Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in my hometown, if they had found you in a dark alley with 75 pounds of cocaine and 4 pounds of heroin in the trunk of your car, there is a general consensus that you have done something wrong. But a Clinton appointed judge, Judge Herold Bear, who freed drug smugglers because he deemed it normal for suspects to run from the police turned these drug runners free. The public outcry over this brand of justice has been astounding, and President Clinton ought to demand the resignation of this judge immediately. But what bothers me most about this case is we see yet another example where President Clinton's words do not match his actions. He may talk like a law and order conservative, but he appoints liberal judges who let criminals walk. If it had been up to this judge, these cops in New York City would not have been able to arrest a woman who was smuggling 4 million dollars' worth of drugs to Michigan, enough drugs to push on every kid in the city's school system, push drugs on each one of them. America cannot afford these liberal judges and America cannot afford another 4 years of President Clinton.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this country and this legislative body and the administration have been struggling to achieve a balanced budget. The people really do not understand this problem, and, frankly, I do not either. The working Americans balance their checking accounts monthly. I cannot think of a business in Kansas, where I am the Fourth District Congressman, or a nonprofit organization or an individual that has not balanced their budget over the last 26 years, nowhere except right here in the Federal Government. This Congress has also been striving to be a House of the people, bringing common sense from the common people back to Government. But we have had many obstacles in achieving that. The administration has submitted multiple budgets that did not balance. The President personally lobbied against the balanced budget amendment, which passed in the House and failed by only one vote in the U.S. Senate, and the President, in his last budget, which was scored as a balanced budget by the CBO, has 95 percent of the savings in the last 2 years, which would be after his administration, assuming that he would be successful next November. Perhaps the most confusing, though, is how the President condones actions that are directly in opposition to achieving a balanced budget. I am speaking of the waste and the abuse and the potentially fraudulent activity that have been occurring in the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy. The President's Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Ron Brown, has allowed the excessive issuance of Government credit cards; for example, half of the employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, NOAA, as it is called, have been issued Government credit cards. Even nongovernment employees have been issued Government credit cards. Reportedly, there have been 600 instances where they have taken Government credit cards and used an automatic teller to receive cash, cash benefits, unaccountable for. I wonder how long do people like Tim Schwilling, who works at the Boeing Co. delivering parts, or Craig Faroh, who works for Sedgwick County, how long do they have to work to pay in tax to the Federal Government to just have it taken out in cash benefits, unaccounted for? There is Mr. Clinton's Secretary of Energy, Secretary O'Leary, who has been known for her excessive travel. Some call her a congenital flyer, over 100 domestic trips, 16 overseas trips. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and myself asked for a General Accounting Office audit of two overseas trips, South Africa and India, and the GAO found out Secretary O'Leary could not account for $255,000 of taxpayers' money, a quarter of a million dollars. We have called for her resignation. This Congress has wanted accountability from the administration, accountability to the people, because it is the people's money. It is known that the President has opposed a balanced budget during his administration. You cannot balance the budget when the presidential appointees, like Secretary Brown and Secretary O'Leary, waste taxpayers' dollars and remain unaccountable for their actions. I ask for the President to ask them to account for the money that has been wasted and resign from their office.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, our economy is flat. Many experts say that we are bordering on recession. I think the Clinton administration should shoulder the blame. The union workers remember that President Clinton signed both NAFTA and GATT into law and both agreements have not worked. Now the President will not even use the tools available within the agreements to save American jobs. That is why I am proposing an amendment to the farm bill. It is supported by the AFL-CIO to prioritize the export enhancement program to save jobs. Union jobs, support farmers, and export value-added products like flour will force the President to do the right thing. It is no wonder our economy is flat. We need someone to fight for our jobs, and that is what Congress intends to do.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership in the ag industry and for America. I want to say I rise, Mr. Chairman, today to help farmers, union workers, and American jobs and the U.S. economy. We must attempt to level the playing field with the European Union by using the export enhancement program funds to move value-added products into the export markets. The European Union has been twisting their agricultural and trade policies in GATT to unfairly crush the value-added exports like wheat flour. The European Union is lowering domestic input prices to give themselves a tremendous cost advantage over U.S. exports. Incredibly, the United States has had at its disposal millions of dollars to support U.S. agricultural export industries. These funds have been authorized and funded by the people through their elected Representatives under the export enhancement program to the tune of $350 million for this fiscal year alone. However, less than 2 percent has been spent by the administration, leaving our farmers and union workers and American jobs hanging out there vulnerable to the world markets. In talks between the administration, the wheat flour industry, the USDA has admitted the European actions are unfair and it is measurable. Since the beginning of the 1995 crop year, more than 2 million metric tons of European flour export licenses have been awarded, compared to less than 15,000 metric tons of EEP awards. Mr. Chairman, this country has been taking it on the chin under GATT and NAFTA. We have lost the last three decisions on these arguments. Now it is time for us to use GATT to our advantage. Now is the time for us to use this onerous agreement to help American farmers, to help American workers and help the American economy. Mr. Chairman, this amendment moves toward fixing these problems. It simply tells the President and the Department of Agriculture to announce awards under the export enhancement program on an annual basis, to maintain the percentage of market share the world commercial flour market has achieved by U.S. wheat flour industries during the base year 1986 through 1990. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have no budget impact. It is within the scope of GATT, and it will keep hundreds if not thousands of jobs. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. has had its nose bloodied time and time again by NAFTA, by GATT, and by the World Trade Organization, and it is time we use the tools inside these agreements to protect our jobs, to protect our farmers, to get those value-added products out on the open market. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is time for the administration to start protecting American farmers and union workers and American jobs by regaining our market share through the export enhancement program for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, clearly we are having a very difficult time achieving a balanced budget. After taking the brunt of opinion from the liberal media, this Congress has been wondering why the President has vetoed so many reforms. As a freshman, I ran on the principle of sound fiscal policy and a balanced budget, and as a part-time college instructor at Kansas Newman College, I taught the value of a balanced budget in economics classes. It was confirmed by the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan: A balanced budget means a stronger economy. It means more jobs. It means more money in the pockets of working people. But the President is staunch in defending the status quo, in defending big government and preventing Congress from right-sizing the Federal Government, which must happen if we ever hope to balance the budget. Instead, he is protecting big government waste. For example, there is Clinton's Secretary of Energy, who is a congenital flier. Secretary O'Leary traveled more than 100 trips, 16 overseas. She has leased Madonna's luxury jet, taking some of those trips. The Government Accounting Office audited two of the overseas trips. They cost $1.7 million and there are $255,000 of expenses that are unaccounted for. When you consider Travelgate, where the White House fired Billy Dale and seven other employees and drag Mr. Dale through the court system for 2 years over $18,000, it seems inconsistent that we would allow Secretary O'Leary to go without accounting for that quarter of a million dollars. And then there is Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, out-of-town Brown. His travel budget is 150 percent of his predecessor's, Robert Mosbacher. As reported in the Washington Times, an audit by a Department inspector general said, and I quote: In Mr. Brown's case, the auditors found the Secretary seems to have been habitually accompanied by a slew of private- sector deadbeats masquerading as consultants who collectively still owe the government, that is, the taxpayers, $360,000 for unpaid advances. Going on, it says, One wonders whether any of them were the same Democratic Party fat cats who routinely accompanied Mr. Brown around the world, grabbing their slice of the pie to which they no doubt felt entitled by virtue of their huge donations to the Democratic National Committee before, during and after Mr. Brown's tenure as chairman of the Democratic Party. That article goes on to talk about how the Inspector General uncovered unpaid charges on government credit cards. Three hundred Commerce Department employees were delinquent on their payments on government credit cards. Six hundred people, some of them not even government employees, who have government credit cards, were using the government credit cards at automatic teller machines, ATM's, to get cash. Can you imagine what it is like for taxpayers like David Walker, who works the second shift at the Boeing Company? How long does he have to stand at his machine to pay enough taxes to cover the cash that has been withdrawn at the Commerce Department? Those dollars were very much wasted. How long are we going to put up with this? I think we have put up with it for too long. I hope that the President will stop defending this tremendous waste, stop condoning this tremendous waste, stop defending and condoning the status quo, balance the budget. Our families do not deserve this type of treatment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today the House was opened in prayer by my friend and pastor, Joe Voss. Joe is from a tough neighborhood in St. Louis. As a teenager, he was sent to a correctional school for boys, but thanks to Salvation Army officers, Major Froeberg and Clarence Harvey, who is currently a Divisional Commander here in D.C., Joe turned his life around. He went to Forest Park Community College and graduated from the Salvation Army Seminary in Chicago in 1970. Joe married Connie 25 years ago and they have a 21-year-old son, Joey, and a daughter who is 18, named April. But the real story is what Joe and Connie are doing today. He has just finished heading up a building program for a new sanctuary without borrowing money. Instead of mortgage payments, Joe and the members of Valley Center Assembly of God are investing in young boys and girls, many from single homes, through a scouting program called Royal Rangers and Missionettes. They are not only working with the teenagers in their church, but also reaching out to the gangs in Wichita. They have even reached out to those trapped by prostitution, by drugs, and by alcohol through their ``Christ in the Streets'' program. Joe has exchanged pulpits with black congregations in our community, allowing them to come into Valley Center Assembly of God, while he goes to other community churches. Some would say that this is innovative for a church to reach outside its walls. Joe would simply say it is changing the hearts and minds of America one soul at a time. Welcome to the House, Pastor Voss.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the President gave a speech Tuesday night filled with great rhetoric about downsizing government, cutting spending, and returning power to the people. However, we know from experience that these policies of higher taxes, more government spending, and bigger Federal bureaucracy prevail. The President's record, it speaks louder than his words. He vetoed a balanced budget amendment, or a balanced budget bill. He vetoed a pro-family, pro-jobs tax cut. He vetoed real welfare reform, emphasizing work, family, and responsibility. He vetoed legislation returning power to the States, communities, and families, and he vetoed a long-term solution for Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the President's actions are clear contradictions to his words. He will say anything and then support the liberal policies of the status quo. Big government bureaucracy, big government spending, and a big government intrusion into our lives. As Majority Leader Dole said, ``It's time to walk the walk and talk the talk.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the chairman for providing his leadership and for this important clarification. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] to join me in a colloquy. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and I are among several Members of Congress who have been seriously concerned about the administration's proposal to retire almost one-third of our Nation's B-52 force. I am pleased that the conference report prohibits the Department of Defense from retiring or preparing to retire any B- 52H's in fiscal year 1996. The committee directs the Air Force to retain in an attrition reserve status the 28 B-52H bombers that would otherwise be retired. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement again to further explain the committee's intent with regard to the number and status of B-52's to be maintained under this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we are back and we have learned a lot. No. 1, you cannot negotiate with a ``say anything, do nothing'' President. It is clear that he is for big government, he is for higher taxes, and he is for more spending. The President condones wasteful spending in the Government. We have ``out of town'' Brown, Secretary of Commerce, who has overextended his travel budget. We have Secretary O'Leary, who is a congenital flier. We cannot keep her in town. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. We have massive wastes of Federal spending in our bureaucracy and we must downsize it. Mr. Speaker, we are back, we are for a balanced budget, we are on track to get there. We are going to continue to keep pressure on the administration. We are going to reform Medicaid through block grants, we are going to preserve and protect Medicare, and we are going to try to give back to American families some of what they lost in the 1990 tax increase and in the 1993 tax increase. So we are working that hard and we are going to continue on that path. I appreciate my fellow colleagues who are going to join in that effort.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Dole campaign is going to be very pleased with all of the support he is getting from across the aisle in the Democrat Party. I hope they will attend the fundraisers and help Senator Dole gain the Presidency of the United States, because I think he is a good leader, which is demonstrated right here by the support that he is getting from the Democrat party. Although I currently disagree with the policy he has on this continuing resolution, I still see him as a fine leader, and the type of man that I want for President of the United States; and I am glad to see many of the members of the Democrat Party on the other side of the aisle join with us in their support for Majority Leader Dole over President Clinton on this. I want to move on to something else, though, because I am really wondering how long the President is going to tolerate what is going on. I am wondering how long Congress is going to tolerate what is going on. I am wondering how long the American people are going to tolerate what is going on, even though we are finally talking about a balanced budget. Now, we have been talking about a balanced budget a long time here in Congress. Ever since the 104th Congress has been going on, we have been very specifically targeting a balanced budget that would take 7 years to achieve. But now we are seeing a very dramatic change. The President is talking about it; even the liberals here in Congress are talking about it. But the President still wants to spend $1 trillion more over the next 7 years than Congress does, $1 trillion. Now, that is a lot of money. To give you some kind of an idea how much money it is, if you were to have gone in business the day after Christ rose from the dead and you lost $1 million that day and every day up until today, almost 2,000 years, you would only be about 80 percent of the way to losing $1 trillion. That is only $800 billion that you would have lost. One trillion dollars is a lot of money, and that is what the President wants to spend over what Congress has put in their budget. Do you ever wonder why? There are some liberal organizations the President obviously supports that do not have the support of the majority of this Congress, like the national bureaucracy for the Education Association, our current welfare bureaucracy. We here in Congress would like to send the solution or the money closer to the problems and let the States deal with it. They are doing it very well in the State of Kansas where I come from, and I have confidence in Governor Graves and Rochelle Chronister, the Secretary of Rehabilitation Services. They are doing a very good job. What we have seen here is something very ineffective. Particularly agencies like the Department of Energy have been horribly mismanaged. Secretary O'Leary, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, has become a focal point because of her travel, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. It started last year when we were looking at different agencies. The General Accounting Office said that the Department of Energy was ineffective as a Cabinet-level agency. Vice President Gore in his National Performance Review said that they were 40 percent ineffective in the environmental management area, and it was going to cost taxpayers $70 billion over the next 30 years unless we do something about it. Then we found out about the public relations office. The Department of Energy hires over 500 public relations employees at a cost of about $25 million to taxpayers. Secretary O'Leary has a personal media consultant that she hires. She has even hired a private investigative firm to develop a list of unfavorable reporters and Congressmen so that she can ``work on these people a little.'' Let us focus a little bit on her travel, because today in the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations, we found out that Secretary O'Leary has taken over 100 domestic and international trips. Now, some of this travel is needed, particularly in the domestic area, because that is where the Secretary of Energy's responsibilities lie. But the international travel, 16 trips, are outside the scope of her requirements as Secretary of the Department of Energy. The GAO, the General Accounting Office, looked at two specific trips. One was to South Africa and one was to India. Now, this is reported in the Washington Times today. The trip to South Africa included 135 persons, 63 from the Department of Energy and 72 from the business and academic areas. It cost taxpayers about $1 million, $1,860,000, over $1 million. The second trip to India had 37 people from the Government and 41 guests. It cost $729,000. One of the interesting things about this is that according to Chairman Barton from Texas, the Department of Energy charged these non-DOE visitors, these guests, $2,800 for coach fare on this, but the actual cost to taxpayers was $12,860. So who is going to make up that $10,000? Well, the taxpayers are making it up, and I think it is kind of a sad state of affairs. Second, we found out that Secretary O'Leary has transferred $400,000 from a nuclear weapons-related account over to her travel budget so she can make these trips. What it all boils down to, Mr. Speaker, is that we must balance the budget. We must remove Secretary O'Leary; we must eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet-level agency. Let us get the Government back to work, cull the deadwood out by eliminating the Department of Energy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I think each one of us have furloughed Federal workers in our districts. I have 1,038 in my district. However, 940 of them would be working had the President not vetoed legislation that would have funded their departments. On November 20, as was said earlier, the President signed a continuing resolution that said he would come up with a balanced budget by the end of this year, by the end of the first Session of the 104th Congress, which was December 31, but he failed to do so. I have to admit I am very frustrated. I think we here in Congress are very frustrated. What does it take for the President to keep his word? Would one more CR do it? Should we just go out on the limb and extend another 10 days and open up this Government? It seems like every time we come up with a continuing resolution, the President backs away from the negotiating table. The only way that we can keep him at the negotiations table is to continue on our current course. However uncomfortable it may be, however painful it may be, we are going to have to do it. It is the only option that we have left. The President said that he would balance the budget. We said we would do it. we are going to keep to our word. Mr. President, please keep to yours.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I recently went to Bosnia to visit the area where our troops will be located in Sarajevo and other places. I also stopped by in Germany to see the First Armor Division before they left. I went along with many others from this body, about 18 others who also visited with our troops. Something very disturbing occurred to me while I was there. Many who support the policy of Bosnia do not support this authorization bill nor did they support the appropriations bill. I disagree with the policy in Bosnia. I cannot find anybody in my district who strongly supports it. Most of them say we should not be in there. But for us to go ahead and send troops there and then not support them through the authorization process, through the appropriation process is somehow fundamentally wrong. With all respects to our President and his office, he did not sign the appropriations bill. He did not even have the courage to sign the appropriations bill. I think there is something fundamentally wrong there. He vetoed this authorization bill, which provides for our volunteer Army. I heard one comment over the time when we were contemplating sending troops in that this was the job of our military, that they had volunteered to do the job similar to Bosnia. I believe that is above and beyond the call of what they agreed to when they took the oath as military personnel. They defend the Constitution, our borders, and our vital American interests overseas, but this is above and beyond that. There are no vital American interests in Bosnia that have been named or that have convinced the American people. What is this fundamental difference? Why are we saying, yes, we will do this through the administration and send troops there but then not providing for the appropriations? Not providing for the authorization, there is a big fundamental difference here. I think that it may be possibly that someone is trying to embarrass our military. That cuts against everything that I believe this government stands for. It is evident in the Fourth District of Kansas. It is evident here on the floor of the House. I believe that we should support this and override the veto. We should have had an appropriations bill that was signed by the President.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of Congress, I wanted to take some time this afternoon to explain why this Member is standing firm for a balanced budget. We are attempting to carry out the will of the people. Eighty-six percent of Americans want to have a balanced budget, and we are intent on keeping our word. On September 27, 1994, many of us stood on the steps of the Capitol here and promised, through the Contract With America, to balance the budget within 7 years. This is nothing new to us. I know it is new for some people in America to actually expect people in Washington, DC, to keep their word, but for the freshman class that is the norm. That is what we expect. Recently we have been criticized by the President for shutting down negotiations. But if being criticized by the President means we will hold the President to his word, then, believe me, it is worth it. We have found that it is impossible to trust what the administration has told us or what the President has said. On November 20, 1995, the President signed into Law Public Law 104- 56, and I would like to read it briefly. It says, ``The President and Congress shall enact in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balance budget not later than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.'' That has not happened yet. As was pointed out in today's Wall Street Journal on page A8, the editorial page, under the heading ``Freshmen Hazing,'' I am going to read a paragraph from that. It says, More than a month ago President Clinton signed an agreement to work with Congress to produce a 7-year balanced budget using updated Congressional Budget Office numbers. Since then the White House has done everything it could to slip out of that deal. The topper came Tuesday, when Mr. Clinton met with GOP leaders, and once again apparently agreed to use CBO numbers and reach a 7-year balance budget deal by the end of the year. Then Vice President Gore appeared before reporters and, when asked about the agreement, said, ``Did the President agree to put down an Administration-CBO plan according to those assumptions? No, absolutely not.'' Once again, this is a flipflop and shows why we cannot trust anything that comes out of the White House. Mr. Speaker, I believe I know why the President is so opposed to a balanced budget. It is because he has to protect the abuse, the blatant abuse of taxpayer dollars by the administration. Secretary O'Leary and the Department of Energy are very inefficient and wasteful in the way they spend tax dollars. Secretary O'Leary, although all her responsibilities are domestic, has traveled 16 international trips, some at a cost of over $800,000, each taking along as many as 50 employees and 68 guests, and many of those guests have failed to pay their portion of the trip. She has also hired professional photographers and video crews. But she is very concerned about her image, and that is why she is trying to catch herself at her best. She hired a personal media consultant at a cost to taxpayers of $277 a day. She employs over 500 public relations employees at a cost of approximately $25 million per year to the taxpayers. She has even hired a private investigative firm to develop a list of unfavorables, unfavorable reporters and Members of Congress. This is just the tip of the iceberg. According to the General Accounting Office, their reports and their audits say that the Department of Energy is ineffective as a Cabinet- level agency. Vice President Gore himself, in his National Performance Review, has said parts of the Department of Energy are 40 percent inefficient and are going to cost taxpayers $70 billion over the next 30 years if we do not do something. Well, the President has condoned this action by keeping Secretary O'Leary in office. He condones the waste, the abuse, and you cannot balance the budget unless you cull this deadwood out. We are not convinced the President or the administration means anything it says. That is why we are standing firm against waste and against abuse and for a balanced budget.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the President is unable to come up with a balanced budget. He has Secretary O'Leary tied around his neck like a millstone. Secretary O'Leary has taken 16 international trips, she takes as many as 50 staffers with her, 60 other guests, she hires photographers and video crews to catch her at her best. She has 520 public relations employees. She has a personal media consultant, even hired a private investigative firm to see what reporters and Congressmen are trying to see which reporters and Congressmen tarnish her image, all at a cost of about $30 million to taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, it is not about the tax breaks for the rich or Medicare. That is all bogus. It is about wasting millions of dollars. Mike Royko of the Washington Times had it right: Buy a rope, tie one end of the rope to Mrs. O'Leary's ankle, tie the other end to her desk. See, whipping the deficit doesn't seem to be so complicated. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Secretary O'Leary to resign, and it is time for the President to honestly negotiate a balanced budget.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to exchange places in the special order list with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of nonsense about the Republicans ruining Christmas for some of the Government workers. I want to talk a little bit about the Fourth District of Kansas. We have 1,038 Federal workers subject to furlough. This week the President vetoed legislation that would have put 940 of them back to work, 940, but the President vetoed Christmas for those employees and their families. Thank you very much, Mr. President. You know, there is struggle going on here about balancing the budget, and we have come to a real critical point, because if we are unable to balance the budget now, then when will we balance it? We have a future to think about for our children. We are $5 trillion in debt. It is a tremendous amount of money. We are trying to strengthen our economy. We have seen two dramatic moves in our economy. No. 1, when we went through the 5,000 mark on the New York Stock Exchange, it was the same week when we thought we had an agreement to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. This week, when we thought the balanced budget had failed, the stock market dropped dramatically, over 100 points, and then bounced back the next day, when Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that he hoped that we could get to a balanced budget, and in good faith he was going to lower interest rates a quarter of a percent. But it is going to be very difficult for the President to concede to a balanced budget, because his liberal agenda does not include balancing the budget, only paying off liberal interest groups. Plus he is being dragged down by members of his own Cabinet. Currently Secretary O'Leary in the Department of Energy is falling under fire. It started out with GAO reports as early as the first part of this year when they reported that she had a ``mission a minute,'' quote-unquote, a mission a minute, that there were very large management problems within the Department. Then Vice President Gore's National Performance Review came out, which said that portions of the Department of Energy, like of the environmental management portion, was 40-percent inefficient, and it could cost taxpayers $70 billion over the next 30 years. Then we started to see travel problems, with the Secretary of the Department of Energy having the highest travel budget per trip of anyone inside the President's Cabinet, staying at four-star hotels, traveling first class, taking along large staffs for her domestic travel. But that was all based on her current responsibilities in the Department of Energy, which are all domestic. Then we started to hear about the international trips. Secretary O'Leary has taken 16 international trips, taking along as many as 50 staff members, as many as 68 guests, often CEO's who do not pay their portion of the travels. One trip cost $720,000. With 16 of them, it is in the millions of dollars, the costs of this. Often she travels on the same plane as Madonna leases. So the material girl of Clinton's Cabinet is spending unwisely taxpayer dollars in these travels. She hires photographers and video crews to come along, because she wants to be caught at her best. She is very worried about the public image she is presenting and has been quoted as trying to bring the second term of the President's campaign, the ideals of it, to the forefront now. In the zeal to project a good public image, Secretary O'Leary has hired a personal media consultant at a cost of $75,000 per year to the taxpayers. She also employs inside the Department of Energy more than 520 public relations employees at a payroll of over $25 million per year. She has even hired a private investigative firm to investigate reporters and Congressmen who are tarnishing her favorable image. She has developed a list of unfavorables. Well, it is going to be hard to hit the budget target, especially when you are unable to control spending like this. This is excessive, it is unnecessary, and it is a waste. We are so concerned about the poor, and yet we allow first-class travel within members of the Cabinet overseas, on the same airplane that is leased by Madonna. That is not the lifestyle that is projected by the administration when they are trying to speak for the poor. It is quite the opposite. So, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage President Clinton to ask for the resignation of Secretary O'Leary. I would urge him to get back into some honest negotiations on the Federal budget, so that we can enjoy Christmas as a government, get everyone back to work, and also preserve a future for our children, strengthen our economy, and just plain do the right thing. Balancing the budget is the right thing to do.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Congress voted to overwhelmingly support the agreement that President Clinton signed into law on November 20, 1995, stating that Congress and the President shall enact a 7-year, CBO-scored balanced budget. The vote proved that the President is failing to honor his commitments and his word. Today should also be very interesting. Later, Congress will debate and vote on the President's fourth budget. Just like the first three, it fails to balance. And just like the other budget, it fails to address issues like the solvency of Medicare or reprimands to agencies like the Department of Energy, where Secretary O'Leary is spending millions of dollars on overseas travel where she has no responsibility. President Clinton is long on spending, short on ideas. He is unable to present a balanced budget and he is unable to be honest about the details about the budget that is before him, just as he is dishonest about the details of Bosnia.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion tonight about what is going on here in Washington. Let me clear up some of the confusion. What we are about is fulfilling the promise to balance the Federal budget and restore hope for this great Nation, because it is the right thing to do. Let us for a moment set aside the fact that on November 19, the President signed into law that the Government would balance the budget in 7 years in CBO numbers in the first session of the 104th Congress. So far, the President has failed to keep his word and the public law. Instead, let us look at the President's recent speech on Friday, December 15. In that speech the President attempted to mislead the people of America, I think, 13 different times. I just want to focus on 1 of those 13 different statements and explain why the President never would or could balance the budget without the honest help of Americans across this great land. Let me quote from the President in his December 15 speech. ``You know, I do not agree with their very large tax cuts for wealthy Americans and for all the special interests that get their help in the bill.'' Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get a $500-per-child tax credit for every family in America. American families are of special interest to me and others, and I think it would help their pocketbooks. But I do not think most American families consider themselves wealthy. But the irony of this is that the President does not want to give the average working family consideration, but he will allow members of his Cabinet to live lavish lifestyles at the expense of our working families. Secretary O'Leary, whose responsibilities as Secretary of the Department of Energy have domestic responsibilities, but yet she has been overseas 16 times. She has leased the very same luxury jet liner that Madonna uses and these trips cost a minimum of a half a million dollars each. She takes as many as 50 members of her staff and over 60 corporate CEO's and other corporate officers, many of whom have not covered their own expenses for these trips. But do not worry, because the American taxpayers will pick up the bill. Secretary O'Leary is also mismanaging dollars to protect and enhance her image. Her image is very important to her. She employs 529 public relations employees at a cost of $25 million a year. She has a personal media consultant at a cost of $75,000 per year. She hires photographers and video crews to go with her on these international trips at taxpayers' expense to catch her looking at her best. She even hired a private investigative firm to rate members of the press and Congress and develop a list of unfavorables so that she could ``work on them a little.'' But that is not the worst. The worst is that according to Vice President Gore in his National Performance Review, even the environmental management department of her Department is 40 percent inefficient. It is going to cost taxpayers $70 billion over the next 30 years. Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible to balance the budget if the President cannot be honest about the budget and we cannot balance the budget if we do not get shed, as they say in Missouri, get shed of the arrogant and wasteful spending by the Secretary of the Department of Energy. Secretary O'Leary should resign and the President should be honest about the budget. I believe the negotiations should be open to the public. Let us come to the table in front of the cameras and let everyone know which side is presenting which budget. I think that would enhance the process and we would, in fact, get a balanced budget in 7 years, scored by CBO numbers as the public law reads.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there is some bad information around that Congress is going to shut down the Government. That is not true. It is not even true that the Republicans are going to shut down the Government. It is the President. The President signed a binding agreement with Congress last month to pass a 7-year CBO-scored balanced budget in the first session of the 104th Congress. After vetoing the budget last week, the President has failed to meet his commitment. His budget does not balance. Mr. Speaker, the President has it within his ability to keep the Government open. All he has to do is keep his promises. President Clinton should keep his word, do as he agreed and sign an honest balanced budget. The Government is not shutting down because of the Republicans or Congress. The Government is shutting down because President Clinton will not honor his commitment to give the American people a balanced budget.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding this time to me, and I want to take this opportunity to respectfully disagree with minority leader of the national security system. When the former Soviet Union has six submarines that are going to be launched this year, when their tank lines are continuing to be in production, when they are continuing to produce MiG-29 aircraft, when they are increasing production on their SS-25 mobile launched cruise ICBM line thanks to some negotiations from the administration, there cannot be a fact that the United States is spending more than the rest of the world. There may be some differences in monetary exchange rate, but production continues for the weapons of destruction in the former U.S.S.R. So I think that, as my colleagues know, I am a little bit disturbed that our current administration thinks this is too much money. After returning from Bosnia and stopping by and talking to the 1st Armored Division, I had hoped that all their needs were met, but what I found out is that there is a need at the company level for satellite communication systems. This is very rugged terrain, and the only way they can keep in contact with their commanders and with their protection, with the helicopter that should give them the cover they need should the need arise, they need a satellite communication system. So this is not too much money, Mr. President and Mr. Speaker. This is a good attempt to try to provide the needs of our military, because we are asking them, in fact, to go above and beyond the call of duty. So, if we are going to do that and we are going to have troops in Bosnia, and we are, they must have everything they need, everything. I support this rule, and I support the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill for our Defense Department.