Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, in this amendment I seek to restore the appropriation to the level authorized by the Committee on Science. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], in the House budget resolution had set the fossil energy program at $150 million for 1996. The Committee on Science then, after careful deliberation, reviewing all research and development programs, authorized even more funding at $220 million. The Interior appropriations bill, however, adds an extra $170 million to the level authorized by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in the Committee on Science. Mr. Chairman, it is important for the American people to realize that money is spent in Congress after the rigorous authorization process. The committees in Congress study the issues, hold long hearings and vote on the funding levels after long and tough debates. This process is not perfect, but it is the process that usually results in responsible compromise. To add $170 million more to the level authorized by the Committee on Science is excessive and thumbs the nose at the Committee on Science. We worked hard to follow fiscal responsibility principles, because we want to balance the budget for the future of this country and for the future of our children. Almost one-half of the increase to the fossil energy program goes to the clean coal program. The clean coal program is to study technology that has been around for decades. The question is not if we can burn coal more efficiently; the question is can we afford it; and clearly, we simply cannot. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee eloquently explains that basic scientific research is a responsible Federal function. It is quite a stretch to put the clean coal boondoggle under the banner of basic research. In fact, the bill appropriates $12 million more than the President even requested. If we pass the bill, we will spend more on this program than even the administration wants. Mr. Chairman, once again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We can and must do better than adding millions of dollars to programs of dubious nature. Let us reject the concept of appropriating money that has not been authorized. Let us listen to the chairman of the committee, who arrived at the responsible funding level for fossil energy, and follow the bold example of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], of making tough choices. Let us stop asking middle-class taxpayers to fund research of some of America's most profitable companies. Exxon, G.E., DuPont, Amoco, Westinghouse deserve our credit for being industry leaders, but they do not need our subsidies. I come from a district in a State, Mr. Chairman, that is a large oil and gas producer. No industry has had to sacrifice more in the changing market. I have received phone calls and letters from small energy producers in my district who are struggling. How can we look at them and tell them we are broke and cannot help, but then give millions to subsidize the big energy companies? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, if they are serious about deficit reduction, then let us vote to keep the authorized levels for funding. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help end corporate welfare. Join me and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, the subcommittee chairman [Mr. Rohrabacher], the National Taxpayers Union, and Citizens for a Sound Economy to make the tough choices and stand up for the future of our children.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I know we have some limited time. We do not have time to talk about how the Secretary averages more on a 3-day trip than the next person in the Cabinet averages on a 5-day trip. We really do not have time to talk about the time when the Secretary went to Boston and spent $337 per night in a hotel when the head of the EPA was just there subsequently and only spent $83 per night. We do not have time a talk about how the Secretary of the Department of Energy always travels with 7 or more, as an average, aides. We do not have time to talk about upgrading costs when she took a trip from Chicago to London along with members of her staff, and the upgrades alone cost $10,265 to the taxpayer. What really is kind of bothering me about this is it is being charged not to just this budget but also to the future. We are borrowing this money. We are going to go out and borrow this money. On July 4, I had a nephew born, Keenan Tiahrt. He was born July 4, 1995, and because of spending like this that goes to the debt, he is going to have to pay $197,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the debt. So we are charging it to his account and to my children's account and to the next generation's account. So it is a little bit difficult. We do not want to micromanage this. But I am not sure what we are going to have to do, whether we have to shame the Secretary of the Department of Energy to travel on the same budget the rest of us travel on. Why does she have to be excessive on the taxpayers' dollars? I wanted to say I understand why you cannot offer this because of the way the rules are written, but I think that we should have some sanity in the way of traveling. I appreciate Chairman Myers watching the Secretary. I know that I had an amendment that I was going to offer. I am not going to offer it because he has done a good job of reducing the Administration's budget, forcing the Secretary of Energy to travel differently.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just wanted to, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, I would just like to say I think Chairman Myers has done a good job of taking one step forward in seeing we reduce the administrative budget by about approximately 20 percent. All the corporations across the United States have reduced, and I think it has made them more efficient. If you talk to the corporations, you will find out that by downsizing, they have become more efficient. So I think this is a good step in the right direction. That is why I am not offering my amendment. I understand the rules, you know, that we cannot micromanage and we cannot put this onto the appropriations bill. I think we are taking the right steps to downsize. I have a bill that will eliminate the Department of Energy. I think we are in line towards even that goal. So we are taking the right steps as a Congress, and I just want to commend Chairman Myers.

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I wanted to note, I want you to know this goes beyond just the travel budget. We have instances pointed out by Vice President Gore in his National Performance Review that the Department of Energy, in their environmental management area, has missed 20 percent of their milestones, which means they are behind schedule. They are 40 percent inefficient. It could cost us $70 billion over the next 30 years. I think Vice President Gore's National Performance Review is clear we need to do something about the management practices at the Department of Energy.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington because I was concerned about the future for my children. I have three children: Jessica, who is 14; John, who is 10; and Lucas, 7. They are very important to me. I wanted to preserve for them the same opportunity I had while growing up in this free society. I wanted to preserve a future for them. However, when I look at the budget and our mounting Federal debt, and the obligations we have for the trust fund, like the Social Security trust fund, I get very concerned. There are some schools of thought that think that this country may in fact be bankrupt, that our obligations actually exceed our assets, including all the ground that we have accumulated and highways and buildings. Mr. Speaker, I was very concerned about the future, and I think many others of us are. We want to see that we balance the budget. As the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Neumann, has pointed out, we have made great strides to get the budget balanced and restore faith in our economy. However, it is also important that we do other things like preserve Medicare. In order to achieve those goals we are going to have to look with a close eye to the details of what has been going on inside Congress. I have headed up, with a group of others and over 50 cosponsors, a bill that will eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet-level position. We are not doing this just to put some type of a goal to achieve, we are doing this because we are concerned about the future. When I got home before July 4 for the in-district work period, I landed about 9:30 at Wichita, Kansas. I got out of the airplane, walked out of Midcontinental International Airport, my necktie blew over my shoulder, I knew I was in Kansas. At home I saw out in the wheat fields farmers that were combining at 10:30 at night, trying to get a few more bushels before the next rainstorm came through. I thought about how hard they are working for their dollars, and that over half of their money goes to the government, by the time you add up State and local and Federal taxes, and taxes upon taxes, about half their income. I thought about the factory workers who work at Boeing, where I used to work, that works a little overtime so their kids can have something extra. I saw my brother-in-law who had been working some overtime, he works at Boeing. he showed me his overtime check. Over half the money was going over to taxes for the Federal Government, and how he is struggling to provide a little extra for his kids, and most of it is going to the government because we have so much we are spending. I think about the single mother who is working a second shift trying to provide a future for her children. That is what balancing the budget is about. It is about that single mother who is working so hard, trying to preserve a future, just like I am for my children. She is trying to preserve a future for hers. We are all off on the task of trying to balance the budget, and in doing that we are going to have to eliminate agencies, to quote Fred Smith from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He said, ``If we cannot eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet-level position, we have no hope of downsizing government.'' If we have no hope of downsizing government, we have no hope to balance the budget and preserve the future for our kids. Mr. Speaker, in looking at the details of the Department of Energy, I found out that we have been spending billions of dollars trying to create jobs, but actually we have failed at it. The government has not done a very good job. In fact, there is $293 million that has gone to eight large corporations. In spending this money for them we have in effect given them corporate welfare. We have required that welfare reform comes to those who are truly in need, and they are going to have to work for their benefits and do a lot of things through block grants. Now it is time I think that we look at corporate welfare. I just have eight big beneficiaries here that I have uncovered that have been receiving corporate welfare. Some, I think, are notable because they are spending less and less money on research and development and yet they are spending government money whenever possible. One is Citicorp. They are a $250 billion corporation according to 94 revenues. Their profits were $3.4 billion. Yet, they required $10 million from the government to help them with research. They are taking scientists off of their payroll and funding them with our tax dollars, even when they have $3.4 billion in revenues. Another company that I would like to talk about was IBM, $64.1 billion in revenues, and $3.0 billion in profits in 1994. Yet over the last 4 years, we have spent $58 million helping them with research. I think it is time we get a handle on this. All this by the way goes through the Department of Energy. That is how I uncovered it. What we have been trying to do is create jobs and encourage the private sector. They say ``We have some success stories.'' They do not really name the factories or the individuals that have been successful. They usually talk about their CRDAs, cooperative research and development agreements, with companies. They have about 1,400 of those. How many jobs have they actually created? Here is one they think is a success story. A guy up in Fairbanks, Alaska has come up with a self-composting toilet. We gave him $90,000, and we thought it was a great idea. We gave him that money in 1990. Since then he has sold 12, for $10,000 each. They declared that a success story. We have another gentleman that used to work for the Los Alamos lab, but he had a good idea, so he went home and he wanted to create this software package that he could use as kind of electronic mail. He was going to sell it to a Japanese company. Then he found out that his biggest competitor was the United States Government. The very people that he worked with in Los Alamos wanted to give away this software program to the same Japanese company that he was trying to sell it to. It is going to cost him $600,000 because we are giving away this money. We have a lot of problems in the Department of Energy, and I think it is time we start uncovering these. If we look at the way it has been run, as many parts of government, it cannot [[Page H 6822]] withstand the scrutiny of the public eye. It is time for us to look. It is time for us to work to balance the budget, to get rid of the waste, and preserve the future for our children.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I was hesitant at first to support this budget resolution. While I stand among revolutionaries, I did not think this was revolutionary enough. The people on November 8 wanted us to change the way Government was running. They wanted us to downsize Government and give Government back to the people. I am heading up a task force of great Americans that is trying to abolish the Department of Energy because, according to Vice President Gore, it is 40 percent inefficient. Over the next 30 years it is going to cost us $70 billion unless we do something with it. I did not see it initially in this budget resolution. But after looking through the details, I found out that this is a very good plan, and it is in the details. The Senate is not as excited about it yet, but there is room to work with these details. This starts the process of giving Government back to the people. I think that is what people want here in America. That is what they said on November 8. It balances the budget in 7 years. It returns hope to World War II generations, my father. It returns hope to me, the babyboomer generation. And it returns hope to generation X, my children, so that we do not pass the burden on to them.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have been working hard in the House for months to eliminate four Cabinet departments and balance the budget because we are serious about trimming the size of the Federal Government. We started with our own budget, cutting committees, cutting committee staff, and congressional mailings by a third. But we also believe it is time for the Cabinet to step up to the plate, and there is not a better place to start than the Department of Energy. Mr. Speaker, at committee hearings Energy Secretary O'Leary tells us that she cannot find even one more dollar to cut in her department. She says she wants to reform the Department of Energy. But in next year's budget she wants an additional $337 million and $360 million for travel. Well, the L.A. Times tells us the real story. Secretary O'Leary spends more on travel than any other member of the Clinton Cabinet. She is flying first Class at taxpayers' expense. She is staying in four- star hotels, luxury hotels. I guess she thinks it is proper for taxpayers to foot the bill for her Robin Leach lifestyle. My question for the Secretary is: ``What's it like to fight for deficit reduction from first class?''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to set the record straight. Yesterday I was in the Committee on Science when the chairman laid out the rules for the vote that was going to precede the vote that came on the floor. What happened is the opposition to this tried to filibuster in the Committee on Science and then alleged that they missed the votes here. The chairman stayed throughout all debate. He then left the Committee on Science, came here and was able to register his vote. But still the charge is arrogance. Today I just left the Committee on Science. I just revoted on the very same amendment. It was allowed. We were considerate and yet no apology, just a charge of arrogance. When are we going to have some reality and some consideration on the floor of this House? I think it is time that we act like gentlewomen and gentlemen as we so profusely proclaim on the floor of this House.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, for the last 30 years or so, most of the laws made by Congress assumed that Government was more efficient and more wise than any other institution in the country. For instance, Medicare was implemented in the 1960's and was designed to provide health care, primarily to the elderly, based on the idea that Government could best distribute health care resources. Since the creation, Medicare spending has increased dramatically. In fact, Medicare part B has increased 5,400 percent since the creation of the program. Medicare is in such bad shape that even members of the President's own Cabinet admit that Medicare will be bankrupt in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, buried deep in the philosophy of programs like Medicare is the assumption that Government has all the answers. It does not. It is time for the American people, both Republicans and Democrats, to work together to save Medicare. It is not too late to preserve and protect it before it goes broke.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. With all due respect, I must rise in opposition to this amendment. Since 1992, the Department of Energy has been working on this alternate source for producing tritium and they tell us they are 3 to 4 years away from doing that. It is going to cost taxpayers more money. I want to remind the body that the Department of Energy is the same agency that the Vice President told us in the National Performance Review misses 20 percent of its milestones and is 40 percent inefficient. That means that their estimates could be longer than expected and overrun in cost. But if we use the multipurpose reactor for the production of tritium, it represents a tried and true technology. This technology would also be the least cost to the American taxpayer and it would guarantee that we are going to produce tritium on time. Mr. Chairman, I, along with my other colleagues on the Committee on National Security, are concerned--but not surprised--about the lack of progress that the Department of Energy has been making toward this long-term source of tritium and it is essential if we are going to maintain our nuclear weapons for nuclear defense. But we cannot allow our nuclear weapons capability to diminish just to satisfy an antinuclear coalition in the administration and in the Department of Energy. We need to do what is right for the American people and for the national defense. Time is running out. And we cannot afford to wait on the Department of Energy to get its act together. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Markey amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the President's speech last night was fabulous. Bill Clinton was his usual polished self. He was convincing, sincere, and articulate. I would argue that Bill Clinton has a rare gift for making speeches. [[Page H5908]] But let us not forget one crucial thing. With Bill Clinton, there is always a huge difference between reality and his speeches. Let me illustrate. During his campaign for the Presidency, Bill Clinton argued passionately for deficit reduction and the need to balance the budget. In fact, in June 1992, Bill Clinton told Larry King that he would present a plan to balance the budget in 5 years. This never happened. For the last 3 years, the President has introduced budgets that called for more deficit spending, not less. His last budget, the one he just rejected last night, calls for $200 billion deficits well into the next century. Mr. Speaker, we are glad he wants to get into the debate, but I urge everyone to keep in mind the difference between Mr. Clinton's speeches and his actions.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act, which seeks to keep our military strong and our troops ready. In particular, I would like to state my strong support for the B-2 bomber. I can still feel the pride that swelled up inside me on a windy day in Kansas just a month ago when Senator Bob Dole and I were on hand to christen to new B-2, called the Spirit of Kansas. That was a great moment of personal satisfaction for me. Over 10 years ago I worked on the B-2 in Wichita. Although I worked on a great many aircraft, I can think of no aircraft which makes me more proud of Kansas ingenuity and the technical expertise of the American people. When I think about the B-2, I think about America's long nightmare during World War II. Unfortunately, 60 years ago Congress did not do its job in preparing this Nation for the possibility of war. We did not have the latest technology at our disposal. We were not ready. We wanted peace, but we did not have strength. In doing so, we unintentionally encouraged evil men to take advantage of our weakness. Let us resolve to never let this happen again. When we ask a young American to guard our liberty, through service to the military, they make a self-sacrificing commitment to each and every one of us. In return, we should keep our commitment to them by providing them with the latest technology which will ensure their safety. I strongly oppose the Kasich-Dellums amendment, which would shut down the B-2 program. That could cost us billions to start up the production line. The B-2's long range makes it less dependent on the overseas bases. On the initial days of Desert Storm, a chart that I have here shows that the B-2's could have done the same job, 32 B-2's could have done the same job of 1,263 aircraft, putting fewer people in harm's way. It is a highly leverageable aircraft. As a new Member of Congress, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and vote to keep America's military strong and this Nation safe. We need to adopt funding for the B-2. We should support the bill reported out by the Committee on National Security and reject the amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dornan-Tiahrt amendment for very obvious reasons. I am really surprised that Members would oppose such an amendment. What we are doing is verifying that Russia is getting rid of their biological weapons. We just want verification. We just want to know that when we spend a dollar's worth of tax, that we get a dollar's worth of threat reduction. I do not see how they could betray the U.S. taxpayers and oppose this, because what we are doing is verifying that their hard-earned money is going to reduce the threat, to make a safer world for them, and if we do not do that, then we are just wasting this money. It could have been wasted, according to the GAO report. I think it is time we put some common sense into Nunn-Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Dornan-Tiahrt amendment to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, or CTR, is funded through the Pentagon in an attempt to help finance the dismantling of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. However a recent General Accounting Office report [GAO] shows that this money is being used to fund the work of Russian scientists who are spending at least part of their time developing new and more menacing Russian missiles and nuclear and chemical arms. After reading the GAO report and recent press accounts, I requested that the House National Security Committee hold oversight hearings on the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program. We must be absolutely sure that this money is being used properly, and I look forward to these hearings. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the Dornan- Tiahrt amendment, [[Page H5871]] which requires the President to certify that the Russian offensive biological weapons program has been terminated. The CTR was cut drastically in the National Security Committee. $171 million was cut from a $371 million administration request. Our amendment does not cut CTR funding below the Committee recommendation of $200 million, it just makes a simple request which we think addresses a world-wide humanitarian concern. This amendment puts a restriction on any additional CTR money going to the former Soviet Union, unless Russia terminates her offensive biological weapons program. It's a simple and fair request. Actually, it doesn't matter how fair it is. Russia should end its biological weapons program now, and we should use the CTR money in a way that makes this happen. The GAO report included many potential problems with the CTR program. Moscow is refusing to permit audits of U.S. funds paid under the program. The purpose of the program, to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and improve control over nuclear materials, is not being realized. In fact the report says that CTR money might even be going to enhance Russian nuclear and chemical arms capabilities. The National Defense Authorization Act as reported out by committee made a responsible cut in the administration's request for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and I support that reduction, and applaud the chairman's work. This amendment simply ensures that Russia's offensive biological weapons program will be terminated. Some might argue, like the administration does, that CTR money only goes to dismantle the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. If that is true, they should have no problem with this amendment. It's time for Russia to terminate this program in good faith, and for the President to certify its termination, in order to ensure that CTR funds are used for their intended purpose; to control weapons of mass destruction, not proliferate them.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think what Nunn-Lugar does is an admirable idea. I approach it with cautious support. We do want to make sure that we have a safe environment, that we have a safe world, that we have a reduction in the threat over in Russia. But we also have an obligation to the American people, even though we have an admirable goal, we have to make sure that we get a dollar's worth of threat reduction for a dollar's worth of tax. We have this article that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] referred to that mentioned, it was in the Washington Times, it mentions that the Pentagon funds possibly are going for the construction of new nukes. There was a GAO audit that it was based on. I have that audit, GAO audit, here with me. That is why I am a little cautious because we are spending money, $200 million, to make sure that our world is more safe. And they do need our help. But are they taking this money and are they doing away with their environmental waste or are they doing away with actual weapons of mass destruction? Is there something going to help clean up their environment, or are we actually cutting up weapons as we just saw in the pictures before? I am a coauthor of the Dornan-Tiahrt amendment because I think we need to have some verification. Are they in fact doing what they say they are? Right now, according to the GAO, we cannot go in and audit them. We do not know if we are getting a dollar's worth of threat reduction for a dollar's worth of tax. Can you imagine how mad, how angry U.S. taxpayers are going to be, sitting at their kitchen table if, in fact, the Russian government is creating weapons of mass destruction instead of reducing them with this money that we are sending them. We need a common-sense approach to this, and that is why I am cosponsoring the Dornan-Tiahrt amendment so that we can go in and verify that we are in fact reducing this threat.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about solving our problems. So many times on the floor of the House Members will come down and complain about the collapse of civil society, and pressing social concerns. America does indeed have serious problems, and its time we came together and addressed them. Let's not avoid the tough talk or the tough decisions. However, something great occurred last November. New people were elected to Congress. People who think that the answers to our problems don't come from the floor of the House but from the hearts and minds of the people who sent us here. And one of the truly unique ideas which is underway to solve, some of our problems, is the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship, or NFTE [``Nifty''], Its Young Entrepreneurs Program which is now located in 13 cities. This program teaches urban youth how to create their own business, but NFTE is not just about how to do things. NFTE is about actually doing things. Thousands of urban youth have been shown how to write a business plan, get funding, and create new and needed products. Tonight, I salute Charles and Liz Koch, who are residents of Wichita, are individuals who refuse to throw their hands up, and walk away from inner-city problems. It would be easy for them to simply turn their heads. Instead they have used their resources, to bring the NFTE program to Wichita. Choosing Wichita for an entrepreneurship program makes great sense to those familiar with the city. It is the birthplace of many entrepreneurial success stories including, Beech, Cessna, Learjet, Coleman, Pizza Hut, Rent-a-Center, and Koch Industries. Recently, David Koch, Executive Vice President of Koch Industries and chairman of the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, brought the spirit of entrepreneurialism to a place where it is needed, more than any other place in America: the District of Columbia. The Young Entrepreneurs of Washington, DC program is in 10 of the District's public schools. Mr. Koch's philosophy is predicated on the strong belief that everyone, has the ability to prosper and succeed in a market based system, with proper training and support. The mission of the Young Entrepreneurs is to enable, urban youth to break free of the cycle of poverty, by providing them with entrepreneurial literacy, academic training, hands on experience, and a means of wealth creation. This program is not a welfare project. This program relies on the youth's mental toughness, willingness to accept risk, resiliency and their desire to succeed in life. And here's the punch line: this program relies entirely on private funding from individuals like David Koch and not on the Federal Government. This program is exactly the type of solution we need for our current problems. Mr. Koch addressed 300 community members including 110 graduating students of the Young Entrepreneurs of Washington, DC, program. I commend David Koch for his contribution and continued enthusiasm to help urban youth. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Koch's remarks at this graduation and a recent article from the Washington Times, which describes NFTE's mission, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, when we started out in January, a group of us freshmen came together, we were subsequently called the New Federalists, with the idea of trying to make our Federal Government more user friendly, smaller, and make it comply with the requirements that we need to balance the budget. We have not really talked about the significance of balancing the budget enough in my estimation. We have for the last 25 years existed without balancing the Federal budget. I have three children and I am concerned about the future that they have. My daughter Jessica is 14. I have two sons, John, who is 10 and Luke who is 7. If you take the 25 years that we have failed to balance the Federal budget and you add it to the 7 years which was in the budget resolution that we passed last week, we have a total of 32 years. If it takes as long to get out of this mess as it did to get into the mess, my 14-year-old daughter is going to be 53 years old. We have literally taken the problems of this generation and passed them on to the next generation. In order to balance the budget, we are going to have to look at different methods of downsizing, of streamlining the functions that we now have. When we looked at our government, we picked out four departments: HUD, Housing and Urban Development; was one; Department of Education was another; Department of Commerce, which is the topic today at a news conference and here on the floor tonight; and the Department of Energy. I selected the Department of Energy because after looking at it I determined that it was a 1970's tax guzzler, that it had really outlived its usefulness and it was time for a trade-in. We found out that many parts of the Department of Energy had duplicate missions, missions that existed elsewhere inside the Federal Government, and what we were trying to do was match up those missions. We also found out, thanks to Vice President Gore and his national performance review, that parts of the environmental management within the Department of Energy were operating by missing 20 percent of their milestones; in other words, they were behind schedule. Every time they had a milestone, one in five of them were missed. If they scheduled five events one day, one of them would not occur. He also found out according to the national performance review that they were 40 percent inefficient in environmental cleanup, 40 percent inefficient. That meant, according to Vice President Gore's report, that over the next 30 years it could cost taxpayers $70 billion, $70 billion, money that we could put to a lot better use in a lot of different ways, ways that we really have of meeting the needs in the Federal Government, but it is just going to be wasted unless we do something about it. So we undertook the task of looking at the different parts of the Department of Energy and finding out what we would do in each one of them. One of them that came up was the power marketing administrations. The power marketing administrations, there are five of them in the U.S. They broker electric power that is generated like a hydroelectric plant, then broker it to the rural electric cooperatives, and then on to the consumers. It is a function that often occurs privately, it is done by the private sector, but now we have it under the Department of Energy, and it could best be fulfilled by the private sector. So we are going through this process of looking at consolidation, at privatizing and eliminating those parts we do not need. We also have 28 laboratories that are funded by the Federal Government, and again we have duplication of missions, overlap. We are going to propose setting up a commission to go out and look at each one of these labs, develop a consolidation process, come back with a report that says which labs can combine their missions, which labs can privatize their missions to eliminate the corporate welfare that now exists in the structure, and just a consolidation process that is going to save hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayers. So we have the environmental cleanup, inefficient labs, consolidating power marketing administrations that we are going to privatize. Then we have the Naval Petroleum Reserve, the Naval Petroleum Reserve at Elk Hills, which is an oil field, and the Government is in the process of pumping oil. We do not happen to do it as efficiently as the private sector would, so we are proposing to privatize the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. We also have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which we think we should sell off over a period of time. We have put oil into the ground at the cost of about $44 per barrel. Back in Kansas they cannot make a living on the current price of oil. It is about $18 per barrel. So if you could get the price up to $44 per barrel we would see renewed drilling in Kansas, stripper wells would become active, and then production would increase. So what we have is a very expensive oil supply. If the price ever got that high to justify it we would see a renewal of resources, we would see a pumping through the private sector to meet the need. The last point I think I want to make on the Department of Energy is that we saw that the portion that was originally designed for waste gas lines, the perceived energy crisis in the 1970's, well that was in part brought on by cost and allocation controls imposed by the Government. During the Reagan administration we eliminated those cost and allocation controls, and by eliminating those cost and allocation controls we eliminated the problem. We recently went through Desert Storm a few years ago and we had a large interruption in the supply of foreign oil coming into the United States, and yet we had no gas lines. So we had an original crisis and then we had the bureaucracy that developed to try to meet that need, then we had the need go away and we are left with the bureaucracy. So if we are going to go about balancing the budget, if we are going to go about preserving a future for our children, if we are going to go about giving opportunity to those who are now just growing up, we are going to have to find ways of balancing the budget. Eliminating the Department of Energy is one; eliminating the Department of Commerce is another. I stand in support of Congressman Chrylser and those on his committee, that he is heading up, to eliminate the Department of Energy, and Mark Sanford is one, Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina, Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth from Idaho, Congressman Mark Neumann of Wisconsin, Congressman Wes Cooley of Oregon, Congresswoman Sue Kelly of New York, Congressman Jack Metcalf from Washington, Congressman Ed Bryant of Tennessee, and Congressman Jim Talent of Missouri, all courageous young individuals who want to put this country back on the right track, who want to get a future preserved for their kids and all of the children in the country, and we are excited about the opportunity that is fresh and that we have to have the opportunity to provide a method to balance the budget. I want to add that this is a historical event. When we started to draw up legislation we found out the legislative counsel had no reference point. We have never before eliminated Cabinet-level agencies in the U.S. Government. It is kind of like a hall tree. We had an umbrella, we did not know where to hang it, so we got a hall tree to hang it on. Then we started piling all kinds of stuff on top, and when we went back to the hall tree to find our umbrella, we found out it was gone. And the original purpose for these agencies is now gone, and it is time to pull out all of the duplication and consolidate and pull off all the stuff that can be privatized and [[Page H5463]] put it in the private sector and eliminate the portions we do not need. So I am proud to be a part of the new Federalists, part of consolidating this Government down to a more friendly, user-oriented government and saving the future for the children, not only in my family but across his Nation. So I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this has been characterized as an argument between the young and the old. I do have my children here because this budget does address their needs. We must balance the budget in order to preserve their future. My daughter here is the oldest; she is 14, Jessica. I also have John and Luke, but Jessica is 14. By the time we get the budget balanced and pay off the Federal debt, she will be nearly 50 years old. We have literally passed this problem on to the next generation. It is not just our kids that support the Neumann-Solomon budget. We also have other groups who support it. I have had in my hand here a letter from the United Seniors Association. They are writing the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and let me read the last part: We greatly appreciate your concern and efforts to deal with the fiscal catastrophe that our Nation faces. It is not just the United Seniors Association, it is also the Sixties-plus Organization, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, this is a dramatic and historical time. I think we should stand in support of the Neumann budget.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I did not realize this was poster day on the Potomac or I would have had these blown up. These are the most important constituents that one could have. These are my three children. This is Jessica and John and Luke, and it is their future that we are talking about today and the nurture of millions of other children and grandchildren in this country. My daughter is 14. If we cannot balance the budget by 2002 and it takes us as long to get out of this debt as it did to get in it, she is going to be 53 years old. We have literally passed on the problems of this generation to the next. Are we committed to balancing the budget? We are on this side of the aisle. We have a plan to eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet-level position. This is a historical event because we have never eliminated a Cabinet-level department in the history of this country. But it is time to trade in this 1970's tax guzzler. And how did Secretary O'Leary and President Clinton respond? They said they are going to cut 14.1 billion over the next 5 years, but yet next year's budget has an increase of $337 million. Even Vice President Gore, in his reinventing government group, has said that the largest part of the Department of Energy, the environmental management group, is missing 20 percent of their milestones. They are 40 percent inefficient. And he said that it is going to cost taxpayers $70 billion over the next 30 years if we do not do something about it. Mr. Chairman, this must stop. We need to balance the budget. We need to honor our children's future. We need to turn the lights out at the Department of Energy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, once again we are experiencing a historical day. Today the House Committee on the Budget will submit a plan to balance the budget by 2002. It is the only plan around today to balance the budget, and it has been since 1968 that the Federal Government has balanced its budget resulting in almost a $5 trillion debt. Common sense tells us that we can no longer afford such irresponsibility. We can no longer put the burden of this debt onto our children. The budget Republicans will introduce is a contract with our children. We must balance the budget so our children's future will be free of debt and full of opportunity. This budget and the debate is not about money as much as it is about our children. We cannot allow an out-of-control Federal budget to rob our kids of freedom and economic security. It is just plain wrong to make them responsible for our mismanagement. I ask my colleagues to join together on this historical day and help restore the American dream to our children.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day on the Potomac. This is the Contract With America, and even though a New York newspaper tells us only 38 percent of the people know what the Contract With America is, all of them know what a balanced-budget amendment is, all of them know what a real crime package is that punishes criminals instead of giving them dance lessons, all of them know what welfare reform is, and on down the line including the tax-relief package passed last night that restores hope to people with families, gives them a break, because we believe that people who have children know better how to spend that money on their children than the Federal Government does here in the beltway. So we are very pleased to be part of this Contract With America, to see all 10 pieces passed as promised. It will be the first Congress to say we are going to do something during a campaign and then actually do it when they get to Washington. I am very proud to restore hope to the next generation and to this generation, to be a part of this Congress and pass the Contract With America.

Mr. TIAHRT

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

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today as we consider the tax relief bill, I urge my colleagues and the American people to keep in mind what this debate is really about. Republicans want to cut taxes. The big- government party wants to raise taxes. From now on, only a few will remember the details in this legislation, and fewer will care about the specifics. But everyone will remember this basic fact: The Republicans want to cut taxes. The liberal big-government party wants to raise taxes. The vote today is simple. If this bill passes, more Americans will keep more of their own money. If this bill fails, those who oppose reform, the defenders of the status quo, the liberals who love big government, will have won a big victory while the American people will have lost. Mr. Speaker, last November the people voted out the past and voted in the future. I hope my colleagues remember this basic message sent by the voters. They voted in people who promised to give America tax relief, and they voted out people that they knew would raise taxes.