Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to address the issue of a potential Government shutdown on October 1 and the appropriate funding level for any continuing resolution. The American people sent a clear message in November that they would no longer allow the Federal Government to amass increasing amounts of debt at the expense of their children and their grandchildren. They voiced their frustration at the increasing size and scope of the Federal Government. And they expressed a great deal of impatience and frustration with what they saw as broken promises and a failure to change business as usual in Washington, DC. It is my firm belief that the Republican party will stand or fall on our ability to deliver on our promises. The American people will reward us if we stand firm and deliver a balanced budget to them by 2002, and they will punish us if we fail. I am proud of the progress that we have made thus far to achieve a balanced budget. The budget plan that we approved in June will put us on a glidepath to the first balanced budget since 1969. The appropriations bills that the House has passed are in compliance with the budget resolution and are strong bills which will help to make the Government more efficient and less intrusive. But in spite of the impressive steps that we have taken to get our fiscal house in order, much more remains to be done. Although the House has passed all but one appropriations bill, we have only passed one conference report. Much more disturbing is the veto threat which hangs over most of the funding bills. Everyone has begun to realize that a continuing resolution will be necessary to keep parts of the Government from shutting down on October 1. It is unlikely that we will complete action on all of the appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year. What funding levels could be contained in a continuing resolution? There are several alternatives. Traditionally, a continuing resolution assumes the lowest of the current year's level, the new House-approved level, or the new Senate-approved level. This has been known as the Michel rule. But Congress can specify any funding level and any mix. My fear is that unless we clarify the rules governing a continuing resolution, funding at 1995 levels will become the most attractive and least painful option for those who wish to preserve the status quo and block budget cuts. History has shown instances in which segments of the Government were funded by continuing resolutions for a significant part of the year because of fundamental disagreements between Congress and the White House. Indeed, each year of the Reagan administration, at least one segment of the Federal Government was funded by a continuing resolution for the whole fiscal year. We must make a continuing resolution an unpleasant alternative that will act as a catalyst for achieving our budgetary goals. Under no circumstances must a continuing resolution present proponents of the status quo with an easy way out. In August, I introduced H.R. 2197, the Allard continuing resolution reform act. The Allard rule specifically amends the Rules of the House to require that if an appropriation has not been enacted by October 1, then a continuing resolution would fund the Government at the lower of the House-recommended level and the Senate-recommended level, and in no case could funding exceed 95 percent of the prior year's level. This would mandate a minimum of 5 percent real cuts in any continuing resolution. The Allard rule is tough legislation. But it is the only reasonable solution. It will force opponents of change to the bargaining table. And it will force them to the table on our terms. If we fail to adopt continuing resolutions which meet the stringent Allard rule criteria, we risk losing the budget battle to those who favor continuing the status quo. And we risk betraying the American people who sent us to Washington to restore responsibility to the Federal Government. We must not pass on this opportunity to ensure fundamental change. I ask all [[Page H 8942]] of my colleagues to support fiscal responsibility. I ask all of my colleagues to support the Allard rule.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 639, had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' My pager failed to go off because of a battery failure.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion. Mr. Speaker, the report from my constituents during the month of August was very clear: Get on with the task of balancing the budget and downsizing government. One tool that is going to be critical in the effort to reduce wasteful spending is the line-item veto. I have long supported a line- item veto for the President and have repeatedly introduced legislation to provide for this provision. Both Houses have passed a line-item veto and it is time to go to conference and get this enacted into law. I do not care whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, we should give him a line-item veto, and we should do it now.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks, after decades of fiscal irresponsibility, Congress will at last face up to its fundamental duty to balance the Federal budget. Not since 1969 have Federal expenses matched Federal revenues. Since then, we have compiled a national debt that bears down on our economy like a lead weight, the new Republican Congress is owning up to its commitment to balance the budget as a matter of moral obligation to future generations. In addition, we are serious about saving the Medicare system. This is not a partisan issue--the President's own Cabinet Secretaries tell us the system is going bankrupt. Republicans find that unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and our plan will strengthen and preserve Medicare for the sake of America's seniors. Years ago, Ronald Reagan asked, ``If not us, who? If not now, when?'' Mr. Reagan's questions still resonate today. For the sake of our children and our parents, we will balance the budget and strengthen Medicare.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our job is to ensure that the United States maintains the strongest and best defense in the world. When constructing a defense budget, we must always give top consideration to the needs of the men and women in the armed services who put their lives on the line to keep this country free. These men and women deserve the best technology and protection that we can give them. Obviously, at this time of fiscal restraint and budget tightening, we need to consider how we can best make use of our limited defense dollars. Since 1985, defense spending has fallen 35 percent in real terms. Now, that the Soviet threat is gone, some have argued that we can slash our defense budget without any consequence. I disagree with this. We do not know which regional power will be the next threat. Today, we have more rogue states with more firepower than ever before. There are also an increasing number of destructive weapons available for the highest bidder. The new world does not have a single threat, but many. That is why the United States needs to retain a top-notch military. I believe the best way to do this is by using the best and most advanced technology at our disposal. Rather than just replacing old weapons and machines, the priority should be on developing new technologies for more enhanced equipment. I strongly endorse balancing the budget and reducing the size of Government. The Pentagon should not be exempt from this process. By using technology and smart business practices, the Pentagon can keep our soldiers and country safe with a smaller budget.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to show my support for NASA and the space station. NASA is a critical investment in America's future. The contributions made by NASA have provided major breakthroughs in science and technology, which in turn, have contributed to long-term economic growth and provided opportunities for future generations. Technology is rapidly changing, and NASA has been a major part of that change, with its long range research focus. While the private sector should be the principal place for developing new and improved technologies, many of NASA's investments have led to spinoffs which have been successfully incorporated into the marketplace--for example: Virtual reality, color and 3-dimensional graphics, language translators, compact discs, heart rate monitors, water purification and filters, breast cancer detection, microlasers, fireman's air tanks, and emission tests. Even with these innovations, NASA has remained focused on its one core mission: Space exploration. NASA's mission does not interfere or compete with private industry. NASA stands as a strong example of how government research can compliment private industry research. I have always had the utmost respect for the research by NASA but in the past I have not always been their strongest ally. I have voted against the NASA budget the space station when I believed NASA was wasting resources and moving away from their core mission. Though it took much prodding from Congress and a major reduction in their budget, I strongly believe NASA is now one of the leanest and most productive agencies of the Federal Government. Earlier this year, the Budget Committee held hearings on corporate downsizing. At these hearings, we heard from General Electric and Kodak. They told the committee how they successfully downsized their companies while producing more. With their reduced budget, this is exactly what NASA has accomplished. NASA's budget has already been reduced by 35 percent since fiscal year 1993 and has reduced its work force to its lowest level since 1961. The agency has stepped up to the challenge and is accomplishing more while spending less. For example, NASA's new mission control saved millions of dollars by buying and using marketplace computers and technology. I believe NASA is an example that all agencies and departments should follow. Since I have been in Congress, the space station has been extensively debated. Today, the redesigned station is less expensive and more capable. The new design saves $5 billion in developmental costs, reduces annual operating costs by half, and expands the station's research capabilities. The space station will conduct valuable medical and technological research which can have great benefits for the future. In addition, the station is a cooperative project with Russia, Japan, Canada and member nations of the European Space Agency. This project brings together the world's best and brightest scientists to work for solutions to problems here on Earth. Congress should not turn its back on the future. It is imperative that America remains first in technological advancements. We need technology to move this country forward. NASA is a sound investment which can help facilitate new technological innovations and discoveries that will lead America into the 21st century.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for putting together a strong bill. I applaud the efforts he made to reduce the funding for programs which must be downsized in this tight budgetary climate. Nonetheless, we must not pass up an opportunity to eliminate a needless layer of bureaucracy and save $5 million. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I am personally committed to eliminating redundant and unnecessary bureaucracies. In this vein, I offer this amendment, which would zero out the funds for Undersecretary of Technology. Besides being redundant, this office helps to put the government in an area in which it should not be, the office assisting government ``in picking winners and losers,'' as stated by the OMB's fiscal year 1996 budget report, by benchmarking the competitiveness of industrial sectors. These programs do little to enhance our overall economic welfare. Although they may indeed help certain sectors or individual companies within those sectors, it harms the welfare of the Nation as a whole by wasting our limited tax dollars and by diverting resources toward those sectors in which we are relatively inefficient. This is the perfect definition of corporate welfare. However, even if we support these industrial policy programs, this amendment would not destroy the actual policies. It only cuts an office which the budget resolution claims is duplicative and unnecessary in its administrative and other responsibilities. A vote in favor of my amendment sends a strong signal that the House is in support of ending this unneeded office rather than continuing to fund it at a decreased level. We must completely eliminate unnecessary bureaucracies, rather than phasing them out over time. As in the private sector, a gradual approach only allows the affected agencies to grow back. Citizens for a Sound Economy and the National Taxpayers Union have strongly endorsed this amendment stating, In this time of making government smaller and more efficient, the Office of Technology Policy is one bureaucracy that serves virtually no purpose for American taxpayers. Its elimination will show that Congress is serious about downsizing government and allowing Americans to keep more of their own money.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit debate on this amendment to 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I want to put my faith in the marketplace. I have respect for what the gentleman is trying to do. I support what the gentleman is trying to do with his amendment, because the real, the real test of business is when we allow the consumer to go out here and they vote on a daily basis with their dollar bill, paying for those services that they feel like they want and they need. When we pass out Federal dollars or Government dollars and then businesses go ahead and compete, it becomes a system of grantsmanship: who can write up the best grant, who can plead the hardest for what they need. The best and most humane system we have, and this is what we need to encourage, is a system that says ``Individuals can go out there and they make their selection on the services they want to receive.'' The best thing we can do for hardship cases is to reduce the tax burden, to reduce the regulatory burden, and do away with this process where we have some bureaucrat out here saying, ``Okay, you are going to be a winner and you are going to be a loser, and you get this benefit and you do not get that benefit.'' I think we are much better off to support the Hefley amendment and encourage the free market system.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about change in the Congress, and we hear all sorts of reasons why there should not be change, that it is shortsighted if we work for change to take an agency like this that is working and doing so much for business. But in reality, the future shortsightedness is we need to balance the budgets and we need to look at where duplication is occurring, and this Technology Administration is a classic example of where we need to look. How many people do we need speaking on behalf of business? We have under the Office of the Undersecretary of Technology, the Office of Technology Policy. Currently, we have under the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We have the National Technical Information Service. I would have to compliment the appropriation members for recognizing that we not longer need the National Technical Information Service. So that is being eliminated. They reduced by 50 percent the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and basically what we have is the Office of Technology Policy. Now, we have oversight of just this one and a half divisions under the Office of Undersecretary, a full Secretary. It seems to me that what we need to do is eliminate an administrative layer and let the head of the Office of Technical Policy report directly to the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary. I think it makes lots of sense. It is a tremendous opportunity for this Congress to make an effort to cut spending, to reduce duplication in programs. So I am urging a ``yes'' vote on the Allard amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I am looking at what has happened over the years with the exploration of oil and it seemed to me that it was not too many years ago that we were talking about how we needed to develop our own resources here at home so that we could be more secure. Mr. Speaker, I am looking at some of the budget arguments and I have before me a publication here from the Congressional Budget Office that talks about the economic impacts of trying to encourage drilling in the outer continental shelf and it says that no adverse budgetary impacts in most cases, and it goes ahead and lists four of those specific cases. First of all, it says if the Department of the Interior waived royalties only for production from existing leases that would otherwise be unprofitable and would shut down anyway, the Government would not lose receipts. It goes on and says that if the Department of the Interior waived royalties only for new production from existing leases, the Government would not lose receipts in instances in which that new production resulted from some specific expenditures, for example, capital costs as in Senate bill 318, that the company would not probably make without a waiver. Third, it goes on to say that the Department of the Interior, if it waived royalties only for new leases that firms in the industry would bid on, even in the absence of waivers, bonus bid payments which are categorized as offsetting receipts, would be likely to rise commensurate with the drop in the present value of future royalty payments. A fourth case of no adverse budgetary impact would arise if the Department of the Interior waived royalties for new leases that would otherwise be unprofitable for companies to bid on. In other words, without a waiver of royalties, these additional lease sales would not occur under current law because potential bidders will view these lease properties as uneconomical. Hence, the net budgetary impact would be zero for pay-as-you-go purposes under the congressional scorekeeping rules.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1976, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I commend Mr. Skeen, my colleague from New Mexico, for putting together a good bill which makes a firm contribution toward achieving our goal of a balanced budget by 2002. This bill funds important programs necessary to provide agricultural research, nutrition, conservation, health and safety, and farm sector stability. I appreciate the hard work that Mr. Skeen, and the other Committee members have put into allocating scarce resources among the many worthwhile projects covered by this bill. I look forward to working with the chairman in the future on programs important to the agricultural sector of our economy. I offered an amendment to this bill that would have cut $12 million from the Department's administrative accounts. This would have been less than 4 percent of the administrative funds. I was encouraged by the fact that 196 members of the House share my view that the Department's headquarter's bureaucracy should be further downsized at a time when farm programs are being cut dramatically. However, I accept the majority view that the Department's administrative downsizing is progressing at a sufficient pace.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about cuts that are going to go back out in the field, and they are not. I remind the Members that these are cuts for bureaucracy here in Washington. Let me point out a few of the agencies that have not been cut: General Counsel; Building and Facilities; department administration; Inspector General; Office of Budget and Program Analysis. Let me again remind the Members of what the total budget figures look like for the bureaucracy here in Washington, DC, $314 million in 1994. In 1995, it is $311 million. And in 1996, we are looking at $313 million. The funds available to the Department of Agriculture for administration total $313 million; $320 million if the new Info Share Program is included. This amendment is less than 4 percent of all that. One might get the impression, listening to this debate, that our amendment proposes to eliminate offices or accounts. The fact is that we are proposing only 10 or 5 percent cuts, and a number of administrative accounts are not cut at all. I have no doubt the department officials perform important work and that we are asking that we get by with less, but we are asking this of all aspects of the Federal Government. No one ever suggested balancing the budget would be easy. When we are cutting back on farm programs, slowing the growth of Medicare, eliminating some agencies entirely, we need to reduce bureaucracy as well. Every amendment counts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds for a correction. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I had proposed does not cut the inspector general. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. ALLARD. Would the gentleman yield for a correction?

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I have looked seriously at what I have proposed here and spent some time with the Committee on Appropriations staff. We initially looked at a $28 million cut. We are looking at some of the functions that we are carrying on here in Washington that were, we felt, of high enough priority that we should not include them in the amendment, things like the National Appeals Division and some programs in Department administration, the inspector general, the buildings and facilities, and hazardous waste management. There are other programs that need to be reduced.

Mr. ALLARD. I would have guessed it is the Food Stamp Program.