Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment to title 8 offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. First of all, let me say that everyone who will speak against this amendment today shares a commitment to protecting genuine wetlands. The key issue, as I hope to demonstrate in a moment, is how broadly a wetland is defined. Because if you are a bureaucrat with the EPA or other Federal agency, wetland does not mean something is a pond or a bog or a swamp or a marsh. In fact, over the last 8 years, we have seen areas defined as wetlands where water never actually stands or where there is a low spot in a cornfield, and regulators, in their never ending search for more control, have stretched laws designed to affect navigable waters so that they can regulate farmland in north central Iowa that is at least 100 miles from any navigable water. That is how the environmental extremists come up with their astonishing claims about wetlands being left unprotected by this bill. In the ideal world the overwhelming majority of Americans currently live in areas that could be defined as wetlands. If you define everything as a wetland, no matter how against common sense that definition may be, you can pretty much give yourself the right to regulate what every American does with his or her property. Property owners and the general public no longer know what a wetland is. They expect to see a swamp or marsh or bog, only to be told by regulators that land that is usually dry is a wetland or that a set spot in a field of corn is wetland. This abuse has gone on far too long. The current guidelines can allow an area to be called a wetland even if water never stands on it or even if the surface on the ground is never saturated. As these photographs will demonstrate, the term ``wetland'' no longer means what the everyday commonsense interpretation suggests or what Congress envisioned as the limits of Federal regulatory jurisdiction. The first photo is what we would all believe would be a wetland, obviously saturated, a pond. The problem today with the definition is that this land up here is also considered to be a wetland, far beyond the scope and definition of what should be considered. These photographs also show this is land under cultivation. The regulators can now say it is a wetland or have determined to be a wetland even though they have been in production for years and years. You can see obviously this land has been or is slightly damp, but in a couple of days in north central Iowa this will be dry. It has been under production probably for well over 100 years, generation after generation, and now a Federal regulator is coming in and telling this farmer he can no longer farm that land, and it has totally gone out of control.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LATHAM. We will need a clear and defined definition of wetlands. I think it is very interesting that many of the proponents of this amendment who want to make it supposedly easier for agriculture also voted in the Lipinski amendment to take away 56 percent of the funds for the State of Iowa to comply with your regulations. Tell me the justice in that. I think it is time that we finally brought some common sense back into the argument, and for people to put the dollars that go to the States like Iowa and then say that they are trying to help us is absolutely ludicrous. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. I understand that. By your definition, you will continue to have regulators out there defining that as wetlands. You certainly will, by your definition.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Oberstar amendment. This is an amendment that every single member of the House should oppose. First of all, as a fourth generation family farmer, I cannot stress strongly enough how offensive the Oberstar amendment is. We, in agriculture, are sick and tired of Washington, DC, bureaucrats treating us with contempt. There is general agreement among people who understand agriculture that Best Management Practices are the most cost effective programs for reducing agricultural run-off. That is the responsible principle that this bill seeks to put into affect. And, who are the experts on agricultural run-off? I assure you that the answer is not the bureaucrats at EPA. H.R. 961 puts the responsibility of developing Best Management Practices in the hands of the USDA. The Oberstar amendment demonstrates contempt for farmers and contempt for the USDA. As far as the unfunded mandates portion of the Oberstar amendment, President Clinton has already signed into law the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to prevent exactly this type of legislation from being passed by Congress. The provisions of H.R. 961 are simple, but fair. The bill makes an estimate of annual needs toward attaining the goals of the Clean Water Act. If Congress does not appropriate these funds, compliance deadlines for the States are delayed. This is the type of unfunded mandate relief that both Houses of Congress have already approved overwhelmingly and is already Federal law. The Oberstar amendment says ``forget all that, let's pretend that the unfunded mandate bill never passed. Let's go back to business as usual, passing the buck as we've done before.'' Even if you didn't support unfunded mandate reform, you should respect that this is now the law of the land. No Member, no matter how you feel about the rest of the bill, should support this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Oberstar amendment. It's an insult to farmers. It deserves to be defeated resoundingly. In fact, it deserves to be defeated unanimously.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time, but you also talk about delineation of what is a wetland, and today under this substitute those wetlands can be defined as a permanent wetland, any pothole out there that a duck would not land in under this substitute can be classified as a wetland. I really resent the idea too that somehow farmers are not conservationists, are not environmentalists. I tell you on our land, on our farm, we are the ones who have to make a living off of that land. We are the ones who are raising families who drink that water. And anyone who has the idea that a farmer is not concerned about the quality of life and the preservation of that land and also seeing to it that that water is purified is simply wrong and has no idea of what agriculture is about today or about what a family farm is about. And once again, people who think we are out there trying to pollute the environment simply do not understand reality. Earlier someone tried to blame what happened in Milwaukee on a farmer. And the fact of the matter is, and it has been shown that that was wildlife that put that bacteria in the river, and if anyone thinks that a new Federal mandate or regulation is going to control wildlife out here again they certainly do not understand what is outside of the Beltway here in Washington. This debate, folks, is about Washington regulators against the farm families, the small business people, and the local governments in America. H.R. 961 reflects the interests of the farm families and the small business people and the local governments, and the substitute represents the idea of the regulators, and I ask Members to vote no on the substitute and support H.R. 961.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute amendment, and let me begin by saying that I have the highest respect for the distinguished gentleman offering this amendment, and I admire their commitment to clean water. But having said that, I believe there are at least two fundamental flaws to the substitute amendment. First, as it stands, H.R. 961 provides individuals flexibilities for individual States to implement storm water programs, watershed management programs, and provides commonsense relief to small and rural communities. The substitute does not include crucial regulatory reform provisions that this House has already overwhelmingly approved in principle, the ideas of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and ending unfunded Federal mandates. Under the substitute, it will be harder for States to regulate smarter in order to provide more pollution prevention at a far less cost. Second, I must oppose the substitute amendment because it does not take critical steps towards fairness that are in H.R. 961. No subject arouses more passionate opposition in my district than the excesses of the Federal wetlands programs administered under the Clean Water Act. H.R. 961 includes commonsense classification and delineation criteria for wetlands that reflect the genuine differences in quality and utility of wetlands. I would just like to tell a little bit about the State of Iowa. In Iowa we have 25 percent of the grade A farmland in the world, not just in the United States, but in the world. And if the requirements that are in this substitute amendment were in place in A farmland could be determined to be a permanent wetland. It is not enough today that farmers have to fight weather problems and fight the markets, but now they have a threat from the Government itself coming in and taking over their land and telling them how they can use their land. And you talk about property values. What more would reduce the value of agricultural crop land than to determine that to be a permanent wetland? Also, much of the land that I am referring to has been in families like my own for well over 100 years. They have had to put some tile in, much of it was hand dug by our ancestors, 80, 90 years ago, and today because of these requirements you can no longer improve or repair those tile lines, because again of the bureaucrats.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] on bringing this great bill up. I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments Act reauthorization. Over the next 3 days, Members of Congress who supported the regulatory reforms of the Contract With America will have an opportunity to put those general principles into existing environmental statute. H.R. 961 restores a proper regulatory balance between Federal, State, and local governments, and it was developed with unprecedented input from the real environmental experts, men and women from local governments and water systems. It includes individual property rights protection, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and protects against unfunded mandates. Ultimately, H.R. 961 is a choice between those who believe good government should always regulate more and those who believe government should regulate smarter. I believe government should regulate smarter, and I encourage my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 961.

Mr. LATHAM

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. 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 three-fourths 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.

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman is absolutely right.

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, the gentleman earlier referred to the idea of a charade around here. What has been the charade around here has been the past 40 years when this issue has never come up for a vote on this floor of the House of Representatives in the past, and when the former Speaker of this House, the Democrat, sues his own State because they want to limit his terms. That is a charade, folks. And tonight I rise in support of term limits, the substitute offered by my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary]. I have been a strong supporter of term limits in my campaign and was a proud cosponsor of the McCollum term limits bill. However, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] has developed even stronger language than the base bill, because the Hilleary substitute maximizes the ability of voters to participate in their government. It recognizes the rights of the people and the rights of the States over the rights of the Washington politicians, and I would also like to say that no matter whether the Hilleary version or the McCollum version get the most votes, I urge my colleagues to vote for final passage tonight.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for adding a term limitation amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At virtually every opportunity, American voters have demonstrated their preference for term limitation for their elected officials. They have seen too often how entrenchment of political power yields a political culture that is less responsive and less responsible. The Washington political and media culture has uniformly lined up in opposition to the term limits movement. That should be our first sign that the American people are on to something positive. The most frustrating aspect of listening to term limit opponents and most of the media has been their refusal to discuss this issue intelligently, but rather reject it out of hand. Much like the situation with the balanced budget amendment, opponents of term limits have relied on knee-jerk reactions against term limits rather than thoughtful discussion of the problems in the system and the need for systemic reform. So, I'd like to address some of the arguments against term limits individually: One, term limits would deprive the American people of experienced elected officials to address the Nation's problems. Of all the arguments against term limits, this is the one most often cited by thoughtful term limits opponents. What I would point out, however, is that Congress is enriched when it is filled by persons with experience in all walks of life--not just legislating. For too long, the way to real power inside Congress has been to come to Washington young and spend decades building up seniority. Too many districts have been represented by men or women who've spent more of their adult lives in Washington than in the district they are supposed to represent. By adopting term limits, a person who had worked successfully as a small business person, or a school teacher, or a homemaker could come to Washington later in life and still have the opportunity to play a major role in the process based on merit. Two, term limits opponents also argue that term limits restrict the choices of the voters, giving us less freedom. I think anyone who has ever looked at the reelection rates of Members of Congress immediately understands the weakness of this argument. Even in this last election more than 90 percent of the incumbent House Members who stood for reelection were returned to office. The fact of the matter is that it is extremely difficult to beat an incumbent except in extraordinary years. By placing a limit on length of service, virtually every congressional district in this country would become competitive because local political organizations would not wither away waiting for a 20-term Congressman to finally move along. Instead, Members would likely continue to face very competitive elections in their first few years after their election. However, instead of becoming isolated and entrenched, even the most popular incumbent would likely face challenges during his or her later terms by those interested running in the future. I believe that would drastically reduce the number of uncontested seats and contribute to a substantial increase in competitive races. That, not theoretical arguments about limiting choices, would be the real world impact of term limits. long-time incumbents reduced to telling their electorates that they should be reelected strictly because of their seniority. This type of campaigning amounts to a threat to the very people these representatives were supposed to represent. It's like trying to make your own constituents an offer they can't refuse. That's not what this democracy should be about. Seniority has become the last refuge of a politician with nothing left to say. Term limits would hold our elected officials to a higher standard of political debate--policies, responsiveness, and accomplishments. Four, the final argument I would like to address is the claim that if we want to limit a politician's terms, we should vote that person out of office. The problem with this point is that a State with an entrenched incumbent often has a great incentive to keep that person in office for decades at a time. From a key committee position, one person representing less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the country's population can dominate an area such as appropriations, commerce, or defense policy for decades. That is the very type concentration of power that we have traditionally sought to avoid in this country. No one district, and no one State, should be able to hold the rest of America hostage to its agenda or the whims of its favorite son. One of the things that compelled me to run for Congress was that as a small businessman my family business was forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet the dictates of entrenched incumbents here in Washington. I couldn't vote for these representatives who were dominating some of the committees that directly impacted my business, but I was paying the bill. I knew that passing term limits was one way to change that. The new Republican majority has taken a giant step forward in addressing this problem by limiting the terms of committee and subcommittee chairmen, as well as the Speaker of the House. But, we need to keep moving ahead. conclusion Mr. Speaker, as this country moves into the 21st century, I believe that we will need the input and expertise of Americans from every background and profession. The argument against term limits places a premium on experience in Congress and discounts experience in every other part of life. That is a formula for a ruling class detached from those who they represent. That is the opposite of government of, by and for the people. Adoption of a term limitation constitutional amendment would return us to a true citizen legislature and help win back the faith of the American people in our democracy. I urge my colleagues to vote for the version of term limits they support and vote ``yes'' on final passage of this resolution.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose Mr. Deal's substitute amendment to the Personal Responsibility Act. The current welfare system is fundamentally broken. We must replace it, instead of tinkering around the edges. The Deal substitute retains ultimate power in the hands of Federal bureaucrats. Allow me to give some examples: States will still have to come to Washington bureaucrats to get waivers to try anything new or innovative. These waivers can take years to obtain. The Deal substitute also preserves the Federal bureaucrats power over work programs. More ``Washington Knows Best.'' Job placement vouchers, work supplementation and workfare are all subject to the blessing of Federal bureaucrats. I support the Personal Responsibility Act because it will not require Governors--who are far ahead of Washington when it comes to welfare reform--to seek permission from Federal bureaucrats for their innovate welfare-to-work programs. The bottom line is that the Deal substitute fails to meet the public demand to end welfare as we know it. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Deal substitute.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.