Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, the Department of Energy has requested that we terminate this project. Let me make that very clear. This is officially a request of the Department of Energy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to some Members to whom earlier I stated that I would probably not be introducing this particular amendment, realizing that after the full discussion that we had on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because of the last amendment, that this body did not need to spend another half-hour debating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I decided not to introduce my amendment on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting but instead decided to offer an amendment dealing with a piece of waste in the budget which I feel that would probably be more worth our time to talk about, rather than having another half an hour debate on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Earlier in the day that was not my intent but, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to endorse the original decision made by the Interior subcommittee to include $4.8 million for the mild gasification plant in Illinois in this rescission package, a decision that was reversed in full committee. The subcommittee had many sound reasons for not wanting this project financed. First, this is a program that the Department of Energy has left out of its budget requests since fiscal year 1993. The DOE requested this project be terminated in fiscal year 1994. Nevertheless, earmarked appropriations were made in 1994 and 1995. Arguments to the contrary, scientific justification be damned, the earmarks were made. I can tell Members, although coal gasification as a substitute for oil may have made sense in an era of high oil prices, both the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences now agree that it has no practical value at the level of projected oil prices through the year 2010. In addition, this project will duplicate other gasification projects already undertaken by the Department of Energy in West Virginia and Wyoming. Furthermore, we are likely to come to the day when our other advanced technologies will replace the need for traditional coke-making altogether. As for power generation, this program has no value. Both the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Science agree that advanced gasification systems for power generation should have a higher priority than this mild gasification project which is aimed at producing a coal-based substitute for oil. Mr. Chairman, when even the bureaucrats are saying that a project like this is unneeded, you know that what we are talking about is wasteful Government spending. The timing on this rescission is also important. These are unobligated funds. Although construction is imminent at this moment, I am assured that the Department of Energy can stop this project now at no additional cost, saving the taxpayers almost $9 million over the life of the project. If we act now, we will be saving $9 million over the life of this project. If we wait instead and do not include this in the rescission bill, and we wait for the fiscal year 1996 budget process, we will have lost our opportunity for real savings, construction will have started, and we will not be able to recoup millions of dollars. I can assure Members of this, being the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee. We have no intention of authorizing this project for 1996, but if we wait for that, we have waited too long and millions of dollars will have been wasted. I know that some people may argue, ``We're not talking about a lot of money when we are talking about $4 million to $10 million.'' But that is the problem. For far too long, we have let these pet projects slip through while decrying the budget deficit and waste in Government. Here is our chance to show that in the 104th Congress, it is not business as usual. This project is pure pork, it is not justified by science, it is not justified by economics, it is not justified by need. What got it through the system was politics. Today is a new day and there are different powers in place, political powers in place in Washington who will not put up with the type of decisionmaking that was made during the last session. Earmarking projects that even bureaucrats say is wasteful spending will not cut it anymore. And, yes, a ``yes'' vote on this amendment is a vote against earmarks and a small but important step towards fiscal sanity and a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in terms of the bailout, the Mexican bailout, there was no vote in this body on the transfer of those funds. In fact, when the President of the United States turned to Congress and saw that there was no support in Congress for this $40 billion, potentially $40 billion expenditure, he proceeded in what I consider an antidemocratic fashion to scheme and to plot in what could be a legal way of taking billions of our dollars and sending it to Mexico and spending it on the purposes he intended, meaning the bailing out of Wall Street speculators and basically lining the pockets of a corrupt Mexican elite so that the system will not break down in Mexico. Well, perhaps it would be good if the current Mexican elite, which is corrupt, which has been antidemocratic, perhaps it would be good if that power structure did break down and that the people of Mexico at long last would be given a chance for true democracy and honest government, because the grip of their oppressor would have been broken. We have a chance to try to put an end to this. Already $3 billion has been spent. It is up to Congress now to do everything that we possibly can to stop the spending of that money, mainly because--OK, it is wrong but also it will not work. It is not going to save Mexico. Sending--you know, pouring money--it is the old adage, sending good money after bad is not a way to make things right. It will just make things worse. In Mexico, it will not work. What is needed down there is a change. It needs change, basic change, and by us subsidizing the status quo by spending billions of dollars, we will not see that change come. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, every time we try to cut the budget around here, every time we say, Let us not spend Federal money in this area, let us cut the deficit, we are always told, My goodness, there is going to be a catastrophe, people are going to starve, there are going to be babies in the street, it is going to be horrible. But you know what, most of these scare tactics that are being thrown out are just absolutely wrong and the people who are talking that way know they are wrong but they are using a tactic to get us to spend the taxpayer's dollar to line their own pockets. This is not contrary to what we have experienced here at home. But let us take a look at that. If we are going to spend money to stabilize the currencies, what about Russia? Isn't that also an important country? We could be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize their currency. After all, they have got nuclear weapons. What if chaos erupts in Russia? This is a formula for the United States to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to protect other people's currencies, and do you know what that means? That means our currency will come under attack. That means our currency will come under attack. That means people will sense that our currency no longer is strong because we are spending money from a stabilization fund meant to protect our currency that now is protecting these foreign interests who basically are big money guys and rich elitists in other countries, and what happens? We have found that since the Mexican bailout and the defeat of the balanced budget amendment, that our own dollar is now under attack. This is unconscionable. It has already cost American people too much. It is a disgrace. We have got to act to stop this.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentlewoman answer one other question? When have the Democrats for the last 40 years had such a vote?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the gentlewoman has a doubt that the Republicans mean to bring this up to a vote. I would hope that the people that have that doubt, and if we do bring it up for a vote, that they will then understand the Republicans are keeping their pledge.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is there any doubt in your mind--our Contract With America said it would be within the first 100 days there would be a vote on this issue.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Your complaint today is we did not bring up the term limit votes today. Is there some doubt in your mind that it will be brought up during the first 100 days as was promised the American people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentlewoman yield for a question?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress there was a lot of tough talk about illegal immigration; however, little got accomplished. The Democrat majority repeatedly prevented us from considering legislation to stop the flood of illegal immigration facing our country. And contrary to public demands, they even slipped in a change to immigration law which rewards illegal aliens for breaking into our country. This provision was snuck into last year's Commerce, State, Justice appropriation bill without most Members' knowledge and allows certain aliens who are in the United States illegally--let me repeat that, illegally--to pay an $800 fee to the INS and acquire temporary legal status while applying to become permanent legal residents. These illegal aliens then are eligible for a whole host of taxpayer-funded Government benefits. Our social service agencies are already stretched to the limit trying to provide services to eligible citizens and permanent residents who need them. How are we going to handle the needs of the 100,000 people the INS estimates will qualify this year, alone, under this fee-for- preference system? I have introduced a bill, H.R. 592, which will repeal this travesty of justice. Let's stop rewarding those who have flagrantly violated our immigration laws by closing this loophole immediately. Cosponsor H.R. 592 today. Let us make this Congress act, unlike when the Democrats controlled Congress and refused to stop illegal immigration. We Republicans will do the job.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I agree with you. There is an elite in the United States of America who think that they own this country, and they do not own this body. We may be spending tens of billions of dollars right now, but the people will be heard. This is the first step toward making sure that the people's voice holds sway in Washington, DC, and the Nation's Capital. Those Americans who are listening to us right now should make sure that they contact their Representative and write the White House and make sure that the leaders here in Congress and in the executive branch get the message that we have got to stop shoveling money south of the border, stop paying off Wall Street speculators. They want a balanced budget. The American people want a balanced budget. And we are betraying everything that they want.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. But let us not kid ourselves. We do not need more information., We need to stop this bailout. We have the power in Congress to stop it, and we are not. Instead, we are asking for information. The American people see what we are trying to do here in the last few weeks. We have been trying to balance the budget. Here we are, we are struggling. We are struggling to cut spending here and cut spending there, trying not to hurt our own people, trying to cut down on some programs, knowing that our people have come to depend upon them, but realizing that a balanced budget is so important both to our own people but to their children. It is important for us to balance our budget, yet we are cutting programs on which our people and their children depend. It is a betrayal of the interest of our own people, the American people, for us to cut spending here in the Congress of the United States while sending other funds in the tens of billions of dollars to Mexico or to give it to Wall Street speculators. The American people have a right to expect more from us. If we are not watching out for their interests, who is watching out for their interest? Spending tens of billions of dollars without so much as a vote of Congress is a violation of everything that this democratic government is supposed to be about, and it is a violation and betrayal of the trust that has been put in us by the American people. Our people have borne the burden for other people in this world for far too long. Now we insult them after the cold war is over, after they bore the burden of the cold war, after they bore the burden of stopping Nazism and Japanese fascism, and now we insult them by asking for information instead of asking for a direct vote in stopping this bailout and the use of tens of billions of dollars that should be going to the benefit of our people, but instead are going to Wall Street speculators and foreigners. It is a disgrace.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just to finish this, they should be contacting their representative in the White House. We can get a vote on this, and we can turn it around.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we should not lose sight of what this is all about. What has happened is that the American people over the last 10 years, and over the last 20 years, have seen that enormous power has been granted to unelected officials in Washington, DC. What we have seen is that Washington, DC, has absorbed and centralized enormous powers and it is not in the hands of elected officials, but instead in the hands of the bureaucracy, in the hands of people who never put themselves before the electorate. This is an attempt to try to readdress or to redress that issue, to bring some balance back to Washington, DC, to the democratic process, to respect the rights of our people who feel that they are being basically ordered around, that they are being driven out of business, that they are being damaged by the mandates of people who have never been elected. If a citizen believes that he or she is being hurt or suffering damage because an unelected official, someone in an agency has not followed the new rule that we are setting down which says they should be basing their decisions on good science, there should be peer review of the decisions, we should make sure that there is a risk assessment and that there is a cost-benefit analysis. If an agency is not following those rules, and one of our citizens feels that the decision that they have made is hurting them, we are just saying they should have redress. This is the way citizens have protected their rights throughout our country's history. If the Government is not following the law, whether it is the bureaucracy or elected officials, our citizens have felt they could go to the courts to seek a solution to their problems to prevent themselves from being hurt and being damaged by an agency that is not following the rules as set down by the Congress. This makes all the sense in the world. Gutting this from the Republican proposal is a way to basically restore the power to the bureaucracy to do whatever they damn well want to do because they have got the best motives and the best intentions. Well, best of intentions do not cut it. The American people know what the best intentions of the bureaucracy are all about. The best of intentions of the bureaucracy are to say we have got to rip the asbestos out of the walls of our schools to protect our children, and find out that tens of billions of dollars have been wasted that should have gone to the education of our children instead of having gone and been spent by public officials with the best of intentions, directing our people to do exactly the opposite thing they should be doing. We expect a procedure to be followed. We expect there to be cost- benefit, risk-benefit analysis. We expect there to be peer review. That is what is in the legislation, and we expect that if the unelected official, the bureaucracy, is not following the law as we are setting it down, the citizens of this country will have a right to appeal that through the judicial process. That is what this debate is all about.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The bureaucracy, basically there is a feeling out in America, that the bureaucracy people whom they do not elect are making decisions that in the end may impact on whether they will be able to feed their families, whether they can live in their home safely or not, and if we determine today, and that is what we are talking about, today, that they should be able to appeal to a court if those unelected officials are not doing their job as is laid out by elected officials.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman is talking about one fire at one time. We in California know there are lots of fires, and many of them have been attributed because people cannot clear the brush.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. She was actually living in the bureaucracy.