Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 513, I was not present because my flight was delayed 3\1/2\ hours by severe thunderstorms. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.'' personal explanation

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, in the middle of the desert and underneath a mountain in the western United States we were building or trying to build a repository for nuclear waste. It is commonly known as Yucca Mountain. We have already collected billions and billions of dollars from the consumers in this country, consumers of electric power, in order to pay for that waste storage facility and the problems that arise from it in the future. And we are talking about billions and billions of dollars for that purpose alone. The question is can we perhaps improve the operation of that facility, can we perhaps save some money by not simply dumping things in there, but rather processing them first, categorizing the waste, putting the short-lived waste in one type of container, putting the long-lived waste in another type of container? One of the advantages of the project that is before us is that it is an attempt to separate waste into the high-activity, long-life waste and the high-activity, short-life waste, and, if we can do that, I would expect that to result, result in a substantial savings to the American taxpayers who are currently paying for the Yucca Mountain facility. Getting rid of nuclear waste is a very complex business. If it were easy, it would have been done long ago, and I hope that in fact we do manage to resolve this problem and deal with nuclear wastes in a safe, sane, and less costly fashion in the future. I do not claim to be an expert on the technology that is under discussion here in this particular amendment, but I will certainly say this is not a nuclear reactor, and certainly it does not deal with purely the private sector's waste. In fact, it is aimed primarily at the nuclear wastes that are produced by the Federal Government and its facilities at Hanford and elsewhere. I think we ought to continue this. I agree with the report. That is we have a pre-publication copy of the report from the National Research Council. You have heard the Congressman from Illinois read a section from that a few moments ago. They recommend that even though there are substantial concerns at this point, it is desirable to continue working on this process and keep it viable until we determine whether or not it in fact will assist us in disposing of our nuclear wastes at a lower cost. I agree with that conclusion. I believe we should continue this project. We should try to determine whether or not it will work, because if it does work, the payoff is large. The report goes on to say if this does not prove out, we should not hesitate to terminate it. I am sure if this does not prove to be a valid technology, the maker of the motion and those speaking in favor of the motion will be back next year or the year after, waving this language at us and saying ``See, it did not work. Let's cut it out.'' My response is if in fact that does happen and the National Research Council agrees with the conclusion it does not work, all of us should vote to cut it out. But at this point it looks like a promising, useful approach to dealing with nuclear waste, and I urge defeat of the amendment and continuation of the project until we determine precisely whether or not it will or will not work.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a few comments in a different vein. It arises because of concern for many of the senior citizens of this country, a group which I am on the verge of joining. Because I am on the verge of joining that group, I am beginning to get the mail which is often addressed to senior citizens, which I would call scare mail, but might more appropriately be called fraud mail. It is mail that is intended to frighten them about what is happening in Congress and to encourage them to send these organizations money so that they can communicate to use the concern that senior citizens have about losing Medicare, about losing Social Security, about losing Federal pensions, or what have you. It is a fraud. What brought this to mind is that recently a constituent sent me the $5 that was intended to go to the organization that was soliciting money from him. I want every senior citizen in this country to know, and every person in this country to know, you do not have to send money to any organization in order to get your message to us. Simply write us directly. I do not add any extra weight to a communication sent to me by one of these organizations. Constituents can write us directly and let us know. They do not have to send money to these fraudulent organizations.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to comment on the charts and to compliment the gentleman for what he has done. I had two town meetings last weekend and I used charts similar to those the gentleman is using, and I deeply appreciate the work the gentleman has put into this. I have found that in my town meetings by the use of the charts the gentleman is displaying the public was fully understanding of the problems that we are trying to address, recognized the importance of them, and are able to get past all of the rhetoric they have heard from those who are trying to make political hay out of the [[Page H5605]] problems of Medicare and the problems of balancing the budget. I simply want to commend the gentleman and I hope many people hear his message, and I certainly thank the gentleman for preparing these charts, and I find them a valuable educational tool.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, those in this Chamber who know me know that I am a person who values integrity. You also know that when I speak on the floor and discuss issues, I try to be as factual as possible; perhaps that is my scientific background, my scientific training coming to the fore. But I have to confess that I was upset this morning. I have been upset over the past several weeks at the attempt of the other side of the aisle to beat upon the theme--and I really mean the word beat and beat and beat again--to beat upon the theme that somehow the Republicans are trying to cut taxes by $300 billion and they are trying to cut Medicare by $300 billion to pay for the tax cut. [[Page H5592]] That is absolute nonsense. It is a falsehood. It is a lie. Those who are uttering this lie day after day in this Chamber should be ashamed of themselves, and I call upon them to stop with their falsehoods. First of all, their numbers are not correct. They have simply arbitrarily picked them as $300 billion each to try to make them match, but the numbers are not exactly that. This is used to try to mislead the public. Furthermore, this is not tit-for-tat. The tax cuts are not for the rich, as you hear over and over again, $300 billion in cuts for Medicare to pay for $300 billion in tax cuts for the rich. I happen to think that allowing parents of children to keep $500 more of their money for every child they have, regardless of the income of the parents, is not a tax cut for the rich. Absolutely not. If you try to analyze the income breakdown of the tax break that was in the tax bill passed by the Republicans, you can verify that only a small percentage of the amount of money will go to the rich. Frankly, it is the rich who pay the most taxes, so anytime you have a tax cut, they are going to get a substantial portion of it back. But it is not a tit-for-tat, and the numbers used on the floor are not accurate. Furthermore, the statement that we are cutting Medicare by $300 billion to provide money for the tax cuts for the rich is nonsense, because we are not cutting Medicare. Medicare will increase under the Republican proposal that has been adopted. It may not increase at the incredible 10.5-percent rate that it has been increasing at, but that is nearly three times the amount of increase in the private sector health care cost. We cannot as a Nation continue to pay 2 or 3 times the rate of increase for those on Medicare that we do in the private sector. Clearly there is something wrong with Medicare if costs are going up that rapidly. The proposal is to try to make Medicare run more efficiently. Our proposal is to try to preserve Medicare, it is to try to protect Medicare, to make sure that it is there for the people who need it. If we do not take action to cut the rising rate of cost, there will not be any money left in Medicare after the year 2002. It will be bankrupt and people will not have the medical coverage they have come to depend upon. That is the problem we are trying to address. It is a problem that has to be addressed in a bipartisan fashion by this House, by the Senate, and by the President. I am very disappointed that in our attempt to begin addressing that issue, the other side of the aisle, including the President, is not addressing the problem with us. They are not sitting down with us and trying to cooperate, but they are rather getting on their high horse, or standing on their soapbox, and saying ``cuts, cuts, cuts'' when we are not cutting, we are only trying to make it more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the people. As I said at the beginning, I am a person of integrity. I try to be honest, and I have tried to be honest in this statement. I truly hope that the other side of the aisle, everyone involved in this Chamber, the Senate, and the White House, will get together with us and say, ``Look, we have a serious problem with Medicare.'' The President's own nominees on the trust fund board have said we have a problem with Medicare. Everyone agrees we have a problem with Medicare. Let us sit down as people of good will and say we have a problem. Let us work together to solve it. My plea is that we all get together and solve this problem so in fact we can preserve, protect and repair the Medicare system so that we will meet the needs of the elderly, not just now and not just in the year 2002 but for all time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I also want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, for his effort to rewrite the Clean Water Act, which certainly needs revision. I appreciate his efforts and, by and large, appreciate the result of what came out of committee. At the same time, I did vote against the bill coming out of committee and primarily did that for just one reason; that was the wetlands section. I believe that in our effort to revise what I call the regulatory overburden that we have with wetlands, we must not lose sight of our primary objective, and that is to try to maintain viable wetlands in the United States. I come from a State that has its own wetlands law. I believe it is the only State in the Union that does, and it is one of only two that is delegated total authority by the EPA. We have a lot of experience with wetlands. Michigan has a lot of wetlands and they are very important to us. We have regulated them well. I am concerned about what the bill does to the regulation of wetlands, but even more I am concerned about what happens to the actual standards that are in the bill, not about the effort to reduce regulation. I admire that effort to reduce regulation and I think it is excellent. But we have to be careful that we do not relax the standards to the point that we begin to lose viable wetlands. You may ask, why am I concerned about this since I am from Michigan and we already have our own law? I am concerned on behalf of Michiganites, but I am also concerned with others throughout the United States. For example, we have a tremendous population of hunters in our State and many who come from other States to hunt waterfowl. Without proper maintenance of migratory waterfowl flyway wetlands, we will not have an adequate population of waterfowl to satisfy the needs and desires of those in the sporting professions who hunt waterfowl. Similarly we need to maintain wetlands so we can maintain pure water in our Nation. My plea then is to reduce regulation but not to reduce standards. I urge support for the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget have until midnight tonight to file its report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for granting me time, because I rise with some hesitation to speak against the bill as it came from the committee. On the one hand, I appreciate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, has done, because clearly we need more commonsense application of the laws governing the environment and the regulations that are formulated. At the same time, coming from the State of Michigan, which has more coastline than any of the 48 contiguous States and which has numerous wetlands, I must rise to speak against the wetlands provisions of the bill. They are unworkable. It would do great damage to wetlands in many States, and particularly in the State of Michigan, if those standards were applied in our State. In particular, the hunters and fishers of our State, and of many States around the Midwest who come to Michigan to pursue their sport, will be deeply disappointed in the wetlands provisions because they are going to have a very deleterious effect upon the population of waterfowl, the population of fish, and, of course, there will be environmental damage as well due to the loss of the filtration properties of the wetlands that we have in our beautiful State. Therefore, although I support the attempt to have a more commonsense approach to environmental regulation, and I will continue to support that, through risk assessment, and so forth, I do oppose the new provisions regarding wetlands and certain other portions of the bill and support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I deeply appreciate that. I had the pleasure of making the motion to adopt this resolution in the House Oversight Committee, and I did that with pleasure for two reasons. Fist of all, these rooms have some meaning for me personally. My first experience in these rooms was meeting with then Minority Leader Gerald Ford a number of years ago when he asked me to serve as his personal science adviser and assemble scientists in his district to meet with him on a regular basis. That was my anointing into the political process, and I think had some influence on the fact that I ended up here today. But above all, I want to speak on this issue, because of the outstanding character and quality of Mr. Michel himself. I first met him at about the same time I became acquainted with Mr. Ford. Mr. Michel came to speak in our district, and I met him, and I was immediately impressed with him, and thoughout the years I have had other contact with him. But what especially impressed me was when I was elected last year, in spite of the fact that he was the minority leader, he took ample time to help me get oriented, adjusted, and to become a true Member of this Congress, and I was impressed with his throughtfulness, his kindness, his helpfulness, and above all, as has been emphasized here, the fact that he is a true gentleman, and he represents the epitome of what is good and proper about this institution. It is with great pleasure that I support this resolution.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, over 200 years ago the Founders of this Nation established a system of government which contained considerable checks and balances, and they established this form of government because they wanted to limit the power of an individual or a group to take over. We have found it necessary to modify the Constitution by limiting the term of a President to 8 years, further limiting the power of an individual to take over the country or to do more than he or she should do. The House of Representatives this year took action to limit the Speaker to 8 years under the same philosophy, and we also limited committee chairmen to 6 years to prevent abuse of power. This week it is time for us to carry out the next logical step, and that is to limit the power of the present length of term of individual Members of Congress. I believe it is a logical next step, it is an important next step, and I urge this Congress to vote to put in place term limits on individual Members of Congress. It is a historic vote and the first opportunity this Congress has ever had to cast this vote. I urge that it be a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, approximately 12 years ago, I was elected to the Michigan legislature and rapidly became immersed in takings issues, because Michigan is the only State of the Union which has been delegated responsibilities for wetlands by the U.S. Government. Takings was a major issue, and my initial reaction was to do precisely what the bill before us does, and that is provide for immediate compensation to property owners whenever an area of their property was declared a wetland. However, in researching the issue, I discovered that there is an extensive 200-year history. Takings is a very complex legal issue. It has a long history, as I mentioned, but it has developed into a basically fair approach. Generally, in takings cases, courts engage in a rigorous balancing process in which they consider a variety of factors, including the purpose of the law and the benefit or economic impact of the law. Precedent, established through zoning laws and the like, looks at the entire piece of property, not only the portion of the land that cannot be used as the owner desires. I believe that H.R. 925, as written, will destroy centuries of U.S. and common law and will create immense legal and financial problems if implemented as it is currently written. In addition, we discovered in Michigan most takings problems can be resolved by ensuring that regulators work with the constituency to achieve a solution. That should be the thrust of the law, and that, I believe, is the thrust of the Porter amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from a letter I received today from a gentleman who served as a Justice in the Michigan Supreme Court for several years, and currently is serving as mayor of the city of Detroit, one of the major American cities. His comment about the bill before us is as follows: These takings bills pose a radically new and constitutionally unsound theory for litigation. Historically, takings' issues have been decided by the courts. The judiciary has crafted just and adequate protection for property owners based on the constitutions of the Federal and State Governments, weighing in each individual case a property owner's justifiable expectations of property use against the rights and interests of the public as embodied in governmental regulation. There is no reason to expand the ``takings'' theory, because a substantial body of case law that the courts have developed to enforce constitutional protections is sufficient. That is the end of the quote from former Justice Archer. We, of course, have experienced takings in other forms; zoning laws, for example. I recently bought a house in Grand Rapids. My wife and I would like to add an addition in the back, and discovered we cannot build exactly as we had hoped because the city government has said ``You cannot build anything on the rear 25 feet of the lot.'' That property cannot be used as I wish, just as it often happens with wetlands conditions. However, we have established procedures for that. We have established laws that result in what is for the greater good of the public. Even though I may not build on that piece of property, that particular zoning law has increased the value of my property and the value of my neighbors' properties. Mr. Chairman, as a former State legislator, I also took a look at what the States are doing, because I know this is an issue before the States. 25 State legislatures have considered a law like the one before us, and have rejected it. Nine States have adopted some type of takings legislation, similar to the law before us, but it is interesting that 6 out of the 9 have adopted legislation that is modeled after the Reagan executive order and the Porter amendment that is before us. In other words, they are taking the same approach that we are recommending in the Porter amendment. One State which adopted a takings law actually had it repealed by the people of the State 2 years later. That is the State of Arizona. The legislature adopted it and the people through a referendum rejected it. Based on the information I have given, the 200-plus years of constitutional law, a great deal of work on the takings issue, the States' experience in rejecting the approach in H.R. 925 and adopting the approach largely in the Porter amendment, I urge adoption of the Porter amendment, and urge that we help property owners meet the law and treat them fairly.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, with your leave, I would like to comment on what the gentleman has said and also the gentleman from Texas. There is a very important point here that has not been emphasized in the debate. The example of the gentleman from Texas about the red cockaded woodpecker is a good example of how it should be done. We had a similar situation in Michigan with the Courtlands Warbler a number of years ago. Once again we established areas within the national forest and within State forests and solved the problem without impacting private property owners. The reason I mention this is that the portion of the Porter-Farr amendment which has not received emphasis in the debate is the part that requires the agency, as part of their private property impact analysis, to include alternatives to the agency action if indeed that would achieve the intended purpose and lessen that likelihood of a taking of private property, which is precisely what happened in Texas, which is precisely what happened in Michigan. I can tell you from our experience, with takings in Michigan that once we turn the bureaucracy around and say, ``No, you cannot just simply say `no' to some alternatives, you have to sit down with the property owner when they have a permit, you have to sit down with them and discuss alternatives with them.'' That solved virtually all of the problems that we had. Instead of just simply saying ``no,'' they have to look at alternative under this amendment. That is precisely what we did in Michigan, which solved the problems to a very great extent with wetlands, sand dunes, and other problems. It is something that the bureaucrats should have the sense enough to do in the first place without being told. But we told them and this amendment tells them, and it really takes care of most of the problems.

Mr. EHLERS. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and support the comments made by the committee chairman, who spoke just a few moments ago, although I come at it from a somewhat different angle, speaking from my scientific background. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to repeat a warning I gave during our discussion of this bill in the Committee on Science. Risk assessment is in fact an idea whose time has come. It is a good idea. But at the same time, let us not assume that this is a panacea, that it is going to resolve regulatory difficulties, and that everyone is going to agree with the results and say hallelujah, this is wonderful, and now we can do this and save money and still protect the environment. It is difficult to do. There are many factors involved which are not fully understood, as we can see just from the debate here over the past day. It is not going to be a panacea, it is going to be difficult to implement. The number of people who truly understand risk assessment and how it proceeds is limited in this Nation, and we have a considerable amount of expertise to build up. In other words, I support the bill. I am anxious to see it go into effect. I hope it works as well as I think it will. But I believe that we have to evaluate how well it works and get a better handle on it before we try to broaden it too much. For that reason, I oppose this amendment, even though I do commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] because the amendment is indeed better than the original version that was contained in the Committee on Commerce version of the bill. I believe that as written, and given the nature of the backlog of cases out there that people are concerned about, this amendment would result in overwhelming the process and perhaps in fact very likely making the entire risk assessment process unworkable. I think it is very important to put this bill in place, prove that it does work when properly applied, and develop the experience and expertise that we need to really make risk assessment work and work well. We will have ample opportunity in the future to broaden the process, to adopt the petition process, and to go back and review other regulations. But I truly worry that we will overwhelm the system, we will overwhelm the process, we will overwhelm the people who are available to do risk assessment, unless we proceed carefully and first of all establish the process according to the bill, demonstrate that it works, and then it is going to become, if we succeed, as I hope we do, so self-evident that this process should be used in all cases, that in fact we should go ahead and apply it to other cases. In other words, I oppose the amendment because I believe it is going to be deleterious to the bill and deleterious to the goals of the sponsor of the amendment. [[Page H2354]] I urge the defeat of the amendment and the passage of the bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, last month a very important event occurred. We passed a bill giving the President line-item veto authority. We hope this will also pass the Senate and be signed into law. What is remarkable to me is the pace of what we have been doing in this Congress during the past month and the accomplishments we have made. And those of you who know me well know I am not this sort of person who brags. In fact, I was born in Minnesota, just like Garrison Keillor, I am somewhat shy and humble. As Garrison Keillor does occasionally, I have to talk about what we do. We are often criticized as being a do-nothing Congress. I would like to announce we now have a do-something Congress, and I have the figures to prove it, and in the words of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], who spoke a few moments ago, a can-do Congress. If you look at what this Congress has accomplished in the first month compared to Congresses of the past dozen years, it is striking. The number of hours spent in session, the average for the past 12 years, 28, our Congress, 115, three times as much; number of votes on the House floor, 9.3 is the average of the past dozen years, this year 79, roughly eight times this many; number of committee and subcommittee sessions, average before, 25, this year 155, six times more; number of measures reported out of committee, the average, 1.6, this year, 14, about nine times more. This Congress is not in the process of reinventing Government, to use that term that is often used. We have a new way of governing. We are getting things done. Not only have we passed a number of important measures such as the balanced budget amendment which Congresses have tried to pass for 40 years or the line-item veto which has been discussed for many years, we have also passed unfunded mandates reform which the States desperately want. We passed the Congressional Accountability Act which applies many of the work place laws to Congress itself. Previous Congresses have exempted themselves. I think what is even more striking are the internal reforms that we have accomplished, many of which were done the first day of Congress. We have eliminated proxy voting which I felt was an abominable practice. We have cut committee staff by one-third. We have reduced the number of committees and subcommittees. And I wish all the people in this land could walk through the basement corridors of the Cannon Building and some of the other buildings and see the dozens and dozens of desks lining the walls in the corridor, the hundreds and hundreds of file cabinets that are there and will be auctioned off because they are no longer needed. The staff that used those desks and those file cabinets are no longer here. Congress truly has cut back, and I hope that trend continues. I think we have to have many cuts in the budget of this Nation, but we have to start with ourselves first, and we have done that. We have open committee hearings to the public, and we have made dozens of other changes in reforming the way Congress operates, even on such mundane matters as parking. It was discovered that some lobbyists had been given parking privileges in the parking garages here in our buildings, and that has been stopped. Providing parking for partisan political organizations has been stopped. What I want all of us to recognize and to appreciate and in fact celebrate, is that we are governing in a different way, and the people of this Nation have responded. Last year the favorable rating of Congress was about 14 percent. It is now almost 50 percent. We have really made progress in changing things, and the public is responding and saying, ``Go on. That is what we like. Keep it up.'' Now, I do want to warn the people of this Nation that these cuts we imposed on ourselves, as I said a moment ago, are a precursor of what we will be doing to the entire budget, and no one likes to have their part of the budget cut, but everyone is going to have to share the pain, because the people of this Nation have said, ``Enough, we want our budget balanced. We want our taxes to be reasonable. We want our country to go forward and operate the way we have to operate our families and stay within our income.'' This Congress has pledged to do that.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, this morning we expect to pass a bill dealing with unfunded mandates, and I will be voting for that bill. I do want to make it clear that I do have some reservations in environmental areas, but those can be addressed as we go along. The main purpose of my comments today is to point out that we are only part of the problem, and I challenge the States of these great United States to follow our example and pass unfunded mandates bills within their own legislative bodies. In the State of Michigan we required a constitutional amendment initiated by the citizens of the State to address this problem. Since I have worked at the county commission level, the State legislative level, and the Federal level, I can assure the Members that everyone tries to pass mandates down to the body below them and require them to pay the costs. My challenge to the States is to follow Michigan's example--adopt a constitutional amendment as we did in Michigan and prohibit passing unfunded mandates down to cites, counties, townships, and other forms of government. Mr. Speaker, I urge all the States to join us in this effort as we pass our unfunded mandates bill today.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, last year the Vice President of the United States, on a national news program, discussed health care reform and why the Democrats were not bothering to speak to the Republicans, and made the statement that ``the Republicans didn't vote for Social Security, they didn't vote for Medicare, they're not going to vote for health care, so why should we bother talking to them?'' That refrain was picked up by the then-majority-party of the House, the Democrats, and we heard it on the floor time after time. The gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] dug up the actual facts, and he and I gave several speeches on that last year clarifying the situation, that in fact 83 percent of the House Republicans in 1935 voted for the Social Security Act, contrary to the statement made by the Vice President that none of them had. Furthermore, 47 percent of Republicans voted for Medicare in 1965. And shame of all shames, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, 81 percent of the Republicans in the House at that time voted for it, whereas only 62 percent of the Democrats did. Mr. Speaker, why do I bring this issue up again? We disposed of it last year immediately after Congressman Horn and I made our comments. The refrain from the other side of the aisle disappeared. But last week once again it emerged as we were discussing Social Security mandates as they relate to the balanced budget amendment and the fear of some people that if we balance the budget, we will cut Social Security. Once again the Republicans were cast in the role of having opposed Social Security when it originally passed. Comments made by the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary indicate that. I would like to read just a few statements that were made in the Congressional Record last week in which the gentleman form Michigan, the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, stated, ``May I remind the gentleman,'' and he is referring to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], ``that Social Security was a Democratic Social Security insurance policy.'' Furthermore, he goes on to say that it was opposed by the Republicans. Once again, we have the same strawperson being resurrected to say that the Republicans opposed Social Security, when in fact the record clearly shows that 83 percent of the Republicans in 1935 voted for the Social Security Act. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we do not have the old false information of last year resurrected again this year. Let us be sure that we deal with the facts. Let us give credit where credit is due. I have a chart here which I would be happy to give to any Member of the other party who wants to review the facts, pointing out that in fact on such things as the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 93 percent of the Republicans voted for it. On the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, 99 percent of the Republicans voted for it. I have already given some of the other figures, particularly the Civil Rights Act, where more Republicans than Democrats voted for it. I think it is clear that the Republicans are not Neanderthals as they are often characterized by Members of the other party. Let us give credit where credit is due. Let us stick with the facts. Let us stick with the actual record and recognize that we must work together to accomplish what is right and what is good for this country. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the chart referred to in my remarks as follows:

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago this month I was elected to the State legislature in Michigan and entered politics full time for the first time in my life. At that time I opposed the Federal balanced budget amendment. Today I will be voting for the balanced budget amendment. Why did I have that change of heart? It is because of my experience at the State level, working with a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto, and seeing that it works. Furthermore, it came from observing that over the past half century Congress has not demonstrated that it has the collective self-discipline to balance the budget. It needs some outside impetus to require it. I have seen it work at the State level. The fact that it exists forces the State legislatures to balance their budgets. If we have a Federal balanced budget amendment, that will force our Congress to balance the budget that they submit to the President each year. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget our children and grandchildren and our obligation to them. Let us join in supporting the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. As I understand it, you are suggesting an investigation of Mr. Murdoch. But that is not what I have heard the discussion about during the past week.

Mr. EHLERS. Just one moment, please. Finally, I am reminded of the comments of Mr. Rodney King, whom I did not think I would ever quote on the floor of Congress, but give his famous statement, ``Can't we all just get along?'' Can't we all just get along for the good of the American people and for the purpose of debate in this body? I would be pleased to yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have given some thought to the events of the past week, the discussions and the debates. Through it all I am reminded of something I learned from my father years ago, and, that is, that great minds debate issues, average minds discuss events, and small minds talk about other people. I have been dismayed that of all the many issues facing this Congress, particularly as we debate the Contract With America, that we find the other side, the minority party, concentrating on personal attacks on a Member of the Republican side. Perhaps there is some basis for that, although I do not believe so. But the point I am making is, we have a number of major issues facing the Congress in the first 100 days and beyond. Furthermore, I believe the philosophy underlying the Contract With America deserves discussion and debate on behalf of the American people. I believe it is important for us to engage in a dialog with the American people and discuss these issues with them, both Republicans and Democrats. I find it personally dismaying that so much emphasis during the 1-minute speeches and the 5-minute speeches has been concentrated on one particular person and one particular aspect of what that person has done. I do not believe that this is behavior befitting the institution of the Congress. I believe that we have better things to do, we have more important things to do, and we have more important issues to discuss. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in debating the issues that face this country, and the issues that are being presented to us daily on the floor. There are certain things we can discuss during these 1-minute and 5- minute speeches which cannot or do not lend themselves very well to debate during the specific bills which are brought before the body. I think that we should take the opportunity during these 1-minute and 5- minute discussions to in fact debate the philosophy underlying this. I would also like to see more discussion about foreign relations issues and choices, particularly as it relates to the Russian involvement in Chechnya, the battle going on in Bosnia, the devaluation of the Mexican peso and the implications for us. We do not need more rancorous debate about individuals and persons and their behavior. We need positive, constructive debate about the issues facing this Nation and what we as a Congress are going to propose to do about those problems.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states: on the first day of Congress, a Republican House will: force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else, cut one-third of committee staff, and cut the congressional budget. We have done that. In the next 91 days, we will vote on the following 10 items: No. 1, a balanced budget amendment and line item veto; No. 2, a new crime bill to stop violent criminals; No. 3, welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; No. 4, family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; No. 5, tax cuts for families to lift Government's burden from middle income Americans; No. 6, National security restoration to protect our freedoms; No. 7, Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; No. 8, Government regulation and unfunded mandate reforms; No. 9, common sense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits, and finally No. 10, Congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two points. First of all, a good reason for doing the audit is that we do not know what we will find. When we did this in Michigan 2 years ago after a large number of years of Democratic rule, we discovered a major scandal in the House fiscal agency. As a result of that discovery, we currently have three former staff members serving prison time, four more on probation, three still in the courts. That is an example of the type of thing you may find, and it is not a result of the Members' misbehavior but of staff misbehavior. My second point, all of the discussion has been about fiscal aspects, but the operational aspects of the audit are equally, if not more, important, in particular the computer activities which I hope to audit. Just a few weeks ago a Member came to me that spent $22,000 for a file server last year. It is now useless. I urge that we go ahead with both the fiscal and operational audit and do it well.