Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Like a golfer. If you had 48 golf balls in one cart and 67 golf balls in the other cart, is that an increase or decrease in golf balls? It is very simple. I want to emphasize this, I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut, because I think what is important here is that we have heard so much about cuts. We are starting to see a widening gap in credibility. There are no cuts. As this chart says: ``Where is the cut?''

Mr. TIAHRT. To try to make it a little more understandable, if you were a baseball player, maybe you could understand it if we put 48 baseballs in one basket and in another basket we put 67 baseballs, and ask them, ``Which basket has more balls?'' I think they would say the one with 67 baseballs in it has more. That would be an increase, would it not?

Mr. TIAHRT. I have a chart here to illustrate how spending is going to increase in Medicare and still save what is going to be a bankrupt fund if we do not do something about it. We have heard, and the reason I bring this chart I think is important to note and we have heard it here on the floor this [[Page H 11752]] afternoon, that there are cuts in the Medicare program of $270 billion. This is something that has been spread, I think, nationwide. I have heard it in some of my town meetings, and so I go to great pains to try to explain to people how we are increasing spending in Medicare and still going to make the funds solvent, as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has pointed out. This chart says ``Medicare spending per recipient in the Republican budget.'' It starts out here in 1995 with $4,816, and then projected over the next 7 years we will be spending $6,734. I think you made a very good point when you were speaking earlier. You said there will be more people in the Medicare system in 2002, more people in the system, and they will be receiving more financial benefits and still make the system solvent.

Mr. TIAHRT. This chart illustrates that, as the gentleman from Connecticut is pointing out. The part A trust fund is going to be empty in 2002; in other words, it is going to be bankrupt. This chart is in billions of dollars on the left-hand side, it has zero in the middle, the bottom being minus 150 billion, the top being 150 billion, which is approximately where the fund is today, and over the next 7 years you can see this red line goes down until it crosses zero, and in 2002 we actually would achieve bankruptcy if we do not do anything to preserve and protect Medicare.

Mr. TIAHRT. The President's board of trustees for Social Security and Medicare issued this report. We have duplicated three of the signatures. There are other signatures there, but these are the Members from the President's Cabinet. This report talked to us about the impending crisis in Medicare. It says the present financial schedule for Medicare programs is sufficient to insure that payments and benefits only over the next 7 years, and I have a second chart that will kind of help illustrate how Medicare is in fact----

Mr. TIAHRT. OK. I guess I am getting just a little bit excited.

Mr. TIAHRT. This is one of the items that was in the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act that we hope the President will sign. Next year we are going to look at some other agencies like the Department of Energy and see if there is some duplication we can reduce. I think that the balanced budget is, again, restoring the vision of the American people, trying to get government to conform with the way they live their lives, and I think if we are successful in doing this, we will help fulfill the promises that the American people want from Washington, DC, not necessarily from a Republican, or from a Democrat, or from the administration, but from all of us here in Washington, DC. That brings us to the second point that I think we want to talk about because we have heard so much about the cuts in Medicare. I first want to emphasize the point that we have a problem with Medicare, and it was emphasized on April 3, 1995. The top of this chart says the conclusion of the Medicare trustees. The quote here is, and it is right out of their report----

Mr. TIAHRT. Those are excellent points, and I want to talk just briefly about one of the areas that we did cut just as an illustration. We are going to dismantle the Department of Commerce and save, I believe, about $3 billion, and this chart kind of symbolizes how we are going to do it. Basically what we are doing is we are eliminating duplication inside the Government. We are trying to do away with any waste, if we can find it, and then we are getting rid of some of the unnecessary bureaucracy, but you can see some of these areas, like the National Institute of Science and Technology, is going to be consolidated along without others, some of them like technical policy are going to be eliminated, so through a process of consolidation and elimination we are going to get rid of the waste, we are going to get rid of any abuse, we are going to consolidate part of the bureaucracy, and that is part of the cuts that I think are good, commonsense guts that people do in their everyday lives when they have to limit their growth.

Mr. TIAHRT. It goes from again $18,578 down to $16,411, a savings of $2,167. Now we are--I want to talk next about how the balance budget will lower interest rates, and in this chart here I think that we have talked--we have heard a lot about cuts, cuts here and cuts that, but in balancing the budget over the next 7 years we are still going to increase spending, and I brought a chart to illustrate that. And I think there has been kind of a misconception that is nothing but cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts. There really are not any cuts. We are really slowing the growth of Government, is what we are doing. We are slowing the growth of Government, not cutting. There are some true cuts like in defense, on outlays. Our outlays last year for fiscal year 1995, for defense was $276 billion. This year, fiscal year 1996, is going to be $267 billion in outlays. So there are some cuts, in defense for example, but overall Government, if you look between 1989 and 1995, we spent $9.5 trillion, and looking forward over the next 7 years, 1996 to 2002, we are going to increase spending to $12.1 trillion. Now, if we did not do anything, if we did not try to balance the budget, and progressed, for example, on the President's plan, we would be spending $13.3 trillion, so what we are doing is limiting the size of growth in the Federal Government, and I think that is one of the things that is very important.

Mr. TIAHRT. More money in the system, student loans are going up, but for the individual student himself, for the one who is going to make the payments after he has received his education, if we can just lower his interest rate 2 percent, we can save that person some money, that American, that person with a vision for the future.

Mr. TIAHRT. When we talked about a student loan--I am glad you pointed out the maximum amount of $17,000--but I am going to go back to $11,000 student loan just to match my chart here. A 2-percent interest reduction, which is $2,167 over the life of $11,000 student loan; you know, there is a big current 8-percent interest rate. It is going to cost for that $11,000 loan $18,574 by a simple reduction of 2 percentage points. This is why it is so important, even for the student. It goes down to $16,411. So now we are increasing spending. I do not want to confuse this because we are increasing spending for each student, as we mentioned on this chart, going from $24.5 billion to $36.4 billion.

Mr. TIAHRT. You made a point earlier when you talked about student loans, Chris and I just want to follow up on that because I have a chart that has exactly the same numbers that you referred to. We have heard that we are cutting student loans; we heard it just earlier this afternoon; but we are not cutting student loans. This is the estimated annual student loan spending starting in 1995 and going to the next year's budget. This is in the reconciliation plan, and you can see it is an increase. It starts at $24.5 billion and it goes up to $36.4 billion by the year 2002. Now I do want to make one point, that we are going to take away some of the subsidies on interest payments for students once they graduate. There used to be a period of 6 months from the time they graduated until they made their first payment that the Government picked up those interest payments, but we do think people should work, and we want to encourage them to get into the work force and be productive, so we are not going to subsidize those, and it is going to mean about $7 or $8 a month, which we do not think is a significant fee.

Mr. TIAHRT. As the gentleman pointed out, I want to talk to why we think it is important. Again it goes right back to the children. This chart [[Page H 11750]] says why the Republican Congress is balancing the budget. First, for our children. I have three children, Jessica as I mentioned earlier. I also have two boys, John and Luke. I am worried about their future. The reason I got into politics is because I want to secure a future for them. Just about a year and a half ago, there was a survey where two-thirds of Americans believed that their children would not have the same opportunity that they had. I think that is a sad statement for a system of self-governance. So we are trying to restore hope for our children so that they have more hope for the future, more opportunities for the future than we had growing up. Number two, to accelerate long-term economic growth, if we do want to balance long-term economic growth, if we do want to balance the budget, we have to see our economy grow. A balanced budget does do that. Number three, it reduces long-term interest rates. We will talk a little bit more about the significant impact it has on the American family and on the college students to reduce interest rates. And to strengthen the financial markets, and again that is tied to number 2. If you hope to have long-term growth, you have to have a strong financial market. Number five is to raise productivity. Number 6, reduce inflation, very important. And number 7, to strengthen our dollar. We have seen a dramatic slide in the dollar over the last 20 years. It is time for us to strengthen the dollar to keep those strong markets that we have. I think that this was illustrated again by Alan Greenspan, who is the chairman of the Federal Reserve. I have a chart here that shows some of the things that he named as the benefits of balancing the budget. They are significantly common to what the Republicans are trying to do. Number one, he says that the children will have the higher standards of living than their parents. We are talking once again about restoring the hope for our children. I want to pass on a legacy to my children so that they will have more opportunities, a better future than I had growing up. I have had some wonderful opportunities. So I agree with Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Number two, improvement in the purchasing power of incomes. We have seen a dramatic slide. I think the working man has been hit the worst. Inflation and loss of purchasing power has really hit them in the pocketbook. It has made it difficult. And I think that is quite often why we see two-income families now, because if you look at the taxes that we have here at the Federal Government, which is about 25 percent of the income, you add in the State taxes, local taxes, hidden taxes. When I think about the wheat farmers in Kansas and how they start to pay taxes on their land, and some of their equipment, and their parts, sales taxes, how they are tied in there, that the wheat goes to the miller to make flour, and then to the baker to make bread, and then to the grocer to be distributed, and there is taxes that are hidden in there, and by the time you add all those up, Americans pay more than 50 percent of their income to taxes. So it is no wonder we have two incomes. One person works just to pay the taxes while the other one tries to provide something for their family. So we are trying to improve their purchasing power. Again rising productivity; we have done it with the previous chart; reduction in inflation. We have seen, as you mentioned, double-digit inflation in the past, and we want to keep our inflation rate down. Strengthening of financial markets--and, coming from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, I think that is a significant statement--acceleration of long- term economic growth and a significant drop in long-term interest rates. Now I think that when you talk about the American families and how this is going to impact them, I have got a chart----

Mr. TIAHRT. I think the glide path is a good example. On my next chart, I am showing the difference between the second budget that we received from the administration and what we are looking at with this Reconciliation Act. You can see the glide path. Those who fly, it is very clear. As you approach a runway, you get down to touch down, and that is called the glide path. As you are slowly descending to the runway, this looks to go steeper than I like to land. But it illustrates the point fine. The administration's budget really does not balance over the next 7 years. But the plan that we have before us, in the Reconciliation Act and why it is so important for the President to sign, is that it does get to a balanced budget by the year 2000.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting as you were laying out the Contract With America provisions and talking about the balanced budget provision, the Reconciliation Act, that you have got very good reasons why we should support the President's plan, our plan to balance the budget, and why the President should sign the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act. Not only are there important points there to sign but also, as you talked about the Contract With America, I want to make the point that it is really capturing the vision that Americans have. There is a passage in Proverbs that says, without a vision, the people perish. I think the people of America have had a vision for a very long time. For 2 decades they had a vision of a balanced budget, just like this. They sit down at their kitchen table on a weekly or a monthly basis. They balance their budget through their checkbooks, paying their bills, weighing it with what their income is. So it is their vision that this Government should be balancing its own books. I think they have had a vision of a retirement plan that is free from worries about health care. So we are in this Reconciliation Act trying to preserve and protect Medicare, as stated so eloquently by the gentleman from Connecticut. I think the people of America have also had a vision of safe streets, of safe schools, of safe America. I think that provisions that we are putting in, if you look at any yardstick in America today, whether it is drug abuse or illegitimacy or domestic violence or just violence itself, we are failing miserably. I think many of these problems have their roots in our current welfare system that is obviously broke. It is antifamily, it is antiwork, it teaches exactly the wrong thing for a free economy and a system of self-governance. So I think as we look at this, and the last thing that I want to pick up on what the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] said was that he talked about some of these tax credits. I think it is very important. I think we are alluding to it, that it is really their money. It is not our money. As was mentioned, the taxpayer is paying for a portion of our health care, it is their money. I think that, if there is a legacy that this Congress can leave behind, it is that it is not the Government's money that we are dealing with. It is the taxpayers' money. It is your money. In the past, I think the people have felt out of touch with the Congress. Last November 8, almost a year ago to the day, many of us freshman Congressman came in and joined individuals like the gentleman from Connecticut who were in touch with America and saw what their vision was, saw this vision of a balanced budget, preserve Medicare, welfare reform and of tax breaks. They kind of have sent a message to us. I think we are still hearing it today in our town halls. We are hearing it in the coffee shops, Main Streets. I hear it when I visit manufacturing facilities in the Fourth District of Kansas. I have brought a chart to kind of illustrate the marching orders that we have been given, this 104th Congress. In this chart it starts out saying, Congress' marching orders. The very first thing is balance the budget in 7 years. I think we cannot emphasize enough how important that is. I would like to elaborate on it a little more as we go through. Briefly the rest of the marching orders are saving Medicare from bankruptcy, preserving and protecting it, as the gentleman from Connecticut talked about reforming welfare, and again providing tax relief for families and job creation. I think understanding back to this first one, balancing the budget, we really should illustrate it by showing what the real problem is. I have a chart that illustrates that. It is called The Debt: 1960 to 2000, ``Growing Out of Control.'' On this chart, briefly, it is difficult to see, I know, but it starts out in 1960. It goes to 2000 across the bottom. On the left side it starts at 0 trillion and goes to 7 trillion. As you can see, the red indicates how much Federal debt we have. It stays pretty well below $1 billion until we get to the middle of the 1980's. At that time when our social programs kind of started spinning out of control, it started to climb until today, this year, we are right at approximately $5 trillion in Federal debt. We are approaching $5 trillion. This is a legacy that we are passing on to our children. I have three children, and my older is 14 years old, Jessica. It has been 25 years since we have balanced this budget. If I look at the next 7 years, that makes her 21 years. If it takes as long to get out of this problem as it did to get into the problem, my daughter will be 53 years old. We have literally passed our problems onto the next generation. I think that we have an obligation, a moral obligation to our children and to this country to see that we have a balanced budget.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter of this rule, this bill and a strong advocate for the human rights of all Americans, both born and unborn. This Nation must raise the value of life if we are to survive as a nation, as a prosperous people. We must value human life. My colleagues, this is an appropriate rule, because this procedure is so horrible, so inhumane that we should be able to vote right now without question to protect the lives of these little ones. My friends, what more do we need to know? This bill outlaws a medical procedure which takes a child, almost completely outside the mother's body and robs the child of its life. What more do we need to know? A child, a fully formed child with arms, with legs, a body, feet, hands, and fingers, all outside the mother's womb in the very same air that you and I breathe, yet it is legal to end the life of this child, this gift from God, and, of course, a beating heart. My friends, if it is not human, if it is not a human child, then why does their little heart have to be silenced? This silence should stir the very soul of this Nation and cause this House to act now. In the end, if we do not raise the value of life, we will have no life to value. I urge Members to support this rule.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. As we close, I want to say the 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act is for Gene and Kathy Ewert, who have Tia, Trevor, and Katie. It is a $500 tax break for each one of those. That will cover several months; rent. For David and Kay Walker, who have three sons, Caton, Daniel, and Body, that will be $500 for each of those boys, and that will cover several months of house payments, and it is very important to David because he is on strike right now. So this tax package that we have in the 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act is for families, and I am excited about that, and I am happy that we can still balance the budget, get the workings of government going and take care of families here in America.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and I want to set the framework for the rest of our discussion by giving to the audience here in the House Chamber and elsewhere what the marching orders have been for Congress, and they are expressed on this chart here. This is something that has been driven by the American people. We have had a lot of polling data that has been given to the Congress and it says there are some things they want to see happen over the course of the remainder of this year. Well, top on the list here is balancing the budget in 7 years. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of voting for a reconciliation package that does balance the budget in 7 years and it passed on a vote of 227 to 203. We also received from the American public the request to save Medicare from bankruptcy this year. I want to make a comment that there has been some confusion between tax breaks, which we will talk about in a minute, and saving Medicare. The allegation has been that we are taking cuts in Medicare and giving it to our rich friends, but it is really not true. In fact, it is an outright lie. We are increasing. What is going to happen in Medicare, right now the average recipient gets $4,800. By 2002 the average recipient will get $6,700, an increase of $1,900, 43 percent. There is a provision called a lockbox in the bill that says that any savings go right back towards health care. They do not go towards any kind of tax breaks. So that has been a big misnomer the American public has had to swim through to get to the truth. Also, as a request from the American public, we are going to reform welfare. That is an important thing to do because we have a system now that is obviously broke. It is anti-family and anti-work. Just since October 1st, in Wichita, Kansas, we had a toddler that was shot in a gang feud. A two-year-old child was sitting in a car seat out in front of a Quick Trip, which is a convenience store; in a gang-related killing this little child was shot. This is evidence of the breakdown of the American family. It is time that we change this system that has been around since the 1960s because it really is broken. By any yardstick that we use to measure our social climate, whether it be violence or drug abuse or illegitimacy, they have all gotten worse in the last 30 years, and I think their roots are in the current welfare system. The last thing I want to talk about is providing that tax relief for families and for job creation that is important, and we will expand more on that later, but one more chart I want to talk about before I yield back. This is from Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and it goes back to the very first point we were talking about, balancing the budget. We need to look at what are the effects of balancing the budget. Congress has been trying to do it for 25 years. They have been unsuccessful until this year. This year we are successful in getting on a glide path to balance the budget by 2002. But what will be the results, according to the chairman of the Federal Reserve? His vision says that children will have a higher standard of living than their parents. Mr. Speaker, about a year ago there was a poll where about two-thirds of Americans had lost faith in the system. They did not think that their children would have the same or better opportunities than they had. We are going to restore faith in the system. We are going to provide the opportunity for may children and the children in the fourth district of Kansas and across America to have a higher standard of living than their parents. Improve the purchasing power of incomes. We have seen a real degradation of purchasing power over the last 40 years. We want to reverse that trend by balancing the budget. A rise in productivity. If we are going to compete on an international basis we must have a rise in productivity. A reduction in inflation. We have not seen the inflation like we had during the Carter years, but we are right on the verge with a lot of short-term debt that needs refinancing and long-term debt. We have a very big increase in the money supply. We must check that inflation so we have a reduction in inflation. We are going to strengthen financial markets. Acceleration long-term economic growth and a significant drop in long-term interest rates. According to Alan Greenspan, a balanced budget would reduce the interest rates 2 percent. And in the average house in Wichita, KS, that would cut the payment about $100 a month, over a 30-year mortgage about $36,000 to $38,000. A significant reduction by simply balancing the budget. So I think we have had a real challenge from the American public. We have seen a significant step tonight with putting the seven-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act in place, passed through the House. And as I yield back, I want to say I was very proud to be a part of that and hope that America will see this significant achievement and have hope for the future, because I see that hope. Mr. Riggs. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his participation in this special order. He makes, I think, some very significant points, not the least of which, to paraphrase that wonderful and venerable saying, we do not inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children. I think what we are all about tonight, and as a majority party in the Congress, is making a better world for out children. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of excuses. As the gentleman from Kansas points out, it has been more than a quarter of a century since Washington last produced a balanced budget. Twenty-five years. And the American people's patience with the excuses, with the Washington gimmicks, has actually worn out. Last November, and I do not think there is any mistaking the message of last year's election, they demanded an end to ever bigger government, ever increasing taxes and endless deficits as far as the eye can see. They voted for smaller government, lower taxes, and a balanced budget, and that is the clear message to the Republican Congress. After 10 months, Mr. Speaker, of frankly fighting the entrenched opposition of the defenders of the status quo, for the most part the Democratic minority, which has refused to acknowledge at least what the leader of their party, President Clinton, has recently acknowledged, and that is we must get on with task of balancing the budget. Despite all the obstacles we have encountered, we are able to report to the American people tonight mission accomplished. So as the gentleman points out, for the discussion that will follow, we have produced today in this historic legislation the first balanced budget in 25 years, which includes a plan passed last week on the House floor as a separate freestanding bill and then incorporated into the legislation on the floor today, a plan to preserve, protect and strengthen Medicare which still allows Medicare spending. As the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] finally admitted a little earlier this evening in his special order, we still allow Medicare spending to increase for every senior every year. As the gentleman from Kansas points out, we have a genuine welfare reform proposal that emphasizes work, families and hope for the future. And, last, but certainly not least, in terms of importance, tax cuts to counter, and let us be honest about this, the huge Clinton Democratic tax increase in the last Congress, but tax cuts to strengthen families and to stimulate economic growth and job creation in the private sector, which gives us most of our new living wage jobs. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, let me just read a quote from Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address: . . . The crisis we are facing today requires our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. After all, why should we not believe that? We are Americans. That is just as true today as it was during the first inaugural address. Mr. Speaker, the problem of having yearly billion-dollar deficits has to end. Period. The Federal Government cannot continue on the path it is on. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, it is an everyone's problem. Congress can no longer run away from this problem like a bunch of scared chickens. Today Congress will have the opportunity to put the Federal Government squarely on the path to a balanced budget. It must be done. It is the right thing to do for America's future. It will be done because we are Americans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Jay Thomas, who lives in Wichita, KS, said, ``I would just like to know where I could go to hear the truth,'' and, as we heard before, supposedly we snuck up on people, because he heard that nutrition programs were being cut and that children would starve, but there have been no reports of children starving. In fact, nutrition programs are up 4 percent in the Republican budget. My colleagues heard that Medicare was at a $270 billion cut. Yet it has gone from $4,800 per year to $6,700 per year with more people in the system in 7 years, an increase. Plus it has a lockbox provision so any savings goes right back into providing more health care and not for tax breaks for the rich like we would hear some other people allegedly saying. And tax breaks for the rich; let us talk about that. When he knows that women who have three children are driving to work this morning so they can provide for those children and the tax breaks, I want that young woman to know that she will get $1,500, $1,500, of a tax break. She is not rich, she is poor. So where is the credibility? Listen, Jay. The truth is that we are going to balance the budget to preserve a future for the children. We are going to preserve and protect Medicare. We are going to reform welfare, requiring work, bringing the work ethic back in, and we are going to give tax breaks to families, all under the 7-year balanced budget Reconciliation Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. Today, the House will move to preserve and protect Medicare. Thirty years ago, on a closed rule, Congress passed a 1960's Blue Cross-Blue Shield health care plan called Medicare. Health care has progressed 30 years. It has improved. Now it is time to bring Medicare up to date. If we do not, it is going to go broke. The only way to sustain the cumbersome system is to raise payroll taxes $123 billion. The Republican plan will preserve and protect Medicare and offer some options. If seniors do nothing, they will stay on Medicare. They can also select Medicare Plus to expand their coverage through a health managed care plan. They can select a medical savings plan to reward them for having a healthy lifestyle, or they can select the health care plan they had while working under an employer if he chooses to offer it. Those who oppose updating Medicare are the same folks who said schoolchildren would be starving this year. It was reported last night they said if we passed this plan, one-fourth of the hospitals in America will close. Well the schoolchildren are not starving, and the hospitals will not close. I urge my colleagues to preserve and protect Medicare. Live long and prosper.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. If we can wrap this up this evening, I would like to say in plain English, we finally have a specific plan that will preserve and protect Medicare for our parents and our grandparents. It is a realistic plan, it is up front, there is no fine print. It allows the right to select alternative options, the right to stay with your current doctor, your current hospital. It attacks waste, fraud and abuse. There is real accountability for physicians. It is a long-term solution, and Medicare is guaranteed to survive. This is not just politics as usual. This is a real plan that is going to work. I want to thank those who participated tonight, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon, the two gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Norwood and Mr. Chambliss, and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood. I think this has been very enlightening for the American public as we have come to a conclusion here, refuting all the arguments that you heard in the first hour. We have a good plan, and we are going forward with it. I thank the American public for the time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I think the gentlewoman made a good point about diversification, but I think 12 agencies and $1.8 billion is excessive.

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman made a very good point. When we are trying to find a solution to a problem, often we want to have a few diversified groups looking into the problem to see exactly how we can come up with a solution. Perhaps we could get some fresh thoughts and fresh minds looking at new ideas, maybe new concepts. However, to spread it over 12 agencies to the tune of $1.8 billion, I think we already have that much diversity. I think it probably exceeds common sense in the realm of applying one more agency, the EPA. I think it is probably time to draw back some of the reins on studying climate change, that research, let it concentrate on areas that have a very keen interest and, I might add, a charter for such research, like NASA, perhaps even the Department of Energy, would be better suited that EPA, the Department of Defense. I think what this amendment does is it just goes beyond the commonsense thought process here, because we already have plenty of agencies looking into climate change, global climate change. I think putting it back in EPA will serve no purpose for the taxpayers.