Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think the gentleman from Virginia would like to be recognized to address the same concerns and questions that the gentleman from Florida has.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the authorizing committee I want to make it very clear for everybody on the floor and who has concerns about the housing programs the gentleman will be offering an amendment under a different title, we have $10 million, staff informs me that really leverages to $50 million, and the gentleman has indicated that while he has some concerns over the housing situation, he will vote for the en bloc amendment. We will address that issue in other titles. I would urge a yes vote on the en bloc amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like for the gentleman to say that again about 4 times on virtually every subject that has come up under this appropriation bill if he would.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. The statement by the Secretary, I feel--I cannot speak for Secretary Glickman although I try a lot, in Kansas, we try to get him to go at least 65 in a 55-mile-an-hour zone--but I think in regards to his comment on meat inspection, that it is somewhat dated. We have had a lengthy meeting, as I have said, a bipartisan one, with the members of the Committee on Agriculture, the leadership of the committee that will have to produce the legislation to follow up in regards to the rulemaking. We are negotiating now with language that I think may have a chance to work. I would just urge the gentleman to maybe consider that. There will be ample time, I think, for the gentleman to raise his points of concern.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman has got two to go. Reclaiming my time, we have worked out a partnership arrangement with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and others on the committee. I am quite confident of the total package. [[Page H 7021]] I see no further use to discuss this at this time unless the gentleman from New Mexico has a question or the distinguished gentleman from California.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am out of breath. This is one of these I had not intended to speak but was viewing the proceedings on the floor and overheard the concern that was voiced by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin in regards to meat inspection and the rule that pertains to this issue. As I catch my breath, I would like to inform the gentleman from Wisconsin that we held a meeting, a very important meeting, in this regard with Secretary Glickman of the Department of Agriculture. By we, I mean the distinguished ranking member, the chairman emeritus, if I can use that term, of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who has been extremely active in regards to meat inspection and this subject; the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] who is the ranking member of the appropriate subcommittee; and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the chairman of the subcommittee. We will be doing, regardless of what happens on the proposed rulemaking, a bill, or legislation as it applies to meat inspection, not only in regards to meat but fish and also poultry. The gentleman from New York who is not present and can speak for himself in regards to his amendment simply proposed that there would be some kind of rulemaking to make sure that there would be an open process as we arrive at the proposed rules that make sense to guarantee food safety and the safety of our meat supply. In meeting with Secretary Glickman, those of us who serve on the Committee on Agriculture expressed some concern with the proposed rulemaking. By that, I mean there are now two proposals: One involves the current regulations in regards to food safety and how the USDA conducts its meat inspection, which quite frankly in my personal opinion is not based entirely on sound science, it is very complex, it is very burdensome, and it is very costly. Then we have this new proposal called HACCP. That is the hazard analysis control point. That is the better system. That is a system that we have all proposed in the Committee on Agriculture and all throughout agriculture to try to use sound science to guarantee the safety of our meat and to address the tragedy that happened in the Northwest in regards to E. coli. The problem is that we cannot layer the two together without really getting to a real problem. The problem is the small meat locker industry and the meat processing industry, according to their concerns, have not been part of the process. The problem is in regards to sound science again, we have some concerns that a better approach might be used. Then we have a small business concern where a lot of small meat lockers might be put out of business. That is a very real concern in farm country. So we met with the Secretary. I have here a draft of a letter that the committee gave to the Secretary and the Secretary is working on it. He has another draft. It was supposed to be back at about 4:30. I think that if we reach an agreement with Secretary Glickman, and I have talked this over with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], that if there is an open process and if we can guarantee at least the future of the small meat locker industry, and if we can use sound science approaches, and if the cowboys and all the livestock producers and the meat processors and the meat industry can be saying, ``We are part of this process, we can sit at the table,'' and if in fact we can make sure in the layering of this process that we do not get into more red tape and regulations and a lot of perception but very little protection for the American consumer, I think we can work this out. I would say to the gentleman that there is a process ongoing and hopefully in working with Secretary Glickman and the Committee on Agriculture, I think we can find an answer. It may be that the gentleman from New York at that particular time, who is part of the process, can simply withdraw his amendment, and we can all declare victory and we can all reach a product that we could agree upon.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Wisconsin. As the ranking Republican Member on the House-Senate Joint Committee on Printing, I have been alarmed with the dramatic losses being incurred by the GPO. The gentleman from Maryland asked if anybody has been down to the GPO. I have, many, many times. This year the GPO estimates its losses to be nearly $10 million. The Joint Committee has requested four different studies over the last several years to be conducted by the GAO, and Arthur Andersen, and the Public Printer's GPO 2000 study, to determine the cause and options to reduce these losses. This is $10 million. I think it is far more sensitive to employees to really gradually try to reduce the work force, if we can, than at a future date to be forced to totally eliminate the entire agency. The gentleman from Maryland has indicated that the argument that we are going to have RIF's here and it is going to cost money--that is false and shortsighted. We do not have to go to RIF's. The GPO can do it. It is not required to utilize RIF's. Even if the GPO chooses to do so, the amendment will still save taxpayers over $6 million. We are talking about 350 positions. This has been a glidepath but, again, this agency has lost over $10 million. They are under orders from the Joint Committee to quit losing money, and it is not the fault of the employees. It is that the GPO is the victim of a technological revolution in regard to printing. The gentleman's amendment is in good standing. It is the continued way to go to save money. We will await the studies and see if we can make further savings. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to, as has been said, honor the memory of the men and women and children who lost their lives in the Oklahoma City bombing. Among killed, as has been said, were the seven employees of the Department of Agriculture agency called the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. It is commonly known by its acronym as APHIS. As chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, along with the committee's distinguished ranking member, Mr. de la Garza and the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, and other members of the committee and Members of the Oklahoma delegation, we gather here this evening to pay a special tribute to these seven employees and the families and friends that they leave behind. Mr. Speaker, the decision to take this special order came from many members of the House Committee on Agriculture who wanted to pay their respects. As chairman of the committee, I wish to pay, however, a special tribute to a long-time employee of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Carl Barnes, who was the Personnel Director for the department under Secretary of Agriculture Mr. Orville Freeman. Mr. Barnes served under several Presidents and continues to be an example and champion of public service. He also just happens to be a good neighbor and brought to my attention the article by Steve Twomey in the Washington Post entitled ``They walk, they talk, and they bleed.'' Mr. Twomey wrote his column following the tragedy in Oklahoma City, and I think it is fitting and appropriate that this article be brought to the attention of our colleagues and to everyone concerned, as it has been all too easy when people are unhappy with the way that our government works, or does not work, that we point a finger of blame at the hard working men and women who makeup our Federal work force. Excerpts from his article include, ``To get there, you march down a long, gloomy, marble corridor, devoid of human touches. Doors slip by at an exact spacing and interval. Nothing distinguishes one office from the next, except small signs identifying the occupants and their titles. Yes, this fits. Cold is how the bureaucracy is supposed to look. It is tempting to imagine Federal gnomes in here dreaming up costly regulations, wasting forms in triplicate, and funding cost-plus contracts with your money, because that is what you imagine the Federal workers do. Your escort, and yes, while security is tight, walks you to room 312- [[Page H5568]] E, which is to say the third floor east of the administration building, the United States Department of Agriculture. It is an older but attractive building along the Mall that exudes government formality right down to the flower beds on Jefferson Drive. What a sign hanging outside 312E: Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. You think it even sounds make-work. ``60 Minutes'' would love this office, which, naturally, has a government acronym, APHIS, pronounced A-fus. You enter, and from an inner room emerges not a bureaucrat, not a GS- level, not an anonymous cog in the federal machine, but a human, who has a name and, at the moment, feelings so overwhelming you hesitate to ask about them. Lonnie King, in dark suit and white shirt, a man of average build with graying hair but a youthful and pleasant face, has served APHIS for 17 of his 51 years, rising to acting administrator. ``Here's a ribbon,'' he says, ``from Oklahoma City.'' He tosses a purple one on the table in front of you. He carried it home Sunday, after the memorial service. Does the public know what APHIS does? What the seven did? ``No,'' King says. ``No.'' The 6,500 people who work for him can be found in every state and even overseas. The federal budget says they ``protect the animal and plant resources of the nation from destructive pests and diseases.'' They help farmers, monitor imports, do research. What that means for you is better, more abundant and cheaper food on the table, be it at home or in a restaurant. Before that Wednesday, King certainly knew that the reputation of The Federal Employee wasn't what it used to be. ``We're not immune to the press and the TV,'' he says. Comedians, journalists and talk-show hosts have made mincemeat of the type, calling them wasteful, incompetent, dangerous. King took the contempt personally, because it clashed with his view, which was that he was surrounded by people who cared, who showed up every day, not for the paycheck, not to waste, but to serve. ``Who thinks of us in those terms?'' he says, ``Is it that bad, that we're so hated? Could it happen here? Am I safe?'' In a way, the bombing also was an attack on this region, the capital region, on the 360,004 civilians here who do Uncle Sam's tasks. We often forget that they got those tasks from us, through Congress. It is we who have told them to provide clean air and water, stop the flow of drugs, help farmers, process Social Security checks, promote trade, protect workers and much more. Do they perform flawlessly? Of course not. Who does? The irony of the bombing, King says, is that the perpetrator benefited every day from what APHIS does, every time he ate. ``He was probably degrading the government with his mouth full,'' King says, ``and dumb enough not to understand.'' Yes, Linnie King is angry. ``I'm not blaming anybody,'' King says, ``but I hope people will stop and think and ask themselves about what's being said.'' He leaves you with this. Monday morning, with seven of their colleagues still buried in the rubble, two of three APHIS workers who survived went back to work in temporary offices. Mr. Speaker, today special ceremonies were held by the Department in behalf of the service deceased employees. In keeping with these ceremonies, it is our privilege to honor each individual with a brief tribute. Olen Bloomer is survived by his adult daughters, Maureen Bloomer and Lucretia Bjorklund; his son, Lee Switzer; four grandchildren, Amelia, Heather, Jeff, and Sara; and one great granddaughter, Dillon Ann. His memory will be cherished by seven siblings--Ester Willis, Elwanda McComas, Merle Easter, Erdene Jones, Doyle Blommer, Dean Bloomer, and Dennis Blommer. He was preceded in death by his wife of 26 years, Norma Jean, who passed away in 1990. Olen was born in Elk City, Oklahoma, in 1933, and spent his youth working on his father's cotton farm near the Beckham-Washita county line. A few years after graduating from Highway High School, Olen joined the U.S. Air Force, where he served in a number of locations, including Thailand. His work in the Air Force focused on purchasing and inventory management. He retired in 1974 after 20 years of service. Olen went back to work for the Federal government in 1977, this time for APHIS. Olen began this second career at the screwworm rearing lab in Mission, Texas. He was subsequently reassigned to Salt Lake City, Utah, where he worked for 5 years as an administrative assistant. He was serving as the budget assistant for Oklahoma at the time of his death. Olen labored to keep the agency's budget trim and in order and was admired by the staff he supported for his ability to stay cool under pressure and cut through the bureaucratic red tape when emergencies struck. He was always willing to help and volunteered ably at troubleshooting computer problems. His grandchildren called him ``Big Dad,'' not only out of deference to his 6-foot, 6-inch stature, but to distinguish him from their fathers. He was a true gentle giant and will be sorely missed by many. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. ROBERTS. Richard Leroy Cummins' memory will be cherished by a large and loving family, including his wife of 30 years, Frances; his daughters, Courtney and Nikki; his son, Kraig; grandsons Chayse and Austin; his mother, Christine; his two brothers, Wall, of Tucson, AZ, and Frank of Ruidosa, NM; and many friends and coworkers. Dick was born in Douglas, AZ, in 1940. He spent his youth in and around Douglas and graduated from Douglas High School in 1957. He then attended Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ, where he pursued studies in business administration. Dick's notable career as a public servant began with the U.S. Air Force in 1959, where he worked in aircraft maintenance in Colorado and Oklahoma for 4 years. Upon leaving the Air Force, he worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad for 2 years. In 1965, Dick joined the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where his professional contributions were welcomed for 30 years. He first worked with the Agricultural Research Service on the screwworm eradication program in Douglas, AZ. In 1980, he moved to Henryetta, OK, and become Animal Health Technician. A short time later he moved to Durant, OK, where he served in the same capacity. Dick was promoted to investigator in 1987 and reassigned to Oklahoma City to work with the Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care staff. In this position, Dick was responsible for ensuring that animal breeders, dealers, and exhibitors comply with the standards of humane care and treatment prescribed in the Animal Welfare Act. Dick moved again to Mustang, OK, where he continued to work as an investigator working out of his home. He was a senior investigator at the time of his death. Dick received well-deserved recognition in 1990 for his work on the Midwest Stolen Dog Task Force. His diligence helped curb the theft of pets for sale to research institutions. Dick was a devoted family man, animal lover and advocated human treatment of all living things. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, Rheta Long is survived by a large and loving family, including her daughter, Valerie Tramel; son, John; sisters, Wilda York and Leona Thompson; and grandsons, Kenneth and Christopher Tramel, and Nicholas Long. Rheta was preceded in death by her husband of 11 years, Thomas; her brothers Earl and Andrew Dean Bender; father, Andrew Bender; and grandson, John Thomas. Rheta was 60. Rheta was born in Guymon, OK. She attended Guymon High School and graduated in 1952. Afterwards, she attended Panhandle State College and Phillips University to study education. She earned a bachelor of science degree in education in 1955. Rheta was married in the summer of 1955 and dedicated herself to her family and church. She was an active volunteer with the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America. In 1968, Rheta began teaching mathematics in Guymon and found the experience rewarding. She said it was a pleasure to show children that school and learning could be fun. Rheta began her 20-year Federal career in 1974 as a military personnel clerk with the U.S. Army. In 1978, Rheta transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Guymon, OK, to take a clerical position. Rheta came to APHIS in Oklahoma City in October 1982, where she served as a program clerk. She handled workers' compensation claims, and was the final authority on payment eligibility for indemnity claims. She was very active in the Federal Employees Women's Group and Equal Employment Opportunities Committees. Rheta had a vision disability and she served as the Persons with Disabilities Special Emphasis Program Manager as a means of helping educate people about the challenges of working with a physical handicap. Rheta was active with the Christian Women's Foundation and looked forward to the Jewel Box Theater's seasonal plays. A devoted grandmother, Rheta was very proud of her grandchildren and kept snapshots of them at her desk. Her dedication, cheerful attitude, and many contributions to the effectiveness of the office helped many of her coworkers in their time of need. She will be greatly missed by all. Mr. Speaker, the members of the Committee on Agriculture, the chair of [[Page H5570]] the Committee on Agriculture, the distinguished chairman emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Oklahoma, [Mr. Lucas], share in the sense of personal loss and share in the sense of personal pride regarding the contribution of these employees. Perhaps an appropriate closing is this from Helen Steiner Rice. When I must leave you for a little while, Please go on bravely with a gallant smile And for my sake and in my name, Live on and do all things the same-- Spend not your life in empty days, But fill each waking hour in useful ways-- Reach out your hand in comfort and cheer, And I in turn will comfort you and hold you near. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for taking this special time. Mr. de la GARZA. I thank my distinguished colleague. Mr. Speaker, if I might add a personal note, we notice that Mr. Bloomer served at the screwworm eradication plant in Mission, TX, the years when my father worked there, so I feel certain that they knew each other in those days and they have already found each other up there and they are talking about the good old days at the plant in Mission. Mr. Speaker, I thank my two colleagues. The seven that we lost not only belonged to APHIS, to USDA, they belonged to our Nation and they belong now to all of us. May they rest in peace.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment to restore the $25 million in funding for title III of the Food for Peace Program. I think it is essential, as the gentleman has pointed out, that we fund [[Page H5529]] all titles of the Food for Peace Program. The amendment does not increase spending. Let me emphasize that to all of my colleagues. It cuts spending responsibly without really gutting the program. Last year marked the 40th anniversary of the Food for Peace Program. It started in the Eisenhower years. It started with a gentleman who formerly represented the district I have the privilege of representing now, Mr. Cliff Hope, Sr. We on the Committee on Agriculture have a very keen interest in making the Food for Peace Program as sound and as effective as possible. We are going to work very closely with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], and the rest of the committee to see that the Food for Peace Program effectively and efficiently meets its goals. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture, intends to hold hearings on this program. We intend to address any concerns with the program as a whole in the 1995 farm bill. I urge support in regards to the Bereuter amendment. I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this regard.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I would like to engage in a colloquy that is very important to the agricultural sector and would ask the distinguished chairman the following question: In the chairman's en bloc amendment that was agreed to earlier there is a section beginning on line 20, page 284, that grandfathers wetlands delineations made by the Secretary of Agriculture under the 1985 Food Security Act--1985 FS Act--as amended, if those delineations were administratively final upon enactment of this legislation. I appreciate the Transportation Committee's willingness to amend the committee bill as reported to incorporate this provision in the law. It is very important to American farmers and ranchers; however, I note that there appears to be a difference between the term ``delineation'' as used in the clean water amendments and the term as used in the Food Security Act of 1985. Under the terms of the 1985 Food Security Act, as first enacted, the term ``delineation'' was not used. However, in the period 1986 through 1990 several thousand administrative determinations were made by the Secretary exempting persons from the program ineligibility provisions of section 1221 of the Food Security Act of 1985. In the 1990 amendments to section 1222 of the Food Security Act of 1985, made by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990--FACT Act of 1990--the concept of delineation was first introduced in the Food Security Act. The Secretary of Agriculture under section 122 amended by the FACT Act of 1990 included an on-site visit to make a delineation determination, if the landowner requests such an on-site visit. In addition, section 1222(a)(4) of the 1985 Food Security Act requires the Secretary to provide a process for the periodic review and update of the delineations, but a landowner may not be adversely affected by any actions the owner may have taken based on an earlier wetland determination made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Chairman Shuster, I assume it was your intent by grandfathering delineations of the Secretary of Agriculture that were final upon enactment of this bill to mean that administrative determinations made by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Food Security Act would also be grandfathered. In other words, the term delineation as used in the clean water amendments of 1995 is meant to include the administrative finality of determinations as that term is used in section 1222 of the 1985 Food Security Act, as amended. Mr. Shuster. If the gentleman will yield, I would answer by saying that he is correct, the committee intends for a wetland delineation made under the Clean Water Act as we are amending it today would provide finality of determinations made by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Food Security Act.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his clarification. And I would only add at this time, Mr. Chairman, that I would also like to rise in opposition to the Gilchrest amendment. Now the Gilchrest amendment, in the eyes of the sometimes powerful House Committee on Agriculture and its members, would provide authority to the Federal regulatory community to decide what classifications will be used for various functions and values of wetlands. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has already spoken to that. I associate myself with his remarks. And to some of these regulators, quite frankly, every wet spot is a valuable wetland. That is the problem. That is the problem with the gentleman's amendment. They will use a seat-of-the-pants science to determine wetlands. I would imagine they would go out in the field, sit down on the ground, and if their pants get damp, why then it would be a wetland. The Gilchrest amendment eliminates the statutory wetlands delineation process of H.R. 961 which requires land to actually be wet for a significant part of the growing season. The committee bill requires some water-loving plants to be found on the ground. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] would eliminate that requirement. He would eliminate the requirements for how hydric soils are delineated. In short, I would tell my colleagues that the Gilchrest amendment guts the committee's well-reasoned, commonsense approach and replaces it with a program ruled by those who write the rules, EPA and Fish and Wildlife. That is part of the problem. We do not need this amendment. The gentleman's intent is good, his leadership is good, he is a fine Member but we should oppose his amendment. Let us get on with the adoption of H.R. 961 and defeat this amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, there is no paranoia here and in the remarks that I want to make, no code words, no hint of violence; it is just straight facts. And the straight facts are these: The House defeated this amendment last week as part of a substitute to the committee bill. It should be defeated in regard to this time around as well. This amendment does nothing to solve the problems farmers and ranchers are having as they attempt to go about their daily lives, subject to the constant hassle, and that is a real word, of Federal wetlands regulators. The problem with this amendment is this: It keeps the 1987 Army corps manual. That manual is the big part of the whole problem. It continues in effect something called a memorandum of agreement between the Department of Agriculture, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the corps. Too many agencies in the wetlands soup. And that document is the source of a lot of possible mischief, even though the President and the administration has hailed it as the problem solver for farmers and ranchers. I think it is time to understand that conserving wetlands is the goal. That is the goal, not conserving Federal rules and regulations. The Boehlert amendment expands the permitting program with monitoring and tracking systems. It sets up all sorts of coordinating committees and ecosystem restoration programs. We have already seen the first hints of ecosystem management in the proposed regulations that were published by the Forest Service. Nobody knows what an ecosystem is, much less how one should be managed. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] last week pointed out to Members that the new definition of dredging and filling contained in the amendment would make cutting grasslands on a wet spot to be a violation of the Clean Water Act. That is exactly the kind of problem we have had before. Now, under the Boehlert amendment the regulators, the corps, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service at the USDA, the old SGS, we changed the name, they would be given carte blanche authority to develop supplemental delineation standards for different regions of the country, add to plant and soil lists and supplement hydrology standards. This will all be done through the regulatory process. The same manual, the same regulatory process, the same hassle, and the same problem for ranchers and farmers. What is needed is a clear policy of where the Congress wants the regulators to take the wetlands legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his leadership on this particular bill. We on this side of the aisle have looked at it very carefully and we agree. We are certainly happy to have the gentleman, on our side of the aisle. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The gentleman from California just made an allegory, made a statement that this is a dangerous liaison. It is not that. It is a partnership effort to prevent close encounters of the regulatory kind. This is a good bill. For 15 years we have tried to get a bill like this making a partnership with industry, agriculture, environmentalists. Fifteen years we have been spinning our wheels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in finally bringing a good bill to the floor of the House. I want to talk about wetlands. The gentleman from Ohio just made a rather graphic reference to what the problem has been. It is true. We have now a well established procedure that says the land must be flooded if it is going to be a wetland. It must support water loving plants, and it must have hydric soils. The land must show clear evidence of all three characteristics. Too long, too long we have been subjected to regulatory nightmares where a low spot in some farmer's field was declared a wetland in an area where no self-respecting duck would ever land. Let us end this business. Let us pass this bill. It is a good partnership. I commend the chairman. I commend his leadership. No member of the Committee on Agriculture on either side should vote against this bill. It is a very good reform bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. As the Transportation Committee noted in its report, the Clean Water Act was last amended in 1987 and most of its authorizations expired in 1991. Because past Congresses could not get a bill out of either committee, our Nation's water quality programs have suffered. And, more importantly, Federal regulators have been allowed to run amok on private lands, entangling farmers, ranchers and other American businesses in unlegislated, prescriptive regulation. It is time to tell the regulators what the policy will be and follow up the enactment of this bill with vigorous oversight. This bill sets sound policy for nonpoint pollution protection of the Nation's waters and amends Section 404 for a commonsense approach to the conservation of wetlands. Farmers and ranchers will find this policy to be both understandable, reasonable--and with proper implementation, very workable for American agriculture. I want to emphasize two important parts of this bill that make it essential policy for the future of American agriculture: amendments to section 319 dealing with nonpoint source programs and title VIII amendments that rewrite section 404 provisions dealing with wetlands. State water quality programs under section 319 of the bill are to be developed using voluntary, incentive-based standards that are likely to be achieved within the 15-year timetable set out in the bill. The amendments fully express the committee's correct understanding that the way to achieve water quality standards is not through command-and- control regulations, but by adopting policies that are possible, and timeliness and deadlines that make sense. To the extent agriculture is responsible for nonpoint source discharges, the committee rightly chose to avoid the top-down approach to regulation. We cannot regulate nonpoint sources as if pollution was coming from the end of a pipe. In addition, the bill includes section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act within section 319, ending a duplicative regulatory regime for agricultural producers in coastal areas. I would caution Members about one provision that admittedly has caused me some concerns--concerns the Agriculture Committee may want to address once this bill is law and the 1995 farm bill has been enacted. That provision gives authority for the chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enter into written agreements with States as they develop their section 319 water quality programs. The incentive for such an agreement would be to give agricultural producers the assurance that they are in compliance with the Clean Water Act. But, the problem is how the agreement may be written. Frankly, farmers and ranchers have not been well served by a similar agreement on wetlands that was hailed by the Clinton administration as the end of controversy on the regulation of wetlands under both the Clean Water Act and the 1985 Food Security Act. We were told under this agreement farmers would no longer be subject to successive visits by Federal bureaucrats. There would be a final outcome on wetland determinations on the ground. Unfortunately, the members of the Agriculture Committee took this announcement on good faith. That faith has been sorely abused. The same kind of regulatory abuse is possible here. The Agriculture Committee intends to watch this closely. The wetlands provisions of this bill are redesigned to finally end the abuse of farmers, ranchers, and other landowners. Title VIII is sound policy. It is derived from H.R. 1330, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] to restore sanity to our national wetlands policy. It recognizes there are different functions and values of wetlands and allows for a ``type C'' wetlands classification that will be left outside of Federal jurisdiction. The Chairman's amendment to be offered today eliminates the concept that land no longer meeting wetland criteria can be classified a prior converted wetland, serving limited wetland functions. A prior converted cropland, one that was drained or filled prior to December 1985, no longer exhibits wetland characteristics--and, should be in law and regulation considered as an upland. These agricultural bottomlands, many of which have been dry for a generation or more, are not wetlands. However, under current law, regulators look at prior converted croplands as just another parcel of private property they control through regulatory fiat which means more regulation, more hassles for the landowner, but no significant gains are realized for the environment. I want to make certain this is clear: prior converted croplands are not wetlands. Under this bill, they fall outside of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The delineation procedures established under the committee-reported bill will make sense to farmers and ranchers. The land must be flooded. It must support water-loving plants. It must have hydric soils. The land must show clear evidence of all three characteristics. Finally, Mr. Chairman, farmed wetlands and other agricultural lands determined to be exempt from subtitle C of the 1985 Food Security Act shall be exempt from the Clean Water Act so long as those lands are used for agricultural purposes. To my colleagues, I say this is good, positive legislation. It protects the wetlands the public believes need protection; it, hopefully, will keep the bureaucrats off private property at least for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. It will bring to an end nearly a decade of abusive, over-reaching regulation. I urge its enactment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute. Mr. Chairman, this is a ``while I'' speech. While I share the concern and admire the leadership of Messrs. Boehlert and Shays and formerly Mr. Saxton, I must rise in opposition to this amendment. Let the record show that I am for a clean Chesapeake Bay. Let the record show I hope the gentleman from New Jersey is able to swim as long as he wants in the Susquehanna, or whatever. But I must say that agriculture has a stake in this. I think there has been debate here, and as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I feel compelled to inform Members that most of those interested in agriculture are very concerned about this substitute. Now, you are going to say ``Who is that,'' and I am going to tell you. The Agricultural Retailers, American Association of Nurserymen, American Crop Protection Association, American Farm Bureau, American Feed Industry, American Sheep Industry, American Soybean Association, CF Industries, Inc., Agriculture Association, Farmland Industries, the dairymen, and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. They are extremely important as you work on the environment. You have got to work with the state departments of agriculture as well as the state departments of environmental protection. We have the wheat growers, the cattlemen, the corn growers, the cotton council. I can go on and on and on. But basically all of agriculture says while they understand the concern and the apprehension of those who have offered this substitute, that we need this bill. We need the other bill. Now, why? Let me also add, if you are from rural and small town America, the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the many outfits here that rates Members of Congress. Some Members of Congress that are about, wake up in the offices, wake up here. The NFIB rating, two times, one on the substitute and one on final passage. They are opposed to the substitute; they are for the final passage. Why would the NFIB and agriculture indicate their opposition to the substitute? Well, the substitute allows the 1987 Core Delineation Manual to be used for making wetlands determinations. That is the manual that has caused all the problems. That has been the problem. This bill sets out a better determination, a much better definition. This 1987 manual would let the regulators decide wetland hydrology by looking at watermarks on trees, even though there is no water on the land. A parcel of land could be damp a foot below the surface and still meet their requirement. That has been part of the problem. We do require 21 consecutive days where a wetland would be wet. I think that makes a little sense. If more than 50 percent of the vegetation on the land is made up of plants that also thrive in other areas, well, there you are, that requirement of qualification is met. This bill, the chairman's bill, the bill that we also support on the House Committee on Agriculture, requires some water-loving wetland plant to be present. I think that makes common sense. I will tell you, I know the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell] and I have the utmost respect for him, has said it does not harm agriculture. I know the gentleman has made a very honest effort in that regard. But the chairman's bill allows State and local cooperation to restore a wetland ecosystem. You know what? We have debated this and debated this. No one here knows exactly what an ecosystem is, a wetlands ecosystem, and that is the problem. Because when these matters end up in a Federal District Court, the judge then turns to the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to tell him what a wetlands ecosystem is, and we are right back to the regulator and we are right back to the problem that has caused all of the problem in regards to farm country. We have heard a lot about the Chesapeake and the Susquehanna. We have got a river in Kansas, one of the few rivers in Kansas. It is called the Arkansas. There is a community there called Great Bend, Kansas. And we heard a lot about nutrients and the different standards. That community is now going to spend $12 million for a new waterworks system. You know why? There is too much chlorine in the water. It could endanger an endangered species fish called the shiner in the local river. One basic problem, there is no water in the river and there is no fish. Now, other than that, it makes a great deal of common sense. That is an extreme example, but that is the kind of thing we are facing in agriculture. Low spots in the field where, as I said before, no self-respecting duck would ever land. I urge you, if you come from rural and small town America, if you care about the NFIB rating, and if you serve on the Committee on Agriculture, vote against this substitute and support the bill. amendment offered by mr. minge to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. saxton

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, doubtlessly, we will return in just a moment to the 1-minute handgrenades back and forth. But first this happy birthday greeting. My colleagues, as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, we are 175 years old as of today. As we begin our work on the 1995 farm bill, it is appropriate for us to take a brief moment to reflect on the long and distinguished story and history of the committee. April 29, 1820, Congressman Lewis Williams of North Carolina, introduced a resolution to create a Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives. Since that time, we have remained true to the original purpose of the committee that was stated by Congressman Williams, to guard and protect the great and leading substantial interests in this country. Hey, the House Ag Committee over the break, 16 hearings, 5,000 farmers in attendance, over 600 witnesses. When we are 200, I can assure you we will continue to do our work, to make sure we have the best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world. Happy birthday, House Ag Committee.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished minority leader of the Committee on Agriculture for yielding. Mr. Speaker, S. 178, the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995, was adopted in the other body on February 10. The bill is a simple one-line reauthorization that provides authority for appropriations through the year 2000. The Committee on Agriculture on Tuesday reported companion legislation by a voice vote and the presence of a quorum. Since the bills are identical and have no opposition, they are identical and have no opposition in either body, we are considering S. 178 so that we may expedite the reauthorization of the Commission. Mr. Speaker, S. 178, the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995 was adopted in the other body February 10, 1995. The bill is a simple one-line reauthorization providing authority for appropriations for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission through the year 2000 at such sums as may be necessary. The Committee on Agriculture on Tuesday reported companion legislation by voice vote in the presence of a quorum. Since the bills are substanially identical and had no opposition in either body, we are considering today S. 178 so that we may expedite the reauthorization of the Commission. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in the 20-year history of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission there has not been, in conjunction with a CFTC reauthorization, either significant amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act or outright questions about whether or not the CFTC should continue to exist. The CFTC is a mature regulatory organization that is overseeing the most innovative and efficient markets in the world--our futures markets, where risk management concepts were born and the price discovery process provides U.S. commerce and industry the information necessary to compete in a global economy. The CFTC has reached regulatory parity with every other Federal regulator, and I would point out to my colleagues has done so with minimal resources and a staff of approximately 550 full-time employees. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to adopt S. 178 today and move it on to the White House, where, I am certain, the President will sign the bill. Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Roberts, as well as the chairman, Mr. Ewing, and ranking minority member, Mr. Rose, of the Risk Management and Specialty Crops Subcommittee for their leadership in providing for the expeditious consideration of S. 178, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization Act of 1995. This Senate bill is identical to H.R. 618 which was reported unanimously from the Committee on Agriculture without amendment. The bill authorizes for each fiscal year through 2000 and I strongly support its passage. In the legislative activity leading up to the enactment of the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 (FTPA; Public Law 102-546), Congress considered and ultimately enacted a number of new responsibilities and authorities for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC]. Those changes were designed to enhance the effectiveness of our futures regulatory system, while accommodating the evolutionary processes which are transforming world financial markets. Our philosophy has been and should continue to be that fair markets are efficient markets, and that a sound, rational and independent regulatory system contributes to their efficiency. The CFTC has made extraordinary progress in carrying out the mandates of the 1992 Act. The Commission's pace demonstrates clearly that it shares the same sense of importance that we had in Congress when those important changes to the Commodity Exchange Act were adopted. As a few examples, since the FTPA was enacted the CFTC has: Approved final rules exempting swap transactions, hybrid securities, and energy contracts meeting specified criteria from the exchange-trading and other requirements of the CEA; Approved final rules prohibiting dual trading on high-volume contract markets that do not have adequate systems for monitoring trading activity; Proposed rules to allow existing futures exchanges to sponsor trading among entities meeting qualifying criteria with relief from some of the regulatory strictures that otherwise would apply; and Approved final rules regarding procedures for exchange emergency actions. In addition, the Commission has submitted five mandated reports to Congress. Notable among these was The Study of Swaps and Off-Exchange Derivatives--one of the more complete and informative discussions of that issue available. Meanwhile, our Nation's futures markets have continued to grow and innovate. During fiscal year 1994 alone, the Commission approved trading in 28 new futures and options contracts. Futures and options volume on the exchanges increased by 27 percent to 510 million trades in fiscal year 1994 from the fiscal year 1993 level of 402 million. While the increased use of U.S. futures exchanges demonstrates the confidence that financial risk managers have in these markets, trading on offshore futures markets--which in many cases trade contracts similar to those on U.S. exchanges--has grown even more rapidly. In its report to Congress, A study of the Global Competitiveness of U.S. Futures Markets, April 1994, the CFTC noted U.S. exchanges' declining share of global futures trading. That trend is largely explained as the initial growth stage in the relatively new, foreign futures markets rather than a reflection of significant cost advantages. It should, however, make us aware in our regulatory policy decisions that we need to balance our efforts to ensure that the markets are sound and fair, with a recognition of the potential for excessive regulatory burdens to disadvantage U.S. futures markets vis-a-vis their foreign competitors. In their efforts to modernize and to comply with trade monitoring requirements in the Commodity Exchange Act, U.S. exchanges continue to work towards the development and implementation of automated audit trail systems. These systems promise to greatly enhance the ability of exchange and Commission enforcement officials to prevent fraud and punish cheaters. Finally, Commission Chairman Schapiro, other Commissioners, and Commission staff continue to be actively engaged in interagency policy coordination regarding securities and securities derivatives markets, over-the-counter derivatives, and other matters of importance in market regulation. In this effort, the Commission has rightfully asserted itself as the expert regulatory agency where derivative markets are concerned. Given the agency's substantial progress in carrying out the will of Congress expressed through the FTPA, I strongly support passage of this bill to extend the Commission's reauthorization through fiscal year 2000. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 178) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to extend the authorization for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to term limits. I think with an issue as important as this, one Member's warning flag in regards to the law of unintended consequences is another's banner of reform. I know that each Member's conviction is such that everybody becomes an author of the best approach. I do appreciate that. I associate myself with the eloquent and persuasive remarks of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I am for the term limit, as has been said that was put in by the Founding Fathers, a 2-year limit. It is called an election. If you utilize your constitutional voting rights, the voters can, has, will, continue to throw the rascals out-- if they so choose. What term limits basically say is that for the sake of change the voters should be denied the right to keep their elected Representative--if they so choose. I am going to skip past all the pros and cons that have been highly featured in this debate and get to the basic point. The basic point is this: If this House of Representatives is in crisis to the extent that we deny the voters the right to reelect their representatives after six terms, then it follows the people responsible for this sorry state of affairs must be those Members who have served here over six terms. And, as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid said, ``Who are these guys?'' Well, for one thing, after the briars and brambles of past scandals and resulting reform and the vote for change in the last election, there are not near as many as there were before. Over half of the Congress is new since 1990. If you want to limit terms to 12 years, you better think about it. The average term of service is now 10. Less than one-third of the House has served more than six terms. What we have here is a mandate for term limits, but not for current Members. We have a terminal illness that is abound and rampant in the House, but we are going to wait 12 years before we take the medicine. Why? I think the answer is pretty simple. General support for term limits is strong. It has been mentioned, 70, 80 percent. But if you say, ``Oh, it is your Member, your Congressman from your district?'' then that drops rather drastically. And proponents of term limits do not find it very pleasant telling fellow members they are part of the problem, and it is time for them to say ``adios.'' As a matter of fact, most of the term-limit proponents slide up to you and say, ``Don't worry, we are not talking about you. It won't affect you.'' And therein lies the truth of the matter. I know there are proponents who believe a revolving-door Congress and change for the sake of change would restore a citizen legislature, but you do not get too far in the debate before it becomes obvious regarding the politics of this purge. It is the other guy that is the problem, not me, and not thee. But if it is off with the public-service heads, whose heads are we talking about? Who in this Congress has been here too long? Using the automatic term limit theory, it appears as if we are talking about most of the Republican and Democrat leadership, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. Let's wipe out the leadership. That is the ticket. Or is it? My word, that is almost insurrection. So it must be somebody else that is at the root of this problem. I took the liberty of just going down the State delegations. Let us see, there is the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], he has been there for 30 years, a most respected Member. He cannot be part of the problem. Is it the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], 24 years? I do not think it is Bob. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]? I do not think so. My friend from Colorado, Mr. Schaefer? I am not trying to single anybody out. The voters can. But term limits cannot. It must be the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], that is who it is, 4 years over this term limit at 16 years. He is the author of one of the proposals. But Bill was unopposed in the last election. His voters just apparently did not get it. The gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]. There is a good one, ``Sonny'' Montgomery, one of the most respected Members of the House. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the gentleman from South Carolina who wants term limits. Tell Floyd he is out and you are in. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]; who is going to tell us when to vote if we term limit Jimmy Quillen? The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], Pat Roberts, Pat Roberts? Now, quiet, no applause. All shapes and sizes and different stripes in regards to their politics. But you know something, all of these Members received over 70 percent of the vote, or they were unopposed. Could these elected Representatives actually be doing a good job for their constituents and, depending on your point of view, for their country? Did Senators Everett Dirksen, Hubert Humphrey, or do Sam Nunn and Bob Dole, did Congressman Bob Michel and Bill Natcher, our beloved Bill Natcher? Every once in a while in a democracy there comes a time when we succumb to populist sentiment, and the emotion of the moment. We usually call it reform, and then we experience the law of unintended effects and spend the next several years trying to reform the reform. This is different. This is different. This amends the Constitution. We do not need to go down this path in order to achieve reform and a House responsive to the people. It is a paradox of enormous irony that in order to make the Congress more responsive to the people, we are recommending a limit on their voting rights. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is right. Henry Hyde is right. Trust the people.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I want to make it clear from the outset I am for the term limit that was placed or that was put in place by our Founding Fathers, that is a 2-year term limit. It is called an election. It seems to me that utilizing their constitutional voting rights, the voters can have and will continue to achieve Thomas Jefferson democracy by throwing the rascals out if they so choose. What the term limit says basically is the voters, because of many reasons, are not up to this job and should be denied the right to send somebody back. But the basic point I think is this: If in fact this House of Representatives is in such a crisis to the extent that we must deny the voters the right to reelect their representatives, if in fact the institution is in such a chaotic state that we must arbitrarily take away the right of voters after 6 or 12 years, then surely the people responsible, the guilty parties, are those who are the career politicians who have been here over 12 years and none of the proposed versions really include the retroactive version of term limits with sound policy. It is sort of like there is a terminal illness that abounds in this House but we are going to wait 12 years before we take the medicine. Why? Well, the why is simple; not many term limiters find it a pleasant task telling experienced Members they are part of the problem and it is time to say adios. So to me, wrapping yourself in the banner of a counterproductive reform is bad enough but exempting ourselves from these reforms does not represent truth in term limits.