John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this is really what this debate is all about. Clinton said he knew that a lot of people in the room were ``still mad about the 1993 budget and they think I raised their taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.'' That was President Clinton that said that. Maybe that is a misquote, but I think he said that.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first I want to regress just to address one thing on what we did a few minutes earlier in passing an increase in the debt ceiling. Mr. Speaker, I did not get to mention it in my remarks, but basically, we heard they are dipping into these trust funds now; and the Secretary of Treasury says it does not matter what the Congress does; Even though they are in charge, we are going to steal from these funds no matter what. But, in fact, if we ran in the private sector our retirement funds in the fashion that this Congress operates, we would basically go to jail. It cannot be done that way in the private sector. The only difference here is that we have an unlimited resource and that is taxpayers' wallets. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about why we are in this situation, and we are in this situation. Until October 1, this Congress was running under the past Congress' financial plan. We do not like that plan. We do not think that the solution to the problems of this country and this Congress is throwing more money at problems. Regarding education, for example, we spend billions of dollars and look at what we get. In my communities and in Florida, 50 percent of our students entering community college need remedial education. Is that success? In the area of environmental protection, they say we want to do damage. When we spent 85 percent of our money on attorneys' fees and studies in our Superfund, is that success? Mr. Speaker, because of this process, because they had their way to run this place and misused it until October 1, now we want to send more direction. We want to send some guidance on not just throwing money at these problems, but doing it with some wisdom, with some direction, with some results, and with some economy and some efficiency. Under current law, we cannot even drink the water in this community today. So, we are asking for changes, and we want to see them changed through this appropriations process.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, if it is extremism to meet ones financial obligations, then there are extreme people on our side of the aisle. If it is extremism to pay one's debts, then we are extremists. If it is extremism to make Government accountable and responsible, then we are extremists. I chair the House Civil Service Committee. I have only done that for a few months, and let me tell my colleagues about the mess we inherited. As my colleagues know, we have approximately 39 Federal retirement programs, and Congress has raided every retirement cookie jar. Thirty-five of the thirty-nine Federal retirement programs are already raided. There are no funds in them. Two funds, the Federal employee retirement trust fund and the military trust fund have unfunded liability of over a trillion dollars, and that is not counted in the $1\1/2\ trillion national debt. So now they are telling us that retirement accounts are their next avenue of irresponsibility, and that is only part of the problem. We are paying $19.8 billion out of the Treasury to meet the current benefits for our Federal employees and another $24 billion every year to pay the interest on the money we stole from the account. So now they found one more account, one more bastion of irresponsibility, and I tell my colleagues that we cannot continue the funny bookkeeping that we have inherited. Even the President summed it up, and that is what this debate is all about. He said it: ``I taxed you too much and I cut too little.'' If we are going to run this country $67 billion more in debt for 34 days and make every man, woman, and child in this country pay for those 34 days another $269 just for that short period of time for that debt we are extending, then we should have fiscal responsibility, and we should end the ways of the past.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I have to address the issue that my colleague from Florida brought up about the dismantling and how it would affect NOAA, the Weather Bureau. There are 36,000 employees in the Department of Commerce, of which 17,000 are in the Weather Service, 17,000 employees. Get some handle on that. In addition, with FAA that has a Weather Bureau, we have DOD with a Weather Bureau. We are recommending some consolidation. This is not the day when you stick your finger out and get the weather with 17,000 people around the country. You get it from satellites and new technology and savings.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2586 as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. This bill provides important protections for active and retired Federal workers. It protects the integrity of the civil service retirement and disability fund and the government securities investment fund. Under this bill, the administration will not be able to raid these funds in order to pretend that our national debt does not exceed the debt limit. The civil service retirement and disability fund provides authority to fund annuities paid under the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. It is a tempting target for the administration to raid, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it contains about 374 billion dollars' worth of special nonmarketable government securities that are subject to the debt limit. Many current Federal employees invest their money in the government securities investment fund. This is one of the three funds in which employees can invest under the thrift savings plan. Their money is also invested in special nonmarketable government securities subject to the debt limit. In the past, Mr. Speaker, administrations have raided the civil service retirement and disability fund in order to stay under the debt limit. They have refused to invest the dollars coming into the fund. The administration could even just tear up existing nonmarketable securities in the fund. It has been done before. It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that the administration intends to raid the civil service retirement and disability fund. I have here a set of administration talking points that make that clear. Mr. Speaker, the civil service retirement disability fund is already woefully underfunded to the tune of $540 billion. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is already an unfunded liability of half a trillion dollars. Our learned colleagues on the other side of the aisle screamed and hollered when the private employers asked to be able to withdraw their excess contributions from their employee retirement funds that were more than 125 percent funded. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they did not even want private employers to reach into expensively funded plans. These same people now have the gall to give the administration a free reign to raid the retirement fund that is so woefully underfunded. Mr. Speaker, we need to manage our public debt and to work hard to reduce it, but allowing the administration to dip into these funds would just be a gimmick. It is a charade. It is time to inject some fiscal responsibility in managing the Government accounts. I support H.R. 2586, Mr. Speaker, because it prevents the administration from raiding the funds behind our employee retirement systems and behind their backs, and it makes sure their annuities are paid. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information in support of my statement. Excerpt from Department of Treasury Talking Points, Nov. 7, 1995 Finally, by repealing the debt management features of the law relating to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the bill would increase the risk of default by severely limiting the ability of the Secretary of the Treasury to assure that crucial government payments--including benefit payments such as Social Security, as well as payments on the public debt--could be made in a time of debt limit crisis. These provisions were enacted in a Republican Administration and reflect the widely held view that the Secretary should have options to relieve pressure and avert default.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to try to bring this debate into perspective. I have my $270 here that I took out of my savings account. What we are going to do today is we are going to extend the debt limit for every man, woman, and child in the United States for a total of $67 billion between today and December 12. That costs every man, woman, and child $269 of their hard-earned money just for that short period of time. Now we have heard about regulatory reform. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and I stood on this floor in the past Congress and debated regulatory reform, and we passed regulatory reform by overwhelming margins, but we have not seen regulatory reform. Now the other side has bought votes for three decades. They have paid for them with IOU's, and they have created a national debt of $1\1/2\ trillion, and we are asking today that, if we increase the national debt, we want reforms, we want regulatory reform, we want risk assessment, we want to look [[Page H 12060]] at the cost and benefit of imposition of a new regulation, we want the reorganization of the Department of Commerce, and talk about supporting a trade policy. The United States has he most disorganized trade effort in the world with the highest, we are running the highest, trade deficit that we have ever had in the history of this Nation, and we are asking to reorganize it in this bill. So these are the downpayments we are asking for as we raise this debt up, as we obligate every citizen in this country for just the next 34 days to $269 per person. By Thanksgiving it will be $118 per person for every person in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am telling my colleagues the other side will not be happy until every American is dependent on some kind of government program.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, having been involved in the private sector in international trade before I got here, and coming from business, I can tell my colleagues that this proposal is a tremendous improvement over the current disjointed, disorganized trade mess. We have taken the USTR office, which only has about 150 people, and consolidated into that office from the Department of Commerce all of the trade activities that serve medium and small business and can do a great job in improving our competition in the international market.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, what is this debate all about? Let me try to bring this debate into some perspective. We are raising the debt of the United States of every man, woman, and child for the next 34 days in the amount of $67 billion added debt. I went down and took out $269 from my savings account. This new debt is $269 for every man, woman, and child in the United States for 34 days. Mr. Speaker, by the time you eat your Thanksgiving turkey, it will be $118 per man, women, and child. Get this into some perspective. We are already $4.9 trillion in debt. Get this into some perspective. For 30 years, these good intentions have driven us into the poorhouse. And [[Page H 12002]] here we are, we could take the money and pay for the entire country's Medicaid with this; $67 billion is 74 percent of all the money we spend for every Medicaid recipient in the country, that is what we are going into debt for in the next 34 days. We only reorganize one department, the Department of Commerce, one department, 36,000 employees, 21,000 within 50 miles of where I am standing, 21,000. We will eliminate over 7 years, 11,000 positions. Why do we need that many people? Mr. Speaker, we are eliminating 40 programs. We are saving $6 billion. This is just a downpayment on the mess that has been created over these three or four decades. So, we have run ourselves into the poorhouse. It is only a downpayment. Bring it into perspective: For every man, woman, and child in this country, $269 between now and December 12.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I did not know Prime Minister Rabin well, but I had an opportunity, like many of you, to hear him. I remember 2 years ago I stood on the White House lawn and saw that famous handshake that he said was so rare, but he felt should be so common, of people coming together, and we praised him then for his peace efforts. I had the opportunity to join Chairman Gilman and other Members of the new majority also in a bipartisan effort and flew to Jerusalem earlier this year; and we reassured the Prime Minister and other leaders that we were committed to peace, his peace efforts in the Middle East; and we lauded him at that time. But I got to see him firsthand; and I saw a tough man, a firm man, but a gentleman. Again, I did not know him that well, but I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to discuss peace with him and his efforts. Then we heard not too long ago his admonition that the land of milk and honey should not be a river of tears [[Page H 11846]] and blood, and all of us listened, and we heard him again appeal to the Middle East and to the world for peace. So we saw a man who was drawn into war, but who worked for peace, and he taught us a lesson, a lesson that we should be thankful for and remember toward world peace, Be prepared for war, but, in fact, that we should all work for peace. He will be missed by myself and many others who have had a brief opportunity to work with him, but we will work toward his legacy, and that legacy was one of peace.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, the United States under the misguided leadership of President Clinton, is courting another international disaster. President Clinton did not learn in Somalia, where he turned a humanitarian mission into a bungled fiasco, costing dozens of lives and billions of dollars. President Clinton did not listen when he sailed into Port-au-Prince Harbor and then retreated, leaving us with hundreds of Haitian opponents dead and a costly legacy for which the American taxpayer is still paying billions. President Clinton did not hear the pleas for a Pan African force to prevent [[Page H 11691]] and preempt a slaughter in Rwanda, where nearly 1 million died, and now we are still paying the United Nations billions. President Clinton did not support the lifting of an arms embargo to allow Bosnians to defend themselves, and thousands died, and now we are paying the United Nations and NATO billions. President Clinton still did not get the message when 315 Members of this Congress said we do not want 20,000 American troops in Bosnia, we do not want Americans killed and held hostage, we do not want our military under the U.N. command, and we do not want to spend billions on another fiasco.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and I wanted to address this issue. I served on the committee that oversaw EPA and tried to bring some common sense in my first 2 years in this body to the mass of regulations that are pumped out by EPA and other Federal regulatory agencies. This debate is really all about bringing power and central control here in Washington, and that is what all the last election was about. People are rebelling about this. It is about how many people we have in EPA. In the last 10, 12 years we have gone from 11,000 to 18,000 Federal employees in EPA; 8,000 of them are here in the city of Washington regulating and mandating. These riders sent a message and that message needs to be heard. And if we were not listening, we did not get the message here. The other body cut EPA 20 percent. This body recommended 30 percent cuts. Why? Because of the regulations. These riders each address an abuse by these agencies and this Congress who have not gotten the message. Cement kilns. If we want to look at cement kiln regulations, we were on our way until we found out the President's biggest contributor had a big investment in cement kiln regulation. It is not these riders, it is the politics that is stopping this process. And until we stop regulating and mandating from this city in an arbitrary and unreasonable fashion, without common sense, we will see these riders come back and more appeals for less regulation in this city that wants to maintain that power and that oppression on the States and local governments and the citizens of this country.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, let me tell Members about this water and this debate. Under this water, the citizens died and got sick in Milwaukee under our current rules and great regulations. Under this water, you could not drink the water in Washington for several days under the current rules and regulations. That is what this debate is about. [[Page H 11701]] This debate is about the inflexibility, because this Congress mandates 53 water contaminants, that you must look at, because this Congress is unreasonable, because this Congress in every one of its environmental programs has gone off the deep end. There is no one on this side who does not want to have clean water and clean air. They spend billions of dollars on Superfund. Eighty-five percent of the money goes to attorneys' fees and studies. And what do we get? We do not get the sites cleaned up. We are forced to drink crummy water. Most of these Members who are telling you about the special interests, that is a lot of baloney. The special interest is the people of this country who are paying the taxes and should have clean water and fresh air to drink and to breathe.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, last week President Clinton said, ``I increased taxes too much and cut spending too little.'' We all saw it here, and, as my colleagues know, that is really what this debate is all about. Will we continue 40 years of blindly throwing taxpayer money at our problems, or will for one time reverse that failed policy? Today we must really ask ourselves what has the tax-and-spend policy of these past 30 or 40 years brought us? We discourage and we penalize people for working. We have destroyed family structures. Our Federal programs are like sieves. They are fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. In my district nearly 50 percent of our community college entrants need remedial education. Our children must look forward to bleak futures, part-time jobs, low-paying jobs, or service jobs. We penalize our seniors for working. We export our jobs. We discourage savings. We penalize investment, and, to top it all off, the wonderful mess we have created for our people makes them afraid to go out and walk on our streets at night. Today we have with the budget before us possibly the last opportunity to change all that. I urge the adoption of the Republican budget and urge the defeat of this fig-leaf substitute.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Yes, $1 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse. And that is the cornerstone of the Republican plan, is to tackle some of that. Every senior has seen it when they have sat in an office and seen how the system is abused. When they have seen the billing, they see the net results. We had one individual come to a town hall meeting and talk about what he was forced to pay for a wheelchair. He could have purchased probably four or five wheelchairs for what the system required him, or the system and the taxpayers to pay for under this ridiculous system. So waste, fraud, and abuse are an important cornerstone. Medicaid is the same thing and we will not get into that tonight. but I sit on the subcommittee and we oversaw Medicaid with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], and Medicaid in Florida is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 billion in waste just by estimates of the General Accounting Office report that our subcommittee received last year. So, the cornerstone is doing something about waste, fraud, and abuse. Then, the second point is tort reform, and we know we have to face tort reform. We sent to the other body litigation and legal and tort reform that is so necessary, whether it involves medical expenses. And we see that again. Someone said a doctor charged so much for an office visit. And I checked with the doctor to see what his liability was. His premium is $50,000 a year. That is a thousand dollars a week. If you do 100 visits, that is tacked on at the front end of every visit. We have to do something to bring some of the need for reform into place here as far as tort and liability reform. A second major point. And then again my colleagues have described the opportunity for choices. No one is forced out of Medicare. No one is forced into any plans under what we are proposing. Beneficiaries are given choices. What is wrong with choices? And choices that we offer will create competition. We think we will drive prices down. We are not positive it will work, but we think from the models that we have seen, from pure logic, that competition and also having various plans such as we have in the Federal Health Benefits Program that I oversee, also as chair as the House Civil Service Subcommittee, people will have the opportunity to choose from a variety of plans which will begin to be self-policing. And we have seen that. They bring down costs. They offer more options for folks. Things like medical savings accounts, which makes so much sense. What is wrong with providing an alternative to bankruptcy? It is all done, too, on the House side we say no change in copayments. No change in deductible and the premiums remain the same. Seniors can stay in Medicare. We can reform Medicare and also offer choices, and I think that makes sense. The most important thing is it helps bring the finances of the country and the system into some balance and we will not bankrupt the system or the country.

Mr. MICA. In closing, I just want to say again that I do not think there is any greater threat to senior citizens or all Americans, if this Congress does not act responsibly on the fiscal problems. And they are not just Medicare, it is a big item, but it is also providing jobs and opportunity for this and future generations. And some of that does involve changing our tax policy. So we are going to have to do all of this. I think if we work together we can do a better job and we do not have to scare anyone in the process. But I think all of us working together we can improve what we have.

Mr. MICA. Well, again, Mr. Speaker, nothing is certain. We are trying to do our best. We all have relatives. I have aunts who are on Medicare and trying to make if from week to week and month to month. We are concerned about these people. But our number one concern should be that we do not bankrupt the country. And simple math will show you that this whole structure we have created, this huge government program is going to collapse. Even the President's commission says that. So we are willing to work with the other side. We are willing to work with the administration. We are willing to work with people who have ideas. We have held hundreds of hearings on this and Members have held literally thousands of town hall meetings trying to bring together the best ideas into a plan that makes sense. The last thing we would want to do is hurt any senior citizen, someone in need or someone who needs that care. We think we can do a better job, and it is not necessarily throwing more money at the problem. That seems to be the only solution around here. Do we do a better job, as proposed by some folks on the other side of the aisle or the administration, just by ignoring the problem or letting the waste continue? Well, we will let the waste go to 89 billion or let the waste go to 100 billion. This does not make sense. We need to make the system work and it should operate and function in a responsive, accountable fashion and give the people the choices that others have. Why confine them to one failed choice?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I cannot think of anyone in the Congress who probably represents more seniors than the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], and who has been more active in trying to bring some fiscal responsibility to this Nation and also to the Congress. I am also pleased to join the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. I know many of the Members, particularly on this side of the aisle, and there is no one who has greater sense of compassion for the people of this country, their needs, and who cares more about human beings in our Nation. I have seen him work in this fashion and toward a compassionate solution to [[Page H 10134]] many of the problems that confront us. I am extremely pleased to join both of my colleagues this evening to talk about Medicare reform. I have really remained somewhat silent. I have held my town hall meetings and looked at what the Republican proposal was. Tonight, I am here to strongly endorse the House Medicare reform proposals. I have looked at them. I have talked with our seniors. The nice thing about senior citizens is they were not born yesterday and they have seen a lot of water over the dam and heard a lot of rhetoric and they have been able to sort through some of the smoke and charges and rhetoric from the other side of the aisle. It is unfortunate that some of these people have not come up with what is a new idea, or some new solutions, in more than three decades to some of the mounting problems of this country. I am here tonight to say that, in fact, I think the greatest threat to our senior citizens is the national deficit and we must do something about it. I brought a couple of charts that I blew up. They are not very colorful, but one of them I wanted to show to our seniors and other Members tonight was the fact that our Federal budget in 1995 now is composed of $153 billion in entitlements. That is some of the welfare programs; $333 billion in Social Security, and that we hope will stay off budget and is not affected by anything that is proposed by our side of the aisle; Medicaid is another $90 billion; and you see Medicare $176 billion. Then you add in interest on the national debt and we are looking at somewhere around two-thirds to three-quarters of our entire expenditure for the Nation. What this says is that we must do something to bring some of these costs into check. The two biggest Government programs are the health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. And even a simple mathematics computation will tell us, and the President's own trustees, and I brought a copy of that, that basically, that the trust fund is projected to become exhausted. What I said about simple math is we have been spending somewhere between 11 percent, 10.5 percent, and 13 percent per year. And simple math will tell us that in about 7\1/2\ years, if we continue at that rate, those huge expenditures will bankrupt the system and this chart again goes completely awry and we cannot bring the finances of this country into order. Now, what is even of concern not only to seniors, but what should be of concern to working men and women, is the country's population and its worker base actually starts to decrease. The ratio of active workers to Medicare beneficiaries in 1995, as you can see, is way up here on this chart: 3.3. And if you look at the year 2035, it is down to 20. So, what is going to happen is people who are now concerned about what is being taken out for Social Security and other taxes and Medicare, there will be a smaller pool to draw from. They will be able to take home very little and we will be taxing them to an unheard of degree. We will not be able to support the system. So, we did not create the mess. We may have been here while the mess was created, but, in fact, the other side has had control of both the House and the other body here. We see the same thing, whether it is the District of Columbia, it is Amtrak, whether it is Medicaid, whether it is the pension funds that I oversee for the Federal Government on the House side as chair of the House Civil Service Subcommittee. All of these programs are basically bankrupt. We have robbed from the cookie jars and now we have to face reality. But I think that the plan that we have come up with, you have heard my colleagues, Mr. Miller and Mr. Shays, outline some of the things that we have done. We addressed the real problems here. Everyone knows, every senior who has attended any town hall meeting that I have held has come forward and said, Mr. Mica, look at the waste, fraud, and abuse. Look how much I was charged for this 15 minute service. And they hold up a bill. Look how much this item cost, this overbilling. The Miami Herald in Florida did an article on Medicaid fraud and they estimated a $1 billion fraud and abuse of the system in just the State of Florida.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the American Automobile Association's School Safety Patrols. The 1995-96 school year marks the 75th anniversary of the AAA/ School Safety Patrol partnership. Over the years, the safety patrol-- which annually safeguards the lives of millions of young boys and girls--has become almost as recognizable to motorists as the stop sign. The presence of a safety patrol member wearing the familiar orange Sam Browne belt, which circles the waist and crosses over the shoulder, is a nationally accepted traffic indicator alerting motorists to drive carefully, for school children are in the area. Motorists will find safety patrol members in 76 percent of the communities across the country. AAA clubs across the United States and Canada sponsor the 500,000 member safety patrol program in 50,000 schools. AAA clubs supply the training materials, belts, badges and everything needed to organize and operate a school safety patrol program, as well as recognition activities. Serving as patrols helps children develop a sense of responsibility at an early age. They're on duty early every morning of the school year and after the school day is over, sacrificing their play time. Throughout the day they remind their fellow students of safety rules and see that they cross the street only when it is safe to do so. Over the years, the program has spurred worldwide interest, and youngsters in many foreign lands have joined in the effort to improve traffic safety for school children. The national pedestrian death rate per 100,000 children under 10 years of age is dropping steadily--from 10.4 in 1935 to 3.0 in 1986, a 71-percent decline--and continues to decline. By 1993, the death rate for pedestrians under 10 was 1.4 per 100,000, down 65 percent from 1975. Not only are fewer young pedestrians being killed, but the percentage of those deaths in relation to total pedestrian fatalities also is declining. Some factors in the drop in child pedestrian deaths include increased public and media attention on traffic and child- safety issues, more students being bused to and from school, and improved emergency-medical services. During its long and distinguished history, the School Safety Patrol has saved many lives. Last year, for instance, seven safety patrol members were honored for their heroics. Drivers can and need to help protect our most precious resource by recognizing school zones--and the familiar orange Sam Browne belt worn by the School Safety Patrol--as a warning to slow down and look for children crossing the road. I ask my colleagues to join me today and salute the contributions of the thousands of safety patrols kids everywhere. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the distinct pleasure of recognizing the 75th anniversary of the AAA School Safety Patrol partnership.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, as we move forward on telecommunications, I want to ensure that we do not enact any provision that could result in existing radio users being deprived of the ability to operate, expand, and modify as necessary their radio systems. This would be especially true of noncommercial internal use radio systems, operated by safety providers like AAA. These systems are important in protecting the safety and security of the American public. Last year, for example, AAA responded to over 22 million calls for emergency assistance relying heavily on its radio dispatch system. I would therefore urge the House and Senate conferees on the telecommunications bill to reject any provision which would put at risk this public safety service.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 1995 I was joined by seven of my colleagues in introducing the Trade Reorganization Act of 1995, HR. 2124. The purpose of this bill is to consolidate the functions of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office with the trade functions of the Commerce Department into one U.S. Trade Office. The cosponsors of the bill realize that all of these trade functions are critical to enhancing U.S. exports and creating jobs. A legislative drafting error resulted in the appearance that our bill only transferred the foreign component of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service. I want the record to reflect that it was the intent of all the sponsors of the bill to preserve the domestic offices and include those operations in the U.S. Trade Office.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and this attack on the clean water revisions. I want to say that the revisions that we came out with were really done in a bipartisan fashion. The bill was introduced on an eight to eight basis, eight Democrats and eight Republicans. What this debate is really about is the question of whether Washington will continue to dictate, Washington will continue to regulate. There have been many misstatements about what we do in the bill. I want to say also that the people that are on this side of the issue care about the environment. We want clean water. We want clean air. However, after 20 years, we have seen mistakes. Let me give an example of what we do. Under current law, we classify dry riverbeds in the West as fishable-swimmable. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] pointed out a parking lot in the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas which required wetland permitting. We require in Alaska and Anchorage fish guts dumped in to comply with ridiculous regulations. We are asking for, No. 1, flexibility, No. 2, common sense, and No. 3, for reasonableness. We keep Federal standards, we allow local and State flexibility and responsibility, and we say we can do a better job with less. Our reforms are endorsed by almost every State and local group. Finally, we are only asking that we bring reasonable, again, common sense to a process that has really grown out of control. Let me say also, I served on the committee that oversaw the question of cement kilns and regulation. We had folks come to us who could have made those changes a long time ago.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote number 566 I am recorded as voting ``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``yes''. amendment offered by mr. coleman

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Again I salute you. This is just the beginning of the story. The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, is that 19 agencies of Federal Government dealing in trade and export, spending $3 billion, and in fact you are creating a nucleus for many, many more potential savings in government and, again, trying to make an inroad. The hardest thing to do around here, I have always found, is to present a new idea, but you have a new idea, you have a new approach. I commend you, and I urge you to go forward, and we can do a lot better, not only with the Department of Commerce, but with the rest of this huge government bureaucracy.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to say really thank you to both of the gentlemen, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler]. I think you really represent the hope of this country, and I cannot tell you how much I admire you and what you are trying to do. You were sent here with a specific message or directive of an overwhelming mandate, probably one of the rare times when everybody from one party across the board or across the country got elected. But you are the leaders. I came just a few months before, 24 months before, this is only my second term, with some of the hopes and dreams and aspirations for changing the Government, making it a better place. But it was very difficult. We did not have the votes. You have the votes and I admire you. I also would ask you to read this little comment up here above me in the back by Daniel Webster. You know, as I was sworn here, it impressed me, his words about leaving something worthy for future generations to remember. And that is what I think you are doing. You embody the spirit of change and reform that I think the American people want and have anticipated. I ask you not to give up on your attempt to restructure one agency. You are down to one agency. I know you have been beaten over the brow; I know you have been urged not to proceed, and I know there are 1,000 reasons for deviating. But really, I think we can start with the Department of Commerce, and I think you have shown that that could be an example. It is an example of, you know, Commerce has been sort of a dumping ground over the years. Most people think it is 95 percent helping commerce and trade. That is why some people say well, save this, it is important today that we do that. Actually, they do not realize really, in trade and export it is less than 5 percent of the entire budget and a small number of the employees. So there are many people, myself included, rooting for you. Let me tell the gentlemen, this place is the hardest place to bring about change. It is very difficult, but in fact you can do it. Our freshmen class, we abolished the select committees when they said you could not do that. We were threatened to be thrown out of here if we exposed who signed the discharge petitions and the gag law. We stood here, just a few of us, like you are standing here tonight, and we changed the course of this place and the way this place is run. There are not many of you out here tonight, it is late at night, it is kind of like the night we were out here and made that dramatic change in the conduct of the business of this Congress. So I salute you, I commend you, you are on the right track. Mr. Chrysler has not proposed--I have read his proposal to just trash all of the good functions in the Department of Commerce. In fact, I think he has started the debate. Let's look at how we can do things better. Does it make sense to have the Federal Government do these functions that have been done? Does it make sense for this to be done by the private sector? Can we apply a cost-benefit to this, which is something we tried to get? The business thinking that you have brought to this Congress as an approach is so important, and that is what you need to apply to this dismantling of the Department of Commerce, [[Page H 7698]] that we see that the functions are appropriately assigned and then revised. That is exactly what you are proposing, not any destruction, not any unnecessary elimination, but an improvement, and you can do more with less, just a totally different approach. So again, I commend you. I have enjoyed working with you. I have a proposal that we are trying to reach a consensus on because we know there are some good things in the Department of Commerce, particularly in trade, where so many people have said, let's save the trade functions. We have a joint proposal which we hope to introduce later this week that saves all of the elements. It actually will spend less money, and it will provide us with the mechanism so that the United States can compete in the decades ahead in a new arena where most of the jobs are created, where most of the opportunities are in exports and in trade, and provide us with the tools to do the jobs. So, we are working together and have, in fact, come up with a plan to salvage the most important elements. The other elements, as I understand it, will all be examined, looked at, by the appropriate committees. So I cannot tell you from the bottom of my heat, from the bottom of the heart of everybody I talk to when I go home, around the country, how encouraged we are by what you are doing. Do not give up. Do not let them throw roadblocks in front of you. Continue, and continue on a responsible, reasonable course like you have, and you can make a change, and you can make changes that will be worthy of being remembered by future generations, just as that little edict up there commands each of us who have the honor and privilege of serving here. So I thank both of you for your leadership for the other 71 freshmen. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] for his leadership, and the others on this issue and the others who have spoken here tonight.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I regret that I take this position. I know the committee and the chairman have done a great job.