Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady from Idaho talking about a very necessary method of removing the unneeded bureaucracy, and we have on the floor with me tonight the author of the bill to dismantle the Department of Commerce, and I think that we should commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] for his efforts to eliminate the bureaucracy because it is really an historic event. I was not surprised in my own efforts to head up a task force to eliminate the Department of Energy when I went to the Government Accounting Office, or the GAO, and I asked them how do you dismantle a cabinet level agency, and they said, well, we simply do not know. We have only been in the business of creating Government agencies and we have never dismantled one before. So what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] is doing now is he is going through the process of finding the best way to eliminate the Department of Commerce, and it is quite a task, an historical task, and one that has never been taken on. There are some questions I personally have about how it is going to occur and I wanted to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] to see if we cannot bring out into the open, Mr. Speaker, some of these issues. I think one of the most fair questions is, is the gentleman's proposal simply a reshuffling of boxes on an organizational chart, or is it a serious transformation of a Government bureaucracy? Would it not be better to cut the fat out of the current Commerce Department, or is it better to eliminate the entire department?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to present to you and to the American people the facts about Medicare. The course of the discussion I will take is well-traveled, but I do not think that there has ever been a more pressing issued facing our Nation than the crisis concerning Medicare. I want to lay out the facts tonight and discuss the very immediate steps which must be taken to preserve and to protect Medicare for everyone who plans to live longer than seven more years. I am going to start with the bottom line tonight and work my way backward, back to the point which brings me to this podium late this evening. We must keep one singular, simple, and brutal clear point in our minds as we utter every word in the debate about Medicare: According to the Medicare trustees, the Medicare trust fund, which pays the hospital expenses for Medicare beneficiaries, part A, will be bankrupt by the year 2002. I have with me tonight that report that was issued by the Medicare trustees. This report goes into detail as to why the Medicare trust fund is on a path to go bankrupt by 2002. Mr. Speaker, if someone was wanting to get a copy of this, they should call the congressional phone line, which is 202-224-3121. Mr. Speaker, that is 202-224-3121. At that point, the trustees tell us, the system as we know it today will cease to exist. All of the accusations we have had and the political bickering and the semantics are pale when we compare the simple fact that the Medicare trust fund is going bankrupt, when we lay that fact on the table. Medicare is going broke and will not survive another generation unless we act to save it today. In a sense, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking hypothetically about this situation tonight, because, as the Republican Party, we are going to do everything we possibly and physically can to prevent that from happening. We intend to provide quality, affordable, easily accessible health care for all of our seniors. Nobody likes to hear the word bankrupt. I guess if you spend enough time in Congress or if you work for the Government long enough it might not mean too much, but as someone who spent a lot of time in the private sector, in the real world, I have a healthy respect for the word. The concept is clear: Everyone out there tonight understands that when you expenditures consistently and substantially exceed your revenues or your reserves, you will go broke. I think this chart that I have very clearly says it all. The part A trust fund is going to be empty by the year 2002. It starts here with the current trust fund that we have in 1995 of about $150 billion. You can see that as time goes on, as we achieve the next 7 years, by 2000 the line here is marked zero, and the expenditure line, the trust fund, cross at 2002. That is an indication that the trust fund is at that point broke. It has no more money in it. You can see after that it runs a deficit for the next few years. This situation though goes way beyond the Medicare system. It affects our entire budget once we start running a deficit. I firmly believe that this Congress was elected in large part to balance the budget. The President has finally admitted that if we can balance the budget, it will actually be good for our [[Page H 7691]] economy. He does have a plan, but according to the Congressional Budget Office it will not work. He is admitting to having a problem. I think that is a significant start, and we welcome him aboard in the fight to balance the budget. But the fact is, without significant reform to Medicare, it is almost impossible to balance the budget. As a Congress and a nation, we must reform Medicare if we hope to preserve and protect the system, and we must balance the budget. The crisis to Medicare confronts us to some degree because of an aging population and an ever-expanding measure to provide better health care longer, but there is also an inherent deficiency in the current system which has led to explosive growth in Medicare, over 10 percent annually for the last 11 years. This, Mr. Speaker, is in part what we can control and where the solutions must be found. Egregious cases of fraud, abuse, and waste do exist, but we will attack them. We will not completely solve the problem, and I guess technically Medicare could continue to operate as it does today. We would just simply require the next generation to pay a payroll tax rate of 19 percent by the year 2050. But that is not acceptable. What we need to do is simplify, cut out the red tape, open more opportunities to our recipients as we do in the private sector. We can and must do it. I just cannot go home at night and look at my three young children, knowing that even though none of them are out of high school yet, our generation, my generation, is planning how we are going to spend their money. And the key to protecting and preserving Medicare is to control the rate at which the program increases. The Republican proposal is to allow Medicare to increase. Let me repeat that. Our proposal is to allow Medicare to increase, simply at a slower rate than the current double digits we have. But this plan provides for an increase per person of over $1,900 by the year 2002. This is a 40-percent beneficiary increase. This chart that is entitled ``Medicare Spending Per Recipient in the Republican Budget'' indicates the increase. In 1995, the average expenditure per person is $4,860. That is going to increase to $6,7834 per person by 2002. We have heard a lot about the cuts going to Medicare, but it is actually an increase. One has to think that those who keep talking about cuts would be losing credibility when there is an acknowledged increase in spending to Medicare. But this rate of increase is both sufficient to maintain the integrity of the Medicare program for the current and future beneficiaries, and to ensure its long-term solvency and survival. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor tonight to engage the American public with these facts. I believe this effort to save the Medicare system is so imperative, because it goes much deeper than one specific program designed to provide health care assistance to the older Americans. I believe it is going to serve as a test of our resolve. We must come together, we must overcome contrived generational lines, we must overcome the temptation of the liberals to use class warfare, age warfare, because we must ensure that as American, the America we pass along to the next generation, our children and our grandchildren, is a little bit better because of our efforts, that government can be the highest and best. This idea does not seem to be embraced much anymore. It seems that each generation has grown increasingly more pessimistic about their future. I am concerned about this because this is not the vision of America which I want to pass on to our next generation. I think that if we can succeed today in this endeavor, we will not only save the Medicare system but resurrect some of the much needed optimism that our Nation has lost. There is a great need to preserve hope for the future. Just last July 4, I received news that I have a new nephew. His name is Kenan Tiahrt. He was born July 4, Independence Day, 1995. He represents hope for the future. I have three children myself, Jessica, who is 14; John, who is 10; and Luke, who is 7, and they are my hope for the future and why I am involved in Congress. We must give them the tools that they need to start on a hopeful optimistic career and it starts today with our efforts to balance the budget so we can preserve the Medicare system and protect it. For our hopes to balance the budget we must be able to eliminate the unnecessary bureaucracy, and tonight I have with me several people who are going to be discussing how we are going to eliminate that unneeded bureaucracy and save the future for our children by balancing the budget. Tonight, speaking about elimination of the Department of Commerce, I have the gentlelady from Idaho [Ms. Chenoweth], and I would like to yield to her for what time as he may consume to discuss the elimination of the Department of Commerce.

Mr. TIAHRT. I just want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] for coming down and bringing this very important issue to the American public, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], also the other gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth]. You know the American public needs to know that this is an historical event. The elimination of a Cabinet-level agency has never occurred before in the United States. We are about to make history once again in the 104th Congress, so stay tuned.

Mr. TIAHRT. I suppose we get a little closer to the time. I want to allow the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] to close up his convincing story on the elimination of the Department of Commerce.

Mr. TIAHRT. I appreciate your response to the questions I have given you. You know, we as freshmen had often sought the leadership of others and there is a gentleman from your State, Mr. Chrysler, Congressman Smith from Michigan, that would like to give some comments on the elimination of the Department of Commerce. We really appreciate him being here and helping us with this.

Mr. TIAHRT. As a former businessman, you have been in touch with the business community, and I wonder what has been the reaction from the business community about this so-called voice for business in government? What has been their reaction to the elimination of this voice?

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. TIAHRT. You know, we have been talking about this dream for a better America and pointing out that the Federal Government borrowing so much money and driving interest rates up by 2 percent is almost overwhelming, when you think about how much money, $10.65 billion just for farmers alone, extra interest that they have to pay. When I went home to Kansas the last time, I got out of the airport and my necktie blew over my shoulder, so I knew I was home. But on my way home, it was 10:30 at night, and out there they were still combining, trying to get a few more bushels, because they want to save as much money, they want to pass on the farm to the next generation. My parents tried to do that for me. I grew up on a farm. But because things were too tough for them, they could not pass that on to their kids. So it is important. When I think about how much money they spent, one year they spent $85,000 in interest alone, and how that could have gone toward taking down their notes, it is just amazing what they do.

Mr. TIAHRT. I came across an article in the Washington Times today and there is a quote in here, it also quotes you talking about that you think that a lot of business has been successful without the help of the Department of Commerce, and they say that it would hamper American companies from performing in the global market if you eliminate this voice of business at the Cabinet level. But there is a quote from Joe Cobb at the Heritage Foundation: The claim by the Commerce Department that its cheerleading for American industry has increased the sales is about as accurate as the belief that the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are responsible for the football team winning its games. I think, as you point out, that American business has done an excellent job of expanding. I have a company called Caldwell Incorporated, run by Art Tieschgraber, and it has done a great job expanding into Siberia and a lot of other places.

Mr. TIAHRT. I am sure you have done a lot of research when you looked into how the Department of Commerce operates, and you must have spoken with past Secretaries of Commerce. What has been the reaction of not only the current Department of Commerce but also those who have headed up that agency in the past?

Mr. TIAHRT. I believe that you have laid out a good case for the elimination of the Department of Commerce, but does your proposal allow for an orderly termination? This is something, as we said earlier, that has never been done. Is it an orderly termination of this department that have you in mind?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the liberals are continuing their scare campaign against the seniors of our country, telling them that Republicans are going to take away their Medicare benefits. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the liberals sound like they want to change the name from Medicare to MediScare. But I would like to tell you something: I like Medicare, I like providing seniors with crucial medical security. And let me tell you what else I like. I like the idea of Medicare lasting a long, long time, so that future generations will also enjoy medical security. But the President's Board of Trustees on Medicare tells us the system is going bankrupt in 7 years. Unless we act now, the future looks bleak. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my liberal colleagues, let us forget the MediScare tactics. Let us channel our energy into something productive. Work with us to save Medicare, and please stop scaring our senior Americans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that I was unavoidably detained last evening, I missed the rollcall vote on House Resolution 192, which called for the House inspector general to complete a more detailed audit of the House, Had I been present on rollcall vote No. 525 I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is not about the NRA or some militia group. This is about good behavior and bad behavior. When I go back into my district they say, In a free society, if you have some actions that you want to approve of, you reward it and if you have some actions you do not want to approve of, you do not reward it. We have some actions that we do not approve of. In fact, there are two agencies that the people in my district say they are afraid of. One is the IRS and the other is the ATF. So when we are to reward good behavior, we should not do it by giving money for things that we do not agree with. Now, we have got the investigation going on about the good old boy retreat down in Tennessee and allegedly, allegedly it is anti-Semitic, it is sexist, it is racist, some romp in the woods. If that is true, then none of us should agree with it, none of us on both sides. We should disapprove of that type of activity, and all this is doing, it is not like we are starving the people out here at the ATF. In the last rescission, we added in an additional $34,823,000. We have been handing money over to them. What we are trying to do is send a message there is some kind of behavior, as a Congress, we do not approve of. It includes Waco, where we had over 80 people that were terminated by this government without a trial, without a judge, and without a jury, and we have the incidents in Ruby Ridge, where, again, a 14-year-old-boy, and Randy Weaver's wife, and I do not agree with him politically, I do not agree with him, but he does not deserve what he got; again, without a trial, without a judge, without a jury, human life was taken. We must not reward this type of behavior. I think this sends that message. It does not say there is a salary freeze; it says there is no merit increase. We are sending a message to them we are not going to reward this kind of behavior. So I think this is a good way for us to send this message to them. We certainly do not want to encourage anyone who disregards human life. I just encourage those of us to vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last spring when the President's Medicare Trustees Board released their report on the impending bankruptcy of the Medicare system, there was and still is stone-cold silence on the other side of the aisle. No ideas, only criticism. In fact, even their buddies in the elite liberal media noticed the startling conclusions reached by the Medicare trustees. They concluded that unless we take serious steps right now to save Medicare, it will go bankrupt in 7 years. Republicans have not dodged this issue. We have already started to take serious action to protect and preserve Medicare, not only for today's seniors, but for future generations. We will not allow Medicare to become a bargaining chip in the same old Washington shell game. Mr. Speaker, this is not about pitting one generation against another or one party against another. It is about generational equity. We must start now to protect Medicare. The consequences for doing nothing and just criticizing are too expensive to ignore.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last year Republicans stood before the American people and made a promise that if we took the majority, we would conduct an audit of the operations of the House of Representatives. Today the findings of this audit are presented. The audit had to be conducted. For years the American people were inundated by countless stories of misuse and abuse of congressional privilege. The light of truth and accountability had to be shown on the institution that is responsible for spending the American tax dollars. I would just point out that this would never have happened had the other party remained in the majority. It would never have occurred to the other party to put themselves on the same level of accountability that they hold every other financial institution and every business in America under. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day on the Potomac and a good day for the institution of Congress. By keeping promises and holding ourselves accountable, we have taken steps toward restoring trust with the American people.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 65.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that it was referred to here earlier that this was not authorized. If that is the situation, then apparently none of this bill has been authorized. We have gone through the authorization process in the Committee on Science. We have looked at the basic research and development. This was done. We came in at the $220 million level. Now we are coming with an additional $170 million. We are even outspending the administration on the coal programs. We are adding $24 million for special interests for the liquefaction process, adding $36 million to General Electric for gas turbines, an additional $8 million to the administration's request for molten carbonate fuel development. All of these are in a $1 billion industry, when I have to go back to Kansas and talk to my little energy developers who get no help from the Federal Government, out there trying to make a living pumping wells, stripper wells. They get no help, yet we give millions of dollars to these big energy corporations. We heard about commitments to contracts. We have gone and reviewed this. This is not beyond what was authorized by the Committee on Science. Beyond that, we have a commitment to the American people. Of course we care about energy. We do not want to have another energy crisis, but we are not killing research and development that would go to help supply more energy. What we are doing is, we are cutting out the corporate pork. One hundred seventy million dollars additional in research and development to billions of dollars in revenue that these corporations have is not going to drive them into bankruptcy. This is supported by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman. It is over the resolution of the Committee on the Budget, it is over the resolution of the Committee on Science. It is supported by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the chairman of the subcommittee. This is practical common sense to go back to the research and development that was authorized by the Committee on Science and not add in any additional pork. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I was merely trying to present an opportunity for us to discuss an issue regarding the Committee on Science's level of authorization in the area of energy conservation.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett]. (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand], a Member of the Committee on Science.