Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, was this item in the Senate bill? If Mark Hatfield was so supportive of it, was it in the Senate bill? It was not in the House bill. It just sort of appeared. That really is the question. We are trying to make sure things do not just appear anymore.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is last year. They had a different Congress than.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I am sorry the gentleman's information is incorrect, unless my staff is incorrect. I am informed there has been no communication from the university this year, and that this was not presented to our subcommittee, nowhere along the line. If this is such an important project and this is so justifiable, why was not an amendment presented to us at the subcommittee so we could go through the procedures and it could be talked out, so people up and down through the system would have their chance to have a say and to vote on this? Why do we have to have it just appear all of a sudden on the floor at the last minute?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is this not supposed to be energy research, and not medical research?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this might be a very fine program, and it probably is a very fine program, but what does this have to do with the Department of Energy?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin who just spoke and insinuated something about the chairman of the Committee on Science owes the chairman of the Committee of Science an apology. The insinuation was that this is some way correlates, the support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], of hydrogen research, in some way correlates to the, you know, what we have in front of us today, which is basically pork-barreling that has not gone, and earmarking, that has not gone through the process, and it is very clear to those of us who are on the Committee on Science that any money allocated for hydrogen research was something that went through the committee process. Everyone had a chance to debate it. Everyone had a chance to examine it, to disagree or agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] about hydrogen research. That is totally unlike what we are talking about today in this bill, where we are basically talking about something that was put in, not through the committee process, but instead has just materialized in front of us. I think that it is basically my colleague from Wisconsin, who, through this insinuation at the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and owes him an apology. I would have to say that I have witnessed that what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] did on the hydrogen research bill has nothing to do and is totally dissimilar and was absolutely consistent with the rules. I would suggest that if some one is going to make those kinds of insinuations, that maybe they should study the the process and understand it a little more before they attack a senior Member, as such.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me for the record state that I have deep admiration for the former chairman of the Committee on Science and in the past several years I have worked with the former chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], on this issue as well as on the issue about other what I consider to be some kind of violations of the Committee on Appropriations process. The gentleman has my full respect for this and other issues that we have worked side- by-side on

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I would just say that I agree with that goal. I agree totally with that goal and that may well be achievable. I would like to try to proceed and to study that issue and let people on both sides of the aisle have their say and examine it as it should be examined. In terms of the amount of money spent on energy research, let me just say, to correct my friend, this bill is about $6.5 billion of non-defense energy and environmental research. That is what this is about. So I do not think that that is low-balling this issue. I believe that $6.5 billion spent by the Federal Government on energy and environmental research is a good sum of money. Our job is to make sure it is spent properly. Some people may want to spend more money, but we should at the very least prioritize and make sure that the very most effective and promising sources of energy and environmental technology are funded. That is what this is all about, when we are trying to balance the budget, to find that particular project, rather than funding all the projects or cutting all the projects by 10 or 20 percent, find those projects that are most promising and fund those and come up with creative ideas like we just have.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. I am the chairman of the subcommittee that would have dealt with this bill had this bill been submitted in the proper way. The fact is that I am very sympathetic with the goal that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has in mind here. Had we had a chance to look at it and to examine the issues and examine the figures and the facts, I might be standing today in partnership with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] in support of this amendment. But we do not know. In fact, there were hearings on various bills that were aimed at privatizing laboratories or reforming the laboratory system and the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] was not included because it was not submitted to us. Thus for all we know, there could be some unintended consequences that we have not looked at. So whereas I am always open-minded to try to find ways of privatizing government services and seeing how we can do this, I would have to be in opposition to this particular amendment at this time. I would hope that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], if this loses in a vote on the floor, would not give up but instead resubmit this and submit to the committee and I would be very happy to bring this up at the earliest possible time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems every time we come forward with some proposal like this, there is some kind of objection. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Walker, just like the other members of the committee on the majority side, have made their commitment to try to do what we can to balance the budget. I personally would go a lot further than what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has, but he wants to be responsible and try to make sure everybody can vote for this, and he is letting Dana Rohrabacher be the radical here. But the fact is I would even be more strenuous in cutting down the budget than the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. He is being frugal, but not irresponsible. Now what we find is even a frugal approach is being rejected by the other side of the aisle.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me we have got two alternatives in front of us: One alternative by the chairman, who basically is setting forth a proposal that we balance the budget. Again we are faced with another alternative coming from the other side of the aisle in which balancing the budget has no priority whatsoever. While I have some questions about the chairman's original proposal, certainly this substitute basically takes away from the chairman's long-term goals, and I think they are supposed to be the long-term goals of this Congress, which is we will balance the budget within a reasonable period of time. I remember during the early days of this session when the Republicans were challenged, people said, ``We do not need a balanced budget amendment. Just do it. Just go ahead and do it.'' [[Page H 9845]] Well, that is what we are trying to do. Over and over again, what we found is every time we try to do this, because the people said, ``You do not need the balanced budget amendment, you can do it because you are the majority,'' when we try it, we get nothing but opposition from the other side of the aisle. This is yet another example of how, when we are trying to balance the budget, not only can we not get a balanced budget amendment, but we cannot get a game plan to lead us to a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is what the chairman is doing.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, those of us who are not in support of the President's position would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What the gentleman is saying is we should be supportive of his position because his numbers are closer to what the President would request on this item?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I would ask, his figures are consistent with the President's request?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying that what he is presenting to us is the position of President Clinton?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will speak my own mind on this, which should not be the first, because I happen to agree with my colleague that this amendment is a good amendment, and I will be supporting it. But I do realize that there are a number of people on this side of the aisle who do not agree with that opinion, and I will by yielding to them as soon as they arrive here. Let me say I agree that at the labs, just like everywhere else, we should be setting down guidelines as to how they can reduce their own costs and how they can reduce the costs to the Federal Government of maintaining this laboratory system. I think that the amendment before us today is thoughtful. It is one that will actually achieve its goal, and it is one I think the author should be commended for.