Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we are on track in keeping the Contract With America. It is good policy, it is good government, and I am excited to be a part of it. On the first day of Congress we required Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else in America. We also cut committee staffs by a third, and we cut the congressional budget. It is a promise that we kept. During these 100 days we are now in, we have already passed the balanced budget amendment, unfunded mandates, line-item veto, a new crime package, the National Security Restoration Act, and Government regulatory reform. We are keeping our promises. We are working hard to keep our promise to the American people. In the future we are going to be working on welfare reform, on family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads, a tax cut for middle American families, the Senior Citizens Equity Act to allow our senior citizens to work without Government penalty, commonsense legal reform, and term limits. Mr. Speaker, we are going to keep our promises to America. This is our contract, it is good government, it is good policy, and it is about time.

Mr. TIAHRT

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the right to own and use private property is a fundamental right to our system of self-governance. H.R. 925 and this amendment on the Private Property Protection Act is a crucial step in restoring the constitutional integrity of the takings clause. The ability to own property enables citizens to exercise their autonomy over Government authority. That is why this right to own private property is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment states: ``No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' Mr. Chairman, it could not be more clear. If the Government deprives someone of their property, then we must compensate them. What do we hear from the opponents on the other side of the aisle? The passage of this bill is too expensive. That is precisely the point. If it is too expensive to compensate property owners after implementing regulation, then perhaps we do not need the regulation. It is never too expensive to uphold the Constitution. Let's not limit the property owner's freedom. to help protect property owners. The Speaker of the Kansas House, Tim Shallenburger, claimed that this legislation was long overdue, and he urges us to pass H.R. 925. Mr. Chairman, the horror stories that rogue Government regulations have created go on and on and it is a shame. It is a shame that the madtom catfish can end three generations of a family business. In Kansas the Shepard family has spent over 100 years, or three generations, scooping gravel near the Neosho River. But regulators went mad about the madtom catfish. They shut down the Shepards because the madtom inhabited the Neosho River and they thought the fish might be threatened, so their gravel-scooping days were over. Many people like the Shepards have been deprived of the use of their land and have to fight just to get Government to consider their claim. The passage of H.R. 925, as amended, will restore the true meaning of the takings clause of the fifth amendment and will restore sanity to the regulatory craze. Mr. Chairman, we have fought an expensive cold war for many decades. What that fight was about was freedom. In September 1991, the Soviet Congress declared in article 24 of their Declaration of Rights: Every person enjoys property rights, including the right to own, use and dispose of property. The inalienable right to own property guarantees personal individual interests and freedoms. Do the Russians have a higher respect for private property than some Members of Congress? I hope not. H.R. 925 and this amendment must pass. It is the right thing to do and it is the right time to do it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have been falsely accused by our opponents and by the media of cutting nutrition programs through the Contract With America. The GOP has developed a plan, and it is a good plan. I have a graphic representation of that here. It talks about proposed spending. In fiscal year 1995 for the school lunch program we are increasing spending from $4.5 to $4.7 billion. That is a $200 million increase in spending on nutrition programs. Yet we have been accused of trying to starve children. Under the Women and Children's Nutrition Program we are increasing from $3.47 to $3.68 billion. This is a $200 million increase. I just want to tell the people in America that the Contract With America is not a contract on America. We have a plan to feed those who are truly in need. We have a plan to cover those who have problems in our society. I think it is a good plan. I intend to support it, and I encourage others to support it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my chairman of the Committee on Science, I rise in support of the Barton amendment, because I think that it is important to stop the Government regulation and the strangulation that is happening to the American jobs. This Barton amendment is going to allow the average American citizen to rise against regulations. It sets up a process that allows them to have a voice in this, because I think many of these regulations were developed, they implemented using some type of a risk assessment approach that would be somewhere between a 5-year weather forecast and voodoo. Unfortunately, it has not stopped the long arm of big Government from getting into my home State of Kansas. There is a heavy equipment dealership in Kansas City, KS. Dean runs it, and he has fallen subject to the net of CERCLA, which is the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act. His name showed up on a 1972 ledger. This came up last December so it had been brewing for some time, 22 years, but he had $127 worth of waste that was put into the now closed Doepke- Holliday landfill in Kansas City, KS. The company had shipped some paper cardboard boxes, some similar debris. It was not hazardous waste. Yet the law places a burden on Dean to prove it. Because Dean and 17 other companies are minimal contributors to this landfill, the EPA has given them the option of paying $10,000 to $20,000 each to settle potential cleanup problems. If they do not pay this amount of money, then they will run the risk of paying that portion of the bill later on which could be as high as $10 million. So this current regulation is putting them under a problem. They would like [[Page H2356]] to fight against this problem, this regulation. But under current law they have not. We talked about the increased amount of litigation that would go on here. I think there are safeguards in place. I have another man in my district that would really like to get at some current regulations. He recently sent me a Privacy Information Act that was given to him by the ATF when he applied for a gun license. He is not going to be able to fight this even under the Barton amendment because he will not be able to prove the $25 million threshold as a safeguard that is in place. But under this form it says that the information that he will provide to this Federal U.S. Government bureaucracy says that they may disclose this information to a foreign government. And he is upset by that and would like to fight it. But because of the safeguards that are in place, there will be no court action on this one issue. So I think that there are safeguards in place. I think it allows the average American citizen to fight against the loss of his job by grouping together inside the guidelines, and I would stand here in support of this amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the American people are clearly seeing where the battle lines are drawn. The Democrats will defend the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson and the $4.5 trillion we have already been spending on a failed system. Republicans are working to transform the welfare state into a work- for-benefits system. Democrats will fight to keep the money flowing for the beltway bureaucrats here in Washington. The Republicans will keep the money flowing back to the States like Kansas to help the American people. The liberal Democrats have accused the Republicans of being mean- spirited because Republicans want to change the system that promotes destruction to the family, hurts children and that seriously undermines the future of our Nation. The Republicans will work to change a system that has failed the American people completely. The battle lines have been drawn. May the best ideas win.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, for the last 40 years Washington, government, has been taxing and strangling both American families and American jobs, and let there be no doubt. Unneeded regulations are nothing more than a tax on the American public. I say to my colleagues, ``You and I have paid the bill for the cost shifting of increased prices associated with the things we need to purchase. According to the Alliance for Reasonable Regulations, it is now estimated that the effective cost to an average family is over $6,000 per year. That's why the House passed in a bipartisan vote a moratorium on new regulations. Six thousand dollars a year for irresponsible, unneeded, expensive regulations prevents parents from keeping enough food, enough of their hard-earned money, to buy food and clothing and provide a comfortable living for their children.'' Remember the cost of regulation is the most regressive type of tax because both the poor and the rich pay the same, and it is harder for the poor families. So, if we care about our kids and our families, and we all do, we should start to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations and start to apply some common sense. I urge a vote for H.R. 1022, a vote for sound science and reasonable regulation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the balanced budget amendment and they are one vote short. That is an issue that is very much needed by all Americans. We must balance the budget. We must provide this discipline to end the deficit spending and to shrink Government and reduce the tax burden. Over the last 25 years we have been unable to exercise the self- discipline of a balanced budget. So passage of the balanced budget amendment means an ending to the liberal welfare state just like passage of regulatory reform meant an end to the nanny state. The balanced budget amendment is not only important to this generation, Mr. Speaker, but it is important to the next generation. We are $4.5 trillion in debt. The balanced budget amendment starts a glide path that gets us down to the year 2002. It is a 7-year plan. My oldest child Jessica is now 14 years old. In 7 years she will be 21. She will be out of college. She will be paying taxes and contributing to society. So it will be up to her generation to pay off the debt because we have spent their money. If it takes as long to pay off the debt as it took for us to spend it, to raise the debt, than she will be nearly 50 years old. One vote away. Mr. Speaker, we must have this discipline. Because if we do not get this discipline, Americans, I fear, will lose faith in this economy and in this system of self-governance, just like Mexico recently lost faith in their economy. It caused a near economic collapse, and we are still struggling with the solution to that problem. We just ask that the Senate join with the Republicans in the House and all across the Nation who want a balanced budget amendment because we are committed to stopping the out-of-control spending and the out- of-control regulation. We are working hard for real change and for keeping our promises.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 450. The distinguished majority leader, who is an economist, has called government interference in our businesses and in our lives ``the invisible foot'' of big government. And he is right. That foot is on the throat of people who create jobs. Almost every day my office receives calls from small businessowners in Kansas who are caught between running their business and fighting with needless government regulations. One man in Wichita who runs a roofing business called my office because the government wants him to secure his roofing ladders with ropes. But the ropes create a safety hazard to the workers, who get their feet tangled in the ropes. This is clearly counterproductive. Let me quote from a letter recently received: As a small businessman I can tell you first-hand that I am drowning in a sea of regulation from Washington. When we enact mindless regulation without understanding its costs we are playing a deadly game of Russian roulette with American jobs. When the gun goes off small businesses shut their doors, and ordinary working people lose their jobs. It's not smart, and it's not right. For these reasons I urge H.R. 450's passage.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the President really understands what happened last November. I think he is trapped in a 1960's time warp. He seems hopelessly married to big-government ideas of the past, and he is using scare tactics to save big-government's agenda. Yesterday Mr. Clinton was accusing Republicans of wanting to kill the school lunch program. This is absolutely not true. Mr. Clinton's problem is that he thinks he knows more about the needs of students than the 50 State Governors. He thinks that the bureaucrats here in Washington can do a better job of setting standards than the local school districts. I say to my colleagues, ``Let me tell you I trust Governor Bill Graves and the local school districts of Kansas a lot more than I do any Beltway bureaucracy.'' Mr. Speaker, if the President wants to continue to engage in this type of blatant political propaganda and demean his office in the process, he is free to do so.

Mr. TIAHRT. But while he is busy resurrecting the sixties, we will be working hard for the people by getting America ready for the next century.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, what has the Republican majority done in the past 50 days that the Democrats were not able to do in the past 40 years? More votes, more hours, more hearings, more debate, more bipartisanship, more bills reported and real, positive change in the way business is done in Washington, DC. Republicans are on a roll and no matter how hard the Democrats have tried to support business as usual, we will continue working hard to change Congress in the next 50 days. We will keep Contract With America. And we will bring to the floor legislation that the people have demanded. Welfare reform, middle income tax cuts, Senior Citizens' Equity Act, legal reform, term limits, and regulatory reform. We will not stop until we have fulfilled our promise to change Congress and move toward a government that is smaller, more efficient and friendlier to the American people.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, what a day it was today. Fifty days into the session, and we have had much to rejoice about and celebrate about. Today we had a news conference and talked about some of the things we have accomplished. Today America faces a brighter future because of what we have done in the first 50 days. We have passed the balanced budget amendment, and not only does that make sense for us as we live our lives out today, but it also makes sense for my children and my grandchildren, who I do not even know yet, because they have not been born, but I know that we are not going to pass on a debt to them. We are going to keep our spending in line. We are on a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002. It is a good plan, we are holding to it, and we are doing it because it is important to the people of America. That is why we face a brighter future. We are also regaining trust in America, because we have changed Congress. We have changed the way we are doing business here in Washington. On opening day, we required Congress to live under the same laws as the rest of America does. We limited committee chairmanships, we eliminated proxy voting, we in fact changed the way business is done. It is something that has been called for for a long time. And we finally accomplished that in the first 50 days. We are also now more accountable as a Federal Government than we were 50 days ago. We passed unfunded mandate reform that makes Congress accountable for the actions. When we impose unfunded mandates, we are going to try and eliminate that because we know what they will cost now and we will understand what we are passing on to local governments. I think it is very evident that Congress is listening more now than it did 50 days ago. We have a crime package that addresses the real true problem. We are not doing midnight basketball, we are not having dance lessons for Federal inmates. What we are doing is block grants to local communities, because they are the ones that can determine best how to spend their money. Do they need new computer systems? Do they need new troopers, new cars current police force? We are giving them the authority and the ability to do that because just saying you are going to get 100,000 policemen and then not fully funding it does not get 100,000 policemen. Right here in DC, in the District of Columbia, they have a problem because they are bankrupt according to a GAO report. How can they match with Federal funds to get more police on the street? It does not make sense. That is why the crime package that was passed by this Congress is more sensitive to what the real true needs are in America. We are restoring common sense to Washington. It was very evident in our National Security Revitalization Act. Right now we have made it harder for the President to put U.S. troops under U.N. control. We have had terrible instances of abuse, where miscommunication has cost the lives of American troops overseas and we are going to stop that. We are going to do only our fair share of funding with the U.N. Those are important issues that people in the Fourth District of Kansas have called out for time and time again. Those were the first 50 days, we have accomplished that and more. Now we are looking forward to the next 50 days. Welfare reform, regulatory and legal reform, our first ever vote on term limits, family tax relief, economic growth tax measures. We have a lot to do. How are we going to get it done? Well, it is going to require, just like out in America, individual support, individual effort, teamwork, team support, and also the support of the public. As a Member of the freshman class, I have joined with us and we have formed a group called the New Federalists. The New Federalists believe in limited government. Our goal is to make a smaller, more economical, more friendly government for the people of this Nation. We have developed four teams and those four teams are in the process of trying to eliminate four government agencies. It is not because we dislike bureaucrats or we think that there are some things that should just be totally eliminated. We are trying to find those parts of government which are effective. And we are going to keep those on board. We may put them in different compartments, but to remove the duplication and bureaucracy is a very important issue and a very important message and a very important task. The four teams are to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Energy. I am heading up the task force to do away with the Department of Energy. We have found out in looking through what has been going on through the DOE that it is really a gas guzzler. They had been first started because we had a problem with allocations. The government put allocation and cost controls on our private sector. That led to shortages, or in part helped shortages. That created a crisis. The typical beltway mentality was to develop a bureaucracy to solve this crisis that was actually initiated by a bureaucracy. Well, that beltway solution did not work. In the early 1980's we eliminated the controls, we eliminated the allocation controls, and we in fact removed the crisis. So now it is time to turn the lights out on the Department of Energy. In looking at the Department of Energy, it has reinvented itself so that it can continue as a bureaucracy. Sixty percent of what it does now is a bomb factory and should be in the DOD. Only 20 percent is related to energy issues. There have been widespread contracting abuses that have been uncovered by the GAO. We have one instance in which the security guards at a laboratory in New Mexico are being paid overtime while they exercise in the gymnasium. Now, most people in America think it is important to be fit and a lot of them work out in gymnasiums but none of them that I know except for these guards get paid overtime to do this. I think this is a travesty and those types of abuses need to be uncovered and they need to be stopped. But once you start a bureaucracy, it is very difficult to get rid of. So this task force has seven other Congressmen on it. We are going through the different parts of the DOE. We have made assignments, we are making assignments to go and uncover the parts of the bureaucracy that do not work effectively and eliminate them. We are incorporating help from past secretaries. We have former Secretary Don Hodel who has been helping us. We are joining together with upper classmen in Congress to do away with this agency. Tbere is a new Congress in town. We have a new voice. The first 50 days have proved it. We have made this Government more responsive to the American people. We have made our workings here on the Hill more efficient. We have downsized our staffs and we are doing what I think the American people told us. In this one respect, we are trading in the gas guzzler of the Department of Energy for a more efficient government.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, because I believe it embraces the policy of vulnerability. We have heard over and over that the cold war is over, that the threat is gone, but Mr. Chairman, the public does not believe that. They realize that the former countries within the U.S.S.R. still have developed and deployed threats, missiles out there, to the tune of tens of thousands. How many of those have been taken out of service since the breakup of the U.S.S.R.? Dozens, or perhaps hundreds? No, Mr. Chairman, they have not. They are still out there, they are still deployed. We are still vulnerable to those missiles. Not only that, their technology is now for sale. We know that it has been sold. There is enough evidence that it has been sold to Third World countries and that is has been deployed. We saw it during Desert Storm. So we have a deployed threat in Third World countries. country has sold high-speed processors, computers capable of designing better and better guidance systems, once again increasing the vulnerability of this country. This does not cover all the threats that are out there. We know how quickly the mood can change internationally. We know that this is a big problem. But one of the problems with this amendment is that it addresses only the development and not the deployment. We know that the threat is deployed, not only in the former U.S.S.R. but in Third World countries. So knowing that the threat is deployed and that we are vulnerable, I think it makes a very simple choice. If you favor this, you favor a continued policy of vulnerability. So if you vote for this amendment, then you continue to vote for this policy of vulnerability. It is time to vote ``no'' on this amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7. The President has charged this bill will unfairly inhibit the country's ability to respond to international crises, that it will hamper his constitutional responsibility. However, I am not aware of any clause in the Constitution that states that when the U.N. decides that peacekeeping troops are needed, that it is America that responds. We are not the world's 911 emergency hotline. Unfortunately, the President has bought into this thinking at grave expense. U.S. troops should not be placed under foreign command. We are not at war. U.S. taxpayers should not be expected to keep paying more than our fair share of U.N. peacekeeping expenses. This bill takes a huge step in curtailing both those misguided policies. Passage of the National Security Revitalization Act is a good step toward redefining our relationship with the United Nations, redirecting precious U.S. tax dollars toward legitimate national security concerns, and regaining the confidence of the American people. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 7.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am heading up one of four teams of the freshman class which was initiated to carry on the work of many who preceded us here in Congress, in an effort to reduce four Government bureaucracies: Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of HUD, and Department of Energy. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy is a gas guzzler. Back in the early 1970's the Government imposed price controls and allocation controls, and that contributed to developing a crisis, and the beltway solution here was to come with another bureaucracy, the Department of Energy. Since then, the Reagan administration eliminated the price controls and removed the crisis. Now it is time to turn the lights out on the Department of Energy. You can see from the chart I have here that the Department of Energy has reinvented itself so that now 60 percent of it is a bomb factory. Only 20 percent is related to energy. Once started, it is hard to eliminate a bureaucracy, but we are working with former secretary Don Hodele and others in Congress because we have a new Congress now, a new voice from the people that wants to downsize the Government. Our President has talked about downsizing and privatizing, but the Department of Energy has actually increased its budget. Now it is time to tighten the belt and trade in this gas guzzler for a more efficient model.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the administration is calling for $40 billion in loan guarantees for our neighbor to the south. We have been lobbied by the high rollers in the administration and from the Federal Reserve to gain our support for the peso prop up. Once again the working families are requested to shoulder the burden of bad judgment. Once again the backbone of this Nation is asked to not only feed their families but also feed greed of the international bankers. Like a drunk returning to the bottle our neighbor to the south returns to the taxpayers for this peso prop up, with a promise that this time it is different. A promise to increase taxes and The increased taxes and wage controls will take money out of the pockets of the Mexican workers. And price controls will reduce the profits of their businesses. It will not work. It is a bad plan. Mr. Speaker, the working people of this Nation are saying no to the peso prop up.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it was an honor last night to sit in this Chamber and listen to all three of the President's speeches: The one to the Republicans, the one to the Democrats, and the one to the people. Clearly the President has heard the real State of the Union, which was given by the people last November 8. However, the President failed to comprehend how serious the people are about passing a balanced budget amendment with a strong tax limitation. Without a supermajority to raise taxes, Congress will be tempted to balance the books on the backs of working families and the middle class, and they just cannot afford for that to happen again. Instead, each of us needs to make a commitment to spend the people's money as if it were our own. We need to sit down in a bipartisan manner and get the scalpel out and begin to cut government. Like the President said last night, let us change the government; let us make it smaller, less costly, and smarter, leaner, not meaner. I am here because the people of Kansas wanted real change. Now let us put it into action. Let us given it to them, with a balanced budget amendment and a strong tax limitation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there is no more clear message from the people of the Fourth District of Kansas than that it is time to give government back to the people. They want to be closer to the decisions that are made, they do not want to be spectators in democracy, they want to be players on the field of ideas. The freshman class and the new Republican majority are asking the people of Kansas and all Americans to come join the team. If we are going to be truly revolutionary, we need their help. Ronald Reagan reminded us that the power comes from God to the people and from the people to government. Mr. Speaker, if we want to change the country and get government off people's backs, all Americans must become an active part of this new experiment. They need to write letters to local papers, they need to get in touch with talk radio shows, they need to recruit, educate, and tell their friends and neighbors to all get involved. What we have been given is a sobering responsibility to once and for all change the way this Government does its business. The people must make sure that the power they gave us is used for their good and not for our good. Let us not forget the revolutionary nature of those visionary thinkers who established this wonderful experiment in democracy. We must remember that the people who sent us here are the foundation because all too often the people have not been the foundation but the target, the target in the crosshairs of big, oppressive Government. The reforms that we passed the first day were the good first step in the right direction. Now, joining together with the people, we will work together to end unfunded mandates, work to have a strong tax limitation component and a balanced budget amendment. I will support limiting the ability to raise taxes and will fight to make it a reality. This is not a time to scale back our goals. Rarely have the people of the Fourth District of Kansas and this country spoken with greater clarity. Kansans want their Government to be responsive to them, and they want each of us to rise above parochial interests and return the government back to the people.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, when I read the Federalist Papers, which Speaker Gingrich has recommended to each of us, I am challenged because the Federalist Papers remind each of us who have received the honor of representing the people that we have also received the responsibility of representing them. I am reminded how revolutionary the concept of a constitutional Republic was to the people of that time. They were engaged in a great experiment, an experiment in democracy. In a sense, we are undertaking a new experiment in democracy. This new experiment is not so much about new ideals, but about tried and tested truths. For too long Washington has dictated to the people that they should do how they should do it. This Washington-knows-best attitude has grown exponentially during the last 40 years. Tragically during the same period of time, deficits have grown and Government now clearly is out of control. However, leave it to the American to understand when it is time to act. The Constitution was the wise course of action for our Founding Fathers, and we are thankful for their wisdom. Today Americans realize it is time, again, to act, that our Government has gone mad and has to be stopped. It is time to stop, look and listen; stop passing programs we cannot afford, look at the States and their examples of balanced budgets and ingenious new programs, and, finally, to listen to the people. The answers to our problems are not found here in the beltway but in the hearts and the minds of the people who sent us here. Mr. Speaker, Madison tells us in Federalist 39 that, ``In order to ascertain the real character of the Government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established.'' What is that foundation? Mr. Speaker, it is the people.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today the Senate is considering a bill to ban unfunded mandates by Congress for States like Kansas. We must join with them so that no longer will Congress be able to mandate that States do things without funding. No longer will Congress attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the States. It took the Republican majority in the House and senate to bring this important issue to a vote. We will finally enact what State Governors like Kansas Gov. Bill Graves and State legislatures have been asking for years, to relieve the arrogant burden of denying money to States to pay for the Federal Government's mandates. unfunded mandates, they have also called on Congress to balance the budget. Starting now we will work to control our spending and our own budget. It is what the people want, and what we intend to give the people.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a triumph for the American people and the House of Representatives. We accomplished something that has been rarely accomplished in the past. We kept our promises that we made to the American people. Working with a bipartisan coalition we passed on the floor rules to cut committees and staff, ban proxy voting, term limits for chairmen of committees, and limitations on tax increases. We started a revolution to give the government back to the American people, a smaller, more effective government that is accountable to them, the American taxpayer. I look forward to continuing our bipartisan work to pass the rest of the Contract With America. It is what we promised the American people we would do. It is a promise we are going to keep.