[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5461-H5468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  STREAMLINING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today about a 
very momentous occasion.
  The freshman class of the Republican Conference along with 
representatives of the Senate and the House leadership that were 
involved in an overview and a study of the Federal agencies of the 
United States have come out with their results under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] in evaluating for the first time just what the 
costs are of our Federal bureaucracies and how we can reduce those 
costs.
  In a detailed summary today by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Chrysler], we learned just how effective it can be to privatize, 
consolidate, and eliminate key functions that the Commerce Department 
has been undertaking up to this point; that a great deal of savings, $7 
billion, in fact, over the next few years could be made by privatizing 
many of the functions, consolidating others and eliminating others that 
actually duplicate what other Federal agencies are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, this is part of an overall review by Members of this 
House concerned with the fiscal responsibility that we have to make 
sure that we hold the line on costs. Before us today and in the coming 
weeks and months, we will be looking not only at the Commerce 
Department but the functions of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, the Energy Department as well as the Education Department.
  We can no longer be spending funds as if it is someone else's money. 
It is our constituents' money. They must get their money's worth.
  The question we are asking for every Federal agency, for every 
department, for every bureau: Is this function best accomplished by the 
Government, or is it best accomplished by the private sector? If it is 
best accomplished by the private sector, it is our job, whether it be 
in the House or the Senate or the executive branch, the President, to 
in fact make sure that the private sector is where the function will 
rest. While the question remains, if it is going to be a governmental 
function, is it best handled by the Federal Government or the State 
government, county government, or local government?
  We should not be duplicating services and programs best administered 
by governments closest to the people. We have seen this time and time 
again that the governments closest to the people oftentimes can get the 
efficiencies and the personal contact that the Federal agencies have 
not been able to effectuate on behalf of the people.
  In addition to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] discussing the future of the 
Commerce Department today, we had former Secretary Mosbacher who 
himself was Secretary of the Department of Commerce who in very strong 
terms has recommended that in fact the department which has grown, from 
his point of view the department be privatized, be consolidated and 
certain functions be eliminated.
  Secretary Mosbacher was someone who was well-respected as a secretary 
and who has been a leader in the public and private sector.
  He was joined there today in our conference by none other than 
Senator Bob Dole, Senator Faircloth, and Senator Abraham. Senators 
Abraham and Faircloth are part of the Senate committee which has been 
reviewing the Commerce Department and how it can be downsized and, for 
that matter, privatized and certain functions eliminated. We believe 
that this is a thoughtful and very contemplative report that has been 
issued.
  If members of the public are interested in getting copies, if they 
would just contact Mr. Chrysler's office at the U.S. House of 
Representatives here in Washington, DC. His report has been exhaustive, 
it is over 3 months, it is part of the freshmen class and Republican 
leadership effort to in fact reexamine government to find out where we 
can make the savings, where we can take lessons from the private sector 
to in fact make sure that the services we are delivering are the ones 
the people want, that do not duplicate what State governments do but in 
fact provide the kinds of services that make a difference in people's 
lives.
  We will be hearing forthcoming in the next few weeks the surveys and 
the reports and the analysis by those who have been involved with the 
other three departments I spoke of, HUD and its services, as well
 the Energy Department, and, in fact, the Education Department.

  We heard today in the subcommittee headed by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn] about how the Energy Department can be downsized 
as well. Many of the reasons for the creation of the Energy Department 
surrounded the shortage of energy two decades ago. We now have a better 
opportunity to provide the fuels we need, we can downsize according to 
two former secretaries of the Department of Energy who testified before 
our Committee on Government Reform and Oversight headed by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] today. The testimony was quite 
poignant about the savings that can be realized, about again the 
privatization that the Federal Government can have with the functions 
now being undertaken by the Department of Energy, and while there are 
many good public relations aspects of the Department of Energy, many of 
the functions have already been assumed by other agencies and in some 
ways duplicate some functions that the Department of Defense is now 
conducting.
  We hope that these surveys on Energy, Education, HUD, and Commerce 
will give many of our citizens and hopefully many of our executives 
that work within the Federal agencies the enthusiasm to join us in this 
revolution to make our Federal agencies be more responsive, to reduce 
the waste, the abuse and the fraud that can exist in government, but to 
provide the funds for the services we really need. That way we will 
make the Government more responsive.
  I know that the House, the Senate, and in fact the President for that 
matter will be very pleased to hear from constituents about services 
that the Federal Government is now trying to perform which may in fact 
duplicate services that are being performed by your State, your county, 
or local governments. It is not our intention to in fact duplicate 
those services but to make them outstanding.
  At this time I would like to call on the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Tiahrt] who is heading up the Energy Department task force. It has been 
his mission along with other Congressmen who whom he is working to 
analyze the [[Page H5462]] Energy Department and where we can 
effectuate savings.
  Like the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] who has chaired our 
task force on Commerce, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] has been 
hard at work over time to try to make sure that we make good use of the 
Federal executives and the services from the hardworking employees from 
the Department of Energy, but he is looking to the future where we can 
go.
  At this time I would call on the gentleman from Kansas to join us in 
this discussion on how we can make sure that Government is more 
effective, it costs less and it is more answerable to the people than 
the Federal Government we have today.
  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.
                              {time}  1800

  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. We appreciate the gentleman's leadership on 
this task force to take the Department of Energy and make the 
consolidation, the privatization, and the elimination of functions that 
are best done in the private sector.
  At this time, I would like to call on my colleague from Pennsylvania, 
Congressman Curt Weldon, who chairs the GLOBE International, which is 
an environmental cooperative of many nations working together for 
environmental support. And I would like to call on the Congressman for 
that purpose now.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to focus on 
an event that is about to take place here in Washington that I think is 
significant to the world community. Back when the late Senator John 
Heinz was a Member of the Senate, he came together with legislators 
from the countries of Japan, Russia, and the European Parliament to 
form what has become known as Globe International. The acronym stands 
for Global Legislators Organized for a Balanced Environment. This 
bipartisan group both in this Congress and from the Japanese Diet, the 
Russian Duma, and the European Parliament meet on a periodic basis 
throughout the year to focus on ways that we can deal with and solve 
the problems of the Earth's environment.
  I have been a member of GLOBE for the past several years and in my 
capacity as a Republican Member of this body had the pleasure of 
working with our two cochairmen. It is chaired at this point in time by 
Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts and Congressman John Porter from 
Illinois. There are approximately 30 of us in the Congress, Republicans 
and Democrats, who lend our names to the support for Global cooperation 
on environmental issues, getting together on a periodic basis in 
different countries involved with GLOBE and finding ways that we can 
cooperate together.
  Approximately a year and one-half ago I began my focus on what I 
think is potentially one of the most devastating problems for the ocean 
ecosystem, and that is illegal dumping of waste, especially nuclear 
waste, which has been a real problem now documented and now admitted by 
the Russian leadership of the former Soviet State.
  In fact, it was a leading Russian environmentalist by the name of 
Yablakov who a year ago in January published a report which for the 
first time documented in great detail the extensive amount of illegal 
dumping that took place by the former Soviet leadership in the Barents 
Sea, the Sea of Japan, illegal amounts at Murmansk and in the area of 
Novaya Zemlya and the area around there, dumping entire nuclear 
reactors and power plants, in other cases dumping nuclear waste from 
submarines in an uncontrolled manner.
  The issue of Russians dumping the waste however is not alone. We, for 
the first time, as matter of fact, only after prodding through a 
subcommittee of the
 Committee on Armed Services that I served on in last session were 
finally able to get our own Navy to admit we have had two nuclear-
powered submarines that have gone down. In fact, Thresher and Scorpion 
up until that admission last fall had not been acknowledged by our 
Government. Part of our effort is to get our governments to be more 
open and discuss not only the problems that exist but ways we can 
better improve the environment by working together.

  To that end, last summer I suggested to the members of GLOBE 
International that we form a working task force on the oceans, and that 
we convene a forum in America, in Washington, sometime in 1995. They 
accepted my recommendation, and, in fact, asked me to chair that task 
force which I have done. And as chairman of that task force, along with 
Senator John Kerry, we will be hosting the GLOBE Forum, which will take 
place on Thursday of this week in Washington.
  Tomorrow evening we will be hosting a special reception at the 
Smithsonian. The reception will focus on technologies and new, emerging 
research that is being done in terms of our ocean ecosystem. I am here 
to encourage our Members to stop by that reception, to see first hand 
the kinds of technologies that we are working on.
  In attendance, besides Senator Kerry, will be from the Smithsonian 
approximately 300 leading scientists from throughout the world, Admiral 
Watkins, and other major nonprofit groups that are focusing on cleaning 
up our oceans. That reception will be held, by the way, from 7 until 9.
  On Thursday, in the Cannon Caucus Room, we will have the 
International Forum on the Oceans, starting at 9 o'clock in the morning 
when Senator Kerry and I will open the session, moving to a 
presentation on the state of the world's oceans at 9:15 by Dr. Kathy 
Sullivan from NOAA and 10 o'clock a presentation by Adm. Jim Watkins on 
the importance of understanding the ocean, a question-and-answer 
session for those in attendance, and then a break, followed by two 
presentations, one by the Honorable Tim Wirth, from the U.S. Department 
of State, on land-based sources of marine pollution, and a presentation 
by Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska on the development of sustainable 
international fisheries.
  The morning session will then adjourn. We will have a luncheon where 
a presentation will be made by a Dr. Sylvia Earle. Dr. Earle is from 
the Deep Ocean
 Engineering Center, and she will discuss the work they are doing in 
terms of deep-ocean technology.

  In the afternoon we will have three panel sessions running at 1:30, 
2:45, and 3:45. The 1:30 session will deal with the importance of 
understanding the ocean. We will have a combined session with Members 
of Congress and some of our leading academics and engineering and 
marine biologists from throughout this country and the world to discuss 
the importance of understanding the ocean. At 2:45 we will discuss 
land-based sources of marine pollution, specifically the illegal 
dumping of nuclear waste and radioactive waste, and at 3:45 we will 
focus on the issue of declining fish stocks. That session will be 
chaired by Senator Kerry.
  The purpose of this forum is for Members of Congress to come together 
with Members of the Russian Duma, with Members of the Japanese Diet, 
and with Members of the European Parliament to see first of all what 
the problems are with our oceans, focusing on those three areas, 
declining fish stocks, the illegal dumping, especially radioactive 
dumping, in the oceans, and finally the sharing of technology.
  From that, we will hope to put together a proactive agenda that each 
of us can work on in our respective legislative bodies and an agenda 
that will allow us to cooperate as we did in the London Convention, 
which now has every nation except Russia as a signatory, saying it will 
not dump nuclear waste in the oceans of the world.
  In this way, Mr. Speaker, we can cooperate on marine problems, on 
environmental problems, not necessarily just imposing new legislation 
on the American people, but rather finding ways that we can cooperate 
as a world community, so that when we take steps to improve the quality 
of our marine ecosystem that we know full well that our other major 
industrial allies will be sharing in that effort.
  So I would encourage our colleagues to attend the sessions, both the 
reception tomorrow evening in the Museum of Natural History and the 
conference all day on Thursday as we discuss the problems of the oceans 
of the world.
  I want to thank my good friend and colleague for yielding to me, and 
want to applaud him for the outstanding work he is doing in this 
Congress. He has become a shining star in this institution in a very 
quick period of time, and I want him to know we appreciate his 
leadership, not just in Washington but all across the country.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield a moment, I want 
to ask a couple of followup questions, if I may, in relation to the 
conference you are having on the environment. We appreciate your 
leadership in moving [[Page H5464]] ahead on positive ways in the 
environment and appreciate your kind comments about how the freshman 
class is trying to work with you as a senior Member.
  With regard to the results of your conference, will they be shared 
with Senate and House Members even if we cannot be in attendance?
                              {time}  1815

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely. In fact, one of the purposes 
of Globe is to try to expand the work of Globe to other legislators. We 
are growing. We have 30 Members now in Globe USA. We hope to expand it 
and to find a basis for discussion and the ways that we can work 
together as nations, specifically, in my case, on areas concerning the 
ocean environment.
  Other Members of the Congress are focusing on other areas. The 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has done a tremendous amount of 
work on population issues, as has the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella] and Akika Damota from Japan.
  So, yes, we will share these findings.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I know our fellow Members and colleagues 
will be interested especially in illegal dumping. Would your Globe 
environmental group be looking to the United Nations for purposes of 
finding a joint agreement? Or are you going to be talking about 
treaties as between countries?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Basically, in the case of the oceans, we 
will be looking to the London Convention, which is that body which 
focuses on the control of the oceans relative to dumping issues and 
trying to get Russia to join the nations of the world in agreeing to, 
on the record, legally enact legislation prohibiting it from dumping 
nuclear waste in the future.
  Now, they have made some major changes.
  In fact, I might add, if the U.S. Policy, had it been changed, and it 
was not supported by the London Convention until last year at our 
request and our urging; I applaud the Clinton administration for taking 
that step. We now have made that statement. In fact, I hope to codify 
that in this session of Congress.
  But we will deal through the London Convention and nation to nation, 
not necessarily through the United Nations, but rather among the 
nations that are members of the Globe International.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think the key feature of why your program 
is going to be successful and has been successful, I say to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], happens to be the bipartisan 
nature, the fact you are looking to other countries to be involved and 
both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the House 
and Senate. Your cochairman is Senator Kerry. Am correct?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Yes. Senator Kerry and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], are cochairs of Globe International.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I appreciate the gentleman taking the time 
to share with my fellow Members here in the House about what your 
environmental efforts are underway with Globe. We look forward to your 
findings and summary so we can make sure we take legislative action 
under your leadership.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] for his efforts on 
the environment and reform in that arena and turn, if I may, Mr. 
Speaker, again back to the press conference today that involved the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who is part of a freshman task force 
and Republican leadership team looking to downsize Government, reform 
Government, and make it more
 responsive. He was part of that press conference today.

  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] for the purpose of 
sharing with our colleagues what was accomplished today and what the 
hope for the future is.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for organizing this important special order tonight.
  It should be absolutely clear by now. We are dead serious about 
limiting the size and scope of our overblown Federal bureaucracy. I do 
not think there is much doubt about that anymore--in anyone's mind. We 
mean to get this budget deficit under control; we mean to get the 
Federal Government out of areas it doesn't have any business being in; 
and we mean to improve the efficiency of the Federal Government in 
those areas where it does serve a useful role.
  Today, I was proud to stand among a group of committed reformers 
pledging to reduce shameful corporate welfare by eliminating the 
Department of Commerce. Tomorrow, I and other colleagues of ours will 
announce plans to return control over our childrens' educations to 
parents, to teachers, and to local communities: Our Back To Basics 
Education Reform Act will bring an end to the meddlesome and wasteful 
Federal Department of Education, while enhancing local control over 
schools. And shortly, plans will be announced to dismantle the Federal 
Department of Energy, an agency that stands as a monument to 
bureaucratic solutions for problems of another era.
  Let us be clear: The Department of Commerce is not being eliminated 
simply because the man currently in charge there labors under an ethics 
cloud so ominous that the Department of Justice has been forced to call 
for the appointment of a special prosecutor. No, the Department of 
Commerce is being eliminated because it is wasteful, because it 
duplicates the work of other agencies, and, yes, because it acts in 
part to funnel aid to corporations of vast wealth that frankly do not 
need to beg handouts from the taxpayers.
  Our colleague from Michigan, Dick Chrysler, and the other members of 
the Commerce Task Force have done a superb job in crafting legislation 
to untangle the mess at the Commerce Department and save the taxpayers 
some $7\3/4\ billion--that's ``billion,'' with a ``B''--over 5 years.
  I venture to predict, Mr. Speaker, that our country can survive 
without the Federal Travel and Tourism Administration that is part of 
the Department of Commerce. Most of my constituents have never used the 
USTTA: We do not need it, and States, localities, and the private 
sector can do the job better.
  Same for the Department's so-called Office of Technology 
Commercialization. Why should the Government pick winners and losers in 
the marketplace? The Government's not good at that, and it is just not 
fair for the Feds to come in on the side of one firm while completely 
ignoring other competitors. It is an insult to the productive, 
innovative private businesses in my district in Cincinnati and across 
this country to suggest that they need the Federal Department of 
Commerce in order to do their work. The business people I know do not 
need corporate welfare; what they need is a more rational, less 
oppressive Federal Government.
  I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the good things 
that the Commerce Department does could be done better and more 
efficiently in other existing agencies, while the wasteful programs 
that the Department pursues should not exist at all. The General 
Accounting Office has told us that the Department overlaps ``with at 
least 71 [other] Federal departments, agencies, and offices.'' We will 
save those programs that are productive and shift them to more 
appropriate agencies. Those that serve no valid purpose will be 
eliminated altogether. That is only common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers are watching. They have been in a cynical 
mood for quite some time now. And they want to be certain that they are 
not going to get the same old song and dance from Washington. We have 
made a lot of progress in the last few months and we can take further 
steps to restore their confidence by acting on this important and very 
necessary legislation.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for organizing 
this special order.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  I just wanted to ask a couple of questions in follow up to your far-
minded work you have done on the special freshman class task force and 
the Republican leadership task force in reforming the Federal 
Government.
  I believe you have experience as a school teacher yourself. 
Therefore, the Education Department review is something that is 
certainly going to come [[Page H5465]] under your purview. Could you 
share with our colleagues here tonight what your thoughts are on how we 
can reform the Education Department as one of the four departments we 
are looking to donwsize and privatize and eliminate?
  Mr. CHABOT Yes. I think the gentleman for that opportunity.
  We are going to be holding a conference tomorrow and announcing the 
elimination of the Department of Education, and when you first say 
that, I think some people might listen very closely and say, well, 
eliminate the Department of Education, and I want to make very clear 
that we are very proeducation.
  As you mentioned, I am a former school teacher. I taught in an inner-
city school in Cincinnati.
  What we want to do is improve education, make it better than it is 
now. But we do not need the bureaucrats here in Washington telling 
parents and teachers and local school boards how they should educate 
their children, and we should not be telling them how to spend their 
dollars.
  So, what we are doing is shifting the emphasis out of Washington, 
getting the Federal bureaucrats out of it, and save those dollars and 
shift programs back to local communities, where they can be monitored, 
where they can be watched much more closely and for parents and 
teachers to make the decisions rather than the bureaucrats here in 
Washington.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. That makes a lot of sense. Obviously, we 
want to make sure that while we want to make sure the student loans and 
grants programs are maintained, they will be.
  Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. We want to make sure we have funds for local 
education with milk and textbooks and transportation. The fact is many 
of the policy-level items are best left to the local school districts 
closest to the people. I think that is what you are getting to as far 
as the reforms you discussed.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback], who as the chairman of the Federalists, a group of freshman 
Congressmen dedicated to reform, dedicated to downsizing Government, 
keeping that which is important and vital, but to eliminate the fraud, 
abuse, and waste that we have in the Federal Government, and I would 
ask the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] if he could share with 
the colleagues tonight, if he would, exactly what the purpose of the 
elimination of the Commerce Department is, the downsizing, the 
privatizing, and the consolidation, how that can be achieved and just 
where you are going with the elimination or downsizing, privatization, 
of four departments. If you could give us the genesis of that, I think 
it would be instructive to the Members who are here tonight to listen 
to you.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Gentleman very much. I appreciate the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania yielding to me to explain a 
key project we are working on at this time in the Congress.
  I would like to give a quick bit of background of where we have come 
with this.
  Starting in January, actually even a little bit earlier than that, in 
December, before the freshman class had even become a part of the this 
Congress, a number of us gathered to start discussing how is it that we 
could reform the Federal Government. If there was one very clear 
message of the this last election, it was that people believe and know 
that the Federal Government is too big, takes too much, is on their 
back and in their pocket too much, and they want it less, they want it 
less in their lives, they want it to tax them less, they want it to be 
demanding less out of them.
  A number of us were talking about how is it then we could go ahead 
and deliver to the American people a smaller, more focused, more 
efficient Federal Government, one that does its core missions very, 
very well but does not do the thousands of activities it has done over 
the past number of years and the many activities it got into it does 
not do well or really should not be in the Federal Government at all.
  So, we began discussing that. Then, in February, a number of us, 
actually it was on February 14 of this year, we were joined by the 
chairman, the gentleman
 from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner], chairman of the Republican Conference, in 
announcing the creation of four task forces to develop legislation to 
eliminate four Federal Cabinet bureaucracies, Departments of Commerce, 
Education, Energy, and HUD.

  At that time, our critics thought it could not be done.
  Well, today we announced the first of those proposals on the 
Department of Commerce, to eliminate the Department of Commerce, and we 
are proving our critics wrong.
  Three of these four Cabinet-level agencies have been targeted for 
elimination by the House budget that was passed last week by this body, 
as we move to balance the budget by the year 2002.
  And I would point out for people who are watching and our colleagues 
that are looking at this, a clear reason why we need to do this, and 
there are a number of them, one I want to draw their attention to is 
the thing that is right to my left, and that is the Federal debt. This 
is the mortgage on America, and it is now at nearly $5 trillion. If we 
do not balance the budget, this mortgage on America goes to nearly $7 
trillion by the year 2000. If we do nothing on this, if we keep adding 
nearly $200 billion annually, and we just keep mortgaging and 
mortgaging the future of our children, and somebody some day has to 
pay.
  Well, I think it is time for this Congress to step up to the plate 
and to make the tough choices and to do that in a responsible fashion. 
I think we can actually do this and improve the Government, making it 
smaller, more efficient, and more focused.
  We announced today the plans of eliminating the Department of 
Commerce. We were joined today in our efforts by the Senate task force 
to release the first of these four proposals which represents a 
thoughtful approach to dismantling the Commerce bureaucracy.
  The question we applied to each of these programs and these 
bureaucracies is this: Is this program an essential and necessary 
function of the Federal Government, of a limited Federal Government 
that was never intended to be all things to all people? Let me repeat 
that question: Is this program an essential and necessary function of a 
limited Federal Government?
  James Madison, one of the chief architects of the Constitution, said 
this about the Federal Government and its limitations, he said, ``The 
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government 
are few and defined.''
  Yet lately over the course of this century we have lost sight of this 
vision. The Federal Government has tried to become all things to all 
people and done a poor job in the process. Every time our Nation has 
faced an internal challenge, we respond with centralized solutions. We 
look to the Federal Government to solve our problems; yet, by nearly 
every measure, these centralized bureaucratic command-and-control 
solutions have failed, and you can just go off and tick off some of the 
things we have done recently.
  In 1965 we decided we had an urban problem in this country. And what 
did we do? Let us create a Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
in 1965. Where are we? In 1995. We have worse urban problems than we 
had at that time. We created a centralized focus.
  We are going to solve the problems out of Washington, where the truth 
of the matter is these problems are solved at the local community by 
individuals and States and by people committed there, rather those 
focus our attention and our focus here in a centralized, bureaucratic 
approach.
                              {time}  1830

  We said we had an energy problem in 1979, and what did we do? ``Let's 
create a Department of Energy,'' that that is going to solve the 
problem, and yet I think, as we found, our real problem is we had too 
much regulation in a market sector in the Department of Energy, and we 
decided in 1979, or thereabouts, we had a problem in education. What do 
we do? ``Let's create a centralized, command-and-control answer that 
[[Page H5466]] we are going to answer it all out of Washington and 
create a Department of Education,'' and yet our test scores have gotten 
worse since 1979.
  The truth is that the genius of America is not centralized planning, 
is not centralized control. The genius of America is the individual, 
that individual working out there, struggling, pushing to solve their 
own problems, and the more we focused on centralized answers, the more 
we will fail. We need to give it back to the people.
  So we announced the program on the Department of Commerce today. 
Tomorrow we will announce the program on the Department of Education 
for a sensible, thoughtful elimination of the Department of Education 
that is proeducation, and elimination of the Department of Commerce is 
probusiness, and elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development is prohousing and urban issues, and elimination of the 
Department of Energy is proenergy. We just think the solutions are not 
here and we would be better off if we did not focus here. We would be 
better off if we got it out to the marketplace, to the community, to 
the individual, to States and local units of government, and certainly, 
if the debt is not enough of a reason, then we can just go back to our 
basic federalist principles of the Federal Government being a limited, 
focused Federal Government.
  Those are the things that we are doing, and I think those are 
responsible, I think it is what the American people voted on this past 
November as things we are going to get done with this Congress, and I 
would yield back to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
  Congressman Brownback, I think it is very clear today from the 
testimony that was given at the press conference that even former 
Secretary Mosbacher, who was in charge of the Department of Commerce, 
made eloquent testimony about the fact that many of these functions can 
be privatized, downsized, and eliminated, and I think that having a 
former Secretary of his renown coming forward certainly tells us a lot 
about what can be done.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It is interesting to note in all four of our task 
forces to eliminate these departments, we have a former Secretary of 
that department working with us on each of these that believes clearly 
we can get this eliminated, and do a better job in the process and get 
us back to that limited government.
  One final point I would make is the Supreme Court is starting to look 
at this this way as well. The Lopez case that just came out said the 
Federal Government is a limited government, first time in 60 years that 
the Supreme Court has spoken about the Federal Government being a 
limited government. It is time we limited back in.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I hope you will remain with us as we call on 
a colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], to tell us 
his impressions of where he thinks the reforms should be made and where 
the agencies should be downsized.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Representative Fox, and I want to 
congratulate Representative Brownback. He has been really the spirit 
behind a group that meets every Thursday morning at 7:30 in the 
morning, and I have been privileged to join him virtually every 
Thursday at that time. We do not seem to always get things done, so I 
suggested this morning we start meetings at 6:30 in the morning. It may 
be only Sam and I that will be at those meetings, but I want to thank 
you and congratulate you for sort of rekindling this whole notion of 
new federalism.
  You know, if you look at what has happened in the private sector over 
the last number of years, the major corporations have understood that 
large, centralized bureaucracies cannot compete in the world 
marketplace, and, you know, earlier this year Speaker Gingrich said to 
us--really he posed the question--can America compete in an 
increasingly competitive world marketplace going into the 21st century 
with a 19th century bureaucracy, and I think we all know the answer to 
that question, and the answer is ``no,'' and so I think it has been 
cast upon us to try and come up with some solutions, and look at things 
differently, and find out if we cannot maybe reshape government, reform 
government, reorganize government, downsize government, reduce the 
dependency on centralized bureaucracy, ship more of the decisionmaking 
back to the States, back to the local units and ultimately back to 
individuals, because I think the American people understand that they 
can spend money more efficiently than the Federal Government. The 
decisions made at the local level are much better decisions and are 
much more responsive to what people really need and want in those local 
communities.
  I would like to talk for a few moments this evening just about the 
Department of Energy, and the Department of Energy, like all of the 
other departments, I am certain, has a certain constituency out there, 
and people can say it does a number of good things, and it does some 
things well, and I am certain that there are people who believe it 
ought to be retained, but let me just talk a little bit tonight, if I 
could, about the--an act that the Congress passed in 1982. It was 
entitled the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and essentially made the U.S. 
Department of Energy responsible for developing permanent waste 
disposal facilities for nuclear waste sites.
  So, in 1982, the Congress went on record that we wanted to do 
something at the Federal level. The Federal Government would take 
responsibility for nuclear waste, and they would develop a permanent 
storage site for this nuclear waste.
  Well, I think it is time we get a little report card and find out 
exactly how well the Department of Energy has been doing. To date, the 
American nuclear utilities' customers have paid well over $10 billion 
into a Government-operated nuclear waste fund. Let me say that again: 
America's electric consumers have paid over $10 billion in fees to the 
nuclear waste fund. We have spent from that fund in excess of $4 
billion. The Department of Energy is still in a state--still on the 
site of determining where exactly that should be. They have spent most 
of the money on a facility or potential facility in Yucca Mountain, NV, 
but we have spent over $4 billion studying that facility, and here is 
the incredible fact:
  We are nearly 15 years away from coming up with a permanent site. In 
other words, we have spent 13 years and $4 billion, and according to 
the latest study that I have seen, we are probably at least 15 years 
away from having an operational permanent waste repository, and I 
should remind the people who are gathered here on the House floor and 
people who may be watching in other places that we won World War II in 
less than 4 years, we were able to put a man on the moon in less than 8 
years, and yet we have already invested over $4 billion and spent 13 
years, and we are still 15 years away from a permanent waste repository 
site, which makes it even more interesting to me that I was told by 
someone from the nuclear industry that they believe they can build a 
facility complete for less than $150 million, and I am not talking 
about billion dollars. I mean that is just one example, and probably 
there are other examples that we can repeat again and again here on the 
House floor.
  But the point really is this: All of these departments, I think, were 
started for the best of intentions. I think that many of them employ 
people who were very sincere and believed that what they are doing is 
important, but the bottom line is that the bureaucratization of many of 
these Federal bureaucracies here in Washington really has not done a 
very good job of solving some of the fundamental problems that they 
were supposed to solve, and so, as happened in corporate America, I 
think the time has come to downsize the Federal bureaucracy to 
eliminate some of the bureaucracies that are here in Washington.
  I congratulate Representative Chrysler on what he brought up today in 
leading the charge with the Department of Commerce. We hope they will 
be coming out soon with the reorganization of the Department of Energy, 
the Department of Education, and ultimately I am actively involved in 
working with a task force that is looking at how we can ultimately 
eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and again I 
want to repeat something that Representative Brownback 
said. [[Page H5467]] 
  This is not some mean-spirited accounting exercise. We are not trying 
to do this because we want to hurt school children or hurt electric 
utility customers or destroy our ability to compete internationally in 
energy or education or any other field. We are doing it because we 
honestly believe that the only way to really change the way we do 
business is to take a serious look and find out if there are not better 
ways that these programs and these issues can be tackled without these 
huge bureaucracies here in Washington. I think that is what the 
American people want, and I think they have seen it happen in the 
private sector. We have seen a downsizing in the private sector, and I 
think it is long overdue here in the Federal Government as well.
  So I congratulate you, Representative Fox, and, as I indicated, 
Representative Brownback has been doing an excellent job in 
articulating the basic message that I think our founding fathers had, 
and that is that the best government is the least government. There are 
obviously legitimate functions for the Federal Government, but I think 
it is our task as Members of this Congress to turn over every rock, to 
ask the tough questions and to try and find more efficient ways to 
solving problems. I think that is what the American people want, that 
is what they expect, and frankly I hope that is what we are going to 
deliver before this 104th Congress is gaveled into history.
  So I appreciate a few moments to share tonight some of the issues 
that I am concerned about, particularly back in Minnesota as it relates 
to nuclear waste policy, how much money has been wasted, in my opinion, 
over the last 13 years, and we have got to somehow bring closure to 
this basic issue because I think American electric consumers have been 
paying for it long enough. I think they expect some real solutions.
  Again I thank Representative Fox for asking for this special order 
tonight and thank him for allowing me to participate a few moments.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Congressman Gutknecht. I want to 
thank you for your leadership in the freshman class and this new 104th 
Congress in looking for ways to downsize wasted Federal dollars, but to 
put them where they are most needed, and I think that your private 
sector experience and experience in the legislature in your own home 
State in Minnesota has brought you the kind of leadership that is going 
to help us save funds and help our seniors, and our families, our small 
businesses and our children.
  At this time I call on one of the leaders of the freshman class who 
is on the Committee on the Budget, and he is working to move us forward 
into the 21st century in a fiscally responsible way. I would like to 
call on Congressman Shadegg from Arizona for that purpose.
  Congressman Shadegg, I appreciate your joining us here on the House 
floor tonight to give us your view on where the reforms need to go for 
this House, and this Congress, and, for that matter, this country, that 
it can move forward.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Congressman Fox. I certainly appreciate your 
allowing me to participate in this effort tonight and the leadership 
you have demonstrated on it in seeking this time and giving us an 
opportunity to raise the issues for the American people to consider.
  I would like to start, and I know this sounds a little silly, but it 
is important to thank people and to recognize their efforts. 
Representative Brownback, who was just here, and Representative 
Gutknecht, who just spoke, have been two consistent leaders in this 
area.
  I recall, as I am sure, Mr. Fox, you do from the early freshmen 
meetings when we first met as a group of revolutionaries, when we 
drafted the idea of calling ourselves the New Federalists, when we got 
bold and talked about, well, should we propose eliminating an agency or 
maybe two agencies, and then we got even bolder and said, ``Well, why 
not four agencies?'' And I noticed that the Senate is now matching our 
trend and saying that if we can eliminate four in the House, we can 
eliminate four in the Senate, and some of the conservative think tanks 
around town, Heritage, I think, with a tremendous national reputation, 
is proposing eliminating, I believe, nine agencies. I have to say that 
Representative Gutknecht and Representative Brownback have been in the 
lead in that effort and have demonstrated great courage and great 
determination in going forward. It is also interesting to me tonight to 
note that most of the people involved in this effort right now, at 
least here on the floor tonight, are freshmen who came here with a new 
sense of the direction the American people want this Government to go. 
Having said that about the other leaders of this, I could not--I would 
be remiss if I did not mention Representative Chrysler from Michigan. 
He has done yeoman's work.
  The announcement they made today to eliminate the Commerce Department 
is indeed a bold step forward and a very important step forward for the 
American people. It is this kind of change that the American people 
want from us, demand from us, and they do it, and it
 is important to understand they are doing it out of a sense of 
frustration. We have spent 40 years building up the Federal Government 
larger and larger, ever increasing its size, ever increasing its scope, 
ever increasing its power, saying to the American people time and time 
and time again that, if they will just give us a little more power and 
a few more tax dollars, we will solve their problems, and at the end of 
this 40 years' experience, one message is clear:

  It is failed. Central planning does not work. We cannot solve the 
problems of commerce in this country by creating a Department of 
Commerce. What we can do is suck a ton of money out of an otherwise 
vibrant economy, put thousands of bureaucrats into high marble 
buildings, and burden the economy even further, and that is what we 
have proven, and the bold steps taken today by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] and the others on his task force are testament 
to the fact we finally sat back and listened carefully and recognized 
that our efforts to centrally plan commerce in America has failed the 
way efforts to centrally plan commerce in the Soviet Union failed, and 
to centrally planned commerce in all the Eastern-bloc countries fails 
and to centrally planned commerce everywhere throughout the world has 
failed.
                              {time}  1845

  Since the rest of the world got the message that planned economies do 
not work, it is about time the American Government got that message and 
began moving in the right direction.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I 
think the gentleman has been at the forefront of working with 
Congressman Kasich, who is the budget chairman. His committee and your 
committee have done what has not happened since 1969, the last time we 
had a balanced budget in this Federal Government. So your fellow 
colleagues who are not on the Committee on the Budget, but respect what 
you have done, have to appreciate that we are part of a very important 
first, since 1969, that we have balanced the budget; that we are going 
to give our children and grandchildren, and in fact senior citizens, 
everybody, a chance to know that we can get out from under this debt.
  I have to tell the gentleman that what you have done is handled in 
hand with what Congressman Chrysler has done and Congressman Brownback 
in making sure we get the reform and the elimination of the duplication 
that we have seen here in the Federal Government.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I appreciate that. It is actually a great segue into 
where I was going, and I would like to talk about that issue a little 
bit. I want to bring you some facts and statistics. Congressman 
Gutnecht pointed out the elimination of these agencies is not just 
about numbers. It is not just about eliminating bureaucracy, but it is 
in part about that issue.
  I want to bring you some facts and statistics, and I will try to go 
slow and want you to think about them. I am reading from statistics 
produced by the Browning Newsletter, and they tell an amazing, a 
shocking story.
  Between 1963 and 1993, the average weekly wages of a blue collar 
worker in America went up 398 percent. Let's call it 400 percent. So 
average wages, blue collar worker, up 400 percent. The consumer price 
index is up 458 percent. Call it 460. Wages are up 400 percent, CPI is 
up 460 percent, consumer price index. That is the private sector, you 
[[Page H5468]] and me at home trying to get by everyday. Let me talk to 
you about what has happened to the Federal Government.
  Receipts at the Federal Government in that same
   time period, between 1963 and 1993, receipts are up 1,024 percent. 
Expenditures, we all know we have created a deficit. It is no accident 
I put the debt up here. Here it is, the red ink, and it scares us. 
Expenditures at the Federal level, they are not up 400 percent or 460 
percent like wages and the Consumer Price Index. Expenditures at the 
Federal level are up 1,241 percent, a staggering increase, three times 
the amount of increase in Government spending as the amount of earnings 
for the average blue collar worker in America.

  The figure I like to cite the most is the deficit. Between 1963 and 
1993, while your wages and my wages and the average American's wages 
were going up 400 to 460 percent, the deficit that you and I ran up by 
spending too much on the floor of this Congress is up a staggering 
6,102 percent. 6,000 percent increase in the deficit that we are 
racking up.'
  That burden is immoral. I look here in the audience and there are 
some people, I would say some young people, watching us here tonight, 
late in the evening, kind of watching the floor of the House when most 
of the Members are gone. And those people in that audience tonight and 
the people back home need to understand that it is simply morally wrong 
to impose that deficit, an increase of 6,100 percent, and this red ink 
and debt, on them? To carry their lifetimes? On our children? On my 
children? I have a 13-year-old and a 9-year-old. I am going to ask them 
to pay that back because I didn't have the discipline? And on our 
grandchildren? I am telling you, we cannot do it.
  So that brings us to why we are about this task. We are abut this 
task because in part it has failed. Central planning has failed. But it 
has not failed to burden our children and grandchildren.
  By dismantling the four agencies we are working on, Education, 
Commerce, Energy and HUD, we are simply recognizing it is time to think 
outside the box, that we can do better. That education, I will tell 
you, in education in my district in Arizona, the constituents are 
clear. They sent me with one message: Education is not the business of 
the Federal Government. They believe that their local school board 
ought to be responsible for setting the policy and the parents and the 
teachers can do the job.
  Energy, I am on the task force to eliminate the Energy Department. In 
1970 there was an energy
 crunch. There was a security concern. Today, with a $7.8 trillion debt 
being the greatest threat to our children and grandchildren, the Energy 
Department is a demonstrated failure. If we cannot recognize that and 
go into it conscientiously, seriously, thoughtfully, as we have done 
today in Commerce and as we are doing in Energy and see what are these 
functions, which should be performed at the Federal level and which of 
these should not, and which should be performed by some other agency 
and which should be handed back to the States and which do not need to 
be done by Government at all. That is what this problem is about. And 
it will, if we dismantle these inefficient agencies, if we have the 
courage to be bold, it will save billions of dollars on our national 
debt and begin to eliminate that line.

  Let me conclude with just one last point. Each time I go home to my 
district, I do not run into people who say to me ``I need more 
government.'' I do not run into people who ask me for more programs. We 
did a town hall in my district a few weeks ago. A gentleman came up to 
me and said he was an executive, mid-level executive in a company in 
Phoenix, and that in the last 8 years his company had downsized 50 
percent. It was half the size that it was simply 8 years ago. And he 
said,

       John, we are producing twice the product that we produced 
     that 8 short years ago. Why? Because we have forced 
     efficiencies. Each year I take my budget in from my 
     department to this corporation. Each year I tell them what I 
     think I need to get the job done. Each year they come back to 
     me and give me a number that is too small. I tell them I 
     can't do it. You know what? Each year I have done it. Each 
     year we have become more efficient.

  That kind of efficiency is what we need to bring to the Federal 
Government, and the elimination of these wasteful agencies, like 
Commerce, like Energy, like HUD, and like Education, which have small 
functions that perhaps should be borne by the Federal Government, but 
which ought to be passed on to other agencies, and then get rid of the 
Washington bureaucracy, the Washington bureaucrats, we do not need 
them. That is the way the American people expected us to lead their 
Government.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Thank you for your contribution and 
leadership not only on the Committee on the Budget, but as a federalist 
working to make sure the freshman class works with leadership to reduce 
the size of the Federal Government and make it more responsive.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts to let us illuminate our 
colleagues on this issues.


                          ____________________