May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4609

overwhelmed by the number of young

people who want to come in. In poor

communities where they stayed away

from the library in the past, one or two

computers established in the library

has resulted in long waiting list of

youngsters who flood into the place

every day and they want to make use

of the computers.

It is a whole new ball game in terms

of libraries being overwhelmed by students voluntarily coming after school

and wanting to be a part of what is

going on. It is the computers and the

new technology that attracts them.

They would never be able to get it anywhere else and, therefore, it is an area

where we certainly could guarantee

that everybody is a part of the new information age, everybody has access to

the information superhighway.

There is one representative of the library community on Vice President

GORE’s committee to advise on the information superhighway and we hope

that they are listened to. We hope that

there is more than just rhetoric in

terms of including libraries in the

process of developing this information

superhighway and Federal support for

the information superhighway.

What we get from Brooklyn, my own

hometown, is a statement from the libraries that none of them are wired

sufficiently to really receive updated

state of the art technology. They do

not have the wiring. In most of the big

cities of America, the institutions like

schools and libraries do not have the

wiring necessary to be hooked up properly. They need a great amount of

money to pay for the installation of

new wiring, or they need some legislation from the Federal level, because

only the Federal Government can do it,

which requires telecommunications

companies to wire schools, to wire libraries and educational institutions at

a discount or maybe for free, as part of

their contribution for the benefits they

are receiving from the overall participation in the Federal Government’s information superhighway activities.

b 2015

Something has to be done to give priority to the general public and to provide an opportunity for the general

public. One of the concrete steps that

can be taken is to deal with the problem that most libraries in most schools

in the big cities, it is not the same as

the suburbs and the rural communities,

they have problems too, rural communities and big cities, it is easier to do

it, to wire the rural communities, less

costly to wire a school. In the big cities

to wire the library is very, very costly.

The support began for libraries in the

local communities at a time when New

York City was undergoing a great

budget crisis. The citizens made clear

that they did not want their library

services cut. In fact, library service

was cut drastically, and whereas libraries had been opened 6 days a week, they

were down to 4, and the citizens rose up

and said, no matter what the costs are,

how dire our financial situation is, we

do not see great amounts of money

being required to keep libraries open.

And in the last political campaign for

mayor, both candidates made pledges

that libraries would remain a priority.

That is the same case throughout the

Nation. Most citizens feel that they are

due decent public libraries. It may be

more complicated to get first-class

schools and get the funding necessary,

but it is a fairly simple matter to provide enough support to help provide decent libraries and have the Federal

Government continue to participate in

this process.

I hope that the coming budget debate

will be conducted with the majority

party as well as the minority party

having its ears to the public. I hope we

listen to the public. I hope we check

the polls and we follow the polls in

many, many ways, and we follow the

focus groups in many, many ways. Let

us not try to put a spin on and ignore

and distort the information that comes

from the public. The American public

clearly wants support for education

programs. The American public does

not want to see the Department of

Education eliminated. The American

public does not want that kind of barbaric act to be taken in the name of

streamlining government.

There is a majority out there that is

going to have to be reckoned with, and

that majority, whatever questions we

may have about it, one thing is clear,

they think education is the key to

their own individual family’s future,

and they think education is the key to

the future of the Nation. They do not

accept the argument that defense is

only a military matter, that security is

only a military matter. Security they

understand is partially a matter of

being prepared with the kind of educated population that you need to have

and brain power becomes a major part

of it. They do not think the Federal

Government should only be concerned

about security. They think promoting

the general welfare as stated in the

Constitution is as much a part of the

duty and responsibilities of the Federal

Government as any other duty and responsibility.

So let us promote the general welfare

in 1995 terms. Let us go into the 21st

century promoting the general welfare

in the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art

manner that it can be promoted. That

is to provide for a first-class educational effort.

We have spent a tremendous amount

of money and resources to update our

defenses, our Department of Defense

and our military installations. We

would never have dreamed 30 years ago

or 50 years ago following the end of

World War II that we would ever be investing billions and billions of dollars

in certain kinds of weapons systems,

but we saw it as necessary. Modern

technology demanded that we spend

more money on very complicated weapons systems. Now the modern challenge is we spend more money on education. Instead of cutting education,

we should be doubling the budget for

education. Instead of cutting education, we should be looking at new

ways to make certain that our whole

environment is saturated with funds

for learning. Instead of cutting the

budget for education, we should be

making it the No. 1 priority.

The American people have already

stated that they consider it one of our

top priorities. Anyone who fails to listen to that will have to reckon with

the American people.

I hope that the caring majority out

there, the people out there who are the

majority and want to see education as

a priority, will have their voices heard,

and let it be soon. I hope they will become very visible. I hope they will

make it clear to every decisionmaker

here in Washington, both in the Congress and the executive branch, that

education is a priority of the American

people. We would like to see our representatives represent the people and

not their own agenda, not their own

distorted agenda.

CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION

INTO ACTIVITIES OF THE ENVIfRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

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

gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN] is recognized for 60 minutes as the

minority leader’s designee.

WEATHER TRAGEDY IN LOUISIANA

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, before I

begin tonight, I want to call to the Nation’s attention the fact that there are

quite a few folks in my home State of

Louisiana who are indeed suffering tonight. Yesterday and up until about 1

o’clock this morning we were deluged

with about 18 inches of rain in the New

Orleans area. That is 18 inches in 1 day

for those of you who live in States that

may only get as much as 4 inches a

year. I see my friend from out West in

the audience.

The 18 inches of rainfall has inundated communities all over my district

and the districts adjacent to mine, that

of BILL JEFFERSON and BOB LIVINGSTON

and others out West, and we have situations ongoing right now of tragedy,

tornadoes and homes destroyed. People

have drowned in their cars as they

were trying to get to and from their

work and residences.

I just spoke to my mother in

Chackbay, and God bless her, she is an

awfully wonderful and devout woman,

and I think her prayers saved her. I understand a tornado just hopped over

our house and just missed her, and I

wanted to say a word of thanks to the

Good Lord for sparing her and others

tonight, and a word of comfort and

consolation for families who have

losses and who are grieved in this awful

flood that is unfortunately still unfolding in many communities in south
H 4610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

Louisiana. To all of you who are suffering, please know that my office and

other offices up here are working in coordination with the Governor’s office

in Louisiana to see as rapidly as possible that we get every bit of Federal

assistance we can to families who are

in need, and that we get a disaster declaration as rapidly as we can in place

to help you and your families.

In the meantime, we are all in the

Good Lord’s care tonight, and we hope

and pray your grief and losses are kept

to a minimum.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good

friend from California.

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would like to echo

the concerns about the disaster in Louisiana. As my wife, who is from New

Orleans, would point out, it is an always ongoing threat for everyone who

lives in different parts of the country,

one that the people in Louisiana face,

and the threat that you do have those

rains. She always sort of scoffs at Californians, and what we call rain she

calls a drizzle, and sadly those conditions have turned more severe than

normal in Louisiana.

I would like to say for those of us in

California who understand tragedy

from nature, we appreciate that it

comes in different forms, and we are

sorry you have to confront a different

form at this time.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman

for his comments and concerns, and indeed those of you who live in California

understand tragedy and natural disaster, and I appreciate the gentleman’s

comments tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I do this special order

tonight not out of a great pleasure, but

actually with some real degree of regret and sorrow that it has to be done.

Today, at a press conference here in

Washington, I announced a call for an

investigation into activities of the Environmental Protection Agency in region 6, Dallas, activities which clearly

violated the rights of a citizen in my

district and his family, activities

which may have, in fact, violated Federal criminal statutes, certainly violated the civil rights of that citizen,

and are going to result almost certainly in a lawsuit by the citizen

against his own Government, and in

my opinion should result in a dismissal

of the Federal employee responsible for

what has occurred.

The case involves a case that I cited

on this House floor when we debated

the property-rights bill that was passed

by this House and sent onto the Senate

and now awaits action by that body.

When we debated that property-rights

bill in the context of one of the amendments offered to gut the bill, I told the

story, a true story, of two families in

my district who were embroiled in a

bitter lawsuit, one against the other,

and who were also embroiled in an

awful conflict with the EPA and the

Corps of Engineers in New Orleans in a

wetlands dispute. Now there are many

allegations flying back and forth in

that lawsuit. But the facts as we know

them are these:

The facts are that in 1990 one of the

families, the Gautreau family, decided

to build a pond on their property in Ascension Parish in my district. In desiring to build this farm pond, they contacted the LSU Agricultural extension

personnel who came out and examined

the site with them. In that initial examination of the site, those LSU officials suggested to the Gautreaus that

they should contact the Corps of Engineers to make sure that they did not

need a permit for the construction of

the pond.

As a matter of fact, one of the

Gautreau brothers, Jeff, did call the

Corps of Engineers the next day. Approximately on or about September

1990, I think it was around September

10, he contacted the Corps of Engineers, and according to Mr. Jeff

Gautreau, the Corps of Engineers representative, the then Dr. Tom Davidson, told them that if he was going to

build a livestock pond on his farm that

he really did not need a permit, all he

needed to do was send a letter describing what he intended to do and including a sketch of the site, and that his

activity would be exempt under the

wetlands laws as they then understood

them in 1990 and as they applied them

from the Corps of Engineers office in

New Orleans.

According to Jeff Gautreau, in the

chronology of events that he supplied

to me, Dr. Davidson told him to do

whatever he wanted with the dirt, and

the Corps had no jurisdiction over

than. In fact, the Corps did send, at the

request of Mr. Gautreau, who wrote

him a letter the next day, a letter indicating that the pond construction was

exempt, and that he could proceed

without a Corps of Engineers wetlands

permit. No mention was made in that

letter that he was in any way restricted as to what to do with that dirt.

Mr. Gautreau proceeded to dig that

pond. He proceeded to spread the dirt

on his property, and later on constructed a home on that same property.

In 1993 all hell broke loose. In 1993

Mr. Gautreau was interested in selling

that home and that property. In the

context of selling it, he decided to

shape the pond a bit more, and also

spread a little more dirt to fill in any

little holes in the lawn of the property

where the house was. So he began that

work, only to be met with a cease-anddesist order from the Corps of Engineers. In the context of those days and

that event, Mr. Gautreau ended up selling that home. In those same months,

the Corps of Engineers, by a written

letter to him in the cease-and-desist

order, indicate he could make everything right by simply applying for an

after-the-fact permit, which if the

Corps granted it would make everything right. He, in fact, applied for an

after-the-fact permit. In that letter

from the Corps, Mr. Gautreau was told

that while the Corps could take action

against him, they had decided that

there was no willful violation, and that

he should proceed either to restore the

site or apply for an after-the-fact permit. Mr. Gautreau applied for that

after-the-fact permit. It was never

granted. Today, they are in an awful

wetlands dispute.

b 2030

Today as we meet here in this Chamber tonight, Mr. Gautreau and his purchaser, Mr. Chaconas, are in an awful

lawsuit over rescission of that sale.

The agents who handled the sale are

part of the lawsuit. The insurance companies for the real estate agents are

part of the lawsuit. Both parties are

currently listed as co-violators of the

wetland laws of the United States of

America, and the Corps of Engineers

and the EPA are still considering an

enforcement action that could require

the Gautreaus or the Chaconases, whoever owns the land, to take down that

home, to destroy it.

In fact, a lane leading to that property and to another property across the

street is also built on that property,

and while no decision has yet been

made, an enforcement option still

available to the EPA and the Corps is

removal of that lane.

I told the House that day in the debate how in conversations with representatives of the Corps and the EPA,

when the parties asked how they might

get to their home if the lane were removed, someone said, ‘‘Take a helicopter.’’ I pointed out the arrogance of

the State agency that would do that

sort of thing.

During our break, when we went

away to do our hometown meetings, to

take a break from the 100-day session,

my office began to be contacted by

scores of agencies wanting to do a news

story on this awful piece of wetlands

drama going on in my State. As we

began to check into what the news people were interested in, it became clear

the focus of the news story was to

make a case that we had not told the

truth about that story on the House

floor in the middle of that debate.

One of the news agencies, NBC, contacted us and asked for an interview. I

gave them the interview. I was still in

town. In the course of the interview, it

became clear what was going on.

There was an attempt to say, ‘‘Did

you really tell the story the way it

really happened? Mr. Chaconas does

not believe you told the story right.’’

I asked the NBC interviewer if he had

bothered to talk to the other family,

the Gautreaus. He had not at that

point. I suggested to him he ought to

do that. This was a lawsuit between

two parties. They each had different

versions of the facts. He ought to at

least talk to the other side. He did. He

called the attorney for the Gautreaus,

and in an hour conversation with the

Gautreaus’ lawyer, a new fact emerged.

NBC was in possession of a document,

possession of a document that represented itself to be an enforcement
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4611

memo from the EPA in Region 6, Dallas, which in fact discussed what they

considered to be the willful, criminal

violations of the Gautreaus violating

the laws of the United States in a

criminal way.

NBC was in possession of this confidential memo that was not available

to the Gautreau family despite the fact

that Mr. Gautreau and his lawyers had

filed a Freedom of Information request

upon the agency for all documents that

should be available to them.

Where did NBC get this document?

The Gautreaus’ lawyers asked for a

copy of it. NBC was kind enough to fax

it to the Gautreaus’ lawyers. And when

it arrived and when it was examined,

the little muddy footprint led right

back to the scene of the crime. The little muddy footprints in this case are

the fax numbers, the fax transmittal

numbers that appear on the top of the

transmittals.

Next to me is a copy of the NBC facsimile transmission sheet sending this

document to the Gautreaus’ attorney.

The document is next, the transmission fax numbers are right on the

header of the document. Those transmission fax numbers tell the story.

This document, pertaining to highly

sensitive considerations by the EPA

that the work was performed willfully,

flagrantly, and justifiably should be

treated as a crime, that confidential

memo had been faxed by the EPA Region 6, to the Defense Fund of the Sierra Club in New Orleans upon their request. A document denied the

Gautreaus had been sent to a lobby organization, a document referring to potential criminal activity on the part of

an American family, and the Sierra

Club, shame on them, transmitted this

confidential data, implying criminal

activity on the part of an American to

NBC, and heaven knows who else.

This transmittal of this confidential

memo by the EPA, denied the parties

under the Freedom of Information Act,

may constitute a criminal violation of

the National Privacy Act. The National Privacy Act, in part, provides

that no record contained by an agency

that refers to a particular individual

and an enforcement action can be

shared with anyone without the written consent of the person it talks

about, and any agent/employee of the

Federal Government who willfully

does, in fact, send a document out to

individuals other than the person it

talks about without their written consent is guilty of a Federal criminal violation and subject to criminal penalties under the statutes.

Certainly, the rights of the

Gautreaus have been awfully violated

here. They intend to file a lawsuit now

against the Federal Government, the

EPA, for the damage they have done

their reputation, the damage it may

have done their lawsuit, the damage it

may do to them eventually if, in fact,

they are ordered to tear down a house

they may be ordered to repurchase

from the Chaconases in a lawsuit.

This illegal transmission also contains the following language: ‘‘Restoration should include removal of the

House and fill. How to handle removal

of the house, restoration work, while

Chaconas still owns the property is

under debate.’’ In short, it tells the

story of EPA, Region 6, contemplating

enforcement action to order the destruction of that house, but obviously

reluctant to do so as long as the

Chaconases own it.

The next sentence, at the bottom,

says the Chaconas’ suit against the

Gautreaus is scheduled for April 5, 1995.

In fact, that suit has been continued

until June.

This little muddy footprint facsimile

transmission is, in fact, evidence that

officials within the EPA are working

hand in glove with environmental

lobby groups in Washington, in an obvious attempt to influence the debate

on the property rights, the Clean Water

bill which comes up just tomorrow in

this House, and those environmental

organizations are working hand in

glove with friends of theirs in the

media to attempt to influence this debate, and in this case sharing with

them a confidential memo implying

criminal guilt on a party in America

that should never have been in their

hands in the first place, protected

under the Privacy Act that we thought

protected us all in this country.

This is a transmittal from the EPA

on the next day to the Sierra Club,

again in New Orleans, ‘‘Thought I’d

send a copy of the Corps of Engineers’

delineation. Let me know if you need

anything else.’’ You can see how cooperative they are.

When the parties requested a Freedom of Information from the EPA, a

whole list of documents that were not

shared with them is contained on the

transmittal to the Gautreaus, but you

can see how cooperative the EPA is

with the Sierra Club in not only answering their request illegally, but in

sending more documents the next day

just because they thought they ought

to have them.

This is part of the chronology of

events that was shared with me and my

office when both the Chaconases and

the Gautreaus appealed to us for assistance in this matter way back last year,

early in the year. In this chronology of

events, you can see that Mr. Jeff

Gautreau pointed out and was questioned further by Dr. Davidson, and the

Corps of Engineers stated Roger could

do whatever he wanted with the dirt

from the pond, as the corps had no authority and could not tell him what to

do with the dirt. That is what Mr.

Gautreau says he was told by the Corps

of Engineers when he applied for the

right to build that pond and, in fact, to

do what he did on his property.

What followed his written request

was the following letter from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers:

DEAR MR. GAUTREAU: This is in response to

your letter of approximately, September 12,

1990, in which you indicate your intention to

dig a farm pond to provide water for your

livestock in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. We

have reviewed your project as proposed and

have determined the farm pond work is exempt from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction as authorized in 33 CFF

323.4, 83 of our regulations, dated November

13, 1986.

That is the wetlands regulations, 404

permits.

I enclose the photocopy of this regulation

for your convenience. Should you have further questions regarding the matter, please

contact Dr. Tom Davidson,

again at that number and that address.

This letter telling the Gautreaus they

were exempt and could proceed with

the pond contains no restriction on the

use of that dirt, and yet in 1993 the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers sends this letter to Mr. Gautreau,

this letter saying—

You are in violation of the Clean Water

Act. You are in violation of 404 wetlands

laws. You cannot move dirt around that

property. That is a wetland, and in fact you

have got two choices. You may apply for an

after-the-fact permit, or you can, in fact, restore the site to its existing conditions before the unauthorized work.

In the letter the corps says, ‘‘Removal

of the existing unauthorized work,’’

which later came to be interpreted as

not only the construction of fill around

the house but also the house itself—

May be necessary if the permit is denied

after we complete a public interest review of

the application. You can also see in the letter that this work could have subjected you

to judicial proceedings. However, after a

careful review of the investigative findings

and the nature of the work involved, I have

decided against such action at this time.

Things change. Things changed

mightily. And as this lawsuit proceeds

and as the parties await the determination of the judge as to who should own

the house, we continue our debate on

the property rights laws of America

and the wetlands reform bill that will

be before us tomorrow.

Could this have been prevented?

Could this have been prevented? I

think so. If we only had a law on the

books that said parties have a right to

contest the finding by the Corps of Engineers that their property is wetlands,

that the Corps of Engineers were required to inspect the site before they

sent a letter saying. ‘‘We have no problems when you are doing something on

your property,’’ if the Corps of Engineers would have posted publicly in

some public place a notice that they

think a violation has occurred so that

owners might not sell their property

and buyers might not buy without

knowing what is going on so they can

avoid lawsuits like this, and finally, if

the corps does want to take somebody’s

property and destroy their home because they think it is a wetland, then,

by golly, somebody ought to be willing

to pay an American the price of his

property when the Government takes

it from him. That is what this fight tomorrow is going to be all about.

Now, NBC was not the only news

agency that was apparently invited to
H 4612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

do a story on the Chaconas-Gautreau

case. CNN was one of the other agencies, CNN Headline News, to be precise.

Unlike NBC, they did their little story

while we were away. I did not get a

chance to get interviewed on that

story. We were away at home.

But in that story, CNN proceeded to

show this horrible wetlands case, to

interview Mr. Chaconas. They did not

contact the lawyers, as the Gautreaus

suggested, to clear an interview with

the Gautreaus. They only interviewed

Mr. Chaconas. Then they proceeded to

do a hit piece. Why do I call it a hit

piece? Because it was just what we expected.

Before they did this piece on Headline News, hour after hour, every day

all day, rather, on the day they ran the

story, my office sent them all the documents I have shown you and more documents which indicated that we had responded when the Chaconases and the

Gautreaus asked us for help, that we

received letters of thanks from the parties thanking us, that we received letters from Mr. Chaconas supporting our

efforts on property rights, that we received a copy of the letter Mr.

Chaconas sent to the EPA demanding

payment for taking property in violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

We also sent them documents that

contained information unequivocally

that indicated the corps and the EPA

had, as an enforcement option, as I

demonstrated to you earlier, the removal of the House and the rug. Those

were clearly options EPA had on its

desk and, by the way, continues to potentially have on its desk.

And yet I wanted to show you this

CNN piece tonight. I was not allowed

to bring a monitor. I would have loved

to have run the piece for you to show

you what they did. In the piece, they

asked the question, ‘‘What about the

congressman’s claim,’’ speaking of me,

‘‘that the Federal regulators might

force the Chaconases to tear the House

down?’’ The CNN reporter asked that,

and immediately they turned to Ron

Ventola, an employee of the Corps of

Engineers in New Orleans, LA, who, by

the way, signed that letter, who signed

the letter indicating that the property,

the pond, was exempt under the wetlands laws, Mr. Ron Ventola.

b 2045

Mr. Ron Ventola appears on CNN in

this piece and, he says, ‘‘Oh, no, no one

from this agency told them they would

have to tear down their house or remove the road,’’ leaving the clear impression that we had told a falsehood

in the House in the debate on property

rights. That was the purpose of the

CNN piece apparently. CNN knew this

was a lie. CNN had documents that we

sent to them indicating that the Corps

and the EPA indeed has discussed tearing this man’s house down. In fact, in

fact, the Corps of Engineers had a copy

of Mr. Chaconas’ letter to the EPA

dated September 22 which reads in

part:

The house is situated in the wetland, and

the three alternatives the EPA is considering, a demolition, moving or elevating the

structure.

And yet the Corps reported on CNN,

no, no one from this agency told them

they would have to tear down their

house or remove the road. What a lie

told on national television hour after

hour and repeated hour after hour in an

attempt by those in this environmental

community working with those liberal

friends in the environmental sector of

CNN Headline News to make it look

like those of us who believe in property

rights who are fighting this battle do

not tell our stories right. What a

shame. What a despicable piece of journalism from an awfully good and credible news agency.

What a credit NBC earned for sharing

this scandal to us, for giving us a

chance to expose it to the American

public.

I wanted to show you also Mr.

Chaconas’ request to the EPA dated

September 22, 1994. Here is his words to

the EPA on that date:

We received the wetlands determination

from the Corps. The Federal Government has

thus taken control of a majority of our property in the residence. We consider this a taking of our private property for the public

good and demand fair and just compensation

from the EPA. Consider this as my formal

request.

Does that sound like a gentleman

who would testify in the Senate

against the property rights bill? Does

that sound like a gentleman who would

go to a House committee and attempt

to testify against the property rights

bill allegating all the facts that he

thought were correct in his lawsuit? A

gentleman who made a formal demand

on EPA for payment for taking his

property? A gentleman who wrote us,

in fact, on June 27 that property rights

are very important, and my wife and I

continue to support your efforts. The

point is that buyers and existing land

owners are slipping through the cracks

because of Federal Government agencies, EPA and the Corps, are really

doing a poor job of enforcement. June

27.

Same letter, June 27 again:

Please commend Mr. Constien who is my

district director. His efforts have served to

diminish my role as a coviolator. EPA did

assure me, as long as I cooperated with them

and allowed access to the property for corrective measures, they would not seek damages from me. Well who would they seek

damages from?

You get the picture? Cooperate with

us or else.

Well, the Chaconases apparently have

started to cooperated with the EPA

and the Sierra Club. Here again on

June 28. I listened to Mike Reagan’s

show on 11:50 a.m., WJBO, on Monday

afternoon, caught the taped show you

guest-hosted for Mr. Reagan. I was

quite impressed. It was at this time we

caught the reference to our case that

you had mentioned on the air. You

doing a good job in Washington, my

birth place. Everybody down here is

talking about it.

Does this sound like a man going to

the Senate and attack this Congressman for misrepresenting his case?

What happened? Who poisoned Mr.

Chaconas’ mind? What made him come

out against property rights when he

was demanding payment for the taking

of his property of the September 22 letter? Who suggested to him that his

Congressman was no longer on his side?

Well, in that memo, in that first

memo, we get a hint, we get a hint.

How to handle removal of a house or

restoration work while the Chaconases

still own the property is still under debate. We get a hint of what happened.

Cooperate or else. We will enforce the

demolition order against the

Gautreaus, but maybe not against the

Chaconases. Cooperate with us.

Now I am sure Mr. Chaconas would

not ever admit that he was coerced

into changing his mind so dramatically, that he came to Washington, just

on his own, that he did not have the

help of the Sierra Club, that he did not

have the cooperative arm of the EPA,

whom I have just shown has violated

Federal privacy laws in this case, in

Dallas Region 6. I am sure he would say

that. I do not blame him frankly. He is

trying to protect his home, and the gun

of regulation is pointed at his head. We

could demolish your home. Cooperate

with us, and we will not penalize you.

Maybe the Gautreaus, but not you.

What a story. What a disgusting

story of a person’s own government

treating him that way. What a rotten

mess. What an example for us as we tomorrow take up the wetlands reform

bill of the Clean Water Act, as we try

once and for all to reign in those Federal agents and agencies who dare to

treat people that way, who violate the

Gautreau’s privacy rights, who inflict

these after-the-fact determinations of

wetlands on people and threaten them

with demolition of their home and who,

in my opinion, end up coercing people

to change their opinion on an issue and

to cooperate with them or else face the

disaster of destruction of their property. What a mess. What an awful

mess.

Tomorrow we get a chance to change

it. Tomorrow we begin the debate on

the Clean Water Act which contains

those regulations, those 404 wetlands

laws that are so often abused, so often

are used to coerce people in my State

and all over America, so often end up

taking property away from people

without just compensation. But worse

than that, in this case putting one

neighbor in a lawsuit against his neighbor, making it almost impossible then

for them to live next to one another,

putting them now in a lawsuit against

their own government, and perhaps, if

the Justice Department and Carol

Browner do their job, perhaps costing

some people their job in Dallas.

And I have called upon Carol

Browner to clean up that mess, and, if
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4613

she cannot clean up that mess in her

agency, maybe she ought to think

about cleaning out her desk. But we in

America ought to say enough is

enough, and Federal agencies ought

not be our master. The government

ought to be our servant again in this

country, and then when the government becomes such a master that it

can so willingly violate our rights, as

they did the Gautreaus’ in this case,

that it can create such a mess as it has

in Ascension Parish, Louisiana, and

when it can work so hand and glove

with lobbyists here in Washington, DC

bent on influencing this issue, who

then work hand and glove with their

liberal friends and some of the media

to distort the facts and propagandize

their case again reform, then something needs to change. Tomorrow we

get a chance to change that. I hope, I

pray we do not miss that chance. We

need to pass reforms of the wetlands

laws, and we need to make sure that

property compensation is a part of that

law, and if the President dares to veto

it, as he threatened to do without even

reading the bill, I hope we have the

guts in this Congress to override his

veto and to give the Americans the

protection they deserve under the Constitution, protection against employees

of this Government who would take advantage of them the way these employees have.

I am going to file a new bill, by the

way, to make it a Federal crime to do

what they have done to the Gautreaus

and to do it and make it a Federal

crime to do what they have done to the

Chaconases. No regulatory agency

ought to ever have the power to curse

somebody with the threat of enforcement action, and no Federal agent

ought to keep his job when he violates

the privacy rights of Americans and cooperates with lobby groups with sensitive memos detailing protential

criminal activity. That has gone too

far, and we ought to end it in this body.

Tomorrow we strike a blow for land

owners and citizens all over this country, and, if this Congress has the will

and the fortitude to override the expected veto whenever it comes, perhaps

we can remake a relationship in this

country between the Goovernment and

its people again, where there is credibility, and trust, and fairness, and

where we do not have to be suing our

Government, and ordering investigations and criminal charges brought

against Government officials who

ought to know better, who ought to do

better than Ron Ventola did in the New

Orleans office and lying on television

and who ought to do better than those

EPA officials did in Dallas.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida

[Mr. MICA]. 3

Mr. MICA. First of all I want to take

just a moment to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana

[Mr. TAUZIN] for bringing this matter

to the attention of the House. For too

long the Agency, EPA, has really

reigned out of control, and I come here

tonight, I know the hour is late, before

the House, but I want to commend you

again on bringing this matter to the

attention of both the House and the

Congress, another example of misdeed,

of malfeasance, of misfeasance in office, which has been conducted by the

Environmental Protection Agency.

I come here also to commend you in

a bipartisan effort. I am on the other

side of the aisle and thank you for your

leadership in questions relating to wetlands, to revision of some of the laws

such as the Clean Water legislation

which the House will be taking up tomorrow, and again for bringing before

the Congress and the American people

the question of how this agency is

functioning out of control.

Mr. Speaker and gentleman from

Louisiana, I had the opportunity to sit

as a member of the subcommittee in

the House Committee on Government

Operations during the last session of

Congress. I came as a new member. I

came as someone from business with a

business background.

Quite frankly I sat in absolute

stunned fashion to listen day after day

in hearing after hearing of how an

agency which is so well-intended—in

fact it is a Republican initiative that

created the Environmental Protection

Agency. Everyone wants to protect the

environment. Everyone wants to look

out for the environment. Everyone

wants to preserve wetlands and our

natural areas for this generation and

future generations. But to sit as a

member of that committee and consistently hear the abuse, the misuse, the

misdirection of billions of taxpayer

dollars, I was just stunned and appalled, and that is why I got involved

in this issue. That is why during the

last Congress, as a new Member of this

Congress, I was able to get support

from both sides of the aisle when the

question of elevating EPA from a department to a Cabinet level position

came before the House, and we defeated

that measure, not because people do

not want to protect the environment,

not because people are not concerned

about the environment, not because

people have any interests in lowering

the standards for environmental protection in this country, but because of

exactly the reason the gentleman from

Louisiana is on the floor tonight, because this agency is out of control, and

you have brought to the House again

another example that should be investigated, and I, too, demand an investigation and will do everything in my

power to see that the majority acts on

your request because again this agency

is out of control. This agency is so

inept, so out of control, again I

brought this matter before the attention of the House, and let me cite to

you what they did to me.

Here, just several months ago, they

sent a fax to my office inviting me to

a briefing on wetlands. They sent the

fax, and the cover sheet is addressed to

two individuals. Both were my opponents in the election. In fact their list

predated the qualifying date for election in the State of Florida. So they

used a list that was even out of date

and then they gave me this lame excuse as a response.

b 2100

But here they have the time to send

me a fax addressed to my opponents

with my name on it, to my congressional office, months after the election.

If this is not an example of abuse of office, and, if nothing else, ineptness in

office.

Now, you bring tonight an example

to the floor of what this agency is

doing in your instance. Here is a little

example of what they are doing in my

particular situation. I called for an investigation back in the spring of this

year, in February, I believe it was, of

this year, and this is the lame excuse

that I got.

This is an agency that is out of control. And when they have time to intimidate people, to act in a manner in

which the gentleman has brought before the House tonight, they deserve

investigation. And I intend as a Member of the majority side of the House to

see that in fact this agency investigates the matter you brought before

the House.

Let me also point out that I, too, had

great hopes. Carol Browner, Administrator Browner, came from my State,

the State of Florida. It was my hope

she had seen some of the problems with

this agency from serving in a capacity

at the State level that protected the

environment in the State of Florida,

and would come here and try to make

changes in this agency, make some

sense out of it. But it is the situation

where the inmates are running the asylum.

Mr. TAUZIN. My friend will love

this. This is a letter I just received this

last couple of months from attorneys

writing to the office of the General

Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the environmental agencies working hand-inglobe with EPA. It is regarding settlement discussions of the turtle/shrimp

litigation. You have shared my problems in Florida with this and requiring

more and more regulations upon the

shrimpers in my State because of the

Endangered Species Act. Listen to this

paragraph.

Finally, on a public policy note, my clients

are becoming deeply distressed about how

the agency appears to be more responsive to,

and to some extent acting in collusion with,

representatives of the environmental community with respect to the shrimp/turtle

controversy. Although Andy Kemmerer and

Rollie Schmitten appear anxious to hear industry’s concerns, we still sense the agency

is responding to what appears to be a ‘‘shadow government’’ formed by certain environmental groups.

The link I talked about tonight, this

illegal transmission of confidential

data to one of the environmental

groups, is part and parcel of what this

is all about, an agency out of control,
H 4614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

acting on its own, working with lobbyists here to accomplish their agenda.

Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield

back, again the gentleman cities an example that needs and demands and requires investigation, and I support the

gentleman in that, and now this side of

the aisle will support you in that.

I brought another matter, it is not a

major matter of life and death, but a

matter that concerned me. Chairman

MCINTOSH, DAVID MCINTOSH, who heads

the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and

Regulatory Affairs, is in the process

now of also investigating the use of

taxpayer money to lobby the Congress

on issues, which is totally illegal.

So there are a number of these very

pressing examples of misuse of this office that need to be investigated by

this Congress. Again, I join you tonight

and make a commitment to you tonight that we will pursue these matters. And I will tell you, first of all, we

have to get the attention in revising

this legislation, and we will have that

opportunity to look at clean water and

some of the other issues that are before

the House.

But if we cannot get the agency’s attention with these investigations, we

will get the agency’s attention through

the budgetary process and through the

appropriations process. Because there

are many Members, like the gentleman

from Louisiana and other Members of

this Congress, who have absolutely had

it, right up to here, with this agency. It

is out of control, it needs to be brought

into control, and we can do a much better job in protecting the environment

of this country.

I consider myself an environmentalist. I consider myself as someone who

is concerned about the future of the environment that we live in. I want to

leave to my children and my grandchildren a better world, a better United

States, a better environment. But we

cannot do it when an agency is out of

control, it is misdirected, and the funds

that it is getting are expended in ways

in which they were not intended by

this Congress.

So we have to rein that in. We have

to investigate what is going on there.

And we can do a better job and we are

demanded to do a better job because we

have limited resources. We have literally run out of the taxpayer dollar in

the Congress of the United States, and

we have to find a better way to do a

better job with less money.

So we are demanding that. I join the

gentleman in asking my colleagues in

the Congress and the House on both

sides to look at these matters, to bring

this agency into control, and to do a

better job in protecting the environment. I am so pleased to join you.

Before I conclude, I just want to

again quote, and we have had questions

raised about EPA and its being brought

out under control. During some of the

debate you have an opportunity to sit

and read different documents, and I

had an opportunity to sit here and read

during one of our last debates the Declaration of Independence.

When you look back at the reasons

that this country was formed, they are

very enlightening. They were very enlightening 200 years ago, and they

should be enlightening to all the Members. But I have to repeat this, and I

made this comment from the Declaration. This cites one of the reasons for

the founding of this country, and it

talks about here the King of England,

and you can substitute the king with

the Federal bureaucracy and EPA.

It says:

He has erected a multitude of new offices

and sent hither swarms of officers to harass

our people and eat out their substance.

The same thing that happened 200

years ago is happening today with this

agency and other agencies that are out

of control.

Again, I commend the gentleman

from Louisiana for bringing this matter to the attention of the House in

such detail. I commend you on documenting every point here and showing

how again this agency has misused the

position of trust given to this agency

by the Congress and by the American

people, and it demands our attention

and our investigation.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman

from Florida [Mr. MICA] who has been a

leader in the fight as I said to rein in

this agency. I appreciate your offers of

help. We are going to need a lot of help

in that regard.

Mr. MCINTOSH. If the gentleman

will yield, I thank the distinguished

gentleman from Louisiana, a leading

defender in the rights of private property owners, for yielding to me. I want

to add my support to your investigation into this newest allegation of the

abuse of power at EPA. Our Subcommittee on National Economic

Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, we often call it the subcommittee to cut red tape, has been investigating EPA activity, and that activity closely mirrors what you have

encountered at the agency.

Let me stop to say I also want to

commend you for your efforts on behalf

of property owners who have encountered regulatory overreach in the wetlands area.

I have got several constituents in my

district who have encountered similar

problems. One gentleman, Bob Floyd,

owns a farm in my hometown of Muncie, and he had been farming this land

for 50 years. One day his neighbor

accidently destroys the drainage tile

which is necessary to irrigate his land,

and suddenly a mud puddle developed

on one corner of the field. In swooped

EPA and said he could no longer farm

the land because this might be an endangered wetland.

It is that type of overreach and abuse

of the program that have led to many

of our problems. But today we are

looking at and you have raised a very

serious question on the standard of

ethics and the propriety of the agency’s activities in defending their actions. The activity that we are investigating in the subcommittee appears

to violate several Federal statutes, including provisions of the Anti-lobbying

Act and the Federal conspiracy statute.

Our subcommittee has shown that

EPA has been using taxpayer funds to

create and send out illegal lobbying

material to over 100 grassroots lobbying organizations. Most of that material was dishonest propaganda. All of

this was designed to incite these outside organizations to attack Members

of Congress who supported regulatory

reform in the last period of Congress

during the 100 days.

Our evidence suggests a high degree

of coordination and cooperation between EPA and these outside lobbying

groups to convey the agency’s somewhat hysterical message against any

type of real meaningful regulatory reform. Sometimes I was reminded in the

debate of Chicken Little, who cried

over and over again the sky is falling,

the sky is falling, and we all know

what our effort is, is to protect the environment, but to do it in a better way

that does not overregulate the American people.

Well, top EPA officials, many of

whom came from various environmental advocacy groups engaged in

this lobbying, do not seem to understand that their responsibility is now

one to the American people. It is a responsibility that comes with their office, and they can no longer act as lobbyists or partisan political operatives.

They have a fiduciary duty to the

American people to use taxpayer

money in accordance with the law. One

of the laws requires that agencies not

engage in this type of outside lobbying

activity, and it is very clear that they

have intended to orchestrate that sort

of a program with these outside lobbying groups.

You know, when the first contacted

EPA about this lobbying activity, we

expected the agency to cooperate with

our probe. We assumed that it had been

something that perhaps had not been

reviewed by the highest levels in the

government. But instead, the top political appointees have stonewalled the

investigation, they have continued to

engage in very similar, highly questionable conduct, and Administrator

Browner, herself, has shown contempt

for our investigation and for the Congress in her public speeches and comments to the press, all the while denying that anyone at EPA could possibly

have done anything wrong, because

they are at EPA acting in what they

see as the interests of the agency. Yet

the very act that you have exposed as

violating the Privacy Act is part of a

troubling pattern of evidence that indicates that these top agency officials

may have violated other Federal statutes and Federal appropriations laws.

We have evidence that EPA conduct

you have been exposing may be part of

a larger plan to use taxpayer dollars to
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4615

spread disinformation about the Contract with America and the reforms

that we were trying to pass. In a way,

they politicized the agency and have

taken it beyond its legitimate purpose.

This does not serve the goal of preserving the environment, but undermines

the credibility of the agency in the

eyes of the American people. I want to

commend you for your personal courage and welcome your call for an investigation into this troubling activity. I

very much appreciate the distinguished

gentleman from Louisiana for yielding

to me on this important matter of Government ethics, and want to commend

him in that endeavor.

Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank the

chairman of the committee, not only

for his efforts in uncovering more and

more of the evidence that leads inescapably to some of the conclusions you

and I and others are coming to. The

agency is out of control. It is literally

engaging in political activities it was

never designed to engage in and in violation of citizens’ rights, but also for

accepting the challenge as other committees have already done, by the way.

The INI Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has already started an investigation of this

matter. We have enough investigators

out there. We might just uncover

enough to put a stop to some of this

stuff.

I want to thank the gentleman for all

of his efforts in regulatory reform and

for the courage many Members of the

House have shared with him in passing

legislation that the Senate I hope will

take up soon and pass for us and give it

to the President, and hopefully the

American people and we soon can end

some of those abuses as rapidly as we

can.

Mr. MCINTOSH. If the gentleman

will yield again, I wanted to commend

the gentleman for also showing this is

a bipartisan effort, that the standards

of high ethical conduct and obeying the

law are something that Democrats and

Republicans want all public servants to

obey in this country, and I appreciate

his courage and effort to point that

out, that that fiduciary duty and the

standards of obeying the law and implementing the laws, is something that

we can share as Members of both political parties in endeavoring to make sure

that the Government does what is

right and what is best for the American

people. So I commend the gentleman in

that effort, and am pleased to be associated with the gentleman’s effort.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I also

wanted to point out I am not sure that

everyone in America understands that

it does take some real courage on the

part of this House to take on some of

these people. The Sierra Club is livid

right now. They are livid that we uncovered this.

I wrote a letter to Mr. Peter Dykster

of CNN Headline News complaining

about the despicable piece of journalism he performed on behalf, I think, of

the environmental community. And

guess what? The Sierra Club wrote me

a letter today distributed all over the

Hill. The Sierra Club has received a

copy of the letter you sent Mr. Peter

Dykster of CNN News dated April 13.

They got the letter already.

b 2115

They are good old buddies. They are

working hand and glove. The letter establishes again this connection, this

connection that weaves through some

of these liberals in the media who are

prepared to do anything to propagandize this effort.

These environmental groups are

working with taxpayer funds in some

cases; in some other cases, in direct

collusion with EPA officials that do

not mind violating the law to help

them out to spread their disinformation. And the fabric, this weave of collusion and interaction is beginning to

be exposed.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I

see what I see, and I read what I read.

And when an agency of the Government is willing to violate a citizen’s

rights to help a lobby group who then

runs to the media with something as

confidential as that and gets livid when

we expose it, I think you understand

what is going on.

They will attack. The Sierra Club

will attack you, will attack every

Member of this body who dares to take

them on. But it is time we take them

on. They are wrong. And the agencies

of Government are wrong when they

work with them in order to take away

the rights of Americans.

We are in this fight to win, not for

you and I, but for the sake of those

landowners and Americans who

thought they could depend upon the

Constitution who now need a law to

protect them as rapidly as we can pass

them.

Mr. MCINTOSH. The gentleman is exactly on point. The American people

expect us to have a higher standard

and to have the courage to stand up for

these groups. They are tired of seeing

Government abuse its power, and they

find it a refreshing change that we

have now got Members of Congress on

both sides of the aisle who are going to

make an issue of that and stand up for

what is right. And the consequences

may be difficult for us in a political

way, but we know in our hearts that we

are doing what the American people

want and what is right.

I am reminded of another farmer in

Indiana, Mr. Bart Dye, who came to

our subcommittee hearing. We had a

field hearing in my hometown, Indianapolis, over the recess about the problems of regulations. And he summed up

his testimony by saying, ‘‘I fought in

World War II to protect the freedoms

that we held dear in our hearts. I didn’t

expect the country to turn on me as I

am now entering the twilight days of

my life.’’

So it is for people like Mr. Dye who

we have to stand up for those freedoms,

and I thank the gentleman being willing to do that.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman

so much for his statement.

Let me assure you, it does not just

happen to farmers and to little landowners like Mr. Gautreau. They do not

care who they pick on.

I just got a fax tonight from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge in

Shreveport, LA. I was in Shreveport

last weekend. He told me about this

and promised to send me a fax on it

and authorized me to tell the story tonight.

This is a court of appeals judge who

bought 460 acres in Tangipahoa Parish

across the lake from New Orleans. The

tract is about 11⁄4 miles frontage on

Louisiana Highway 22 between

Ponchatoula and Madisonville. It has

been owned by the family for 80 years,

primarily used as timber land. In 1993,

he spent $10,000 to map an aerial survey, do soil studies, and to submit all

those studies to the Corps of Engineers.

On December 14, 1993, the Corps of

Engineers, in a two-page document

signed by, guess who, Dr. Thom Davidson of Gautreau-Chaconas fame, Dr.

Thom Davidson, which document was

identified with a survey that was attached, declared over 90 percent of the

460 acres nonwet. Only 41 acres out of

the 460 was determined to be wet, subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps of

Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

He has that document signed by Thom

Davidson.

Well, spring of 1994 comes along.

I entered into a venture with a partner ‘‘to

test the real estate market’’ by beginning a

residential development on 58 acres of a larger tract. Not one part of the 58 acres was

wetland. Absolutely none.

Here comes the horror part.

He is away in Europe for the 50th anniversary of D-day in June 1994,

* * * when several of the bearded wonders

of the U.S. Army came out and told my partner to get off his bulldozer and stop his

work, as he was violating wetlands. Since

then, the Army has reevaluated the 58 acres

and has declared over half of it to be wetlands. We have been stopped since last June,

11 months ago, while attempting the socalled permitting process. The cost, expenses

and damages resulting from this invasion

have yet to be determined. If folks in Washington, D.C. do not understand why so many

people in this country are angry, then they

really do not get it.

This is not a militia man. This is not

an angry man with a gun on talk radio.

This is a Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge who, 4 years after the corps

wrote him a letter saying the land is

not wetlands, shows up with a cease

and desist order and has now got him

all tangled up in a wetlands dispute,

much like the Gautreaus and the

Chaconases who, 3 years after the home

was built, showed up to say, We now

think it is a wetland in spite of the fact

that we sent you a letter earlier saying

this property was exempt. Now you are

in trouble.

That is the kind of mess Americans

are going through. Farmers, little
H 4616 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

homeowners, court of appeals judges.

Who have they missed?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

MORE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS

fLATOURETTE). Under a previous order

of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MCINTOSH] is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, the

gentleman asked a rhetorical question,

is there anyone who is perhaps left unaffected by this? I think the answer is

no. I am reminded of another group of

people that were gravely affected in my

district and that is the workers in my

district.

There is a town in the second district

of Indiana, Anderson, which for years

has been a very strong auto manufacturing town. GM has had numerous

plants there.

At one point I believe they employed

quite a large percent of the population

in that town, almost 50 percent. As

they have been downsizing some of

their operations, the town of Anderson

has been seeking to gain new employers. And one of the development

projects that they sought to bring into

their town was the new plant by the

Nestle ́ Corp. that would diversify some

of the jobs in that area, create hundreds of new jobs for people in the town

of Anderson.

As they looked at the site, Nestle ́

was considering Anderson and another

town out of the district in Indiana, a

couple other sites, and were about

ready to locate this new facility there

when they discovered that there might

be a wetlands problem in the land that

they were looking at to build this new

plant. The land had been farmland for

generations, was not something that

you would think of as an environmentally sensitive area. But because of

the threat that the government might

come in under the wetlands law and

deny them the permit to build this

plant, the Nestle ́ Co. says, we are going

to look elsewhere and located the facility somewhere else. Thank goodness we

were lucky they chose another place in

the United States. Sometimes we are

not so fortunate and we are sending

jobs overseas.

So the working man and woman in

this country suffer when these regulations cause jobs to be relocated so that

they cannot be built in our communities, another example of people who

are affected by this abuse of the regulatory powers.

Again, let me commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his courage

and effort in this area. I wholeheartedly support that.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman,

if the gentleman will yield. I want to

thank him and again particularly express my appreciation for accepting the

challenge to help us in this investigation, to get to the bottom of this, put

a stop to it, then eventually to change

some laws in this country so that the

fifth amendment of the Constitution is

not just some piece of paper, that it is

a real and enforceable right for Americans who are being deprived of their

property without just compensation

through these regulatory overkills.

I look forward to working with the

gentleman, thank him for joining me

tonight. And I think we both owe a

debt of thanks to the Chair for being so

patient with us this evening.

By unanimous consent, leave of abLEAVE OF ABSENCE

fsence was granted to:

Miss COLLINS of Michigan (at the request of Mr. GEPHARDT), for today, on

account of illness in the family.

Mr. ROGERS (at the request of Mr.

ARMEY), for today and the balance of

the week, on account of a death in the

family.

By unanimous consent, permission to

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

faddress the House, following the legislative program and any special orders

heretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members (at the request of Ms. DELAURO) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. DEFAZIO, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, for 5

minutes, today.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE, for 5 minutes,

today.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, for 5 minutes,

today.

Ms. KAPTUR, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. MENENDEZ, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. DEUTSCH, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. RAHALL, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. PALLONE, for 5 minutes, today.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. EHRLICH) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. GRAHAM, for 5 minutes, on May 9,

10, 11, and 12.

Mr. DORNAN, for 5 minutes, on May

10.

Mr. KINGSTON, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes, today.

(The following Member (at his own

request) to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. MCINTOSH

f, for 5 minutes, today.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS.

By unanimous consent, permission to

revise and extend remarks was granted

to:

(The following Members (at the request of Ms. DELAURO) and to include

extraneous matter:)

Mr. OBEY.

Mr. WARD.

Mr. HAMILTON in three instances.

Mr. KILDEE in two instances.

Mr. BECERRA.

Mr. RANGEL.

Ms. PELOSI in two instances.

Mr. ACKERMAN in two instances.

Mr. ENGEL.

Mr. DEFAZIO.

Mr. FOGLIETTA.

Mr. UNDERWOOD.

Mrs. MALONEY in two instances.

Mr. HALL of Ohio.

Mr. STOKES.

Mr. LANTOS.

Mr. JACOBS in two instances.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.

Mr. DELLUMS.

Mr. REED.

Mr. FARR.

Mr. STARK.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota.

Mr. CONDIT.

Mr. DINGELL.

Mr. HILLIARD.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio.

Mr. RICHARDSON.

Mr. OBERSTAR.

Mr. BERMAN.

Mr. LAFALCE.

Mr. TORRES.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. EHRLICH) and to include

extraneous matter:)

Mr. BAKER of California.

Mr. ROGERS.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey.

Mr. WELLER.

Mr. DAVIS.

Mr. MARTINI.

Mr. NEY.

Mr. FORBES.

Mr. CASTLE.

Mr. SAXTON.

Mr. FLANAGAN.

Mr. PACKARD.

Mr. EWING.

Mr. GILMAN.

Mr. STUMP.

Mr. COOLEY.

Mr. TATE.

Mr. LEACH.

Mr. EMERSON.

Mr. BREWSTER.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. MCINTOSH) and to include

extraneous matter:)

Mrs. KENNELLY.

Mr. MONTGOMERY.

Ms. FURSE.

Mr. BACHUS.

Mr. LAUGHLIN

f.

SENATE BILL REFERRED

A bill of the Senate of the following

title was taken from the Speaker’s

table and, under the rule, referred as

follows:

S. 103. An act entitled the ‘‘Lost Creek

Land Exchange Act of 1955’’; to the Committee on Resources.

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE

fPRESIDENT

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee

on House Administration, reported

that that committee did on this day

present to the President, for his approval, bills of the House of the following titles: