Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word so that I may enter into a colloquy as to the intent of the bill with the Tauzin amendment. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], as to the intent of the legislation as amended by the Tauzin amendment. With respect to section 9 paragraph 5 subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), section 404 of the Federal Pollution Control Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1979, and title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 respectively of H.R. 925 as amended, am I correct in my understanding that agency actions, with respect to water under these laws can result in a compensable taking of property rights, specifically the taking of a water users right to use and receive water?

Mr. ALLARD. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana to explain that at this point.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in favor of the Tauzin amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think it moves us in the right direction as far as protecting private property rights. I think it is vital to the interests of the State of Colorado, because by recognizing water as a private property right, as the States do, we are saying to the Federal agencies that the States are in a better position to determine where one person's right begins and where another one ends, and we have, through Colorado water law and the doctrine of prior appropriations that has been adopted by most of the Western States, I think all of the Western States, and it recognizes there is a property right, and that that property right is going to be measured in a court. They take it to a water court in the States, and they determine exactly where one person's right begins and the other one ends. And if nothing else, this amendment not only preserves private property ownership, but also recognizes the State's role, which is very important when we get into private property issues, particularly as they apply to water. So I would just have to bring up a situation in the State of Colorado where we have cities, as well as individuals, but I will refer to cities who have purchased water or they have made, gained, water through annexation agreements, and this water was to be used for the purposes within the city, whether it is for open-space development or park development or municipal water supply, for drinking water or manufacturing or whatever. After the States had acquired this water, then the Federal Government changed the rules. They changed the rules and said all of a sudden, instead of automatically renewing permits that allowed the water to be transferred through the national forest, they were going to blackmail these cities to give them water for doing that, and it is the changing of the rules, not from private property, but by the agencies and traditionally they are doing that, and what they were requiring was 30 to 40 percent of the water would have to be left in that stream in a dry year. And where were they going to get that water? They were going to get it from the cities who paid for it. They were going to get it from individuals who paid for it. It was obviously a taking, and that is the kind of problem that this particular amendment, as I see it, is trying to address our concerns, and so I think it is really very important. The other thing I would like to make a point on, the Colorado Water Congress, they are a policy advisory board in the State, separate from State government. Usually when they take a position on water policy, we get a written comment on it. Now, there is not one individual that speaks for that particular Congress. It is usually done by a lot of consultation. As far as I know, they have made no recommendations on action on this particular piece of legislation or this water language. I would suspect that if they reviewed this water language, because it is made up of a lot of cities of which I brought the situation up as well as private property owners, that they would support the language that is on the floor of the House today.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield on that point?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, this is not going to have an impact on the Colorado River Compact. This is an agreement between the States and the Federal Government and it is passed by the Congress. What is going to have an impact, and the gentlewoman may be aware, but in Colorado law we have a provision which says if you are a private owner of property that you cannot sell it outside the State of Colorado. It is Colorado law the gentlewoman is addressing and so much of what she is referring to here in this particular bill has to do with a Federal agency coming in and literally blackmailing water from individuals and States. For example, the permit to bring water through the forests, reclaiming 30 or 40 percent of the water, it is taking of private property rights. It is water.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his help in clarifying the record. amendment offered by mr. porter to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. canady of florida, as amended

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his clarifications.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives passed the balanced budget amendment last month. Today, the Senate will decide the fate of this critical reform. Whether the vote is yes or no, Congress will still need a statutory mechanism to ensure that spending is put on a glide-path to balance by the year 2002. I propose the 2-percent solution. Shortly, I will introduce legislation to establish caps that will limit overall spending growth to 2 percent a year. If this level is exceeded in any year, an across-the-board sequester will kick in and force the necessary cuts, excluding Social Security and certain other contractual obligations. With 2 percent growth the Federal Government can balance the budget of 2002 and still spend $1 trillion more over the next 7 years than it would under a 7 year freeze. Two percent growth will allow us to enact the tax cuts of the Contract With America and achieve the first balanced budget in 33 years. Two weeks ago, I attended a Budget Committee field hearing outside of the beltway to hear the views of our constituents. Over 1,000 people showed up and the message was clear--cut spending. Just do it, balance the budget. [[Page H2315]] That is what the Republican majority plans to do. During the debate on the balanced budget amendment, the rhetoric was thick with charges that the Congress does not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, all we need to do is offer a balanced budget. Well, the need for the balanced budget amendment is shown clearly by the President's just released budget. The President's budget is a lost opportunity to do what he called for in his State of the Union speech, a balanced budget without the need for a constitutional amendment. In the President's budget, there is no entitlement reform, no welfare reform, and spending in most major departments goes up. Department of the Interior spending is up; HUD and the Labor Department get an increase in spending; the EPA gets an increase in spending; the Energy Department gets a spending increase even through the administration once talked about abolishing the Department; and even the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities get increases. The bottom line is not a balanced budget, it is $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. This is not what the average American is looking for. America wants a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the President has left the heavy lifting to the Republican Congress. Our goal is not $200 billion deficits, but a balanced budget with zero deficits. We must lead and meet the challenge and produce a budget that makes the tough cuts. During the balanced budget debate, some questioned whether we can ever balanced the budget. Opponents like to point to the fact that over $1.2 trillion in spending must be reduced. This huge number is used to show how painful it would be to actually enforce a balanced budget amendment by 2002. This argument could only occur inside the beltway. Though Republicans abolished baseline budgeting on opening day, much more must be done before the terms of the debate are changed. Baseline budgeting is the process of assuming automatic spending increases every year. If Congress appropriates anything less than the baseline spending growth, there has been a cut. I suspect most Americans believe a cut is when you spend less than you did the year before, not less than you thought you would spend. The current debate about a balanced budget amendment demonstrates why this issue of baseline budgeting is so important. Every nickel of the $1.2 trillion that must be cut is projected baseline growth. As the chart next to me shows, the CBO projects that spending growth will average 5.3 percent a year through 2002. Under this scenario Federal spending will grow from $1.5 trillion this year to $2.2 trillion in 2002, and the deficit in 2002 will be well in excess of $300 billion. Of course, this assumes Congress does nothing to alter current spending patterns. If Congress instead manages to hold overall spending growth to 2 percent per year, the payoff for this discipline will be the first balanced budget in 33 years. And as I noted earlier, $1 trillion more will still be spent over those 7 years than if spending had been frozen. So let me answer the doubters, there is no doubt about it, we can balance the budget by 2002. It can be done in a reasoned and responsible manner--by holding overall spending growth to 2 percent a year. It is not my intention to suggest that this will be easy. It will be difficult, particularly for those programs that are growing rapidly. But this is Congress' job, it is what the America people want. Over the last three decades Congress has dropped the ball on the budget. This is why we need the balanced budget amendment and the 2- percent solution. With them we can build a secure future for our grandchildren.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have kept our promise; unfunded mandates legislation--we have kept our promise; line-item veto--we have kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we have kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we have kept our promise. Now we are working on: Government regulatory reform; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle-income families; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without government penalty; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 2 and House Joint Resolution 4.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this celebration of President Reagan's 84th birthday. Ronald Reagan's place in history is secure. With each passing year, his stature as a leader grows. President Reagan's most important contribution was the leadership he provided during the West's long struggle with totalitarian communism. When he called the Soviet Union an evil empire media pundits scorned him. Today, we all know that he was right. But President Reagan provided far more than rhetoric in the struggle against communism. In 1980, America was dangerously weak and demoralized. President Reagan understood this and he directed the strengthening of all aspects of our military, coordinating our efforts with other members of the Western alliance. Following the end of World War II, country after country fell to communism. All of Eastern Europe fell, much of Asia fell, and inroads were even made in Africa and Latin America. the Iron Curtain went up, and freedom was on the defensive. This all ended in 1981. From the point when Ronald Reagan entered the White House, no additional territory fell to the Communists. From that point forward the tide began to turn. On all fronts, the Reagan administration backed the forces of freedom. Solidarity in Poland was helped, the Afghan freedom fighters were helped, Grenada was liberated, and democratic struggles throughout Latin America were supported. The Soviet Union was confronted by a Western alliance that had finally awaken to the dangers of appeasement. The alliance was greatly strengthened by the friendship and support of President Reagan's close friend and ally, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The west won the cold war, and Ronald Reagan deserves much of the credit. President Reagan's second great triumph was his economic plan. We was the first modern President to directly challenge the notion that more government was good. In his view, Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. While this view is widely held today, it was ridiculed throughout the 1960's and 1970's. During those years, Reagan was nearly alone in his struggle against the endless growth of government. But he never altered his message. Unlike other politicians, he stood firm, and gradually the country moved his way. That is what made him a leader. The Reagan program of lower taxes and less regulation was a tremendous success. In the early Reagan years all income taxes were cut across-the-board by 25 percent. The decade to follow witnessed the longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of our Nation. All income groups experienced significant income gains from 1980 to 1989. Twenty million new jobs were created, and the vast majority were high- paying professional, production, and technical jobs. In the late 1970's inflation was as high as 18 percent, and interest rates rose to 21 percent. The Reagan economic program brought both of these down dramatically. The 1970's malaise brought on by high inflation, skyrocketing interest rates, high unemployment, and high taxes was replaced by an economy that fostered opportunity, growth, and optimism. President Reagan rallied our Nation. He reminded each of us of our proud history and heritage. He was never afraid to proclaim his love for America. Most important, he stood up for what he believed. He knew the importance of strength and resolve. The result was the most successful Presidency in decades. As Reagan himself reminded us: History comes and goes, but principles endure and inspire future generations to defend liberty, not as a gift from government, but a blessing from our creator. Happy birthday Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to reading the amendment. It is a very short amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5 and also the amendment, as modified. I want to note that according to my understanding, the amendment, as modified, is now acceptable to the sponsors of H.R. 5. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is a piece of legislation whose time has come. However, as currently written, H.R. 5 will not prohibit certain regulations that could impose an unfunded mandate on States and localities. That is why Mr. Graham of South Carolina and I are offering this amendment to tighten H.R. 5. Our amendment requires regulatory agencies to identify the statutes that give the agencies specific authority to issue a regulation that imposes a mandate on State and local government and the private sector. This helps to ensure that executive agencies cannot escape the scrutiny of H.R. 5 by issuing general regulations that impose an unfunded mandate.

Mr. ALLARD. This is a modification of amendment No. 26. We cleared it with the Clerk, and it was determined that the best way for everybody to understand where we were at this point was just to move the amendment. But it is a modification of amendment No. 26.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is No. 26.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.