Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman would yield, in the Wall Street Journal article, it talked about they thought about gathering this information inside the Department of Energy; however, that would have cost over $80,000. So instead, they hired a private sector, private investigation agency to do the job for $43,500, which is approximately one-half the amount of money that it would have cost to have done the job inside the Department of Energy. Once again this reconfirms that we have large inefficiencies inside the Department of Energy and that we do need to consolidate, get rid of the redundancy and eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet level agency.

Mr. TIAHRT. Sixty-nine as of this hour. When I left my office, we had another phone call that added the 69th name. As this information gets out, people are wanting to join in this effort because they see the abuse, that it is wrong and that it is time for a change.

Mr. TIAHRT. Well, if you think that the average income in the Fourth District of Kansas, which is the district that I represent, is $28,308, that is a significant amount of money. That is the average income; it means something, it is the average income for a family in the Fourth District of Kansas. Again, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. We have seen this mismanagement of taxpayer funds in travel, in the environmental management which has been 40 percent inefficient, and this goes way beyond just the gray areas. This is into the abuse of taxpayers' dollars. It is just another excess that we have. The reaction has been very interesting. The reaction in Congress has been widespread shock and amazement. I think this is really a significant step back to the way business was done as usual, the old business was done as usual. It is what we have been trying to get away from in this new Congress. I think this goes to show why I have joined with 69 others here in Congress, calling for the resignation of Secretary O'Leary. If the President does not push for her resignation, I think that he validates this effort, he validates the hiring of a private investigation firm to look into other Members of Congress, other members of industry, other members of the press, and he also validates the misuse of travel dollars and what has been going on inside the Department of Energy and the inefficiency efficiency that we have been talking about and that has been uncovered by the General Accounting Office. Mr. Speaker, this is just a reflection of the problems that we have and it is why the Department of Energy should be eliminated as a Cabinet level agency. It should go beyond. We should consolidate the redundant areas of Government. We should privatize like we are doing in the power marketing administrations; we should eliminate the waste and it should all start with Secretary O'Leary's resignation. I think that is why this logical process that I have just gone through calls for not only the resignation of Secretary O'Leary, but also the elimination of the Department of Energy as a Cabinet level agency.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. That brings us to today's story. In the Wall Street Journal today there was a story about how Secretary O'Leary has taken $43,500 from the taxpayers and hired a private investigative firm to go do research on reporters, on members of industry, and also on Members of Congress, and in this investigation there was some type of analysis as to who was giving the biggest negative impression of the Department of Energy and Secretary O'Leary down to the 25th, and through some of the inquiries, particularly in the Wall Street Journal story, it was found that Senate Majority Leader Dole was No. 1 on the list. I think this is a little peculiar since all they are trying to do is develop a good image for Secretary O'Leary by spending the taxpayers' dollars, but it just happens that it targets the No. 1 opponent to her boss, Secretary O'Leary's boss, President Clinton.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand], and I wanted to kind of carry on some of the discussion that my colleagues were having about the balanced budget. If I can be retrospective a little bit, if we go back to November 8, many of us new Members of Congress came in not because we were good looking or attractive or we spoke particularly well. We were elected to Congress because the United States was extremely frustrated at the way business was being [[Page H 12079]] done here in Washington, DC, and there was that loss of credibility, as I referred to in the press conference today. I think that we are finding, after being here and seeing what the status quo was, we are starting to uncover more and more things that we are trying to bring forward in this 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act that my friends have been talking about. Today, I want to spend just a little time developing an argument as to why we should pick out portions of the Federal Government that are extremely ineffective and inefficient and eliminate those portions or consolidate them, and also there is something that happened today that I want to talk about that kind of really brings this to the surface. Let me go back to the review of the Department of Energy, which is one portion of the Federal Government that has approximately a $17.5 billion budget per year. When we were looking at the overall Government, we found that this one agency was particularly a problem because of its ineffectiveness, because of its redundancy, because of poor contracting methods. It came out of the aerospace industry, out of contracting with about a dozen years of experience, and we could see that this was just one of the problems that they were facing. The GAO said that they had lack of focus, ``A vision a minute.'' The Department of Energy was really a 1970's tax guzzler, and it really has outlived its purpose. It was formed out of the energy crisis and the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] will remember the gas lines that were part of the problems that we had in the 1970's, especially in California. But those were in part formed by price controls and allocation controls. When the 1980's came along, President Reagan eliminated those controls, and we found out that the crisis was gone. Even during Desert Storm when we had twice as large of a percentage interruption in the income of petroleum into the United States, we still had no gas lines. The crisis had been gone, but yet we were left with this bureaucracy. So in our further research, we found out that even Vice President Gore, through his National Performance Review, found out that the Department of Energy, particularly the environmental management, was 40 percent inefficient. It missed 20 percent of its marks, that means that it was late on one out of every five projects, and that if we did not do something about it, that it would cost the taxpayers of this country $30 billion over the next 70 years. Mr. Speaker, if there is a legacy that we can leave behind it is that we remember that it is not the Government's money, it is the taxpayers money, it is the people's money, and we must be very cognitive of how we spend it. The GAO also finished a report in February 1995, and it fit in very nicely as far as timing with what we were trying to do in looking at the parts of the Government that were ineffective. I want to quote from one of their reports. It said, in effect, referring to the Department of Energy, ``They are unsuccessful as a cabinet agency.'' They are unsuccessful as a cabinet agency. Then it gave a couple of reasons. One is their inability to overcome management weaknesses. I think that is very important as we lay out this argument as to why we need to focus on this if we ever hope to balance the budget. Also, the second reason they cited is that they have the burden of mission overload, going back to that original quote where I said they have a vision a minute. So I think the original purpose of this agency, like other parts of the Government, has run its course, and in an effort to reinvent themselves to stay active, they are constantly reaching out into other areas. In 1977, the Department of Energy spent 80 percent of their budget dedicated to the energy function. Today, it is 20 percent, less than 20 percent. So they have really reinvented themselves. We have a socialized oilfield now in the realms of the Government. It is called Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman would yield, I want to point out that part of this message they were developing, I think, was to put them in a good light, so that when we looked in the details of the Department of Energy, that we would no longer uncover some of these inefficiencies, some of the ineffectiveness, some of the problems that they are having which add to the argument and make the case for Congress that we should eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet level agency. I think they were trying to overcome this.

Mr. TIAHRT. That is right. It is very important that the President's image is up, so we are using taxpayer dollars to look at his administration trying to improve their image. But this is part of this enemy's list, so-called enemy's list as it was entitled in the article. We found out by contacting the Department of Energy themselves and talking to an assistant secretary that even I was named on the list, as were others, I believe; John Kasich, who is chairman of the Committee on the Budget, was also labeled. But I was No. 13 on the list, which I think is going to be particularly unlucky for the Department of Energy and also Secretary O'Leary.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Once again, the travel budget seems to be the issue here. I think, again, we are just noting that this is a pattern that has been developing of wasteful management. Even Vice President Gore, in his National Performance Review, looked at the Department of Energy and found that in the environmental management portion, that they were 40 percent inefficient, citing that over the next 70 years it could cost taxpayers up to $30 billion if we do not do something about it. Also we have found that the Department of Energy was 20 percent behind in their milestones, which means they are behind schedule in one out of five projects. So we have a pattern developing of poor management of the taxpayers' dollars. Then we come to this morning's article, which says that this private investigative firm that was paid for out of taxpayer dollars was developing an enemies list, and we find out that Senator Dole is at the top of the list. Other Members of Congress were also involved. I heard from a member of the Department of Energy that I was also on the list, at No. 13. I think that is a very unlucky number for the Secretary.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in order to start off this period of time where we are going to address some issues that have occurred today, some current articles, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] for an opening statement.

Mr. TIAHRT. The gentleman brings up a good point. All of us wonder how we are doing in the media, but none of us that I know of take taxpayer dollars and hire a private investigation firm to go in and do that, act for us. We all read the clips ourselves and make kind of a mental tally, but we do not misuse taxpayer dollars. I think that is the important difference between what goes on in Congress and what is going on in the Department of Energy, with the Secretary of Energy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there has been a bill going forward that says that we are trying to reduce the redundancy in government and eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet level agency. I think this shows that this individual will take any means necessary to prevent the needed cuts to take place in her bureaucracy, even to the point of going and investigating some of the other reporters and Members of Congress, as well as reporters. I think that, as 68 others have, I will join and call for the resignation of the Secretary of Energy.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is late in the fourth quarter, the score is tied. The outcome is uncertain. The American taxpayers are on the edge of their seats. Will Congress and the President keep their promise to balance the budget? I do not know of anyone who ran against a balanced budget. We all said we were responsible enough, we were smart enough, we were tough enough to make the hard decisions. Even the President ran on balancing the budget in 5 years. So are we going to keep our word? The American public wants to know. They are tired of the excuses, the nitpicking, the pet programs. Mr. Speaker, they know that it is their money, not the Government's money. It is time to do what every American household does, what every American business does, what common sense cries out for. Let us balance the Federal budget and do it with the Reconciliation Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. The chart starts out by saying Benefit to an American family of a balanced budget: Annual savings from a 2-percent interest reduction, just a reduction of 2 percent, and again it goes back to Mr. Greenspan saying that, if we would balance the budget, interest rates would drop 2 percent because the Government would not be out there competing for debt, which in turn competes for credit. So this is a 2- percent reduction in interest rates. On the average car loan of $15,000 it would be an annual savings of $180. On a student loan of $11,000, it would be savings annually of $216. But the biggest-ticket item of course is the mortgage, and right now, about the average mortgage, somewhere around $100,000. If it was $100,000, it would be reduced, just by going down 2 interest points, $2,162 per year, a total annual savings of $2,558. And I think that talks about, you know, it reflects restoration of hope, getting more purchasing power for the dollar. It is a very important issue, that we balance the budget.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote my Uncle John Armstrong. He said, ``If you want something bad enough, any excuse to get it is a good excuse.'' I think about how we have had a shift in power and we have seen some of the top switch and we have had kind of a problem or a widening in the credibility gap. They said we are cutting student loans; they are going up. They have said that we are cutting Medicare; we are increasing spending. The income tax credit, we just talked about that. Nutrition programs, we just talked about that. What we are talking about, though, is restoring the vision of the American people. That is why I believe that the President should sign the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act. That is why I think the American people want him to do that. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues would look at the provisions inside the bill, it encapsulates the visions of America, to having a balanced budget to secure hope for the future for their children, to preserve and protect Medicare, to reform welfare, and to give the tax breaks to the kids so that the parents can spend the money on them rather than the government. I think that restores the vision that the American public holds. So I hope that the President will sign the bill.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] makes a very good point. It is totally unrelated, and it addresses the credibility gap that we have seen widening.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we are just trying to run government more effectively. The next one is by consolidating. We went through some of the programs and we are consolidating and reducing some of the growths through block grants to the States, and we are going to reduce our welfare through welfare reform $89 billion; through reform in the Federal workplace and retirement, we are going to reform that $10 billion. We are going to save, by extending the spectrum, when we auction off different waive lengths for radio and television, we are going to see a tax cut paid for with $15 billion from extending the spectrum auction. We are going to sell off some of the raw resources we have. The uranium enrichment privatization plan is going to save $1.7 billion. Our total spending cuts are $268.3 billion, if we add all of that up, and what are our tax cuts? Our tax cuts are $245 billion.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely right, and a very good point. We are spending more money in all of those areas. These are where the cuts are going to come from, the tax cuts, and they are already paid for; I want to emphasize [[Page H 11754]] that, they are already paid for. We have made $151 billion worth of cuts in the discretionary spending.

Mr. TIAHRT. That is exactly right. That makes a very good point. I want to go back to the point the gentleman made earlier about the earned income tax credit, because we heard that we were dramatically cutting and trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor people. If you look at the last 7 years, how much spending there has been in the earned income tax credit, it was $71 billion. We are going to increase that, under this plan that we hope that the President will sign, we are going to increase it to $173 billion. Now, that is a very big increase, a 144 percent increase. So we are not balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. I want to talk a little bit about where the cuts are coming from, because they are not coming from Medicare, they are not coming from Medicaid, they are not coming from nutrition, they are not coming from the earned income tax credit.

Mr. TIAHRT. No. 1, it is not true, and No. 2, it is not fair. But I want to say one thing, I received some information, it was published in Human Events, on page 9 of their November 3 issue. It says that the top 29 percent of individuals who pay income taxes, they pay $4 out of every $5 that is paid into the Federal Government in the form of taxes. The top 25 percent, which a lot of people think that is the wealthiest people, and they should be paying $4 out of $5 in taxes. But let me tell you where the top 25 percent hits. That is everyone who makes $41,000 or above. If you make $41,000, I do not consider you rich. In fact, to get to the top 5 percent, you go up to $87,000. There is some question there, if people are well off at $87,000, but the bottom 50 percent of individuals who pay Federal income taxes only pay 5 percent of the tax burden. That is $1 out of every $20 that comes into the Government. Really, that is what this per-child tax credit is designed to hit, that bottom 50 percent. It will mean the most to them. They need the break. I think about my brother-in-law who is currently on strike, an employee at the Boeing Co. They are on strike. He has three boys. I want him to know there is $1,500 available for him next year to catch up from the strike. It may go on through the rest of the year.

Mr. TIAHRT. I am not here to defend the rich, because that has been kind of the premise of the argument, is that the rich are getting the tax break. I really do not think that is true at all.

Mr. TIAHRT. I want to move on to the last thing. This is talking about the reduction in taxes that we have in the 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, and why I think it is important to fulfill the vision of the American people, and also to stay on this plan, why the President should stay on it. The President did say on October 17 in a roomful of people, he said, ``The people in the room are still mad about the 1993 budget, and they think I raised their taxes too much.'' He said, ``It might surprise you to know that I think I raised taxes too much, too.'' I just illustrate a point, because I think what he has captured here is the vision of the American people. We have to go back to the premise that it is not the Government's money, it is the taxpayers' money, it is their money. I think the President has captured that. When we look at who is going to be benefiting from this family tax credit of $500 per child, and now this is based on the plan that went out of the House, and because of your committee work, I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], I know he has some further information and may want to correct the chart a little. First I want to say one thing, I heard there was a person who was going to get a $20,000 break in their taxes, some alleged rich individual. I got to thinking about that. At $500 per child, he would have had to have had 40 children to get a $20,000 tax break. I hope that he is wealthy if he has 40 children. But if you look at the plan that we have, 75 percent of the people, 74 percent of the people, who will benefit from this make below $75,000, and 10 percent only make over $100,000. So a large majority of the people who will benefit from what is in the current plan are making less, they are not the wealthy people.

Mr. TIAHRT. Exactly right. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman about some of the other things we have. We are going to consolidate some of these programs, 22 current programs to eliminate child abuse, consolidate them, again reducing some of the redundancy, making it more efficient. We are going to consolidate child care programs, increasing the spending to $2 billion per year, and nutrition programs. I think this is something that the Republicans took an unfair hit on. We heard last spring that the Republicans were cutting what was going to be spent for children and that they would be starving. I have heard absolutely no reports in the Fourth District of Kansas or anywhere in the Nation that there are kids starving right now. In fact, I was in the Dodge Edison School in Wichita, KS, and saw the lunch program. They are doing very well. They are thinking about contracting it outside. Overall, we are increasing spending for nutrition programs 4.5 percent per year, and over the next 7 years that is going to be a $1 billion increase. There will be no starving children under this.

Mr. TIAHRT. I want to talk about one of the visions I think the American public had, and that is reforming our welfare system. We have heard a lot about it in the campaigns for the last dozen years. Now we have a plan that is in our 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act. This is, again, another reason why we think the President should sign this bill into law. In welfare reform, I think we have been kind of attacked in saying that we are cutting spending for welfare. If you look at the chart I have brought, it talks about welfare reform the last 7 years compared to the next 7 years. On the left side here we have spending which is in billions, and across the bottom we have three columns. The first is 1989 to 1995, or in other words, the last 7 years. That is $492 billion, which is a lot, half a trillion, a lot of money. The next 7 years we are going to increase that $346 billion over what we did in the first column of 1989 to 1995. So from 1996 to 2002 we are going to increase spending. If we did nothing and took current projections, we would spend up to $949 billion, but by moving block grants on welfare to the States and trying to get the solution closer to the problem, we are going to save some money over the next 7 years. I just have to tell you one story about a lady that I talked with in Wichita, KS. She works for the Social Rehabilitation Services, which is how welfare is conducted, the agency that conducts welfare in the State of Kansas. She said, ``I am very concerned about block grants, because how will this Federal guideline be affected and how will that Federal guideline be affected?'' I said, ``Ma'am, if you could have the autonomy and the authority to take this money that you receive in your budget and apply it to the problem, could you do a better job than what these guidelines say?'' And she said, ``Oh, absolutely.'' I said, ``That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to move the solution closer to the problem and give that worker in Wichita, Kansas, the autonomy and the authority to meet the problem, the funding to meet the problem.''

Mr. TIAHRT. I think you make a good point, that if you just do absolutely nothing and you are a senior, your Medicare benefits will continue as they were before, but if you choose to move into a managed care plan, another type of plan, then it is your selection, it is your alternative, it is your choice. I think that is a very important difference between what we saw with the old Medicare plan, which was a 1960's Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan that has been frozen in time for 30 years, the rest of health care increasing, maturing, developing for 30 years. Now we are just trying to bring Medicare up to date, allow some options. But if a senior, again, chooses not to do a thing, they will stay in the current Medicare program.