Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time last year I estimated, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], with the progress we were making as we were calling forth the incremental reforms--and it was a slow call--that by the year 2010 we would reach our long-held committee funding goals. Well, we did it in 1995. That is 15 years ahead of time. As I have indicated, it is the Chairman Thomas 15-year Great Leap Forward. The resolution we are considering today has really been created in an open public process. It includes all funding. It takes into account every dollar that will be spent by the committees. It is more fair than any funding resolution ever considered on this floor. It represents a savings of $67 million to the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to rise in strong support of this resolution. I truly appreciate having had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on this bipartisan resolution. Hey, it is progress. Vote for it. It is time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Basically what this law says is that these products should only be used when the benefits really exceed the risk. If they do not, if the risks are greater, then the EPA should and does have the authority to ban the use of any kind of product on an emergency basis. In regard to risk-benefit, and I will sum up, and this is the whole issue, my word, when we talk about gridlock, when we talk about time consumed on this issue, 14 years; more than that, 15 or 20 years? People crawl out of train wrecks faster than we handle the food safety laws around here. We have a good bill, H.R. 1627. We need to move on it. I think we have good bipartisan support. However, this bill will, at least by peer review, describe risk assessment so the American public knows what the real risk is. I think common sense would tell us and the American people should understand that in this debate what we are in far greater danger of, harm in regard to these kinds of risks, are from lightning, dog bites, drowning, falling down, too much sunshine, certainly smoking, certainly if we get into the smart juice; or getting in our cars to drive to the grocery store to eliminate the products that some say are unsafe, you are in greater danger of having a car wreck going down to the grocery store in regards to the products. I find it incredible that some in our country would legalize drugs and ban apples. The whole point is I think if we had a cost-benefit yardstick here, or a description that every American could understand, we could put the food safety debate in proper perspective. We could get to risk assessment that would not endanger the apple industry or anybody else that would be in the barrel in regards to these unmitigated attacks on agriculture, and the risk-benefit or the risk assessment would be based, certainly, on sound public opinion.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the substitute. Mr. Chairman, I think Members should pay attention to page 16 of the bill in which it says the document shall magnitude of risk to human health, safety and the environment in context, in context. Such statements shall, to the extent feasible, provide comparisons with estimates of great or lesser and substantially equivalent risks that are familiar to and routinely encountered by the general public as well as other risks. The reason I bring that up is this. Several speakers have indicated we are rushing to judgment. For 14 years and even years before that, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I have served on the sometimes powerful House Committee on Agriculture in an effort to ride this animal called FIFRA out of the chute and finally get some legislation with regard to food safety and finally repeal the clause called the Delaney clause that called for zero risk. Everybody agrees that has to be done. We have tried and tried and tried to forge a coalition between industry, agriculture, and the environmental groups, all to no avail. Part of the problem is the climate that we have had in reference to the whole pesticide issue and the whole business of risk assessment. That is what this bill is all about. The gentleman from California, and his knowledge about this issue is second to none of anybody in the Congress, referred to the alar situation and the fact that it was concerned about children that led to that dispute. It is my recollection that the 60 Minutes story on alar just did not happen. In fact, it was carefully planned by the Natural Resources Defense Council with the aid of a very savvy public relations firm called Fenton Communications. In fact, in a memo published by the Wall Street Journal it was indicated as that report was being finalized, Fenton began contacting the media all throughout the country and that agreement was made with 60 Minutes to break the story. And later in that memo Mr. Fenton stated, a modest investment by NRDC repaid itself many fold in tremendous media exposure and submitted his campaign was a model for other such efforts. What we had was a proven formula for really raising controversy and manipulating the public opinion. And it sure was not sound science. This was a strategy of manipulation that had serious implications for agriculture. In the food safety policy arena, the Congress was left out. The EPA, as a regulator, was left out. The scientific community in its research function was left out. Everybody in agriculture was left out, except the apple producer and they lost $400 million. What we need is an approach to have risk assessment put in a common language that everybody can understand. Accurate science today lies in the eyes of the beholder, and today we have reached the point where risk assessment, based on so-called accurate science, is a shotgun marriage between science and politics. We have in chemical detection technology today the resources to detect parts per trillion, parts per trillion, so we can find a little bit of chemical everywhere we look. Almost everything is contaminated by something else. Mr. Chairman, let us put this issue into perspective. The cancer risk in regard to aflatoxin, what we find in peanut butter sandwiches we feed our children that is 75 times greater than the dietary risk from minute amounts of the chemical EDB that has already been banned as a grain fumigant. The reason I brought that up is I can remember in past debates on this issue, when people were worried about the amount of daminozide, which is the same thing, in peanut butter, and what was safe for our kids. We come to find out that if everybody in this body had to consume the same amount of peanut butter and aflatoxin that the poor lab rat did before he went legs up, everybody here would have to consume 600 pounds of peanut butter a day. Judging from the debate, I know some people over there that I would like to feed 600 pounds of peanut butter a day to, and it would certainly gum up the debate, or at least maybe shed a little bit of light. A swimming pool, a child swimming in a swimming pool for an hour may be exposed to chloroform, that is a by-product of the chlorination we have, at levels that exceed the risk by EDB, which again was a grain fumigant that was banned, I am not for bringing it back, but we chlorinate the pool because the risk of disease and infection from bacteria is much greater than the risk in regard to the chloroform. That is what risk-benefit is all about. We have a pesticide law, I mentioned it before, FIFRA, and we have the Federal Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding, in that we have both worked on the gentleman's statement, and we have mutual concern and interest in making sure this bill in no way impedes the regular, normal business procedures and, yes, also regulations simply within the Department of Agriculture. I think the colloquy is extremely important. I associate myself with the gentleman's remarks, and I think this should take care of many concerns that both of us share.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Mr. Chairman, I think this whole thing depends on whether the lawyer down at the Department of Agriculture believes that the regulations that are now being promulgated in regards to the wool and mohair program fall in the classification of routine. You can talk to John Golden down there; he is the attorney. He expressed some concerns not only in this regard but the whole laundry list of things that was listed here. In talking to Secretary Rominger last night, I know what the situation is here. We have many agencies under marching orders from the administration who express concern about this. We share that concern. I think it does fall under the category of routine. We have made our best effort in this colloquy to make it very clear to the Department that it is routine and that this bill will not interfere with any regulations in regard to the self-help and promotion program for the hard-pressed wool grower. So my answer to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is, with all due respect, I think it is exempted. He has a different view. I think we can make sure. We have oversight responsibility to take care of it. The information referred to follows:

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I ask the gentleman from Missouri to repeat his question.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], for their work to make sure that this legislation will not in any way impede the routine regulatory decisions and actions vital to commerce in a very workmanlike fashion, which my colleagues have done. They have addressed the concerns of the Committee on Agriculture; I appreciate that; with report language that clearly states this legislation is not intended to apply to the marketing orders and our ability to distribute the vital commodities that we have to do. This legislation is good for agriculture, it is good for rural and small town America, and it is long overdue. Now some of my colleagues across the aisle, I understand their concern, but they have expressed very reasonable concerns about the law of unintended effects, that this moratorium will endanger essential regulations. That is not the case. This bill exempts routine administrative action and most of the warnings that have been raised by the majority. Now I realize virtually every Federal agency is under marching orders by this administration to warn of impending doom and that the regulatory sky will fall. That is not going to happen now. I am also sure that agency lawyers can interpret legislation to provoke all sorts of legal problems, if they so choose. That does not have to be that way. We should not have a problem. The other side of the story in reality is that regulatory overkill pouring out of this town has endangered the economic well-being and the essential services of virtually every community, every county, every State, every business up and down Main Street; every hospital, every school, everybody in America. The total cost, $600 billion nationwide, and it is breaking the back of our local government. What is at stake is the very confidence of the people of the United States and their faith in our Government. We are regulating our citizens out of business with a shotgun, You-are-guilty-until-proven- innocent approach. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] said we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Right now the bath water would not meet the clean water standards, the soap would not be labeled right, the tub would be judged unsafe, and parents could not bathe the baby without proper instruction, certification and schooling. It is time for moratorium.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, normally I would be more than happy to agree with the gentleman from Missouri. But the key word is ``routine.'' The question is whether the Department of Agriculture counsel feels that

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and fellow Marines as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Iwo Jima. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona and give special thanks to Gen. Sonny Montgomery. A finer friend of the military and our veterans our Nation has never seen. My father, Wes Roberts, who was a Marine Corps major, who lied about his age at 42 to join the Corps and at age 43 was on Iwo Jima, took part in the 36-day assault on this very key island. Fifteen years later, Lieutenant Pat Roberts, yours truly, went back to Iwo Jima with Lieutenant General Worsham and a contingent of survivors and veterans, and we toured the island. We not only toured Mount Suribachi and the caves and the end of the island, but also the Japanese cemetery to pay homage to those brave veterans as well. And we were standing on top of Mount Suribachi. I will never forget this. All of the veterans of the people who were there at that particular time during the assault looked down at where we had cliffs and then Mount Suribachi and then knee-deep ashes on the beach. And the gentleman turned to me, tears streaming down his face and he said, it is a wonder that anybody ever really made it. It is a wonder anybody was really alive. We toured the island, and we toured those caves where still the dead Japanese are there. And it was an amazing feat in terms of a military victory. Somehow, by persevering, somehow, by uncommon valor and at great cost both to Americans and Japanese, we saved lives and the end result by bringing this war to its proper conclusion. I would like to say, as a former Marine, Semper fi, Dad. Semper fi, Marine Corps. Semper fi, America. God bless the United States Marine Corps.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like for all colleagues to return with me now as we return to the not so thrilling days of yesteryear, when out of the past came the thundering hoofbeats of one horse and one gentleman astride that horse; that is, the unfunded mandates horse. He was the Lone Ranger, and that is the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. He formed a group that was a lonely posse. There were several of us that were riding shotgun with him. We told him to be careful, just like Miss Kitty always tells me when I leave Dodge City, ``Pat, be careful,'' but he was not careful. He forged ahead and he was aggressive. He told the Big Seven it was not really good enough. He did not get a lot of encouragement. Mr. Chairman, I quite frankly did not think we could get this job done, but the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] really persevered, so I want to pay him a great deal of tribute. I am allegedly the co- chairman of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus, but he was the foreman, and he did all the work, so I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], in coauthoring this amendment with myself, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley], and many other members of the unfunded mandates caucus. This has the support of the unfunded mandates caucus. It is bipartisan in nature. The gentleman has simply explained the amendment very well. What it does is to equalize the threshold and brings it down to $50 million in regards to the private sector. It is my considered opinion that all mandates should fall under the careful scrutiny of the Congressional Budget Office. A mandate is a mandate. In fact, I think there are some of us that would support lowering the threshold to zero. This is really an effort by the gentleman from Minnesota, myself, and others, to make the threshold apply to rural and small-town America. Obviously, if you exclude the smaller mandates, that is going to impose a greater burden on small communities. So the gentleman's amendment is certainly appropriate to that effort. There has been some concern about the fact whether or not the CBO can do this job. They can. We have been in contact with the CBO, and I think I should point out to Members that the CBO cost estimates have not always been in agreement with the cost estimates that are prepared by State and by local governments. So if you had a $100 million threshold, as opposed to $50, look what happened in regards to the Motor Voter Act. The cost of implementation as estimated by CBO was $28 million. It costs $26 million alone in regards to California. It is a good amendment. I rise in support of it. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Let the record show the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] was to bring it to the attention of the House at this moment.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise to express my concern and my sense of frustration in regard to the procedure that is now being followed in reference to this debate, and I rise as the cochairman of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus. I am not a member of the committee of jurisdiction, but I rise with a deep-seated feeling that a great majority in this House wants to finish this bill, and I would hope that we could do that. So, in discussing this matter, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues a draft memo that came to my office last January 11. It says, ``From the Democrat leadership'': You may want to change your faxes. It says, ``First and foremost, our actions and statements must comport with and amplify our overall thematic characterizations of the Republican legislative agenda and congressional management. The arrogance and unfairness of the Republican approach during the markup has led to a shoddy product and one that may (though not all)'' not all of your caucus, ``and the members of our caucus believe contains unfair and unsound policies. ``Anger and consternation about this procedural abuse should be restated repeatedly, ``--and goodness knows my colleagues have done that--'' in the days leading up to the floor action by the leadership, using letters to the Speaker and complaining about the mistreatment of the minority, press conferences and discussions with key press people, floor statements, 1-minutes, op-eds, and other communications and techniques.'' Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues' concerns. I know they are concerned about a gag rule and fairness. Lord knows I have been concerned during my tenure when I have been a member of the minority, more especially as a member of the House Administration Committee. I remember times when we were ruled out of order and we could not even speak. I remember one time when the doors were locked and we could not even get in to conduct a hearing. All of the debate, as of right now, is on establishing the purpose and the scope of the bill. Thirty amendments remain. Even if my colleagues do not offer amendments in the second degree, that is 5 hours of debate, 7\1/2\ hours of voting. Now how long is long? We have not got to title I. That is the commission. That is where we go back over existing unfunded mandates and we take care of that, and that deserves debate. Now title II is the regulatory section. Title III is the point of order section. We have not even got there yet. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has an amendment pending on clean water. We have eight. That is between seven and nine, eight amendments on clean water. The first amendment by Mr. Taylor was on clean water. Now, Mr. Chairman, to date we have had 5 days, including 1 day of general debate, 20 hours, 168 amendments have been proposed, 16 amendments have We need to settle this bill. The delay, the crisis, is throughout this country in regard to the city councils, and the school boards, and every business and every farm, every entity that we have out there suffering from unfunded mandates. The Senate has passed the bill, and I must tell my colleagues, which I share their concern about minority rights and the gag rule--my word, people: 30 more amendments, 7\1/2\ hours of voting, 5 hours and we are not even to the 3 titles. How long is long? With all due respect, with all due respect, and I mean this very sincerely, people crawl out of train wrecks faster than you people consider bills.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing in the Congressional Record, pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the committee on January 11, 1995. Appendix A of the committee rules includes excerpts from the rules of the House relevant to the operation of the committee. Appendix B includes relevant excerpts from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In the interests of minimizing printing costs, Appendices A and B are omitted from this submission. Rules of the Committee on Agriculture I. General Provisions a. Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.--The Rules of the House shall govern the procedure of the Committee so far as applicable, and the rules of the Committee shall be interpreted in accordance with the Rules of the House, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are nondebatable motions of high privilege in committees and subcommittees. (See Appendix A for the applicable rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.) b. Applicability to Subcommittees.--The following rules shall apply to meetings, hearings, and other activities of Subcommittees, which are part of the Committee and subject to its authority and direction, only when specifically so stated.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in number 16 or 17 in that list. It was an effort by the EPA to control something called rural fugitive dust, rural fugitive dust. So we called down to the EPA and said what on Earth are we talking about and we could not get an answer. It was one of those things where you call one person after another person after another person. Obviously, with the interstate amendment that the gentleman has proposed, rural fugitive dust would go from one State to another. to me, and I said what is the problem. She indicated to me, ``Well, Congressman, you've got a lot of rural dust out there and it is dangerous to your health.'' I said, ``You're telling me that and I am from western Kansas.'' She said, ``Yes, sir.'' I said, ``Well, what do you plan on doing about it?'' ``Well, we can simply mandate that water trucks go out in the morning and afternoon and spray the country roads, and then you won't have the rural fugitive dust.'' This person was serious. If Members do not think that that mandate was a little specious or a little silly, we have mandates like that. What on Earth would the Towns amendment do in regards to preventing us from exposing this kind of ridiculous mandate to force many of our communities to get in water trucks and spray every rural road in Kansas? That is ridiculous. If in fact this whole entire effort is vague according to the other side who is opposed to this, my word, the gentleman's amendment is as vague and as wide as a barn door. I urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment. We should proceed. We should not pass this exemption. This is a killer amendment, and in case if in fact there is any State that is worried about a very pristine and marvelous lake or area or whatever we are trying to protect, all we have to do is come to the floor like we are doing today, debate the issue, waive the point of order, and protect it. All we are asking for is a debate. So, in that regard I respect the gentleman. I think his amendment should be defeated, and I think we should proceed, especially at this late hour.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those ``I had not intended on making a speech'' speech. But it seems to me as I listened to the debate between the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentlewoman from Colorado, and the gentleman from California in regard to this partnership effort that we have in trying to establish safeguards for clean water and clean air and all of the things that we must do to ensure our country have the cleanup and the safety of every consumer and every citizen. I think the remark was made about a partnership effort in children as being part of the family. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] touched on this just for a moment, but I think it bears some amplification, more especially as it applies to this amendment. An example I would like to bring is that of a small community in Kansas in my district by the name of Pretty Prairie. Now, Pretty Prairie has under 1,000 people. It has been in a growing dispute with the EPA for the last 4 or 5 years. The EPA in their infinite wisdom has reduced the level of nitrates in regard to what is safe and not safe from 20 parts per million to 10. And all of a sudden the EPA through the State agency informed this small community that they were out of compliance. Some 600 to 800 people were forced to try to come up with some kind of a plan to address the EPA dictate, or the mandate. We are talking nearly a million bucks. A million bucks to develop a new waterworks or face all sorts of fines and problems. This community asked the EPA whether or not bottled water would substitute. Now, why do we have a change in the nitrate level moving from 20 parts per million to 10? That is to prevent the blue baby syndrome. Except there is one problem here that nobody seems to understand from the EPA. Nobody was sick. No child was sick. There has never been a case in Kansas in regard to the blue baby syndrome. But all of a sudden here is Pretty Prairie having to come up with a million bucks to change their entire waterworks. So the community said, fine, we will use bottled water, but that does not suit the EPA. We are still in discussion after 4 or 5 years with this mandate that is about to put this town out of business. That is the kind of parent-child relationship it seems to me is what is wrong about this. This has happened all over my district. I can give case after case after case where there is a growing rebellion in regard to the partnership effort that should be established with all of the alphabet soup agencies that come down with these mandates. In Kansas today in 105 counties, all of the county commissioners have to spend at least half of the budget on these mandates, and in many cases they are counterproductive, they do not apply and they are just downright silly. Let me give one other example I am worried about in regard to the Towns amendment. I have great admiration of the gentleman. But in St. Francis, KS many senior citizens came to me and signed a petition and said why are you increasing our trash fee three or four times as much as the current fee. These are senior citizens who are now living on fixed income. And the EPA there, through the landfill regulations and through the State agency, said from date certain last October you are going to have to have all of your trash hauled to a regional landfill. There are two problems. One, there was no regional landfill, and there were not any trucks to haul the trash. There was a suggestion made that we would go to Denver, but Denver did not want it. That would simply go across the State line. The Towns amendment obviously would simply prevent us from really trying to focus on that kind of a mandate. So here are the senior citizens on fixed income in St. Francis, KS saying to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], why are we paying for this mandate. I will tell my colleagues what will happen. Every senior citizen there will get the neighbor boy to come and take the trash and put it in a pickup truck and they will dump it in a ditch, and we will have trash blowing all over the Great Plains as a result of this damn fool mandate, and it is interstate. Let me give one other example if I might. Some time ago the EPA proposed 65 mandates to help clean up all of rural and small-town America.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing by request legislation that reauthorizes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission through the year 2000 at unspecified annual appropriations. I am joined by Messrs. de la Garza, Ewing, and Rose. The CFTC is the independent agency charged with regulating the Nation's 10 active commodity futures exchanges, the professional brokerage community of futures commission merchants and introducing brokers, commodity trading advisers and pool operators. Futures exchanges for years have met the vital economic needs of price discovery and risk management to U.S. agriculture. And, during the last 20 years, we have seen an explosion of trading in exchange derivative products on industrial and precious metals and energy commodities as well as financial instruments. Interest rate and stock index contracts continue to show phenomenal growth trends as more and more commercial and industrial enterprises understand the benefits of hedging economic risks in the futures and options markets. Within the past decade, useful off-exchange markets have developed in individually negotiated instruments with characteristics of traditional futures and option contracts. The CFTC is there to make sure the designated exchanges continue to promote fair and orderly trading, to police legitimate over-the-counter markets and to prosecute with State law enforcement authorities illegal boiler room activities that have operated for years in the gray areas of the Commodity Exchange Act. My colleagues and I believe a simple, 5-year authorization is appropriate at this time, since the Commission's regulatory activities were thoroughly debated during the last reauthorization, which was concluded in October, 1992. The Commission operated without authorization during fiscal years 1990 through 1992 while the Congress debated several issues of crucial importance to our financial markets. The CFTC has been without an authorization so far in this current fiscal year, and this committee must assume its legislative responsibilities. There still are outstanding issues and questions about competitiveness and regulatory intrusions, but I would hope that we could deal with them, if necessary, in separate legislation. In that regard, the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 required the precise, independent and unalterable recordation of all trade executions to be an industry standard by October 1995. The Congress rightly understood the technological problems involved in attaining this mark and provided some flexibility. I might add here that the House committee report making appropriations for fiscal year 1995 concluded that the exchanges had made good faith efforts to meet the audit trail requirements. The Appropriations Committee said it expected the Commission to grant an extension to the exchanges beyond the 1995 deadline. Although I, as one Member, have not concluded whether or not the Commission should grant the extension, it is up to the Committee on Agriculture to deal with this matter. Finally, Mr. Speaker, off-exchange derivatives trading has been making headlines recently. Procter & Gamble, Gibson Greeting Cards, and other private companies as well as several public funds, including the now famous fund controlled by Orange County, CA, have lost large sums of money through derivatives investments. Many of these transactions may have been made without adequate understanding of the risks involved in highly leveraged instruments. There may have been breaches of fiduciary responsibilities in some of these cases. At any rate, so far the regulators have held their fire in requesting new authorities. I understand the SEC is asking for some voluntary restrictions of certain unregulated subsidiaries of SEC registrants, but, beyond that and other administrative actions taken recently by banking regulators, I would hope the Congress moves cautiously in this area of financial regulation. Derivatives are not new even though a casual reading of the business press would lead you to a different conclusion. There is little the Congress can do to legislate against poor judgement. In those instances where fraud is found, then there are appropriate laws to deal with the problem. To restrict the legitimate uses of derivatives--and few doubt their legitimacy whether they are exchange-traded futures and options or over-the-counter hedging and investment instruments--would be a profound error.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Why would our colleagues Gary Condit and Mr. Geren and Mr. Moran, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Portman, and this [[Page H352]] Member, and 100 Members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle, join together in a posse, if you will, and indicate that they would work very hard for some kind of bipartisan bill to deal with unfunded mandates and call ourselves the Unfunded Mandates Caucus? I credit them in regards to their leadership, more especially Mr. Condit, who has persevered on this issue, and now we are about to achieve something that I think will be real progress. I will tell you why: The cost of Federal regulations today is more than $400 billion annually. That is more than the deficit. The Federal Government now has 122,000 regulatory personnel. The Federal Register has grown from 55,000 pages to 70,000. And in 105 counties in Kansas, every county board meeting that meets, every time during their budget considerations half of their expenditures must go to some form of Federal mandate. Some may be needed, many more are not. And many are silly and counterproductive and destroy the one element, the one issue, that is most important of all, and that is the faith and confidence of the American people in their Government. There are some that say we need more hearings. My word, we have had hearings for 3 years. Mr. Condit and I wrote the then majority leadership of the appropriate committee, asked for hearings, were denied, had a hearing, had a bill reported, does not do enough. This bill does. I will tell you why hearings have been held. Every school board, every county board, every city council, every country commission, every cooperative board, every business up and down Main Street, every Member in this Congress has had to go to bat on behalf of a community or a county or an individual or a business. Those hearings have been held. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman has indicated, Ed Madigan and the Madigan family come from Illinois, Lincoln, IL, as he has stated, to be exact. And to borrow from President Lincoln's famous address, it is altogether fitting and proper that we do this. More especially, in regard to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], who is now so ably representing the 15th district, Mr. Ewing, like Ed Madigan, serves on the House Agriculture Committee, and in many ways, I think, exemplifies Ed Madigan's legacy of positive attributes. All of us who have admired and known and love Ed want to thank my colleague, more especially, for taking this special order. us to say, in essence, ``That was a mighty fine speech.'' Or, ``What you said certainly makes sense to me.'' And we put it this way: ``I thank the gentleman,'' or ``gentlewoman, and I associate myself with his remarks.'' Now today there are many, many of Ed's friends who share our sense of personal loss and love for this man and his family, who associate themselves with this special order. In this regard I do want to make special mention of former Congressman Bob Smith of Oregon. It was Bob Smith and Pat Roberts, along with any farmer and rancher who knew Ed Madigan, who thought we should and fought to make Ed Secretary of Agriculture. We had been riding shotgun with him for a long time. The same applies to the members of the ``team'' Madigan, if I may use that term, both on the Hill and at the Department of Agriculture, talking about Chuck Hilty, Bill O'Connor, Diane Liesman, Jackie Parke, Mary McGrane, Allie Devine, and Jim Waller. I would also like to make special mention of former deputy secretary of agriculture Ann Veneman, who worked with Secretary Madigan in streamlining the USDA and certainly making it more cost-effective. I know this list could go on for many special orders in regards to Ed's many friends, but I also want to mention one person, Ed's special friend, Joe Quattrone, or ``Joe Q.,'' of the House barbershop. All of us miss him, and he is part of us. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentleman of the House, in reflecting on what I would like to say and should say during this special order, I came to one very obvious conclusion. Simply put, when our Republican leader Bob Michel spoke in giving the moving and very eloquent eulogy for Ed Madigan, he spoke for us all. And borrowing from Lincoln again, I believe we can neither add nor detract from what Bob Michel stated. Mr. Michel's eulogy will follow my remarks. So in closing, let me say on behalf of Ed's family, his wife Evelyn--and what a source of strength and resolve and love she has been to us all and to Ed and the family: To Kim, Kellie, Mary Elizabeth, brother Bob, sister Sandra, and all of the grandchildren, that we share in your sense of personal loss and that you are in our prayers. If Ed were with us today, in his true Irish wit, he would put his glasses down on his nose, sitting somewhere in the House, and as he has done many times in the House Committee on Agriculture, he would say, ``That is enough, Roberts.'' But I do want to repeat a quote from Helen Steiner Rice which I think pretty well sums up how we feel and how we should feel as we celebrate Ed's life. Helen Steiner Rice said the following: 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 in cheer, And I in turn will comfort you and hold you near. And that is the way that Ed would want us to conduct ourselves, to live our lives to the fullest, thankful that the Lord really gave us the opportunity to know him and to share this all too brief time in space. I submit the eulogy of Mr. Michel for the Record. Eulogy for the Honorable Edward R. Madigan (Offered by Republican Leader Robert H. Michel, Dec. 12, 1994) Evelyn, Kim, Kellie, Mary Elizabeth, brother Bob, Sister Sandra and Grandchildren. It's a most difficult task to be called upon to speak when you are overcome with grief in the passing of a loved one. All the more so when it's your close friend and colleague who has been taken from you so suddenly. We find it particularly hard to take when the last time we saw Ed, scarcely two months ago, he was in his usual good form speaking atop a couple of bales of straw at a Logan County Pig Roast he was hosting for Ray LaHood just before the election. We simply can't fathom the speed with which the scourge of cancer can take its toll on what we all perceived as a very healthy, robust, tall and erect good-looking fellow like Ed Madigan. Who are we to know what our fate will bring--the whys and wherefores--all we know and feel is that Ed was taken from us all too soon. His was a life deeply steeped in politics, and devoted primarily to public service. I knew him as a very able state legislator before he came to the Congress where he served for another 20 years prior to being selected by President Bush as his Secretary of Agriculture. During the extended period we worked closely together and became fast friends. He was not the flamboyant type, but rather one who prided himself in doing his homework, quietly going about his business, getting the facts, and being a stickler for detail. In short, he was a legislator of the old school. A legislative craftsman genuinely interested--and marvelously skilled--in forming good legislation out of the give-and-take of debate and discussion. To legislate successfully in a democracy means not only being able to understand the problems, or articulate the problems, but also the rare ability to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to solve the problems. Some political activists call such an approach ``compromise.'' Ed called it by its real name: democracy in action. I can tell you from experience that not everyone is capable of enduring the long hours, the endless debates, the mixture of raging ego and intense ambition and partisan enmities that make up so much of the legislative process. But Ed Madigan, with that sense of civility and reserve and decency which seemed inherent in him, went about his work patiently and proudly, always being the perfect gentleman. He was proud to be a public servant at a time when public service has been getting bad press. Well, Ed Madigan's life is the answer we give to those who doubt that a genuine sense of public service still live in this country. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and of the Agriculture Committee, Ed always brought to his duties that enviable but indefinable quality called class. Ernest Hemingway once defined courage as ``grace under pressure.'' We might similarly define class as grace under the glaring spotlight of public life. There was a sense of easy, good-humored charm about Ed, always tempered by that sense of reserve, that attractive reticence, that innate self-possession that is as rare as it is admirable in the rough and tumble world of politics. And that is how we will remember him: his class, his sense of calm amidst the storm, the easy, comfortable charm of the born leader. Again I thank the gentleman for yielding and reserving this special order.