Zach Wamp

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the First District of Tennessee, a district they now call by his name after 33 quality years of service. Mr. Chairman, let me say as a freshman conservative Republican Member of this body, who came here to this Congress a few months ago with the No. 1 goal of staying here to see the Federal Government's budget come into balance, I came here knowing that I represented a part of this country where TVA and the Appalachian Regional Commission have provided quality service for a number of years, and that we would have to cut spending in the programs in my backyard. And we are going to do that. This amendment and the next amendment are taking a budget and shrinking it substantially with severe cuts. But when I took office I said to the elected representation at the local level throughout my district, will you please tell me as I go to Washington to represent the citizens that you and I represent together, what has worked the best? What is the most effective Federal programs you can refer to? Let me tell you, the Appalachian Regional Commission was at the top of the list, time after time, because it is hard dollars for roads and gas and sewers and utilities and things that create a better economy in this region. It is a quality service, a critical service, and this is a step toward a balanced budget, a 50 percent cut in funding. This is what a conservative Republican would support, not oppose, as we seek to share this patriotic burden to balance the Federal budget across the board. The ARC has taken a 50-percent cut.

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

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am from the Third District of Tennessee, and, gratefully, have more TVA employees in my district than any other district in this Nation--6,000 TVA families live and work in my district. I will tell you from firsthand experience, Mr. Chairman, while it might surprise you, that the Tennessee Valley Authority is not perfect. Neither is the Pentagon perfect, neither are the Centers for Disease Control perfect, neither is the White House perfect, and neither is this institution perfect. But I have not seen any amendments to zero those core functions out. This amendment does not say ``Let's find an area that can be restricted further and reduce it.'' It says zero. It says cut it off, cold. Let me tell Members this: TVA is much better off than it used to be, because the TVA Board is appointed by the President of the United States. The TVA Board has been run by the Democrats at times, it has been run by the Republicans at times. It survived a few years under the leadership of who they call ``Carvin' Marvin'' Runyon, who now runs the U.S. Post Office. I will tell the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], he would be one of your kind of guys, because he goes in there and cuts it to the bone. I told TVA at that time I thought it would be good for them to have the years under Marvin Runyon. I tell my friends at the post office the same thing. It is one of the best things that can happen to you. We experienced almost a 50-percent reduction in employment through the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Tennessee Valley Authority is going in the right direction. There is one basic flaw to the Klug amendment to zero out TVA. That is the stewardship, the water management part, what keeps backyards from flooding all along this river system. There is no provision for the Army Corps of Engineers beginning October 1 of this year when this money runs out to take that function over. We have already gone through that part of this bill, this appropriations bill, and there is no addition to pick this function up. So the bill is fundamentally flawed. As I said earlier on another amendment, I believe everyone must share in this patriotic challenge to balance the Federal budget. The TVA is no exception, and I told them that earlier when I got here, my friends at TVA, ``I am going to fight for you, but you are going to have to take some licks. You are going to have to do your share. You are going to have to show the country.'' So we reduced the budget in the appropriations process from $143 to $103 million, a substantial reduction. This is the TVA's share to this patriotic challenge. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to oppose [[Page H 6874]] the Klug amendment and support continued, but less, TVA funding.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand the proper intent of our colleague and friend from Missouri to save money and try to help us with this patriotic challenge to balance the Federal budget. I tell you, we are at a critical time right now with this issue on this floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as we move forward to not make dramatic mistakes in this country. We have got to separate good sense from nonsense, and I will tell you right now, to say that scientific investment in basic research that will not be accomplished by the private sector, we know that anyone that knows, and I am not a scientist but I understand, and I know a lot of real good scientists, and I do represent Oak Ridge, TN, and I am proud some of the finest scientists in the world Nobel Prize winners, like Dr. Cliff Shull, in neutron science, are in Oak Ridge, TN. I take great disagreement with the gentleman from Missouri in what he called a jobs program. This is about research in the areas of pharmaceuticals electronic materials, metallurgy, ceramics, chemistry, biology, superconductivity, condensed matter, physics, and let me walk you though briefly where we have been on this issue. The advanced neutron sources was a major project. It was what President Reagan would call throwing the ball deep on staying ahead of the rest of the world with respect to research and technology. It was too expensive, sir. Maybe $3 billion, if it would have been built, a lot of money. It was also a nuclear-based, reactor-based project. We had a nonproliferation problem that we were going to have to address with the reactor-based neutron project. This new project is an accelerator-based project, not a nuclear reactor-based project. [[Page H 6851]] So you do not have the waste problem to deal with, and you have far less expense. But here is the critical issue: We in the new Republican majority are trying to make statements about basic research versus applied technology, separating the role of the private sector from the critical need for the Federal Government of the United States of America to continue making basic investments so that we stay competitive globally, so we can, sir, save lives, and I mean that. When you are talking neutron science, you are talking about potential cures for severe medical problems, major breakthroughs. So, here, are we going to be just absolute libertarians that the Federal Government should even barely exist or not exist at all, or are we going to say in a very conservative budget balancing, stand firm in your conviction, so that the Federal Government has a legitimate role in certain key areas, and that is basic research? And this is at the most basic level, sir, a very good investment, and this is not particularly where this facility is going to be built. We have not selected where the neutron source is going to be built. This is where the design is going to take place, and this is $8 million. Last year's budget for the ANS was $20 million. We are retreating from that because this is a time of belt tightening and budget restraint. We are doing that. But we have got to continue the design in this direction so that we are prepared if this Congress makes the decision next year and the year after and the year after to go forward with the construction of this project to say this is where it should go. I would respectfully disagree, strongly, that Los Alamos is the place for this project because we have been working on this project in Oak Ridge since the inception of neutron science. Our national competitiveness is at stake. This project warrants our support. It is a small amount of money, and if we in this fever, and I am glad that the fever pitch is here, to balance the budget and cut spending, but this is where I will guarantee you this Congress is going too far if we just say let us just discontinue funding in all of our basic research efforts in science and technology in this country. We will live to regret this if we go forward with killing this initial design money. The scientists and the technological community agree, including the leaders of the University of Missouri, where our sponsor of this bill hails, support this project. I clearly believe we need to defeat the Volkmer amendment and stand up for the basic research that this Federal Government can do well.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor--and proud to number among my friends--Dr. W. Robert Fowler, a distinguished citizen of the 3d District of Tennessee. Dr. Fowler was recently promoted to major general in the Tennessee Army National Guard just before he retired-- exactly 50 years after he first joined World War II. He served as well during the Korean war and even returned to duty for Operation Desert Storm during the Persian Gulf war in 1990-91, when he was the oldest combat soldier serving. That span of service well illustrates the achievements and devotion to duty, the community, and the Nation that has marked Dr. Fowler throughout his life. Dr. Fowler began his career of service in 1945 when he hitchhiked to Fort Bragg, NC, to join the 82d Airborne Division. He served in the infantry, and after the war attended the University of North Carolina and Duke University Medical School. In the Korean conflict, he served as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army Medical Corps. Following that conflict, Dr. Fowler spent 26 years practicing general surgery and serving the Chattanooga area community. He retired as a surgeon in 1984, but in 1987 became active in the Army again when he joined the Tennessee Army National Guard as a battalion surgeon. During that service, Dr. Fowler conceived of the idea of making Guard units available to treat indigent patients. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Dr. Fowler was called to active duty and served on the front lines as a combat surgeon. By no means the least of Dr. Fowlers's accomplishments is the fact that he married a lady who is well-known and well liked by all of us on the Hill--former Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd, who worked tirelessly for 20 years to serve the 3d District that I now represent. Our Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist is to be commended for promoting Dr. Fowler to major general. I am sure everyone here joins me in congratulating Dr. Fowler and in wishing him and his wife--our former colleague--the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I too will support the Kasich plan and the Neumann-Solomon budget. I call the Neumann budget the why-not budget because my constituents back at home say to me, ``Why can not we just freeze spending at last year's levels?'' People in Washington say it can not be done. My constituents say, ``Why not?'' They ask me, ``Why can't we just bite the bullet and pay off the debt while we're at it?'' People in D.C. say it can not be done. My constituents say, ``Why not?'' People back home say, ``Why can't a guy go to Washington and immediately make a difference?'' The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has proved you can. He is a freshman. This is the why-not budget. I came here to defend the programs in my district but I came here most importantly to defend freedom in this country. In this world, in fact. We are the last best hope for freedom in this world, and this is the first step toward saving the United States of America from an economic train wreck.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. Mr. Chairman, I very reluctantly rise in opposition to my distinguished chairman's amendment. He was gracious enough to ask me to serve as the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources through which this legislation moved. But today this is a litmus test issue, I believe, on whether or not we are going to stand for any more Government regulation. The people spoke clearly last year. They believe they are overregulated, overtaxed, overlitigated, and I rise in grave concern tonight. Just last week our friends in the Senate said to the American people they were going to retreat from litigation reform. The folks back home tell me, ``Do not retreat from regulatory reform, do not retreat from litigation reform,'' and today I bring my colleagues an elaborate chart on the wetland process. I mean this is unbelievable. We are here to try to bring the pendulum and the balance of regulations back to the middle, and I am showing my colleagues a chart of exactly how complicated it is to actually get a permit for a wetland in our country. This is a chart which actually shows how mischievous it can be for our Federal bureaucrats to slow the progress and actually take away, over time, the constitutional rights of our citizens. I say to my colleagues, Let's say that you inherited a piece of property, and then you determine that maybe one-tenth of one acre of this multiacre site may happen to be lower than the threshold of the water table, and it's determined to be a wetland. So, first you have to go and demonstrate, through this elaborate process, that, yes, in fact it's a wetland, and that's not easy to do, to determine whether or not you even have a wetland. Then you have to make a decision through these regulatory processes exactly what kind of a wetland it is, and that's a whole other process, takes weeks, costs a lot of money. Now you're ready to apply for a permit for your wetland, and then they say, ``Wait a second, wait a second here now. Have you been to the Corps of Engineers? How about the Environmental Protection Agency? How about the Fish and Wildlife folks? And what about all those State and local agencies?'' In my home State you also have to go to the Tennessee Valley Authority. I say to my colleagues, By this time you're about to give up. It's taken weeks and months, and you spent countless moneys trying to determine whether or not in fact this property is yours or whether this property belongs to the Federal Government. I mean after all don't we live in the United States of America where we have a clear definition in the Constitution of what belongs to us and what belongs to the Government? This is a complex maze, and you have to get through it. The Boehlert amendment was conceived by good folks with good intentions, but let me tell my colleagues this. It costs more money than what we have today, and it adds to the bureaucracy over and above the level of bureaucracy that we have today. Wetlands, unlike point- source and nonpoint-source pollution, which I understand whey we need a balance of regulation with respect to point-source and nonpoint-source pollution. We need some regulations. Wetlands in many parts of this country are nonsensical. Our legislative initiatives in the past have led to a system of frustration. The American people are not achieving justice through the regulation of wetlands. Many people's constitutionally guaranteed private property rights have been usurped by a Federal Government gone amuck. All we are asking by reforming the Clean Water Act here in 1995 is that we return to common sense. The chairman's mark with respect to wetlands, which we are here to pass, H.R. 961, addresses wetlands in a sensible, reasonable, rational approach. The Boehlert amendment gives us more Federal Government. Our party, I am grateful to say, the Republican Party, is big enough for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and his vice chairman, myself, to debate this issue and very much disagree, and I am glad that we have a party big enough to have these differing opinions. But I take the side of the constitutionalists, the Framers, those that guaranteed private property rights, those who said, ``Beware of the Federal Government becoming too big and too powerful. Over time it can creep up on you. You don't even know it's happening,'' and here we are in 1995 saying wetlands is a constitutional question. I am going to side with those who framed this Constitution, those who own the private property across this country. Let us clean this mess up. Let us give the power back to the citizenry. Let us take this bureaucratic system [[Page H4943]] and reduce it to something that is reasonable. I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I came to the well yesterday and talked about the pendulum of regulation being pulled back to the middle, not going back to where we were, but to where we should be based on a reasonable balance of regulation. One of the other defining issues, I believe, in this new Congress is this notion of do we trust those that we elect to office in our respective States with a lot of the decisions that come before the people in those States. We do not have to federally micro-manage every specific element of every program. We need to Clean Water Act. We do agree with the concept of clean water. But overregulation, I believe, is what brings us to this debate in 1995 to amend the Clean Water Act with some reasonable amendments. I believe the States will do the right thing. I believe the elected leadership of our States are closer to the people, they are more responsible to the people. And I believe that sometimes costs can shut down a free market and there needs to be a reasonable balance of regulation. That is what we are here today, yesterday, and even tomorrow to debate with these revisions to the Clean Water Act. I clearly believe that this amendment goes too far again with Federal micro-management of many decisions that can be best made by our States. The 10th amendment clearly articulates the difference here between the Federal micro-management and the rights we should have in our States. Mr. Chairman, I encourage our friends from both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, in both my committees, I have heard from the EPA and specifically from EPA Administrator Carol Browner that they need our help in using sound scientific research to make policy decisions. Many of the complaints I have heard about the EPA over the years is that there seems to be, to put it mildly, a poor match between their decisionmaking and their research. Now I'm not seeking to rake EPA over the coals one more time here, but to offer positive steps to solve the problem. Many of my colleagues agree that it is time to put our money where their mouth is. I offered an amendment in subcommittee, later revised in the full committee and again in consultation with Science Committee chairman Bob Walker's input in the Shuster en-bloc amendment here today, to make sure that in these tight budget times we do not lose sight of the fact that water quality research remains a vital function of how the federal government can participate in making our environment better. But more importantly, my amendment has the intent not to fund the continued ``paper-pushing research'' of Washington bureaucrats, but to invest in cooperative efforts of localities and small municipalities, counties, and cities to find solutions to their clean water challenges. Specifically, asking EPA to use nonprofit and private organizations with expertise in water quality research, combined with the technical assistance necessary to get that information into the hands of rural and small town water authorities, will give us an independent body of information to make more sound decisions and achieve cleaner water. I'd like to include in the Record a letter I have received from one such independent organization, stating the need for funding such research. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA, March 29, 1995. Mr. Bob Castro, Legislative Assistant, Office of Congressman Zack Wamp, Washington, DC. Dear Bob: Thanks for the news that Congressman Wamp is supportive of legislation supportive of water quality research. We believe that increased funding on the national level is critical to ensure: 1. Science base for environmental decision-making. Wastewater utilities are concerned with ``unfounded mandates''. They believe that improving water quality is not a mandate, but a responsibility. Water quality professionals seek assurance, through sound science, that public money spent on water quality improvement programs achieve the desired results. 2. Simply stated, the technology of today is based upon the research of the past. The promise of the future is based upon the research of today. 3. The research needs focus is changing. In the past water quality concerns focused on fishable/swimmable waters and the technical issues of volume of wastewater, suspended solids, organics, and pathogens. The new focus is on health impacts, risk, watersheds, conservation, and others. New technologies are needed to focus on nutrients, toxics, residuals, air, reuse, and prevention. Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional input. If there is any additional information required, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Glenn Reinhardt, Executive Director.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, several months ago dozens of us were sent to Washington, DC, to try to bring back to this institution balance and reason. The American people want the pendulum to come back to the middle. We have gone too far with regulation. We have gone too far with litigation. We have gone too far with taxation. I could go on and on. The pendulum needs to come back to the middle. We are not, as you hear from the other side, rolling back and gutting and destroying and all of these emotional words. We are bringing the pendulum back to the middle and preserving clean water and doing the right thing, but making it tolerable for our free society. I am proud to come from Chattanooga, TN, a city that at one time was on the dirty air list in this country. Through a spirit of cooperation from the private sector and some government regulations--yes, some but not too many--we have gone from the dirty air list in this country in Chattanooga, TN to the clean air list. We are now becoming a model with respect to water quality and the improvements there in Chattanooga, but it is done out of a desire to cooperate between the private sector and the public sector, and it is not a result of Federal Government micromanagement in every single affair of our citizenry in this country. H.R. 961 maintains our commitment to clean water while honoring our constitutionally protected private property rights. Every mud puddle in America should not be a wetland. We do not live in Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. We must protect our constitutional rights. Sometimes in order to understand where we need to go, we need to look back. Today I reference Thomas Jefferson's quote. He said, ``A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuit of industry and improvement.'' The Clean Water Amendments of 1995 meet Thomas Jefferson's charge of the balance of regulation. Back home, since I came here, the folks say to me, ``Isn't there anything that Democrats and Republicans can agree on? Do they always have to go to the House floor and say they're the worst and we're the best and engage in all this partisan division?'' Folks, this is it. This is a historic piece of legislation, and dozens of reasonable Democrats are going to join us. I worked on the subcommittee and the committee level with these reasonable Democrats and they led the charge: good men and women from all across the country saying this is a case where the government has become too big and society with these onerous regulations. Bring the pendulum back to middle. All of my reasonable colleagues on both sides of the aisle join us in support of H.R. 961. We will do the right thing together.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I personally wish that we did not need term limits but we do. The institution of Congress became arrogant and out of touch. The people want a citizen legislature. I have some friendly advice for some of the senior Members of this body from both sides of the aisle. If you think your seat in Congress belongs to you, and not the people, it's time for you to go home. Because the Republican leadership had the courage to finally bring a vote on term limits, you can vote against term limits this year, and the folks back home can vote against you next year. When I was growing up, the Fram oil filter man used to say: ``Pay me now or pay me later.'' While I plan to vote for all of the majority amendments, I much prefer the Hilleary amendment. I commend my colleague the gentleman from Tennessee for his recognition of the people's will in 22 States and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. announcement by the chairman

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, to keep convicted felons from receiving Government welfare benefits is through my eyes a no-brainer. This amendment will fix an injustice in the current system that I believe no one wants. Mr. Chairman, no matter what side of the debate you fall on, I think you will agree that welfare dollars should not be spent on criminals, should not be spent on criminals who have successfully avoided the law. This is not the type of success we want to reward. While you may agree this is wrong, the gentlewoman from Texas thinks this does not happen very much. It is an exception that is costing the taxpayers an estimated $1 billion annually. urge my colleagues to support this amendment and close a disgusting loophole in the welfare bureaucracy. Two hundred years ago Benjamin Franklin said: I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in my opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good for the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, as we enter into this debate on welfare in this country, I think it is important to recognize that my colleague from west ago when I first got here that he really believed that neither party had an exclusive on integrity or ideas, and I agree with that Congressman. And this should not be a Republican or a Democrat issue. This should be an American issue. It is clear in my heart that this country wants this welfare system to change, not to be reformed but to be replaced. They want a working opportunity society. They do not want the continuance of the status quo with regard to welfare. The Washington Post this moring--we all know the tendency politically of the Washington Post--editorialized and said about welfare: ``Besides, what's the choice? The existing approach has failed and the public has no appetite for vast new social programs even if there were evidence they worked, and there isn't.'' You know an outstanding Tennessee Congressman, Colonel Davey Crockett on the very floor of this House said about welfare, ``We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please as charity; but as Members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money'' for charity. Franklin Roosevelt said in 1935 about welfare: ``Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.'' There is a great article in this month's Reader's Digest. It is called ``True Faces of Welfare.'' In it is a case study of a welfare recipient whose story appeared. Her name is Denise B. ``Denise says she would like to work. But she would have to earn a lot, she says, for it to be a better deal than welfare.'' She talks about how she would have to go to school, and work her way up to a higher salary. ```It's a lot of work and I ain't guaranteed to get nothing.'...Welfare by contrast, is guaranteed--(in her words) `until they cut it out, until they say no more.' Denise knows politicians are talking about that now and she does not believe they are wrong.'' ``Welfare,'' she offers, `is an enabler. It's not that you want to be in that situation. But it's there. We always know.'' This has become a national attitude about this system, and it hurts children, and true compassion is what I want to discuss here tonight in my short time and as I rise to my feet to talk about welfare. In my home city a social worker who I will leave unnamed came to me several times in the last few years to tell me of a story in Chattanooga, TN, where multiple children were being born for one reason and one reason only, and that is financial, to gain more benefits. You know that system creates the worst form of child abuse imaginable, in my estimation, because children then are not born for the right reasons. They are not born because their parents want to love them and sacrifice for them and set aside their own ambitions, and give to them and nurture and educate them. They are born so that they can receive financial benefits. And the stories continue to roll in of how many situations we have like this across the country. The neglect that those children are suffering because this system promotes this kind of activity is what we need to focus on as we say listen. Everyone agrees, it is time to eliminate the welfare system and replace it with an opportunity society. In the last 30 years we have spent $5 trillion on welfare in this country, and we have got more illegitimacy, more poverty, more problems, more crime than you could ever buy with $5 trillion. It has not worked and it is time to move on. And I believe from the very core of my experience, Mr. Speaker, that true compassion means having the guts to replace welfare at this critical moment in America's history.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster's bill, H.R. 842, to take the transportation trust funds off-budget. These trust funds were established to guarantee that taxes paid by transportation users go to support the infrastructure needs of that mode of transportation--highways, aviation, waterways, and harbors. The integrity of the user fee system, whereby those who use a public service pay the bulk of the cost, has been undermined by a system where users get back much less in services and goods than they pay into the system. trust funds been raided for other uses by the tax-and-spend liberals, but the trust funds have also been used as a huge cushion of cash on the balance sheet to mask the true size of the deficit. I also believe that we should only collect taxes when we need the money, and use it for that specified purpose for which it was collected. This same logic is why conservatives pushed for years to take the Social Security Trust Fund off budget and be honest with its accounting--the same reasoning applies here. This kind of honesty and accountability is at the heart of the Contract With America. When I circulated a letter among my freshman colleagues just last week, asking them to join me in supporting truth in trust fund budgeting, I collected 43 signatures in 3 days. My fellow freshmen are behind this because it makes common sense and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask a series of questions and to make some statements, and the first question is: Can the Federal Government solve the problems of America? You know, I asked that question as I campaigned for the last 4 years. I really believe the average person out there is this country does not think for a minute that the Federal Government is going to solve the problems that we have in this country, and there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and disinformation. I returned to Washington today from Chattanooga, TN, my home, and I can tell you from being there this weekend that this issue has outraged so many people who know better and know that there is some untruth being told. The words ``cutting'' and ``eliminating'' are being used over and over again on editorial pages all across this country. It has gotten so out of hand that small children are writing letters to Members of Congress, I am sure at the instruction of their teachers or maybe even their parents, saying, ``Mr. Congressman, please, don't cut my lunches. Please, don't eliminate the food from my table.'' And another question I have tonight is, who is actually taking advantage of children here? When you ask small children who don't know any better to write a letter to their Congressman with the threat that you are going to take food off of their plate in front of them and they are not explaining to these children what the truth is. You know block grants is what we are talking about. Decentralization is what we are talking about. It is a recognition that things are not working, things have not been working. Federal Government got too big, too powerful, out of control. It is outrageous, and we are trying to block grant these dollars back to the State and the local governments. You know, Al Harris runs the Chattanooga housing authority in my home city, and does an outstanding job there. They are concerned. Let me tell you what he says about block grants. He says block grants work. He says, ``Send the money down, unleash the shackles. We got too many rules, too many regulations, too much bureaucracy. Send us the money. We can produce.'' He looks at this as a good thing, as decentralizing the Federal Government and sending the money on down. I heard in church Sunday morning a teacher in Hamilton County, Tennessee, said, We have got problems with school lunch programs. Those people who are in need are not getting the services because people who do not qualify are abusing the system. People are applying for and receiving free lunches in our schools and they drive up in about BMW's to let their kids off in the morning. You know why that happens? Because this is a big Federal bureaucracy micromanaged out of Washington, DC, and every time we have turned these programs over to the Federal Government they have got out of hand. Fraud sets in and money is wasted and people do without. In about 2 weeks, this House, I believe this majority, will vote to put $500 in the pocket of every child in this country whose parents are working and paying taxes. That is the kind of child relief--that is the kind of child support that we need to be engaged in, and there is more help on the way. We are sending this money back to the States. We are not cutting or eliminating anything, and my colleagues have said that over and over again. What I think this really boils down to is whether or not we trust our State and our local governments, because I do not believe the liberals in this country will acknowledge that our States and our local governments have done a better job than we have done up here in Congress for the last 30 years. You know, they are balancing their budgets at home. They are responsible. They have got their priorities in order. They are not about to go out and borrow money with a credit card like these voting cards here. The worst and most expensive credit card in the history of the world here is the credit card that Members of Congress use to vote in this Chamber, moneys that they do not have, and it is out of hand. We have got to do something about it. So let us send the money back to the responsible governments, the State and the local governments. I know in my home State that our governor and our State legislature is going to do the right thing with these moneys when we block grant them back there, and if your program is good, you will get more money, not less money, through block grants and then you won't have the Federal Government breathing down your throat on everything. I want to close with a statement I know you have heard before but we need to remember it right now, 1995, while this country is at risk. A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. Patriotic, freedom-loving Americans need to recognize that our Federal Government is out of control. We have got more government than our Founding Fathers ever wanted. We have got more government on a Federal level, more micromanagement, more bureaucrats, more waste, fraud and abuse than I ever wanted to deal with, and we are up here trying to do something about it and they are not telling the truth. Now, if we are going to have a legitimate dialog in this country about what is best for our children and our future, let us at least be honest. We are not running campaigns anymore. That comes up next year. You know, we knew when we got into it you would not tell the truth about us in our campaigns. That is part of campaigning. This is lawmaking. This is serious business. Let us at least tell the country the truth on this issue of block grants because this is the beginning of downsizing the Federal Government, returning the power and the money to the States that have acted responsibly.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I have happily discovered that many of my colleagues, like I did campaigned with a copy of the U.S. Constitution in our pockets. As one who strongly believes in government strictly according to constitutional principles, I make our Government's defining document the object of constant study. In fact, before almost every speech I give on the House floor, I consult the Constitution to remind myself of, and clarify, the underlying constitutional principle involved. That is why I am so happy one of my constituents has written and published ``The Exhaustive Concordance to the United States Constitution.'' The book is a valuable treasure for avid constitutionalists like myself. Through the generosity of this book's editor, Dr. Dennis Bizzoco, of Chattanooga, TN and its publishers, an individual copy for each Member of Congress--Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner--is being made available free of charge. I am happy to report to my colleagues their copy was delivered to them this morning through inside mail. On the special copy Dr. Bizzoco presented to Speaker Gingrich last Friday, these words of Thomas Jefferson were inscribed, which remind us all of the power of the U.S. Constitution: ``In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.'' I hope that the Members of Congress will use their copy of ``The Exhaustive Concordance to the United States Constitution,'' and if you find it of value, please let Dr. Bizzoco know you appreciate his donation to our public debate by dropping him a short note. Mr. Speaker, I close by reminding the Nation that this Constitution demands a limited Federal role. This Constitution is the roadmap of good government, and through the 10th amendment it says that issues not clearly defined as being the responsibility of the Federal Government should be returned to the States. We trust the State officials, the local State officials, with these decisions. We want to give them the money and let them make the decisions on how to spend that money so these big Federal bureaucracies that are inefficient and unfair do not continue.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I came to the well today to explain that I had derived my livelihood before I came to Congress in the real estate industry, in the private sale of real estate from one individual to another. And I want to kind of bring this into perspective as we are talking tonight about private property owners and even some talk of developers earlier tonight, because I want to share with you when you are talking about how much property is this debate about. property, let's say we have one acre of land in Tennessee, 20 percent of one acre of land in Tennessee in my home city is about a building lot, about enough property to get a building permit to build your home on it. Twenty percent of land is a lot of land. We are talking about a building lot out of a simple acre of land in Chattanooga, Tennessee. That is too much. Ten percent in a lot of ways is too much. So from a private property standpoint, from the little guy who may own a piece of land, a small piece of land, 20 percent is simply too much, and 10 percent is still an awful lot of land that the Federal Government can take before they have to justly compensate that landowner. That is the private property owner's perspective. I am here tonight to defend the developers who earlier tonight were kind of under fire. I do not know what is wrong with developing property in this country. At one point I think that was a pretty good thing to do. I would like to see it be a good thing to do again. So from a developer's standpoint, in my home city of Chattanooga, the Austin family, a distinguished family, developing a shopping center, they went and got an option on the property, and I know they had a big supermarket tenant that was coming into this shopping center. I know the story. They went before the planning commission, they got it all approved. They had a small wetlands, I think it was 4,000 square feet, in some multiacre site, a little small portion of this. I mean, the whole deal, a $1 million land sale, down the tubes because of the Federal Government intervention. At what point do we say wait a second here? We have got more Federal Government than we need. And I am here to say developing property is a good thing. People who build, who create in this country, we have got to protect private business people in this country, protect the real estate industry. The great American dream is to own your own property, and we have got to protect the small guy and the landowner. We have to protect business people out there trying to create jobs and help other people in this country as well.

Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to take to the well today to speak about private property rights and the pending legislation, H.R. 925, because I believe few issues touch closer to the hearts of most Americans than their right to own their property. It is also the issue that is close to my heart, because I come from a real estate background--that is how I made my living before coming to Congress. More importantly, it is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and I ran for Congress on a platform of upholding the Constitution, and, like the rest of my colleagues, took an oath upon taking office that I would uphold that Constitution. I remind my colleagues of that oath and of the words immortalized in our Constitution, specifically amendments number 5 and 14: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property [emphasis added] without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.--5th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) This sentiment is reiterated in the 14th amendment, extending that protection to our citizens from that actions of States: * * *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property [emphasis added], without due process of law (Section 1)* * *. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this article. (Section 5) Clearly, the defining document of our Government seeks to protect the American Dream--to own property, to own land, to have a stake in something that is your own. Congress is supposed to make laws to protect that dream. Clearly, many of the laws Congress has made and the regulations that came out of those laws do just the opposite. H.R. 925, the takings bill, seeks to correct this situation, by treating regulations that render a person's property useless, unsellable, or even worse, into a liability, by treating those regulations as takings of private property and cause for compensation by the Government, as guaranteed by the fifth amendment. Such rules mean that the Government must think twice about the reclassification of land or other property, or at the very least compensate the owners--our citizens--when making those decisions. Private Property: It is what separates us from those countries that pretended to be democratic, that pretended to be republics, that pretended to be representative, that pretended to be market oriented, that pretended, Mr. Chairman, to be free. I respectfully urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 925.

Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WAMP. The little people are going to be hurt. That is why I drew the correlation of one acre of land, a little small property owner, who maybe they want to subdivide that property and sell a building lot off a piece of property they inherited from their parents, and they want to be able to do that. The Federal Government could intervene here and take a small portion, the whole value of their property and all of their equity could be lost because of more Federal Government than our Founding Fathers ever bargained for.

Mr. WAMP. All of their equity, and most of the property in this country is leveraged at a very high level to begin with. So you are cutting into the equity, the savings, and the investment of the citizens of this country.

Mr. WAMP. They would not be able to sell that property, and it would just stymie the industry, and it would be a very inequitable situation we would be agreeing, and I wholeheartedly agree with your argument.

Mr. WAMP. With 15 percent down payment on the property? That is correct.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my strong support for provisions in H.R. 926 to add judicial review to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Enacted in 1980 with strong bipartisan support, the Regulatory Flexibility Act was intended to force agencies to consider the impact of regulations on the Nation's small businesses, and consequently reduce them. The problem with the original bill, Mr. Chairman, is it has never been enforced. Agencies are essentially allowed to ignore the intent of the Reg Flex Act. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, employing more than 53 percent of the work force, and contributing to much of our country's economic growth. Between 1989 and 1993, small business job growth more than offset net job loss in big businesses. The Government should be doing everything in its power to promote small business growth. Instead, it imposes the same regulations on the smaller entities that it does on big businesses. This is yet another example of the Government's one-size-fits-all approach that does not work. To reinforce the bipartisan nature of this provision, I would like to point out that Vice President Gore's first recommendation for reinventing the role of Government in small business is to establish judicial review for the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I could not agree more with the Vice President on this issue. We held a number of hearings and a markup of this legislation in the Small Business Committee, and I am proud to be a part of this bill as reported. Mr. Chairman, as a third generation small businessperson, I appeal to this body to do the right thing for the working people in America and give small business people a fighting chance. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that by allowing judicial review, the threat of enforcement along will force agencies to not only consider the impact of their regulations on small businesses, but to significantly reduce them.