Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. On day one of this new Congress, we said there were a number of reforms we would pass. One of those things on day one we said we would do was audit the House of Representatives for the first time in the history of this institution, long overdue, particularly when you consider this is the place that has had a House post office scandal, a bank scandal, a restaurant scandal, and any other number, and yet we did not need to have an audit. Well, yes, it needed an audit and we have had an audit released today. We told people on that opening day, and we told the auditors, ``Follow your noses. See what you find in this particular audit, in this situation.'' Price Waterhouse, a private major accounting firm in this country, had over 100 auditors auditing the House of Representatives for the past, since that time, since January 4 when we passed that, and they only looked back at the past 15 months for as far as when we took over in November 1994, they looked back 15 months, so they are just talking about a time period from the middle of 1993 to November 1994, and auditing this institution back through that period of time. I think they need to go back further and look more thoroughly at this. But today they released this report, and it was a scathing indictment of the institution and the institutional failures, so much so that these auditors could not issue an opinion as to the fiscal soundness or the financial situation of the House of Representatives. They could not even issue an opinion. They said the records are so bad, they said we had two sets of books during this time period. Now, this is under the old Congress. This is under the Congress that was controlled by one party for 40 years in a row, so two sets of books. We could not find the audit trail sufficiently to be able to tell you what the financial conditions of the House of Representatives is today. They said that if this was a private business, you could not get a loan, because we could not say if your books were solid or not and, furthermore, you would be bankrupt. They said if you were a governmental institution, which this place is, you would have violated the law since 1990. We are on cash basis accounting. The whole Government went to accrual basis accounting the year I was born except for the House of Representatives. Now, this is itself a massive indictment of what took place financially in this institution, and this is just a 15-month window that we have examined, and that is coming out today.

Mr. BROWNBACK. On that point, that is absolutely true, and plus one thing I would add, in a representative democracy, it is critical that people have trust and faith in the representative and the representative system. They have lost that faith. We have got to do what we can to restore that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. To me, the reason for it is very clear and very simple, and that is that frequently institutions or groups will seek to fly somebody as a Member of Congress to a particular place to be able to catch his ear for a longer period of time. I do not think people here are bought and sold for a trip. That does not take place. They get then additional time for the ability to influence a particular Member of Congress on a particular point of view. The people we represent do not get the same chance to do that. That is the idea with this. I do not think Members should be particularly scared about this provision at all, that this is something that we are saying if it is a reasonable trip, if it is worthwhile, we have travel accounts that are associated with this. If there are things that can be used that way, that that is the way that he ought to go with it, but it goes back to the people not trusting what takes place in the House of Representatives. This is their House. We are the people. We are the freshest from the folks. They are saying they do not trust it. Here is another way to try [[Page H 7176]] to say, OK, there are some institutional flaws with it. Let us get rid of those. Let us get about our job and let us move on down the road. I think we can operate a very strong House of Representatives without these gifts being given.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much for the gentleman yielding. I associate my comments with the gentlewoman from Washington and her comments about campaign finance reform, the excellent work she has done in the State of Washington. I think that can carry over to Washington, DC. We need to get this sort of reform taking place. I think the first step about being able to do that is bringing these sort of facts and figures out and bringing to the American people how campaigns are financed, how the system so much favors the incumbent. That is why a number of us support term limits. For one reason, the system so favors incumbents, this is the only way you can get at the system is through term limits. Another thing, another key portion of it is the campaign finance system. You can see the difference between incumbents and challengers on the chart the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] puts forward. I want to say this is a very, very important thing to look at. The American people, on November 8, 1994, said to us, ``Look, clean your own House up. Make the government smaller. Get that place under control. Return the people's House to the people.'' That to me is a lot of what this is about, returning the people's House to the people, having them fund it, having them finance it, having them see and be the focus of our point. When I go back to eastern Kansas where I represent and where I ran during the campaign, the people kept saying all the time during the campaign, ``Don't forget us, don't forget us.'' It seemed like an odd question to me. ``Why do you think we'd forget you?'' Then you start getting around the system and how it is built and how it is funded, how it operates, you see pretty quick why the people are scared we are going to forget them. I think the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] is on target. I applaud her efforts.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, and if the gentleman would yield, that is the key to representative democracy, and they feel like all they have had is more of an imperial Congress than a representative democracy. We have got to continue. That is why campaign finance reform, gift ban, the continuation of the audit. Let us continue to looking forward and backward at what is taking place. We have got to reinstill that trust and faith in the American people and this institution.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] that is also in our class, he has a saying that he uses from his grandmother. It says: ``If you always do what you always done, you'll always get what you always got.'' It is her statement, and what I am so pleased about is that we are not just doing what we always done. The standard thing to do would be to say, OK, when you take over, ``Well, let's not really look at the books, the audits. You might get at your own Members. You might get at some people you don't want to.'' No, no, we are going to audit the place. The thing we have to do now is be vigilant and make sure that this sticks, that the next time the auditors look at this place, and we do an annual audit, and they look at an audit, they can issue an opinion where the House of Representatives is, and they will not say this place stinks, which is what the auditor said today basically. I was in the committee where they released the information, and they were saying they cannot compare this to any other institution they have ever audited previously. I mean it has its own set of records, and it seems to serve its members more than be interested in accountability. It was the auditors' own statement. Well, that is a staining indictment on the system. I am glad to say that that system is being thrown out-- --

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would just like to say, as a freshman Member of Congress, on the opening day of Congress it was my pleasure to be able to carry the bill that started this audit, and it passed 430 to 1 in this institution. I was delighted at that time, as somebody who ran saying the institution needed to open its doors up and let some fresh air in, to see this finally happen. Getting the audit report out today, I think that is an important step to be taking. I think it is important that we take this on forward and that we make real changes and real improvements in this institution so the American people can feel like it represents them and it is an open institution, that they know what happens with their taxpayer dollars. So I urge my colleagues to support this motion that is coming forward and that we can carry on this process in giving the people's House back to the people.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, January 4, there were a number of needed reforms that were passed in this institution. One was an audit of the House of Representatives. In looking back on that period of time, we were talking then about, well, when was the last time that the institution of the House of Representatives, the People's House, had been audited? We looked back and we looked back and we looked back and found out it had never been audited before ever in the history of the institution. It is about time, and that audit was released today. A number of us as freshmen Members coming into this body had asked for and pushed for reforms of Congress, that the Congress itself had grown imperial and aloof. One of those things that it had failed to have done was audit itself. It asked for that of all sorts of other institutions, both public and private, but not of itself. Mr. Speaker, the closet doors were thrown open today with the audit coming forth, and it revealed many problems of the House of Representatives and skeletons in the closet, such as the recordkeeping was so shoddy and haphazard that our auditor would not suggest any definite conclusion on the reliability of the financial statements. Oversight was so flexible as to be nonexistent. It was anything goes for some Members in the past. Mr. Speaker, computing services in the House were woefully inadequate for modern security needs, and accounting practices were, in effect, run on an inappropriate cash basis instead of an accrual accounting basis to account for debts and earnings. Congress must not operate in the dark. A regular, independent audit coupled with the other reforms of the institution will keep this place honest, and we will begin to rebuild the people's faith in this body. As much as I am disgusted by the results of the audit, I am proud to have carried the bill authorizing the audit to this floor in January. It was a good way to begin the year. The House audit is the first and only comprehensive and [[Page H 7155]] independent audit of House operations, something inconceivable in the recent past. We are committed to regular audits in the future, just like any other institution. It is embarrassing to realize that the executive branch instituted regular audits the year I was born. Congress in the past has betrayed the public trust. Now we have to ask, and we must ask, to get that public trust back and to earn it back. An audit is one way of doing that. We must push reforms to the next level. We have already instituted a number of the recommendations made by the Price Waterhouse firm that did the auditing. We need to evaluate the remainder of those. This audit is one of the best indications of real change in the Congress. People sent us here to change government, and we are doing it. With this audit, Congress has taken steps toward credibility with the American people. Congress must operate in the open. As we legislate openness and accountability for private companies and public institutions, we have to obey these principles ourselves. The old Congress didn't obey these rules. The auditors found in the last Congress a shocking disregard for financial control, for institutional management, and just pure common sense. For example, the audit showed that some of the Members overspent their allowances for staff salaries, office expenses, and official mail. It showed Members being paid twice for their travel expenses. If Congress were a business, an auto repair shop, a farm, a bank, well, by the auditors' own statements, they would not be able to get a loan and they would be bankrupt. If it was a public institution, it would have been violating laws since 1990. It is time that these practices end, and today we finally had the audit that came forward with the information to open the closet doors. This is only a start. We have to continue these reforms. We have to continue to open this body up to the people so that they can look and see and hear and learn what all is taking place. This is taxpayer dollars, and this is how the people's decisions are being made. We need to continue to open that up. I am very proud that this first big step was taken today, to open up, and now we have to continue to push this forward. We have to aggressively pursue those things that are put forward in this audit to be able to clean up the People's House. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear of this audit coming forward, and I think the American people will be most interested in its findings.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I did realize that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The budget resolution also called for the elimination of TVA.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I also voted for the budget that came out of the Committee on the Budget that called for the elimination of TVA. Did the gentleman vote for that one?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to say thanks for what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is doing here. I know a lot of people are opposed to this amendment, and I think it has been a very healthy discussion. I have sat here a long time and a lot of people have been watching this going on for a long time. What I think he is doing that is so important is we are moving to balance the budget. These are then tough choices that we have to make. We are having a good discussion, I think, of a tough choice. Here is a program that has been very successful over a period of 30 years. It is a program that has had some failures over 30 years. I will bet we could find that any program in the Federal Government has had both successes and failures over 30 years. I think the question we have to ask ourselves today, then: Is this program worth continuing, adding more debt on our kids with the successes that it promises into the future or the potential failures on the path that it is on? I think that is the central question we have to ask. Is this worth putting more debt on the kids? Mr. Chairman, I think it is great we have cut it in half? I understand the program, though, was at $50 million under the Bush administration, so it has had some up as well as it being knocked on back as well. I just put that question to us, and I say that it seems to me, at the end, in the final analysis, that the biggest problem we are facing as a Nation today is not necessarily what is going on in the Midwest or the Appalachian region or the West or the Northeast or the South, it is the stupid debt and the amount we keep adding to it and growing. If this is worth continuing today what about next year, and the year after that when we really get to the tough choices, in year 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to balance the budget? I would suggest that now is the time to make the tough choice. I think we should support the Klug amendment. I think it has been a legitimate debate. I think the program has had good successes. It has had some failures. We are at a point in time in history where we just cannot mortgage the kids any further. That is why I would urge Members to support the Klug amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, just in closing on this, this succinctly moves money from the AID reform account, which was not approved by the authorizors, into NIS, which is already being cut 75 percent, and it further reduces the deficit and cuts outlays an additional $22 million. It puts money where it ought to be. It cuts the budget. It cuts the deficit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the Members this amendment is designed to have several outcomes, and what we are doing with this I will describe briefly in this presentation. It is intended to restore part of the funding for the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union provided by H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act, by removing some funds from other places. [[Page H 6342]] My amendment is also intended to reduce the Treasury buy-back fund to the level authorized by the American Overseas Interests Act previously approved by this Congress and to eliminate the AID reform and downsizing account, a fund not authorized by H.R. 1561. Finally, my amendment would cut an additional $22 million in foreign assistance funds. Now, AID argues it needs the $30 million reform and downsizing account in order to make a 10-percent cut in budget, a $30 million reform and downsizing account to make a 10-percent cut in budget. By analogy, the ICC is making a 33-percent cut. It is not asking for a dime. I realize downsizing AID is very complicated, particularly more so than the ICC. I am not certain about that. But does AID need $30 million to make a $50 million cut? The GAO will be analyzing this issue and issuing a report in September. Let us appropriate what we agreed to authorize and revisit the issue in September if GAO thinks AID needs the money in order to downsize. Now, on the second part of this is the Treasury buy-back fund performs an admirable foreign assistance function, reducing bilateral debt of Latin American countries to support environmental and child survival activities. However, we have $5 trillion in debt. We have our own to worry about. We need to put our own fiscal house in order. That is why I am calling for additional reduction here. We have got to take care of this place so that we can have something to pass on to our own children, not worry about that so much in other countries. Regarding the NIS, I would just want to put this briefly to my colleagues: I think we need to put these funds back in NIS. The NIS fund will have been cut by 27 percent from fiscal year 1995 level and by 75 percent from fiscal year 1994 level. This cut we are proposing would eliminate waste which has already been cut, get at the waste of this program. That is why I think we need to restore these monies in this particular area of the program. I think we had better think about, ladies and gentlemen, what we are doing here in taking further, taking it down more than 75 percent from previously. These are countries that are struggling to survive, struggling to democratize. We need to help them out. We need to do whatever we can here, and this small bit of money, I think, is far better spent here in helping INS countries to stabilize than to having AID reform and downsize and spend $30 million to make a $50 million cut.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 64.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Gilman-Brownback amendment to reduce the Development Assistance Fund to the level authorized by H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act. My support for reducing the Development Assistance Fund is not based on a desire to gut USAID's development assistance program. Nor is it based on a desire to unfairly single out individual projects for outright elimination. The problem is we are broke. This fiscal year, the Federal Government is forecasted to spend over $200 billion more than it takes in. That annual deficit will add to our current national debt of almost $5 trillion. We cannot afford to continue our current spending habits. That is why the new Republican majority in the House has crafted a balanced budget resolution, and we must meet our budget targets. I cosponsor this amendment to the foreign aid authorization bill, H.R. 1561, to bring its funding levels in compliance with the budget resolution target. Although this foreign operations bill overall spends even less on foreign aid than the budget resolution's target, H.R. 1868 raises the level of the Development Assistance Fund by approximately $25 million. I applaud the Appropriations Committee for lowering the level of taxpayer funding of foreign assistance. However, the committee should not have used the additional savings to raise the funding levels of the Development Assistance Fund. I agree that the United States should be providing development assistance for programs that further U.S. interests abroad. However, because of the importance of balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, we need to reduce our overall level of development assistance. As a result, we need to reevaluate our development assistance priorities. Providing more than $27,000,000 to Nepal is not a priority. Providing almost $19,000,000 to Sri Lanka is not a priority. Providing almost $10,000,000 to Yemen is not a priority. I do not want to gut these programs of the entire fund. But I cite these programs as examples of areas in which cost-cutting could and should occur. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the passage of the bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, this is daunting to follow the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]. I just rise in support of this amendment and simply state this: I support a strong defense. I have military establishments in my district. I think it is critical; I think it is the reason we created the Federal Government. It is to provide for a common defense amongst several other items as well, but clearly one of the key roles and missions we created for a federal government was to provide for a common defense. We need to do that. But this one does not make sense to me. First of all, it is when the military itself says, ``We don't need this aircraft, and we can put it, and should put it, for other uses,'' and that is what it seems to me we ought to do. That is why I am supportive of Mr. Kasich's amendment in that regard. I think this is a wonderful airplane. It just costs too much, and it is not in the priority system of what we need in this country today.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, with that, I would hope that we could vote on this because I think it does do what most people would like, let the USIA agency be able to take care of this within its own, and that would be then supportive of the Bereuter amendment to put $25 million in additional food aid program.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment has been agreed to by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and a copy of it has been shared with the minority. What my amendment simply does is it spreads the $25 million in cuts around a little bit further than what the Bereuter proposal has. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] suggests cuts to USIA salaries and exchanges, and my amendment would lighten those cuts in the salaries and exchanges areas and broaden the reductions to radio construction and broadcasting. What we are attempting to do by this is to support what the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is doing to put this money into the hunger programs, to be able to feed those who are starving, but spreading around a little bit more the cuts in the USIA program. That is what my amendment to the Bereuter amendment would do. I would ask for it to be considered.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

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