Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] on the leadership he has been providing on this vital part of America's space effort. The shuttle at this moment is a piece of technology that we depend upon. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] has been making it his job to make sure that America gets the best use out of this technology. He is focusing today on safety but he has provided leadership in a number of areas concerning the shuttle. I would just like to congratulate him and rise in support of his amendment.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, simply put, this bill is good for science and good for the taxpayer. Titles III, IV, and V concern agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment which I chair. The authorization does not mindlessly cut programs across the board, which President Clinton insisted on doing in the continuing resolution. Rather, it follows the priorities laid out in the budget resolution passed by the House in May and puts us on the path to a balanced budget. It preserves funding for fundamental scientific research, while obtaining most of it and most of its budget savings from three major areas, that is, the bureaucracy, market development, and promotion programs, and corporate welfare. If my colleagues have been reading their mail, they have been reading some misleading statements in the last few days. There have been claims of extremist cuts in research that could lead to all kinds of disastrous consequences. But, of course, there are no specifics included, no details of actual cuts. That is because there are so few specifics to back up these charges. Instead of name-calling, as Al Smith used to say, let us look at the record. Fact: In the Department of Energy title, basic energy sciences, we see that it has been increased by $100 million over the fiscal year 1995 levels. At hearings held before my Subcommittee on Energy and Environment in February, every director of a major national laboratory testified in person or in writing that the scientific facilities initiative was their number one research priority for fiscal year 1996. It is fully funded in this bill. Fact: The $1 billion general science and research account is reduced from the fiscal year 1995 levels by exactly 1 percent. How awesome it is that we want to take it down by 1 percent while we are trying to balance the budget. Fact: Reducing an account called energy supply research and development, or another one, energy conservation research and development, does not mean that we are reducing funds for scientific research. For example, there are administrative slush funds at DOE that are used to pay for each program's own policy gurus and to hire, get this, to hire expensive outside public relations firms to promote their programs. They are listed under what? That is right, research and development. Programs to subsidize new heat pumps for the world's largest air conditioner manufacturers are also listed under basic research and development. Programs to subsidize the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles are funded under what heading? You guessed it, research and development. In these budgets, the titles are intended to mislead rather than to explain. Do not let anybody tell you that we are cutting basic research. Fact: Almost none of the massive increases called for by the Clinton administration budget request, and none of them since 1993 for the Department of Energy under this bill's jurisdiction, involve fundamental scientific research. These hikes that President Clinton has been calling for in spending are for market development and promotion programs and for politically inspired programs such as the climate change action plan. The NOAA authorization has been subject to even more misleading lobbying. Contrary to what you may have heard, H.R. 2405 provides for a 25-percent increase in NOAA's weather satellite program, so this vital needed information and the information gathering program can remain on target. The National Weather Service modernization program is fully funded. That means that lifesaving doppler radar will be installed on schedule. Keep in mind that NOAA's budget has increased by over 50 percent in the last 5 years. What we are proposing is that over a 5-year period this growth would come out to be just 30 percent. That is not draconian. But there are some cuts in this area. For example, we save $300 million without affecting NOAA's core mission. We accomplish this by eliminating congressional add-ons, eliminating costly procedures for closing old Weather Service offices, and by privatizing the fleet and eliminating the NOAA core corps. You will hear this called that we are cutting NOAA research. What we are doing instead is saving the taxpayers the $2 billion that it would cost to modernize the NOAA fleet, which should have been privatized in the first place. Cutting NOAA research? Nothing could be further from the truth. The NOAA fleet is operated by the NOAA Navy, an anachronistic corps of civilians dressed up in Navy officer's uniforms, receiving military pay and military retirement benefits. This is a throwback to World War I when the mapping of the U.S. coastline was considered a military, not a civilian job. Private charters are itching for the chance to provide the vessels for needed research at lower cost, and we should give them this chance and save the taxpayers some money. Our mark on EPA has also been under attack, but we have taken great pains to see that the EPA title provides full funding for research that is relevant to EPA's mission. For example, we increased the funding for air quality research. We get our savings, however, when we are talking about the EPA, by cutting and by looking at politically inspired programs like the environmental technologies initiative which [[Page H 9808]] was put forward by this administration, and the Clinton climate change action plan. Among other things, this program seeks to find out what would happen to fish if global warming is actually a reality. Well, all we ask and all we are trying to fund is the core mission, the research and development core mission of the EPA which we are not touching. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support sound science and a balanced budget by passing H.R. 2405, and for my colleagues to take a close look at some of these charges of what is actually being proposed in our legislation. We protect basic research and development by taking out the frills, taking out nonsensical programs that are not research related.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is suggesting his amendment only mandates that we make tough choices rather than what those choices will be?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the committee will accept this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield for a response, these two projects were the only two projects that came out of this conference committee that were in neither the House bill nor the Senate bill, and that is why they were selected.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is a new Congress, and what the gentleman was describing earlier seems to indicate that this particular item was handled last year, and perhaps had there not been this change over between the Republicans and Democrats, that this might not have come up as an issue because things would have been handled, the university's request would have been handled in a different way earlier on because we would have been aware of it. As it was, the university did not communicate with us, but was in communication with the chairman and with the former leaders of the committee. So I see where there is a breakdown of communication here, perhaps as the former chairman has indicated, with no bad thoughts or any strategy in mind, but just because of naivete did not remake the request. We needed the request earlier on before the subcommittee so people could have basically voted on it. By not following that procedure, that is why we have come to this conflict today. Mr. Chairman, I do verify and respect the former chairman for all he has done in this area and appreciate the work that he has done.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and the priority and direction it gives to the Space Station Program. I would like to praise the chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Walker, my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and the former chairman, Mr. Hall of Texas, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. This multiyear authorization of the international space station is a bold and timely move which will send an unmistakable message to the other body, to the President, to our international partners, to many entrepreneurs and scientists who will use the space station, and to the American people. Why are we authorizing the Space Station through to completion this year? Not just because the space station has been restructured and is now on a steady course within budgetary limits. Not just because the space station will be an invaluable research laboratory in the unique environment of space. Not just because with the decline of the defense budget, it is vital to engage American and Russian aerospace industries in a positive joint effort. Mr. Chairman, to me this multiyear authorization of space station is possible and desirable because of two significant developments championed by the Science Committee. First NASA has finally begun a reusable launch vehicle technology program which will lead to radically cheaper access to space, enabling much greater and easier use of the space station. Second, this legislation directs NASA to begin planning for the commercialization of the U.S. portions of the space station, including its operation, servicing, growth, and utilization. Together, these two steps make possible the real reason I feel we are building the space station: to begin the expansion of American civilization, powered by free enterprise, into the space frontier. And that is why we are passing this multiyear authorization of space station separately from the rest of the NASA budget. By passing this bill we are sending a message that this is our priority: opening space to human enterprise, and propelling all of mankind into a new era of technology, freedom, and prosperity.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have been in Washington, DC, since 1980, when I came here with Ronald Reagan as a member of his White House staff, and I can tell you we did not end the cold war by being afraid to act. Every time Ronald Reagan tried to do anything, he was told, ``You cannot do this, because there are going to be serious repercussions.'' We would still be in the middle of the cold war if we took that kind of advice. The fact is Ronald Reagan stated, and he saw very clearly, that the problems we confronted are not so complex but that they are difficult and we must make difficult decisions if problems are to be solved. In the Balkans, the fundamentals are clear. What the world is witnessing is, No. 1, a Serbian land grab; No. 2, Serbian aggression; and Serbian genocide, ethnic cleansing of their neighbors. Villages are being destroyed in Croatia and Bosnia. Are there Croatian and Bosnian tanks in Serbia? Is there Croatian artillery or Bosnian artillery in Serbia? Are there Bosnian or Croatian airplanes in Serbia? The fundamentals are clear. What we are facing is Serbian aggression and genocide against their neighbors. We must determine, as the Western powers and as the leading Western power, what to do about it, and do not let anybody say there are no non-Serbians in Serbia. In Kosovo, we are going to find if we let this genocide go on in Bosnia, there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Serbia who then will face genocide if we do not face up to this murderous regime right now. Serbian crimes and culpability are clear. Yet U.S. policy has been an arms embargo on both sides. Denying arms to an unarmed victim, denying the right to defend oneself is immoral on the face of it. It has encouraged the murder and aggression that we see taking place in the Balkans. We have heard the answer is basically letting the victims defend themselves. I believe that is the central part of the answer. No. 1, let these people defend themselves by giving them the means to do so. Let us not watch a ``Schindler's List'' movie 20 or 30 years from now of unarmed civilians being herded, unable to defend themselves, to their slaughter. Yes, we hear, ``Oh, you cannot do anything unless you are willing to put U.S. ground troops on the ground.'' That is absolutely ridiculous. That is saying we cannot do anything unless we do everything. Is it our policy that victims should be kept defenseless? This has encouraged attacks. If we do not believe in putting U.S. ground troops on the ground, what should our policy be? Again, lifting the embargo. No. 2, we have the airpower, the airpower needed to deter the Serbian aggression and the Serbian genocide. I am not talking about using that airpower against little emplacements in Bosnia. The answer is lift the embargo, bomb Serbia, bomb Serbia. This will not cost innocent civilian lives in Serbia. We can destroy their military capability. We can bomb Serbia. They will get the message without killing any of their innocent civilians. We can destroy their military capacity. No. 3, we should take Mr. Milosevic into custody and try him for his war crimes. Those things are within our capacity. We need not commit 50,000 U.S. troops on the ground. We must stand for the moral position. We must stand up for what America is supposed to stand for, freedom and against aggression, or there is no hope in the world; there is no hope for the Bosnian people or anyone else.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this motion to end the embargo against the victims of Serbian aggression. During this debate it has been very clear by all who have participated that Serbia is clearly the aggressor. They are criminals. They are engaged in criminal activity. The victims are the Croatians and Bosnians, and we are talking about what to do about it. Mr. Chairman, I would submit for the Record a letter from Margaret Thatcher, who says, and I quote, ``We owe it to the victims at last and at least to have the weapons to defend themselves since we ourselves are not willing to defend them. The arms embargo was always morally wrong.'' Mr. Chairman, I would submit this entire letter from Margaret Thatcher to Senator Dole for the Record. Lifting the arms embargo, Mr. Chairman, means less violence, not more. Let us get that straight. We have been talking about this all day now. What does it mean to lift the arms embargo? There will be less violence in that part of the world if we lift the arms embargo. Like all bullies and all aggressors and all criminals, the Serbs have been more aggressive as a result of the weakness of their victim. If those villagers could have defended themselves against tanks, there would have been fewer attacks made against those villages. The ethnic cleansing would not have taken place had those people, had the victims had the technology, the weapons to defend themselves. Mr. Chairman, what happened was the criminals have had to pay no price for their crime against the victims. The criminal regime in Serbia has paid no price, and this has been going on for 4 years. Therein lies the solution. No. 1, let the victims defend themselves. Let them have the weapons to defend themselves. No. 2, make the criminal regime of Mr. Milosevic and Serbia pay the price for the murder, rape and mayhem unleashed by Serbia against its neighbors in Croatia and Bosnia. Mr. Chairman, how do we make Serbia pay a price and deter aggression? Naysayers claim either we must do everything, send U.S. troops and put them on the ground, or do nothing and just let this go on and on and on, not even lift the embargo so people can defend themselves. All the questions have to be answered before we can even let someone defend themselves. Think about it, Mr. and Mrs. America. Someone next door is being raped and murdered. A neighbor is being raped and murdered, but you have to answer all the questions before you can help your neighbor, throw your neighbor a gun or a stick to defend his family. No, you don't have to wait to answer all the questions, you know what is right and wrong. It is time for us to side with the victim and make sure that that victim can defend himself and his family. America is going to be a major force in the world if we have the courage to act and to be bold. That does not mean we have to be reckless and take chances. In this post-cold-war war world, we will face challenges of evil people. They might not be like the Soviet Union, a massive evil force, but we had the courage to stand against the Soviet Union, and that is why it crumbled. That is why we were able to save the world a holocaust of a world war three because we were bold and we were strong. At the very least, the Milosevices of the world, this little pigsqueak gangster in Serbia, who is murdering innocent people in his neighboring countries, should know there will be a price to pay. At the very least, a minuscule use of American air power against Serbia, not against Bosnia, no, not in the neighboring countries but in Serbia, would convince the Milosevic regime to leave their neighbors alone. In fact, the Melosevic regime, just like communism in the Soviet Union, would likely crumble before a minuscule use of American power. Mr. Chairman, let us be bold. Let us permit those who are victims to stand up and defend themselves, and let us make sure the world knows that America has the courage to lead the world in the post-cold-war era. The letter previously referred to is as follows: Margaret, The Lady Thatcher, O.M., P.C., F.R.S., House of Lords, London, July 18, 1995. Dear Senator Dole: I am writing to express my very strong support for your attempt to have the arms embargo against Bosnia lifted. I know that you and all members of the United States Senate share my horror at the crimes against humanity now being perpetrated by the Serbs in Bosnia. The U.N. and NATO have failed to enforce the Security Council Resolutions which authorized the use of force to defend the safe havens and to get humanitarian assistance through. The safe havens were never safe; now they are falling to Serb assault. Murder, ethnic cleansing, mass rape, and torture are the legacy of the policy of the last three years to the people of Bosnia. It has failed utterly. We owe it to the victims at last and at least to have the weapons to defend themselves--since we ourselves are not willing to defend them. The arms embargo was always morally wrong. Significantly, it was imposed on the (then formally intact but fragmenting) former Yugoslavia at that regime's own behest. It was then, quite unjustly and possibly illegally, applied to the successor states. Its effect--and, as regards the Serbs, its intention--was to ensure that the proponents of a Greater Serbia, who inherited the great bulk of the Yugoslav army's equipment, enjoyed overwhelming military superiority in their aggression. It is worth recalling that the democratically elected, multi-faith and multi-ethnic Bosnian Government never asked for a single U.N. soldier to be sent. It did ask for the arms required to defend its own people against a ruthless aggressor. That request was repeatedly denied, in spite of the wishes of the U.S. administration and of most leading American politicians. There is no point now in listing the failures of military policy which subsequently occurred. Suffice it to say that, instead of succeeding in enforcing the mandates the U.N. Security Council gave them, UNPROFOR became potential and then actual hostages. Airpower was never seriously employed either. The oft repeated arguments against lifting the arms embargo--that if it occurred U.N. troops would be at risk, that the enclaves like Srebrenica would fall, that the Serbs would abandon all restraint--have all now been proved worthless. For all these things have happened and the arms embargo still applies. Two arguments are, however, still advanced by those who wish to keep the arms embargo in place. Each is demonstrably false. First, it is said that lifting the arms embargo would prolong the war in Bosnia. This is, of course, a morally repulsive argument; for it implies that all we should care about is a quick end to the conflict without regard to the justice or otherwise of its outcome. But in any case it is based on the false assumption that the Serbs are bound to win. Over the last year the Bosnian army has grown much stronger and the Bosnian Serbs weaker. The Bosnian army has, with its Croat allies, been winning back crucial territory, while desertion and poor morale are badly affecting the over- extended Serb forces. What the Bosnian government lacks however are the tanks and artillery needed to hold the territory won and force the Serbs to negotiate. This lack of equipment is directly the result of the arms embargo. Because of it the war is being prolonged and the casualties are higher. Lifting the arms embargo would thus shorten not lengthen the war. Second, it is said that lifting the arms embargo would lead to rifts within the U.N. Security Council and NATO. But are there not rifts already? And are these themselves not the result of pursuing a failed policy involving large risks to outside countries' ground troops, rather than arming and training the victims to repel the aggressor? American leadership is vital to bring order out of the present chaos. No country must be allowed to veto the action required to end the present catastrophe. And if American leadership is truly evident along the lines of the policy which you and your colleagues are advancing I do not believe that any country will actually try to obstruct it. The West has already waited too long. Time is now terribly short. All those who care about peace and justice for the tragic victims of aggression in the former Yugoslavia now have their eyes fixed on the actions of the U.S. Senate. I hope, trust and pray that your initiative to have the arms embargo against Bosnia lifted succeeds. It will bring new hope to those who are suffering so much. With warm regards. Yours sincerely, Margaret Thatcher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, practically speaking, the draft and draft registration is a waste of scarce tax dollars, a waste of $17 million this year alone. The draft itself will likely never serve our national security needs, especially in an era of high-tech weapons and computerized weapons systems. [[Page H 7905]] That is speaking practically. Speaking philosophically, unless war is declared, indicating an overwhelming support by the American people, a peacetime draft is totally inconsistent with our national tradition. Many of those who arrived on our shores and built this great land of liberty were escaping despotism, the despotism of their native lands, which more than anything else was signified by the tyranny of conscription. Only during the cold war was a peacetime conscription tolerated in the United States, and even then, after two decades, it was abandoned with the support of Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Mr. Chairman, it is long overdue that we quit wasting money on this anachronism which has nothing to do with the security of our country and everything to do with egos that are trying to prove a point in an argument that should have ended over 20 years ago. Finally, the American military is a fine example, a shining example, of volunteerism. The strength of our country is in its love of liberty and freedom. Our military today represents that love of liberty because they are volunteers. Liberty will be safe as long as our people who serve this country, the brave men and women who volunteer, are willing to do so. We should honor them by trusting our people, and we will be free as long as they stand strong and we stand behind them. We stand for the principles of liberty and justice and democracy that brought people to these shores 200 years ago at the founding of our country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Zimmer amendment to eliminate funding to the Market Promotion Program. We in the 104th Congress have been struggling to get pork out of the budget so we can balance the budget. We have talked about the evils of corporate welfare. Believe it or not, this Market Promotion Program, I believe, is worse than pork and it is worse than corporate welfare, because at least Federal pork and corporate welfare dollars are spent in the United States. The Market Promotion Program on the other hand takes precious and scarce Federal dollars and spends them overseas to pay for advertising for very wealthy, rich American companies, like Sunkist, Gallo Wine in my State, and McDonald's. Supporters of this foreign handout use the argument that scarce tax dollars are being spent to convince people to buy American products. Well, I do not care what American products you are talking about, it is not the job of the Federal Government to promote American products. The last thing we need is for hard-working taxpayers to be actually footing the bill for paying for wealthy companies' advertising. We do not want to use scarce tax dollars to convince the French to buy ``Le Mac.'' We do not need that. What we need is open markets and let those companies handle their own advertising and produce superior products and we will win and we will prosper. I support the Zimmer amendment, which will allow us to balance the budget by eliminating this unnecessary spending.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2058, the Bereuter amendment, which is legislation to symbolically stand for democracy and to make a statement about human rights. Unfortunately, statements and symbolism are not enough. We need to make tangible policy decisions, as well. And without tangible policy decisions, statements and symbolism, as are encompassed in H.R. 2058, lack meaning. So I will be supporting H.R. 2058, but we must insist, if we are sincere in this effort, on having some tangible action as well. In fact, tyrants assume that we do not even mean what we are saying when we make statements and there is no change in policy that follows. We are confronting today a regime that controls China, a dictatorial regime that now holds one of our own citizens, Harry Wu, as prisoner, but also smashes the human rights of its own people and is more and more becoming belligerent to its own neighbors. We are not talking about what we will do and what relations we will have with the people of China. All of us want to have good relations with the people of China. We reach out to them. We want good relations with all people of the world. The question is what will we do about this tyrannical regime, this monstrous oppressor that controls these people? Will we be on the side of the people of China, or will we be on the side of the oppressor? We will have to do more than symbolism and statements. We must follow this measure with an elimination of most-favored-nation status with this regime, because we should believe in free trade between free people, not free trade with tyrannies and dictatorships; a trade relationship that only bolsters those in power and does nothing to further the cause of democracy. Mr. Speaker, we have seen that in this debate over and over again where we have heard the argument that trade will improve democracy. That does not work. Let us put pressure on these people in Beijing to improve their democracy and to improve the respect for human rights and to release Harry Wu.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I heard the saying a long time ago that government is the most efficient method known to man of turning pure energy into solid waste. Unfortunately, that is the feeling I get when I see the way we are handling our budget decisions. We are taking a perfectly good economy and we are trashing it by being irresponsible. That is one of the reasons that I am supporting the Tiahrt amendment. The Committee on Appropriations has again seen fit to add $163 million in funds not authorized by the Committee on Science. In the case of coal programs, the figure is $126 million. That is 2\1/2\ times the authorized level. There are millions of dollars earmarked in this bill that the Department of Energy never requested. These funds will not be for basic research in fossil fuels technology. Rather, it will be used for large demonstration projects sponsored in many cases by some of our largest corporations, corporate welfare. The Members should know that electric and gas utility customers already provide several hundred million dollars through a fossil R&D surcharge that funds the Gas Research Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute, so here we are, the people are being double taxed for these very same research and development programs, this very same welfare for corporations, welfare for the rich. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to save the taxpayers some money, support the authorization process. Let us bring some responsibility to the process. We are just starting out now. Let us make sure that appropriators and authorizers work together, and vote for this amendment. Support the Tiahrt amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I see some of my old and dear friends discussing an issue that I discussed, which was this issue as well as the National Endowment for the Arts, shortly after I first came to Congress. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Chabot's amendment. The Appropriations Committee has done a good thing in this bill by reducing the appropriation for the National Endowment for the Humanities with [[Page H 7056]] the intention of completely eliminating funding in 3 years. However, I believe that this Congress should go further. The citizens of this country sent a strong message to this body last November to cut both the size and scope of the Federal Government. If we are truly serious about reducing the dangerously high level of deficit spending, we must have the courage to cut from the Federal budget anything that is not absolutely necessary for the Federal Government to do. When I first ran for Congress in 1988, I campaigned in support of eliminating unnecessary Federal programs such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment of the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The National Endowment for the Humanities, which was begun 30 years ago with a $5.5 million appropriation, has exploded into an agency which consumed $177 million of Federal money in fiscal year 1995. At a time when our Government has piled up trillions of dollars of debt and is struggling to fund critical programs such as Medicare, housing and education, Congress should not continue to appropriate precious taxpayer dollars to subsidize this program. I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot amendment to zero out funding for the NEH. We need to show the American people we mean business by getting the Federal debt under control. We can't leave taxpayer-funded arts and humanities in place when we find it necessary in the name of balancing the budget to cut programs that are much more vital to the lives and health of needy American citizens. Mr. Chairman, I would congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] for the amendment that he has offered, his courage, his responsibility, and sense of responsibility for offering this very positive amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen from Ohio has stated over and over again, this is not a question about the humanities. It is a question of who is going to finance the very work that we have heard about. I hope some of you have noticed that there is something in this country besides the government and the taxpayers. We have got foundations. We have got universities. We have not-for-profit and for- profit people who do things like this. Ted Turner, for example, just worked and restored so much film that has preserved this part of our history, not one cent of government money. But if the government as going it, I can tell you, it would have cost a lot more money, and it would have cost the taxpayers more. Let us leave this up to the private sector where it can be done without fleecing the taxpayer.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we are not financing basic research. It is promotion. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If it produces energy for the American people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I take it that this is tongue in cheek? I just would like my colleagues to know that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Lawrence Livermore happens to be the laboratory that develops a lot of types of energy.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about fundamental basic research, which is supposed to be the purpose of my subcommittee and the purpose of the Committee on Science. There are some things that cannot get done in the private sector and that is what we try to do in Government. The fact is that this is a program that has nothing to do with my district. In fact, it has nothing to do, I do not know anyone as an individual, there is no friend of mine on this project. It is something that came to my attention from other scientists who suggested it was a good idea, and it was something that was an example of how huge programs that we have, in fusion and all these other mega programs that we spend billions of dollars on, crowd out the small research programs that have a high potential but never get the money because they do not have lobbyists, they do not have any of the big guys behind them. This program is aimed at achieving a modest amount of fusion energy from a very modest, a $2 million investment over 2 years, research program. It is the first year of the program, so we are asking for $1 million this year and, after 2 years, we will know whether or not this potential research program is viable. But this is exactly the kind of program the Federal Government should be doing. It is pure research. It is not one of these mega bureaucracies where the money goes into administration. In fact, if the Ward amendment is successful and this money is then cut out from going to this program, the money will likely be channeled directly into one of these mega programs. It might be paying for the office of public relations for one of those programs instead of research and development. This is scientific research, earmarked by the way. There is nothing wrong with an earmark in the sense that this is, if it is peer reviewed, and this is a peer-reviewed, competitive program, we are not asking for this money to be given to just any company or any laboratory. And the fact that it is an earmark does not make it wrong. We had the debate in the subcommittee. In fact, this is very similar to the earmarking that is for coal research, which I know the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] is very in favor of. So I would ask my colleagues to support this fundamental research program that deserves it. We have the support of many scientists: Dr. Seth Putterman of UCLA, Dr. Kenneth Suslick of the University of Illinois, and Dr. William Moss at Lawrence Livermore. These are men that are preeminent in their field. They think it is a worthwhile program. I think that these are just the type of things the Federal Government should do. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.