

And people tell us, if you do anything

else, get rid of the failed welfare system that we have in this country and

bring back a system with accountability and responsibility and give the people opportunities for the future and do

not keep them tied into a system that

takes away hope for their families and

their future.

Mr. BILBRAY. In San Diego, this has

been a real tough battle for almost two

decades now where San Diego County

has a welfare system larger than 32

States of the Union. It is 2.6 million

with a very large welfare problem. And

every time we try to do something, the

Federal Government was always in the

way of the people of San Diego trying

to reform and restructure this. And in

fact, I point out that in 1978, the people

in San Diego were called ruthless and

heartless and cruel because they came

up with a radical idea, they said, that

was cruel called ‘‘workfare,’’ in 1978.

And just the last few years, to show

you how frustrating it is working with

the Federal Government, when you are

trying to make some sanity out of this

situation, that when we found there

was welfare fraud, we realized we wanted to put a picture ID on a welfare

card. And Federal agents were saying,

we do not think you can do that because we think it may violate the privacy of the welfare recipient. I have to

say that any person who truly is in

need, any person who really wants to

participate in a good program would

obviously not be opposed to having

their picture on the welfare card. In

fact, I think any of us who has any

kind of identification, driver’s license,

do we feel our privacy has been violated because we have a picture?

I think that gives you an example of

how we have got to break up the concept that Washington is the only well

of knowledge and compassion, that the

local communities do have the ability

to address these problems, to straighten out these problems, if we must give

them the right to do the right thing.

That is really what my people in San

Diego keep crying for us to do here in

Washington.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think you make a

good point there, the fact that I have

confidence in the local people in my

home county and every single one of

the 32 counties in my district that they

can do a better job of running local

programs than a bunch of bureaucrats

in Washington can. That is the whole

concept behind what we are doing now.

The block granting that is going to be

taking place is being done in a very

thought-out manner. It is not being

done hastily. It is being done only with

programs that we have given serious

consideration to, have listened to serious testimony about and have made

conscious decisions that local folks are

better able to spend their own tax

money on their own programs than

somebody in Washington.

And I heard that time and time

again. Thank goodness the folks in my

district for the most part had seen

through the school lunch debate before

I ever got there. When I got to my town

hall meetings and talked about school

lunch programs, we had nothing but

compliments for the fact that we are

willing to give the local folks credit for

the fact that they are capable of running these programs. They are the ones

that run it anyway.

Mr. BILBRAY. I was in a community

called Navajo where the lady who runs

the school lunch program came forward

and said, I did not know about you Republicans. I was not sure. But thank

you for giving us the program so we do

not always have to have Washington

tell us how to do it. We can serve kids

more lunches and be able to serve the

kids better because you are getting the

Federal Government off our backs so

we can do it. She said it quite clearly.

She said, what do you people in Washington or the people in Washington

think, that Washington cares more

about our children than we care about

our own children?

I think that was probably the best

message we could receive.

Mr. LATHAM. And it goes back, another subject that came up many times

in my town meetings, and it goes back

to the idea of local control again, is

education. People are outraged today

in the 5th district of Iowa that they

want to put together basically a Federal school board to tell our local

school boards exactly what they can

and cannot teach, what restrictions

they can put on and what restrictions

they cannot. Everybody believes that

there is a role for the Federal Government as far as ensuring that every one

has access to education, that because

of race, creed, color, handicap, whatever, that you are not deprived of that

opportunity. But everyone also believes that it is the State’s responsibility to fund education in our State and

also the control has to stay with the

local school boards.

And I had a vote down in Boone

County. It was interesting. I asked,

after we had had this discussion, I said,

how many of you want to do away with

the Department of Education? And the

vote was 38 to 2 to do away with the

Department, to bring back the responsibility at the local level, to not put it

away to some bureaucrat here in Washington today, let the people at the

local level make the decisions for their

children’s education because they do

know best and they are going to be

able to help them the most and ensure

a quality education.

We are not going to do it again from

Washington.

Mr. BILBRAY. I had it pointed out to

me that the more money that we have

spent on the federal Department of

Education, the more the test scores of

our students in this country have

dropped. I do not believe that you can

blame it on the Department of Education, but I think that what it tells us

is just throwing money at a Federal

agency will not help to educate our

children.

It is the teachers and the parents of

America that will educate the children.

And what we need to do in the Federal

Government is get out of the way and

let them do what they do best, take

care of the children. If any of us had a

vehicle where we spent more money on

the vehicle and the vehicle ran worse

every time we added money, we would

kind of think twice about the idea of

how much money we are spending here

and maybe we should try a different vehicle.

I think the best vehicle is allow parents to do what parents do best, allow

teachers to do what teachers do best

and get off their backs and let them

get the job done.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. My wife has taught

school in the public school system in

Colquitt County, my home county, for

in excess of 20 years. My daughter is in

her first year of teaching kindergarten

in the public schools. I see what both of

these ladies do on a weekly basis as far

as teaching kids. That is where the

core of our education system is. They

do not go home at 3 in the afternoon.

They are there until 5 or 6 in the afternoon. They are there at night. They are

there on Sunday, working, preparing to

teach those kids because they love

what they do.

That is what makes our education

system in this country so great. It is

not the bureaucrats in Washington

that contribute to the positive side of

the education system in this country,

and that is what the folks at home are

tired of. They are tired of bureaucrats

in Washington dictating to them not

only what their children will eat, but

what school books that folks can

choose from, what curriculum they will

be taught and how they will be taught

it.

It is absolutely time that we did

what the Founders and Framers of the

Constitution of the United States intended, and that is to return the government of this country to the people

of this country. And education is a

prime area where I look for the Republican side of the House to really step

forward and to do that, because by dismantling the Department of Education, which I am advocating that we

do over some period of time, we are

going to return the education of our

children to the folks in the States and
H 4492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 2, 1995

in the local communities. That is were

it ought to be.

We do owe an obligation to the

school systems of this country to help

fund them. That is what our tax money

needs to be spent for. But the folks on

the local level need to be making decisions about how their children will be

taught.

Mr. LATHAM. I think it is very unfortunate that so much of our resources in the schools today, and I

heard it time and time again, are going

to help children who are not now motivated to learn English and that is the

town of, and I am sure it is a big issue

with you, in the town of Storm Lake,

IA today we have 22 different languages

in our school district. In Sioux City,

IA, we have 18 different languages.

I heard time and time again in the

town meetings that English should be

the national language, and we should

encourage every one to learn English,

that that is the thing that holds this

country together. And rather than

being a melting pot like we used to be,

we are a tossed salad, that we need

English, we need English as the thing

to hold us together.

You look at the resources we are expending today, just trying to have a

special teacher going through with

each, like in Storm Lake, 22 different

languages.

Mr. BILBRAY. As somebody who was

raised in a very multicultural neighborhood, my home town was very, very

multicultural. The fact is that we have

got to remember that language is one

of the bonding elements that hold us

together. Common culture, common

language, common economics. We can

share other cultures.

My community, we celebrate September 16 or Cinco de Mayo just as

much as anybody else would.

b 1800

It is one of the joys. The problem we

get into is when people want to destroy

that common ground where all Americans can meet, and that common

ground, one thing that is very critical

is language. We should learn from what

is happening in the Continent of Africa

and what has happened in Yugoslavia,

where people have drawn lines and

maintained separate lines just to make

sure they do not communicate. Language is absolutely essential, not just

for the culture, but for the individual.

In my community and my district, a

lot of Mexican nationals send their

children up into the United States to

be educated, and their first priority is

for their children to learn English, because even in Mexico, language, the

English language, is essential if you

want the economic and social prosperity for your children. Those of us that

love our children should do no less for

our future generations than to make

sure that everyone, everyone in the

United States has the right to proficiency in the English language.

That has not necessarily happened.

In certain segments where English is

not a major part of the educational

system, and where it has not been well

implanted, the dropout rate is over 50

percent. We are denying these individuals the potential for free access, the

right and freedom of the pursuit of

happiness.

I think we really need to raise this

issue of saying we want to do this as a

compassionate step so we have equal

opportunity, and we cannot have equal

opportunity in any society unless there

is a common language. I think it is

quite clear.

The people of California, though, I

want to point out, have passed a citizens initiative that identifies English

as the official language, and let me

point out that those of Latino extraction actually were major supporters in

the voting ranks for that, because

they, more than anyone else, understand that you have to have that common bond. That English language is

our common language.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Switching subjects, TOM, but along that same line

again of reducing the Federal bureaucracy and particularly taking the Federal Government out of our daily lives,

one thing that I heard at every single

town meeting I went to was the flat

tax. Folks want to know ‘‘tell me

about the flat tax: Do we really have a

chance of getting the flat tax passed?’’

Without even knowing all the details of

the flat tax, the reason I found that

people were so excited about the flat

tax is that it reduces the Government

involvement from the standpoint of the

Internal Revenue being less involved in

our daily lives.

I use an example. I carry a 3 by 5 card

with me, this is not exactly 3 by 5, but

I use that example of taking your W–2

form and using the gross receipts that

you received on your W–2 form, multiplying it by 17 percent, and you come

up with a figure, you write the Government a check for that amount of

money, you sign it. That is your tax return.

The reaction I got on that was just

extremely positive, because that is

what has people in this country excited

about this term of Congress. We are

doing some things to finally dismantle

the Federal bureaucracy, and to get

things back to where the Founders of

this country intended for them to be to

start with.

I do not know whether you heard

anything about the flat tax or about

the consumption tax, but I have sure

heard a lot about it.

Mr. LATHAM. I have had questions

asked me at every meeting on the same

subject, at each of the 16 meetings,

talking about the flat tax and a national sales tax. There are reservations

about the flat tax, that maybe some

group is going to get away a little better than what they currently are, and

the national sales tax, as far as the

possibility that it would maybe be regressive for some groups, but the idea,

the beauty of the sales tax, would be,

and I am still listening to the people at

home on this, but there is a real underground economy, a cash economy, in

this country.

If we would tax consumption, that

would be a positive step forward as far

as getting benefit from that underground economy and making sure that

everybody, even if it is illegally gotten

money, that they are going to pay

some tax on it as they go ahead and

buy things in the future.

Mr. BILBRAY. I heard that from a

tax consultant in my own living room,

actually in the kitchen.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Where you spend

most of your time, right?

Mr. BILBRAY. You have your kitchen Cabinet, I have mine. But the fact

is, as this tax consultant pointed out,

is that if Members of Congress could

see what the average American citizen

has to go through every April 15, or to

get ready for April 15, if the average

Member of Congress saw what happens

to the citizens, this cruel and unusual

punishment that we call the IRS taxing system, the income tax process,

that there is no way morally you could

stand up and defend the existing taxation structure.

In fact, this consultant said flat out

that she would prefer to be put out of

business and go to a consumption tax

or a flat tax, I think she favors a consumption tax, because the argument is

everybody should understand that we

all pay taxes. There are certain people

on public assistance who we say ‘‘do

not pay any taxes,’’ but we all do, directly or indirectly. One thing about a

consumption tax, it makes everybody

on U.S. territory who buys anything

pay part of that.

I will tell you, the greatest speech I

probably ever heard about taxation

happened that day. She said, ‘‘Put me

out of business. I do not want to be

part of this cruel punishment of the

American citizens that we call the income tax system.’’

Let me point out, that tax consultant was my wife, and all I said to her

is ‘‘Karen, we need you to testify before Congress, because I think it says a

lot when a business person says ‘The

system is so rotten that you should put

me out of business.’’’ I think if you

talk to most people who work in the

tax business, they are frustrated with

the fact that the system is neither

equal nor fair, it is cruel, and it does

not do the job properly, and it does not

do it in a way that I think we can be

proud of as American citizens.

Mr. LATHAM. My district is made up

of thousands of small businesses and

farmers, and you are talking about

putting somebody out of business. One

thing that I heard time after time after

time was ‘‘thank you’’ for doing something about the regulatory burden we

are putting on small businesses and

farmers in today’s environment with

the Federal Government.

It is outrageous, I think, when a

small business person on Main Street is

more concerned about somebody coming in his door from the Government,
May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4493

supposedly to ‘‘help them,’’ than they

are about any competitor down the

street. They can compete with that

other person, they can offer a better

service, they can work harder, they can

give a better quality of product, but

they absolutely feel helpless with

someone from the Government coming

in and dictating to them exactly what

they can and cannot do.

If I heard one thing time and time

again, it is ‘‘thank you for trying to at

least start some regulatory relief to

get the Government off our backs. It is

bad enough they are deep in our pockets, but please help us get the Government off our backs. Let us operate, let

us grow, let us prosper. We will be responsible, because our children live

here. We are going to take care of

things to make sure that we have a

good quality of life and a safe working

place, but this regulatory overkill is

simply stifling business and stifling opportunities in my district.’’

Mr. CHAMBLISS. TOM, that was not

only true with the large manufacturers, whom we think of as being the

ones who have the major problems with

regulation by OSHA or EPA or whoever. Virtually every town meeting I

had, and again, I had small business

men, I had farmers, just folks on the

street complaining to me about the

various regulations that the Federal

Government has issued that they are

having to comply with, and they make

absolutely no sense at all.

Unfortunately, that is the shift

which we made in this country over the

last several years. We have gotten to

where we have overregulated every segment of our society, and again, I heard

the same thing you did.

Folks are just so pleased that we

have started moving in the right direction, that we again bring common

sense back into the regulation industry

in this country, and whether it is EPA,

clean water, clean air, whatever it may

be, we have to use common sense in

adopting these regulations and allowing our agencies to issue these regulations. People were just extremely

pleased that we are moving in that direction.

Mr. BILBRAY. I heard a lot of frustration with what we call the Federal

bureaucracy. I think one of the things

I tried to do is to make sure I clarify

that they should not blame the agents.

The fact is the blame for the absurdity of the Federal Government and the

abuse of the Federal Government rest

with Congress, and it is our responsibility, it is the President’s responsibility, it is the Senate’s, but we are

the ones who bear the responsibility.

The people who are out there working for the Federal Government are

taking a very hard hit from a lot of different directions, when in fact it is our

obligation to straighten this out. I

think if there is anything else, that we

really planted the seed out there, that

there is hope that the Federal Government will soon come back to the position of being an ally and an aid all the

time, so Congress makes things

change.

That is a real goal that we have as

freshmen, of bringing that dose of reality in from the streets of America

and implanting it here in the Chambers

of the House of Representatives, so

that when the laws leave here, when

the regulations are made, they are

made always remembering we are here

as servants of the public. We exist for

the public, the public does not exist for

the Federal Government.

That is really our jobs, especially as

freshmen, this new breeze that has

blown through this facility, that we

have to remind our senior Members on

both sides of the aisle that we serve at

the pleasure of the public, and the public is why we exist, and why we need to

continue to listen to their concerns,

and not just try to shut them off.

Mr. LATHAM. I think you have hit a

fundamental point, and that is is the

Government a servant to the people, or

as it appears today, that role has reversed, and almost the people today are

servants of the Government? It is

wrong. The Government is here only to

serve the people. It is a free country.

Talk about regulatory relief, in my

district wetlands is a huge issue, where

today we have people from the Government coming out and delineating a

small pocket or pothole in a farm that

has been in production for 90 to 100

years, and their forefathers—my own

farm has been in our family for 105

years. A lot of that ground was hand

tilled, dug by hand 80 or 90 years ago.

Now someone is coming in and telling us how we can and cannot use that

land, because somebody somewhere in

Washington or wherever says that that

eighth of an acre there is an official

wetland. By some of the definitions

today, over half of my congressional

district in 1993, the flood year, could

have been a permanent wetland by

their definitions.

It is absolutely outrageous, and I am

very proud of the fact that we put the

pressure on the administration to finally get a moratorium as far as wetlands delineation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The wetlands

issue, as you mentioned, is a classic example of overregulation by the Federal

Government. Right now if you have a

wetlands problem in a particular area

in any county in the United States,

any one of four agencies, the EPA, the

USDA, Fish and Wildlife, can come in,

and the Corps of Engineers can come

in, and make a determination on that

as to whether or not it is a wetlands,

and what you have to do about it.

Why should you have four Federal

agencies involved in one issue like

that? The sad part about it is that you

may get four different answers from all

four of those agencies. I had one gentleman at one of my town hall meetings who gave me a personal experience

of exactly that, that he had all four

agencies involved in his particular wetlands issue, and he got three different—

he didn’t get four, but he got three different answers to a question that he

had about his wetlands problem.

Mr. BILBRAY. What we really have

to look at, too, though, is that it is

just not about protection, because

many times, if not most of the time,

when a regulation is overkill and inappropriate, it is not only hurting the individual and taking away precious

rights, but it is also not protecting the

wetlands it was meant to protect.

The people in my neighborhood

would love the Federal Government to

do something to protect the estuarine

preserves in the Tijuana Valley, but

when it goes beyond finding blame and

you have to find answers, the agencies

just tend not to be so inspired.

I think we have to get back, it is our

responsibility to help redirect this, to

make sure that our regulations not

only have compassion, but are smart

and get the job done, because my district wants to see the environment protected, but every time we waste our resources on protecting something that

should not have been done or a regulation that is being implemented inappropriately, that is that much resources that could have gone to the

wildlife and to preservation that is not

going to go there.

Mr. LATHAM. That is an excellent

point. There is no one more concerned

about conservation, the environment,

than these farmers that these regulations are just strangling today. These

are the people who want to pass their

land on to the next generation. They

are the ones who are raising their children on a farm that are drinking the

water out of the wells that are being

regulated.

They are the ones who want to preserve the quality of the soil itself, because that is livelihood. They are the

ones directly concerned, and it would

impact them greatly if it is destroyed.

There is no farmer anywhere who is

going to pollute his well and make his

children drink that. It is simply outrageous.

No one in agriculture is saying that

there are not wetlands out there, and

that they should be preserved, because

there are. People want—they love to

hunt in my district, they love to fish,

they love to see the ducks come in,

even if you do not hunt, but to have

someone come on your farm after it

has been in production for 80 or 90

years and tell you then that you can do

longer use your land anymore is simply

outrageous.

It is not a matter of people being

against the environment, but it is absolutely overkill by the Federal Government, and that is what people are so

outraged about.

Mr. BILBBRAY. We have the frustration, the misinterpretation of the Endangered Species Act, where we have

children who were forced off of their

Little League park by one Federal

agency, and have been waiting for 2

years to get to be able to move onto an

area that was farmed for 100 years, but
H 4494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 2, 1995

they have been made to wait just because they need this test to see if a

pocket mouse is in that area.

The frustration here that the kids do

not understand and the parents don’t

understand is ‘‘Wait a minute, I

thought that the private citizen was

innocent in our society until proven

guilty.’’ However, with many of these

regulations, the way they are being administered, and we need to address

this, they do not have any rights until

the Federal agency says ‘‘OK.’’

I think we need to look at that. We

are a Jeffersonian democracy. We are a

democracy who believes that the individual is a premier element of our society, and that the individual’s rights

desperately have to be preserved and

cannot be trod under by a well-intentioned but misguided majority.

I do not think any of us that ever

supported environmental regulation or

environmental preservation expected

the Constitution to be destroyed in the

works.

b 1815

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think it is very

remarkable that here, TOM, you are

from Iowa, BRIAN, you are from California, I am from Georgia. We represent

three different parts of the country,

East to West and in the middle.

I think it is very interesting that all

three of us have heard the same concerns from our constituents over the

last 3 weeks. Basically they are the

same things that we all campaigned on

last summer and that are contained

within the Contract With America.

It is exciting to me to see the people

all over the country as excited about

politics and about what is going on in

Washington as they are. Obviously we

all shared the same experiences concerning these issues.

I think that is very interesting, and

again goes to reinforce that the American people did speak on November 8,

that the American people want

changes, and even though they may not

agree with every single thing we are

doing in Washington right now, they

understand we are doing something.

I heard that again time after time:

‘‘We may not agree with everything

you’re doing, but by golly, you guys

are doing something, you’re making

progress, and just keep at it.’’ That

probably was the most constant theme

I had the whole time I was home.

Mr. BILBRAY. My district has over

10 naval military facilities there, in

fact, one of them North Islands where I

was born. That just shows you, you

may think Californians move around a

lot, but I am still living in my district.

The fact is the military is learning,

in San Diego, in California, across this

country, a new reality. They are

changing, adapting, becoming progressive, looking at ways of doing more

with less. I think it sets an example for

those of us in Congress and the way we

look at our laws.

The fact is there is a new progressive

change that has taken over here. A lot

of people call it conservative, but the

fact is if you look at this by definition,

you have citizens who are saying, ‘‘We

want you to do better. We want you to

be brave enough to try new things.’’

The new majority, and especially led

by those of us that are freshmen, are

the progressives who are willing to say

the old was fine for them, but not for

the future. We not only have a right to

change things for the better, we have a

responsibility to do that.

I would like to thank you two gentlemen for participating in part of the

revolution that is moving this progressive agenda along.

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlemen

for this great conversation.

I just want to say, I pointed out at

every town meeting that I had that the

Contract With America was not passed

just with the 53 percent in the House

here that is Republican. On the average, in total, 78 percent of the Members

of Congress supported items in the

Contract With America.

It is not a partisan issue. The change

and reform, new ideas, and the idea of

bringing back responsibility and accountability to the Government is not

a partisan issue. It is on both sides of

the aisle, when you have over threefourths of the Members supporting

what was in the Contract With America. Obviously, there are some things

that we differ on, but the American

people know who is on what side. They

will remember next year, whatever.

Again, we have all mentioned it, but

the thing that I was told time after

time after time was, ‘‘TOM, keep it up,

don’t let up. You have just started to

turn the wheel of this great aircraft

carrier we call the Government. It is

just starting to turn, but there is a lot

of work out there ahead. Keep up the

pressure, redouble your efforts.’’

We are going to do that. As freshmen

Members, we are going to keep up the

heat, continue the efforts, and, folks,

you haven’t seen anything yet, like

they say.

EIGHTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

FORBES). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the

gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

PALLONE] is recognized for 60 minutes

as the designee of the minority leader.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I intend

to use some of this 60 minutes for myself, and then yield to the gentleman

from Illinois [Mr. PORTER] and the gentleman from California [Mr. MOORHEAD], who are here. We are here basically to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

Mr. Speaker, April 24, 1995, marked

the 80th anniversary of the unleashing

of the Armenian genocide. Each year,

Members of Congress from both the

House and the Senate take time to

honor the memory of the Armenian

men, women, and children who were

slaughtered by the Ottoman Turkish

Empire.

I am proud to continue this proud

congressional tradition today. In my

capacity as the cofounder, along with

the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PORTER] of the Congressional Caucus on

Armenian Issues, I will be working

with many of my colleagues on behalf

of continued support for the people of

Armenia and for the significant Armenian-American community. I will also

work to continue to press for the modern Republic of Turkey—a NATO member and recipient of hundreds of millions in United States aid every year—

to finally accept responsibility for this

crime against humanity and express its

sorrow and contrition. I also believe we

should continue to use the means at

our disposal to force modern Turkey to

lift the blockade it has imposed on Armenia. I know many of our colleagues

feel the same way.

Mr. Speaker, today’s occasion is, of

course, a time for solemn reflection on

the suffering of a people, the Armenians, as well as the larger question of

humanity’s capacity for evil. Yet, it is

also time for us to celebrate the human

capacity of resilience, the ability even

of people faced with the most unthinkable disasters to rebuild their shattered lives. This capacity to overcome

unimaginable horrors can be seen on

the individual level in the faces of the

survivors, a group of whom attended a

very moving reception here on Capitol

Hill today. On the national level, the

struggle for survival and the sense of

hope for the future can be seen by the

very existence of the independent,

democratic Republic of Armenia.

On April 24, 1915, 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders from Istanbul were arrested and exiled—in one fell swoop, silencing the

leading representatives of the Armenian community in the Ottoman capital. This date is thus the symbolic beginning of the genocide. Over the years

from 1915 to 1923, 1.5 million men,

women, and children were deported,

forced into slave labor, tortured, and

exterminated.

What happened in the Ottoman Turkish Empire during the years 1915–23 was

more than a series of massacres in a

time of instability, revolution, and

war. It was the first example of genocide in the 20th century, a precursor to

the Nazi Holocaust, and other cases of

ethnic cleansing and mass extermination in our own time.

But, unlike the case of Germany,

which officially accepts its guilt for

the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime and has made

restitution to many of the victims,

modern Turkey continues to deny that

the Armenian genocide took place.

There were no Nuremberg trials, no

concerted effort to aid the survivors

and let them give their testimony.

While various Turkish sources express

the view that certain unfortunate incidents took place, it denies that any