Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight have until midnight tonight, Thursday, December 14, to file a report on the bill, H.R. 2661. It is my understanding that this request has been cleared with the minority leader's office.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am understanding that the House has ceased its activities here. However, the rest of Congress is working in their offices, answering constituent relations and working on active legislation. If the gentleman cares to take the afternoon off, it is fine with me, but the rest of the House is working. That is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the Clinton administration's material girl. Secretary O'Leary has leased, at taxpayers' expense, for overseas travel the same luxury jet that Madonna uses. Now Clinton's material girl has been overseas 16 times in the last 3 years. She has been out of the country 50 percent more days than Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Secretary of State Warren Christopher's responsibilities include foreign policy and foreign relations. When he gets off an airplane overseas, when you see his face and him stepping off an airplane, he is doing his job. But the material girl, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, is responsible for civilian nuclear waste, Department of Defense stockpile and safety, Department of Defense nuclear waste, the national energy labs, all inside the United States, power marketing administrations, strategic oil reserves, all of which are within the United States of America, but the material girl's overseas trips are also expensive. They are as high as $720,000 each. Several of these trips have expenses that are unaccounted for, some as high as $150,000. One of these trips, the same luxury jet that Madonna uses, Secretary O'Leary took 51 staffers and 68 guests. It cost the taxpayers $560,000. There is only about $70,000 that is currently unaccounted for. That is why the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and myself have requested the Government Accounting Office to do an audit, so we hope it will be done early next year. I think it is time that we stop this misuse of taxpayers' money and account for the expenses that we cannot account for at this point. Mr. Speaker, this excessiveness, this mismanagement, this extravagance, is just the tip of the iceberg. It started off with GAO report that highlighted problems about management at the Department of Energy. They lacked focus, they had an admission a minute. Then there was Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, who said within the Department of Energy the environmental management group was 40 percent inefficient and it was going to cost taxpayers $70 billion over the next 30 years if something is not done. Then we found out there were 529 public relations employees at the Department of Energy, one personal media consultant for the Secretary of Energy herself; and then there was the private investigative firm, which she paid $56,500 to find out who the unfavorable were in the press and in Congress. I was number four on the list. Then there was her personal friend that she hired at $95,166 year plus $12,000 living expenses for the department conflict resolution officer. We have a lot of redundancy in Government, and we need to eliminate that out of the Department of Energy too. Two-thirds of the budget comes through the Department of Defense. There is duplication of effort within the labs. There is the nationalized oil fields at Elk Hills, CA. We have private companies that extract oil from the earth. There are the Power Marketing Administrations that also are duplicative of the private sector. That is why I am leading the task force to eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet-level agency, to remove the waste, consolidate the duplication, transfer to the private sector that which they do best, and eliminate the parts of Government that are unnecessary. Each time the material girl, Secretary O'Leary's mismanagement comes to the press, this effort gains support. It highlights the fact that something must be done. This process of verifying has uncovered something else, though, that is probably worse than anything you have heard so far. That is that the material girl has transferred from the Department of the Interior $500,000 to the government of India to prepare the Taj Mahal for her arrival. Five hundred thousand dollars. What is so upsetting to me about this is that I can only think of the deficit we are running this year. I can only think of the budget we are dealing with. To spend $500,000 to prepare the Taj Mahal for her arrival is taking away from our children's future. It is borrowed money that they are going to have to pay back. It is wrong. It is time to stop this wasteful spending. Mr. Speaker, it is time to eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet-level agency. The only way we can do that is to continue with this effort and this legislation. It is needed to balance the budget and it will stop the unnecessary spending.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I also went to Bosnia to meet our troops on the way in Germany and to receive a coin from the First Armored Division. This coin I plan to carry for the next 12 months, so I keep them in my thoughts and prayers. But this is a civil war. This is not a religious war. Only three of the five parties have initialed off this peace agreement. Today, Bosnian Croats who did not initial this agreement are burning Bosnian Herzegovinian villages. This week they released a known war criminal. Bosnian Serbs, who also did not sign this peace agreement or initial this peace agreement, have two war criminals still commanding troops. This is an incomplete agreement. There will be no peace without justice. These people must be brought to justice. This is just a trial separation before the divorce. We are giving them the opportunity to rest and rearm. We need to create other opportunities for peace, opportunities that will be there without sacrificing our young men and women. That is why I support the Dornan bill.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear our troops understand what is going on. I talked to them on my way back from Bosnia. They know it is our job to argue policy, and by supporting the Dornan resolution it does not cut them off at the knees. It is shameless to say that it does. Our troops took an oath to defend the Constitution and our borders, and we have extended that to America's vital interests across this world, but none of that is here in Bosnia. None of it. We are asking them to go above and beyond the call of duty, outside what they have taken an oath and sworn to do. I think we should realize that. I am carrying a coin, and I am going to keep the First Armored Division in mind for 12 months. And I hope the guy that gave me this does not come back in a coffin.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Buyer-Skelton resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Buyer-Skelton resolution. The President has developed a policy committing our troops without the consultation of Congress or the consent of the American people. Young men like Kempty Watson and Todd Beeson, both from Arkansas City, KS, have been required to go above and beyond the call of duty. Mr. Watson and Mr. Beeson, are not defending the border of this great country. Nor are they being required to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no vital American interest in Bosnia. This mission is truly above and beyond the call of duty. They are heroes, as is every American who served in Bosnia. They serve regardless of the policy. Watson, Beeson, and others, like those men and women who serve in the 1st Armored Division, follow the Commander in Chief and do so professionally like no others in the world. This resolution supports all our fine men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces, 100 percent. But this resolution also strongly opposed the policy the President has forced on the American public. Mr. Speaker, I disapprove of the President's policy. There are many ways to lead the world, lead NATO, present peace, without putting our troops in harm's way. Therefore I support the Buyer-Skelton resolution and our troops.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the President has a ``Material Girl'' in his Cabinet. Secretary O'Leary has leased the very same plane that Madonna used for a trip to South Africa. She took 51 of her staff and she took 68 guests, and they all got in first class and flew down to South Africa at a cost to the taxpayers of $560,000. Vice President Gore tried to defend this terrible waste of taxpayers' money by saying she is creating all these jobs in America and that there are lots of contracts being written. The truth is there are only signed letters of intent; no jobs, no contracts. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Department of Energy has terrible mismanagement. Vice President Gore himself, in the National Performance Review, says the environmental management is 40 percent inefficient and it is going to cost taxpayers $70 billion over the next 30 years. We need to do something about this. It is time to turn the lights out at the Department of Energy and it is time for Secretary O'Leary to resign.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the Hamilton resolution, not because those who are supporting it voted against the Defense Appropriations Act, but I am voting against it because it is going to be misinterpreted as supporting the President's policy. Mr. Speaker, I do not support the President's policy. I sat in Zagreb in a hotel after being in Bosnia, in Sarajevo, and I talked to Marine Lt. Col. Mark Sifford and his wife, Marianne. They have 3 children. He is going to spend his Christmas in Sarajevo away from his family. The question that his children have are, ``Why is Daddy not going to be home?'' Why are we sending our parents of these kids at Christmastime to a war-torn country? What is the reason? What is the vital American interest? Why are we defending this? I think there are many ways to lead the world, but sending our men and women is not one of them. We can lead in many ways. Mr. Speaker, I have with me this coin from the 1st Armored Division. It was given to me by Sgt. Kempty Watson. He has a mother that has been crippled by a car accident. He is the only son that she has. We are sending American sons to defend them. It is a failed policy. I oppose the policy. Vote against Hamilton, because it will be misinterpreted.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Secretary O'Leary is the Clinton administration's material girl. Secretary O'Leary has taken 16 overseas trips since she has taken office. She has been gone 130 days. That is, amazingly, 50 percent more time overseas than Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who is responsible for foreign relations and responsible for foreign policy. There is no material reason why the ``material girl'' spends so much time overseas. The Secretary of the Department of Defense is responsible for the storage of civilian and Department of Defense nuclear waste. She is responsible for the national energy labs, power marketing administrations, and storage of strategic oil reserves But Clinton's material girl, all her responsibilities are domestic. Domestic responsibilities. But Secretary O'Leary has leased a luxury jet, the same luxury jet that Hollywood's material girl, Madonna, uses. Let us look at one of the trips she spent on the Madonna jet. She went to South Africa. She was gone 10 days. She took 51 staffers, 58 guests, a total of 109 people. Photographers were hired. They hired video crews to record the whole event. The cost to the American taxpayer, $560,000. Now, Vice President Gore has tried to defend Secretary O'Leary's travels, and he has said her trips have created thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in contracts, so I think it should all be in perspective. Well, early in the year, when I was debating Secretary O'Leary on the MacNeil-Leher report, she stated she had produced $19.7 billion in business contracts. Last month she revised that down to $10 billion. Now we find out it is closer to $1.4 billion, and those are only signed letters of intent, not signed contracts. And a large part of that $1.4 billion is claimed by Secretary Brown. In fact, he is taking full credit. Well, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and myself have requested a General Accounting Office audit to find out how this horrible waste can be accounted for. The material girl has spent millions of dollars in travel, but it does not stop there. Secretary O'Leary hired one of her personal friends, after laying off thousands of people, she hired her for a job title she created called the Department of Conflict Resolution Ombudsman at $93,166 per year plus $12,000 a year living expenses. We did not know about that part of the material girl when 80 of us called for her resignation. We thought that was bad enough, because at that point she had just hired a private investigative firm to develop an unfavorables list, for $56,500. A list of Congressmen and reporters that she could work on a little. That should have been enough, but even after the travel there is more. We have found out that the material girl has redirected $500,000 from the Department of Interior to the Government of India so that they can clean up the Taj Mahal before she arrived. A half a million dollars to clean up the Taj Mahal. Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This reflects the mismanagement that is going on within the Department of Energy. It is time to turn the lights out at the Department of Energy. It is time for Secretary O'Leary to resign.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today is December 7 and we remember that this is Pearl Harbor day. It was the beginning of the World War II struggle in the Pacific. Today we are starting another struggle over the budget. The President's budget is now available. It is hot off the presses, and I am very optimistic. I hope it is as close to the 7-year Republican plan as the President's Medicare plan is to the Republican Medicare plan. According to James Glassman of the Washington Post, the expenditures in the President's Medicare plan in 2002 is within 2 percentage points of the Republican plan, 1.6 percent, actually. I am sure all of us have heard about the massive $270 billion cuts to Medicare. Well, the President's plan is within 2 percentage points. Mr. Speaker, let us get to the truth of the matter. After all, telling the truth is one of the Ten Commandments. We should move beyond this cheap talk. If the President's plan is that close, 1.6 percent, then maybe we can reach an agreement on the 7-year balanced budget plan. Then we will do what the American public wants, what the Congress wants, we will do the right thing and balance the budget in 7 years.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is reported today that the President has decided to submit his third budget this year. This one is to balance in 7 years. Well, I hope three is a charm. The first two did not even come close to balancing. But I would hope it is like the President's Medicare proposal, because, as reported yesterday in the Washington Post, if you look at expenditures in the year 2002, it is remarkably close to the Republican plan. In fact, it is less than 2 percentage points apart, less than 2 percentage points apart. Where are the cuts, Mr. President? Well, according to this article, the President just had the wrong starting point. So if his balanced budget is as close as his Medicare plan, there is no reason for him to shut down the Government again. Let us do the right thing for the American public, the right thing for ourselves, the right thing for our children. Let us balance the budget in 7 years.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the President has refused to negotiate a balanced budget, just 17 days after signing an agreement to balance the budget in 7 years. There are three plans out there: His plan, which did not get one vote in the Senate, went down 96 to 0; then the Democrat Coalition plan, which did get some votes and does balance in 7 years; but the best plan is the Republican plan. The reason I believe so is because it has the discipline of a balanced budget. It will balance in 7 years. It is the right thing to do. We will never get there unless we have the discipline. Second, it deals with the tough issues like welfare reform. We believe it is the right thing for people to work for what they get, and not just get a handout, so they can believe in themselves. We trust States like Kansas to do what is right for those truly in need. The Republican plan also trusts parents by giving them a $500 per child tax break. It allows them to spend money on their children rather than the Government. It will strengthen families and it is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing for our country, for ourselves, and for [[Page H 13940]] our children. Let us balance the budget in 7 years.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. It says the President and the Congress shall.

Mr. TIAHRT. Required by law to enact legislation to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002. I want to quote something that was reported on the Fox Morning News on November 28. It was in the White House Bulletin on November 28 and in the Associated Press on November 28. This is quoting White House Secretary Mike McCurry when he was asked whether the White House would prefer to put off the larger budget debate until after next year's election and operate the Government on a continuing resolution, and here is what he said. ``There are big differences between the President and Congress.'' That is a true statement. He continues by saying, ``and I suspect that those kinds of issues will have to be settled in November 1996. But, in the meantime, we can avert the crisis, avert the shutdown, get on with the orderly business and have our debate next year during the national election campaigns when we should, as Americans, have that kind of debate.'' I would put to Mr. McCurry and the American public that this was a signed agreement. This is not something that is debatable. This has the power of law.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think if we could talk to someone in elementary school and showed them a basket that had 47 baseballs in it and a basket that had 71 baseballs in it and ask them which one has more, everyone would realize that there is more in the basket with 71. That is kind of a simplistic example, but there are no cuts to Medicare. There is a reduction in projected growth, but, good grief, it was growing at 11 percent per year. Medical inflation is growing at about 4 to 5 percent per year. Something needs to be done. I think the plan that we have before us that the Republican Party has come forward with, the Republican Conference, is a good plan, because it not only preserves and protects Medicare, but it also gives options, it empowers individuals, seniors. They can choose alternate plans or they can stay in Medicare, as they choose. I think it is still within the realm of balancing the budget. We have been able to preserve and protect Medicare and provide some options. I do not know how much time we have here, but I do want to say before we close, talk about some of the recent agreements that have been signed in a continuing resolution as far as making a commitment to balance the budget by 2002. Briefly, most of America knows that for a long, long time, a man or a woman's word was their bond. Well, my grandfather bought cattle and bought grain. His word was his bond. He would return some day later and pay cash for it. When my father purchased farm equipment, his word was his bond. My father-in-law taught me many lessons about honest and integrity. His word was his bond. Yet we have just recently signed a agreement on November 20, 1995. The President signed a continuing resolution that said this: The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002. Now, the first session of the 104th Congress ends on December 31, so we do not have a whole lot of time to do this.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague that I did not realize that there was any educational or intrinsic educational value to ``Bay- watch.'' I have never seen the program myself. As you, I have heard that it is not worth watching. Be that as it may, I think it is ironic that we spend this money here that has no educational value as far as fully teaching children, which is where the rubber meets the road. This goes back to the overall picture, why are we spending money in certain portions of our Government that have no constitutional authority, that have no apparent success, and there is no correlation between the spending of additional funding and the quality of education? Much of what has occurred in the past in the educational realm has not been related. I mean, if you track it on a graph, how much money has increased, and test scores, as they have either held stable or increased or decreased, there has been no correlation between spending more money. So we have not really addressed the problem, the problem of seeing that our children have a better education. So, again, we are going back to these attempts to balance the budget. Why should we waste money on funding areas that are not effective and that have no constitutional background?

Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, going back to Kansas again, we do have recent legislation that addressed the concern that Kansas had that their students were not getting the quality of education that they would like. If they looked at test scores, there was a degradation in test scores, and they passed measures called quality performance accreditation, QPA. It has been very volatile, very controversial, but it was in fact duplicative of what is going on with American Goals 2000. So now we have a Federal entity in the Department of Education, as I join with the gentleman to abolish, duplicating the effort of the State board of education in Kansas and duplicating paperwork, duplicating effort, duplicating, all under the guise of getting a world-class education for our students. So I think that we are struggling at the State level trying to provide the quality of education that we need, and we really do not need big brother Government looking over our shoulder asking for twice the amount of paperwork. We have spent hundreds of millions, close to billions of dollars here in Washington, DC, in the Department of Education and not educated one child. I think it is a little unique that we have wasted so much money when our goal is to provide a world-class education for our students.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I think in our effort to balance the budget, we see some honest differences on what money should be spent in education between the States and the Federal Government. I know, as a Member of Congress from Kansas, that our State constitution does have a requirement to educate the children in that State. We have a State board of education, and through State funding it provides 94 percent of the funding requirements and the needs of the children to get a public education for Kansas. So where does the authority come to override that constitution in the State of Kansas? There are some things we could do, I think, as niceties, and providing student loans is one I advocate. I was able to go through college on student loans, as was my wife, and I am glad to see we are supporting student loans in a strong fashion. But to say that kids will not be educated if the Federal Government does not take that role is somewhat misleading. I think it is a violation of the 10th amendment; where States can provide that need, I think we should allow them to provide it. In your home State of Florida, I know they have a magnificently large building that would house the Department of Education or whatever it is termed in Florida; and again, they have plenty of requirements there to meet the needs of the children in Florida. So I guess what I am saying is that there is an honest difference when it comes to Federal spending for education that we have with the liberals. We think that the States have that responsibility through their constitutions, and I am unable to find that requirement in the Federal Constitution that I have sworn to uphold.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, Medicare, just in a short review of the 1960's BlueCross/BlueShield plan that was put in place 30 years ago, the medical industry has progressed some considerable amount, and yet BlueCross/Blue Shield in this Medicare Program has been stagnated, frozen in time. So what we are proposing to do is not cut Medicare at all. In fact, the average payment per beneficiary goes from $4,800 per recipient this year to $6,700 per recipient in the year 2000, with more recipients.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 1995 President Clinton signed the following statement in a continuing resolution: ``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002.'' Yet, just a couple of days ago when asked whether the White House would prefer to put off the larger budget debate until next year's elections, the White House press secretary, Mike McCurry, responded in saying, ``Debate next year during the national election, campaign when we should, as Americans have that kind of debate.'' They are trying to avoid balancing the budget this year, but we know what the American public want. They proved it in 1992 when Mr. Clinton told them that he could balance the budget in 35 years. They proved it in 1994 when they elected a Republican Congress. They proved it in 1995 when the people and the Congress wanted a balanced budget again. Now, against the will of the American public and against the will of the American people, the President is trying to avoid balancing the budget. Again, Mr. Speaker, we know what the American people want. It is a balanced budget. Let us give it to them now.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today American troops are in Bosnia. There are approximately 10 troops in Bosnia already, Mr. Speaker. By the end of the week, it will be 700. By the end of the year, probably 35,000 directly involved and 140,000 indirectly involved. Today, Secretary Christopher, Secretary Perry, and General Shalikashvili came to the Committee on National Security to try to convince Congress to support the commitment to place ground troops in Bosnia. Soon, we here in Congress will be asked to support an agreement that we not only had no input in drafting, but also repeatedly have expressed our opposition to. Mr. Speaker, the American public and Congress is opposed to placing troops in Bosnia. To those that are in support of placing troops in Bosnia, I think that they will be subject to change when we see the first widow handed a flag at a grave side next to their children whose eyes will be filled with tears. Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue. There may be an agreement between those involved in the crisis over in Bosnia, and I have a copy of that agreement that was signed in Dayton, OH, on November 21. It was signed for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In this agreement, Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement for U.S. troops. Nowhere does it call out that United States troops must be on the ground in Bosnia. If there is no written requirement for troops being on the ground in Bosnia, why are we there? Today Secretary Christopher said, ``We are going to place troops on the ground in Bosnia because of our commitment to NATO.'' That is why we are placing troops there. Further, he said if we do not lead in this matter by placing troops on the ground in Bosnia, no one in the international community will ever follow the lead of America again. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with Secretary Christopher, because there is no written requirement in this agreement to place troops. I do submit that there are ways that we can lead in the effort to stop the atrocities that are occurring in Bosnia by other means. We can lead within this agreement. We can lead without placing ground troops in Bosnia. We can lead through air support, as we have done in the past. We can lead through logistical support and we can lead through intelligence gatherings and through provisions of hardware, through strategy. In closing in the presentation that is going to be made by General Shalikashvili, he said that this operation is going to be tough and we must be prepared for casualties. We must be prepared for casualties. What is the acceptable level of casualties, general? Mr. President? The American public? Congress? What is the acceptable level of casualties? Is it 1,000 a week of young men and women, of Americans dying? Is it 250 per week? Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that answer is, but I do know what the answer is in Kansas; what the people of Kansas are telling me. They are telling me that the acceptable level of casualties in Bosnia of United States men and women is zero. No casualties. That is what is acceptable, yet we are sending in troops now and they are going to be in harm's way. Recently, I heard General Schwarzkopf talk about his lessons learned in Vietnam. No. 1, there is no such thing as a limited war. What we are entering into is allegedly peacekeeping. It is more like peacemaking. It may become an occupation. It will probably be termed as a limited war when the fighting starts. Mr. Speaker, there are 45,000 to 60,000 Serbs who are opposed to this agreement. Our troops will be landing at Tuzla, within 1 mile of Serb positions, within mortar range. When those aircraft come on final approach, they will be in harm's way. There are Azerbaijan troops, which are Moslems, 4,000, who also do not agree with this peace agreement. The second thing that General Schwarzkopf said is there must be a clear mission. I do not think that has been established. The third is never, never put troops in a conflict without the support of the American public. Mr. President and Mr. Secretary, we do not have the support of the American public and we do not have the support of the Congress. Let us not send troops to Bosnia.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman will yield, I think this Congress is heading toward a second shutdown this year, and if it does occur, it will reflect that we are unable to come to an agreement that has been signed by the President. It will be that he has violated his signature to balance the budget in this, achieve a balanced budget, not later than fiscal year 2002 by enacting legislation this session, the first session of the 104th Congress. I do not think that anyone in America is going to accept a violation of this signed contract because you know we have seen some tremendous gains in our economy, and I want to just quickly go over what every person knows in their heart, what most businessmen practice daily, but it is that you must have a balanced budget, and I just want to quote someone that goes beyond myself, who came out of the aerospace industry, someone who is involved in the financial markets, and it is Alan Greenspan, who is the Federal Reserve Chairman, and I want to quote his testimony to the Senate Banking Committee which was November 27, just 2 days ago. He said that I have no idea what the actual proportion of the 2- percentage-point decline in long-term interest rates is that is attributed to the expectation of a balanced budget, but it is a significant part. He says that he believes interest rates will drop 2 percent if we can balance the budget, 2 percent, and what that means to the average household, American household, is somewhere around $2,300- $2,400 per year less money, a lower interest rate on their mortgage, lower interest rates on their credit cards, lower interest rates on their student loans, on their car loans, any time-borrowed money. It also means more jobs because companies will have more, but he went on to say subsequently, if there is a shattering of expectations. Now I want to diverge here a minute. There is so much involved in expectations in the financial markets with just the anticipation of a balanced budget. We saw the market rates soar over 5,000, we saw bond, a strong bond market, strong financial markets, because of the anticipation of what we are trying to do here with this signed agreement between the President and Congress, but he says if there is, and I quote again, consequently if there is a shattering of expectation that leads to the conclusion that there is indeed an incapability on the part of the Government to ultimately redress the corrosive forces of debt, I think the reaction could quite--could be quite negative, and I am fearful that were it to happen there would be a sharp increase in long-term interest rates. He is talking about an increase in interest rates. Now we know, I know, from the economy in Wichita, KS, in my home district, that when interest rates dropped, housing starts increased dramatically. We saw expansions in both ends of Wichita, a real strong economy. So here is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve saying that, if we can balance the budget, which the President has signed to and agreed with this Congress, if we can do this in fact and not have the violation of a written agreement, then he sees a drop of 2 percentage points in the interest rates, and the corollary, quote oppositely, if it does not occur, if for some reason we are incapable, then we see an increase in interest rates.

Mr. TIAHRT. And then we will start the second session of the 104th Congress. So that gives us just a short amount of time to implement legislation that gets us on the path to a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to move on to that is because I heard a startling statement that came from the White House press secretary just yesterday. It was in response to a question that a reporter asked that said, asked whether or not the White House would [[Page H 13785]] prefer to put off this larger budget debate and instead operate on continuing resolution into next year so that we could carry out this kind of thing during the Presidential campaign. The response from the White House press secretary was, ``There are big differences between the President and Congress, and I suspect that those kinds of issues will have to be settled in November of 1996.'' And he went on to say some other things about averting a shutdown, but I think there is a real move to avoid a written, signed contract with the American public that this commitment indicates. If you read it again, it says, the President and Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. This is very important because it is a signed document. The President has signed this. Words mean something. I think one thing that we have discerned here with the American public, we saw it with the Contract With America, that words mean something, that we are trying to convey to people that we are very serious about this. The President has agreed to it. This was something that was confirmed in 1994 during the election. We ran on the Contract With America. It was a signed document that we would do things which have been accomplished by this Congress. Then this year we are talking about something that has been signed, but yet the White House is already hedging on this signature. They are hedging on this agreement, wanting to move it off to the Presidential campaign where they can use 20-second sound bites instead of open and honest debate about what is really important to the American public.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend some time this afternoon and talk to us about the occupation of Bosnia. The President has already decided that we are going to be sending troops into Bosnia, approximately the number of 20,000, under the alleged peacekeeping mission. However, I think as we see the events of Bosnia unfold, we are starting to realize that there are many questions unanswered, in that the direction of those questions and the partial answers that we are receiving is saying that this is not a peacekeeping effort, and that this is a peacemaking effort which will probably result in an occupation unless we take some drastic changes of direction now. Mr. Speaker, this is a big concern, I think, to every American. If it is not on their thoughts today, it should be. It will be tomorrow. I think it is a well-known fact now in the media and in Congress that the President is going to send troops to Bosnia. He has the constitutional authority to send those troops. He has thought this out. It has been planned in the Pentagon. There will be troops before the end of the year in Bosnia. It is very frustrating for a Member of Congress, because we are unable to stop this action. We have repeatedly voted to stop from sending troops to Bosnia, yet every effort on the part of the Congress has been met with disdain, with the turning from our advice, and the President has not yet come to us with the arguments, with the right ideas, with the right plan in order to gain not only the support of Congress, but the support of the American public. Some of the questions that are arising out of this tragic mistake that we are about to make are, No. 1, the President says there will be casualties. There are risks involved. I think this Member of Congress and others would like to know what is the acceptable level of casualties in Bosnia. Is it 1,300 troops per day? Is it the loss of 250 young men and women each day we are over there? Is that acceptable? I can tell you what is acceptable in Kansas, in the Fourth District of Kansas. It is zero. No casualties. But that is not what we have heard. There will be casualties, but we do not know how many. Another thing is that we were told that it is going to be 20,000 troops, but now we are finding out that it may be 30,000, maybe 35,000. There will be some held in float. There will be some stationed nearby. According to the War College, it takes seven troops to support one combat troop. So if it is 20,000, that means it is 140,000 with support personnel. If it is 30,000, it goes up to 210,000. Pretty soon, we are talking about a quarter of a million people, and they are in there for the alleged duration, which is supposed to be 12 months. Will there be a rotation? If there is a rotation, where will the training take place? Does that mean that there is now a half a million troops involved? If so, what would happen if North Korea should cross the border and what would happen if Saddam Hussein again crosses another border? What would happen if a conflict occurs in Yugoslavia or some other place like Macedonia? This country is not funded in the Department of Defense to handle a two-scenario conflict. Regardless of what the leadership in the administration has said, it is simply not there. Members of the Pentagon know that. If this is an occupation, which it appears to be leaning towards, 20,000 is not enough. Probably 200,000 is more like what it will take, just ground troops. What is the mission here? Another question is, what is the geographical area that we will be required to defend? Is it near the hottest area? Near the Serbs? Mr. Speaker, we have already had air strikes on the Serbs. There are some 40,000 to 60,000 rogue Serbs who do not agree with the peace agreement, and we will be near there. Our troops are planned to land at Tuzla, which is just about a mile from the Serb current locations. A mortar round can travel a mile. Other questions are, is the duration of 12 months enough? We have had a century's old conflict and we think we can solve it in 12 months? What firepower will we have there? What is the funding level? It started out at $1 billion. It is now up to $3 billion. Would it not be more economical in terms of human lives to offer to rebuild the entire country with this $3 billion instead of spending it on troops, putting them in harm's way and accepting some level of casualties? There are many more questions. One is the question of leadership. Will America not be a leader if we back away from this? There are many ways to lead, through NATO and through other ways. We can lead through air power, through intelligence, through strategy, through logistical support. We have many ways that we can lead. But to send troops into harm's way without the support of the American public, without the support of the America people, the Congress, the answer is no, Mr. President.