[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7690-H7698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  PRESENTING THE FACTS ABOUT MEDICARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to present 
to you and to the American people the facts about Medicare. The course 
of the discussion I will take is well-traveled, but I do not think that 
there has ever been a more pressing issued facing our Nation than the 
crisis concerning Medicare. I want to lay out the facts tonight and 
discuss the very immediate steps which must be taken to preserve and to 
protect Medicare for everyone who plans to live longer than seven more 
years.
  I am going to start with the bottom line tonight and work my way 
backward, back to the point which brings me to this podium late this 
evening. We must keep one singular, simple, and brutal clear point in 
our minds as we utter every word in the debate about Medicare: 
According to the Medicare trustees, the Medicare trust fund, which pays 
the hospital expenses for Medicare beneficiaries, part A, will be 
bankrupt by the year 2002.
  I have with me tonight that report that was issued by the Medicare 
trustees. This report goes into detail as to why the Medicare trust 
fund is on a path to go bankrupt by 2002. Mr. Speaker, if someone was 
wanting to get a copy of this, they should call the congressional phone 
line, which is 202-224-3121. Mr. Speaker, that is 202-224-3121.
  At that point, the trustees tell us, the system as we know it today 
will cease to exist. All of the accusations we have had and the 
political bickering and the semantics are pale when we compare the 
simple fact that the Medicare trust fund is going bankrupt, when we lay 
that fact on the table.
  Medicare is going broke and will not survive another generation 
unless we act to save it today. In a sense, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking 
hypothetically about this situation tonight, because, as the Republican 
Party, we are going to do everything we possibly and physically can to 
prevent that from happening. We intend to provide quality, affordable, 
easily accessible health care for all of our seniors.
  Nobody likes to hear the word bankrupt. I guess if you spend enough 
time in Congress or if you work for the Government long enough it might 
not mean too much, but as someone who spent a lot of time in the 
private sector, in the real world, I have a healthy respect for the 
word. The concept is clear: Everyone out there tonight understands that 
when you expenditures consistently and substantially exceed your 
revenues or your reserves, you will go broke.
  I think this chart that I have very clearly says it all. The part A 
trust fund is going to be empty by the year 2002. It starts here with 
the current trust fund that we have in 1995 of about $150 billion. You 
can see that as time goes on, as we achieve the next 7 years, by 2000 
the line here is marked zero, and the expenditure line, the trust fund, 
cross at 2002. That is an indication that the trust fund is at that 
point broke. It has no more money in it. You can see after that it runs 
a deficit for the next few years.
  This situation though goes way beyond the Medicare system. It affects 
our entire budget once we start running a deficit.
  I firmly believe that this Congress was elected in large part to 
balance the budget. The President has finally admitted that if we can 
balance the budget, it will actually be good for our 

[[Page H 7691]]
economy. He does have a
 plan, but according to the Congressional Budget Office it will not 
work. He is admitting to having a problem. I think that is a 
significant start, and we welcome him aboard in the fight to balance 
the budget.

  But the fact is, without significant reform to Medicare, it is almost 
impossible to balance the budget. As a Congress and a nation, we must 
reform Medicare if we hope to preserve and protect the system, and we 
must balance the budget.
  The crisis to Medicare confronts us to some degree because of an 
aging population and an ever-expanding measure to provide better health 
care longer, but there is also an inherent deficiency in the current 
system which has led to explosive growth in Medicare, over 10 percent 
annually for the last 11 years. This, Mr. Speaker, is in part what we 
can control and where the solutions must be found.
  Egregious cases of fraud, abuse, and waste do exist, but we will 
attack them. We will not completely solve the problem, and I guess 
technically Medicare could continue to operate as it does today. We 
would just simply require the next generation to pay a payroll tax rate 
of 19 percent by the year 2050.
  But that is not acceptable. What we need to do is simplify, cut out 
the red tape, open more opportunities to our recipients as we do in the 
private sector. We can and must do it.
  I just cannot go home at night and look at my three young children, 
knowing that even though none of them are out of high school yet, our 
generation, my generation, is planning how we are going to spend their 
money. And the key to protecting and preserving Medicare is to control 
the rate at which the program increases.
  The Republican proposal is to allow Medicare to increase. Let me 
repeat that. Our proposal is to allow Medicare to increase, simply at a 
slower rate than the current double digits we have. But this plan 
provides for an increase per person of over $1,900 by the year 2002. 
This is a 40-percent beneficiary increase.
  This chart that is entitled ``Medicare Spending Per Recipient in the 
Republican Budget'' indicates the increase. In 1995, the average 
expenditure per person is $4,860. That is going to increase to $6,7834 
per person by 2002. We have heard a lot about the cuts going to 
Medicare, but it is actually an increase.
 One has to think that those who keep talking about cuts would be 
losing credibility when there is an acknowledged increase in spending 
to Medicare. But this rate of increase is both sufficient to maintain 
the integrity of the Medicare program for the current and future 
beneficiaries, and to ensure its long-term solvency and survival.

  Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor tonight to engage the American 
public with these facts. I believe this effort to save the Medicare 
system is so imperative, because it goes much deeper than one specific 
program designed to provide health care assistance to the older 
Americans. I believe it is going to serve as a test of our resolve. We 
must come together, we must overcome contrived generational lines, we 
must overcome the temptation of the liberals to use class warfare, age 
warfare, because we must ensure that as American, the America we pass 
along to the next generation, our children and our grandchildren, is a 
little bit better because of our efforts, that government can be the 
highest and best. This idea does not seem to be embraced much anymore. 
It seems that each generation has grown increasingly more pessimistic 
about their future. I am concerned about this because this is not the 
vision of America which I want to pass on to our next generation. I 
think that if we can succeed today in this endeavor, we will not only 
save the Medicare system but resurrect some of the much needed optimism 
that our Nation has lost.

                              {time}  2145

  There is a great need to preserve hope for the future. Just last July 
4, I received news that I have a new nephew. His name is Kenan Tiahrt. 
He was born July 4, Independence Day, 1995. He represents hope for the 
future. I have three children myself, Jessica, who is 14; John, who is 
10; and Luke, who is 7, and they are my hope for the future and why I 
am involved in Congress. We must give them the tools that they need to 
start on a hopeful optimistic career and it starts today with our 
efforts to balance the budget so we can preserve the Medicare system 
and protect it.
  For our hopes to balance the budget we must be able to eliminate the 
unnecessary bureaucracy, and tonight I have with me several people who 
are going to be discussing how we are going to eliminate that unneeded 
bureaucracy and save the future for our children by balancing the 
budget. Tonight, speaking about elimination of the Department of 
Commerce, I have the gentlelady from Idaho [Ms. Chenoweth], and I would 
like to yield to her for what time as he may consume to discuss the 
elimination of the Department of Commerce.
  Ms. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is exciting to hear the gentleman from Kansas speak 
about the reduction of the size of Federal Government with more than 
just words in round pear-shaped tones. To lead into the fact that we 
are truly a Congress committed to reducing the size of the Federal 
Government is truly exciting in this revolutionary and historic time in 
the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, after several months of careful study, our task force on 
the elimination of the Department of Commerce has put forward a well 
thought-out, responsible program for dismantling the Department of 
Commerce bureaucracy.
  The plan consolidates the duplicative programs, eliminates the 
unnecessary programs, streamlines the beneficial programs, and 
privatizes those programs better performed by the private sector.
  The plan has bi-partisan support and is also endorsed by many former 
Commerce Department officials. In addition, the elimination of the 
Department of Commerce was accepted into both the House and Senate 
budget resolutions earlier this year.
  First, I would like to dispel the myth that the Department of 
Commerce is the advocate for American business in the federal 
government.
  Business leaders of both small and large companies would be far 
better served if federal efforts were focused on cutting taxes, 
enacting regulatory and tort reforms, and more importantly, achieving a 
balanced budget.
  Incentives such as these translate into real sustainable economic 
growth by way of lower interest rates, a boost in capital investment, 
and the generation of more jobs. Yet the ``voice for business,'' the 
Commerce Department, has been notably silent on these issues.
  Instead of being the advocate for business, Commerce is a federal 
department that is involved in everything from managing fish farms in 
Arkansas to providing federal grants to build replicas of the Pyramids 
and the Great Wall of China in Indiana.
  Commerce officials have been forced to defend the entire Department 
based on the limited successes of its trade functions, and in doing so 
completely miss the mark. Only 5 percent of Commerce's budget is 
devoted to trade promotion, a responsibility shared with over 19 other 
federal agencies. In fact, Commerce does not even take the lead in U.S. 
trade programs.
  We are not, however, disputing the importance of many of the trade 
functions currently performed by the Commerce Department. We understand 
and agree that we must aggressively pursue foreign markets and provide 
inroads for American businesses.
  My colleague, Congressman Mica, has proposed the reorganization of 
the federal government's trade functions into one coordinated Office of 
Trade. This will begin to consolidate a very fragmented trade process 
in our government.
  There is no need for the Bureau of the Census to be in a Department 
of Commerce. This agency would be better included in the Treasury 
Department, as our proposal suggests, or as the foundation for an 
independent central statistical agency as others suggest.
  The Patent and Trademark Office is another agency that bears little 
relationship to the other programs in Commerce, and because it is 
already a self-funding program, it pays a 25 percent stipend just be in 
the Department of Commerce. This Office could be transferred to the 
Justice Department, 

[[Page H 7692]]
where most legal issues of the federal government are addressed, or it 
could be made a government corporation as Chairman Moorhead of the 
Judiciary Intellectual Property Subcommittee has suggested.
  The technology programs of the Commerce Department amount to little 
more than ``corporate welfare'' as Labor Secretary Robert Reich has 
suggested. A prime example of this corporate welfare is the Advanced 
Technology Program, which provides million dollar grants to some of the 
nation's industry giants.
  The Department's own Inspector General notes the agency has evolved 
into ``a loose collection of more than 100 programs.'' The General 
Accounting Office goes further, reporting that Commerce ``faces the 
most complex web of divided authorities * * *'' sharing its ``missions 
with at least 71 federal departments, agencies, and offices.''
  In fact, of these more than 100 programs, we found that all but three 
are duplicated by other government agencies or the private sector.
  Former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher has called his former 
Department a ``hall closet where you throw everything You don't know 
what to do with.''
  Over half of the Department's budget is consumed by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency that has nothing to 
do with commerce. The functions of this agency would find a much better 
home at the Department of Interior.
  Commerce's claim that it has been a ``proven business ally at the 
Cabinet table'' holds little weight in the eyes of America's business 
community.
  In fact, a June 5 Business Week poll of senior business executives 
illustrated support for eliminating the Department of Commerce by a two 
to one margin.
  Several leading business journals, including the Wall Street Journal 
and the Journal of Commerce, have carried stories reporting on the lack 
of business support for the Department.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding the majority of the Commerce Department's 
activities, what Department officials call synergy, others simply call 
confusion.
  From the Census Bureau to the Travel and Tourism Administration, it 
makes no sense for these diverse and disjointed functions to be huddled 
together in one Department of Commerce.
  The wholesale approach in defending the status quo at the Department, 
lumping the good with the bad, the efficient with the wasteful, is 
symptomatic of how we got into our deficit mess in the first place. We 
need to take a new look at how we do business at the Department of 
Commerce, not only to improve on the beneficial programs, but to save 
taxpayers' hard earned dollars.
  The Department of Commerce Dismantling Act provides a blueprint for 
the orderly termination of this bureaucracy, eliminating the waste and 
duplication, saving the American taxpayers almost $8 billion over five 
years. This is one step we can and must take to create a more efficient 
and effective Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the articles referred to 
earlier.
                   [From Business Week, June 5, 1995]

                       A Balanced Budget or Bust

       American business has spoken: Balance the federal budget, 
     even if it means giving up corporate subsidies. That's the 
     message in a new Business Week/Harris Executive Poll of 408 
     senior executives. A decisive 57% of corporate leaders said 
     balancing the budget was a ``top priority'' that will only 
     happen by setting a strict deadline. Only 23% felt such a 
     step might harm the economy.
       Given a choice between balancing the government's books or 
     slashing taxes, 79% of executives opted for budget balance. 
     Yet few thought it would actually happen: Asked if Uncle 
     Sam's ledgers would be balanced by 2002, 86% said no.


                            full steam ahead

       Republicans and Democrats are arguing over how to balance 
     the federal budget. Which of the following statements comes 
     closest to your point of view?

                                                                Percent
a. Balancing the budget is a top priority that will only happen by 
  setting a strict deadline..........................................57
b. Balancing the budget is a worthwhile goal, but drastic cuts in 
  federal spending could jeopardize the economy......................23
c. The most important goal should not be balancing the budget, but 
  rather setting different spending priorities.......................20
d. Not sure/don't know................................................0
                        saying yes to sacrifice

       Some Republicans say that the drive to balance the budget 
     by 2002 will require most, if not all, business subsidies to 
     be eliminated. Considering your specific industry, are you 
     willing to forgo special tax incentives or spending programs 
     for the sake of budgetary discipline, or not? \1\

                                                                Percent
a. Willing to forgo tax incentives...................................57
b. Willing to forgo spending programs................................56
c. Not willing to forgo anything.....................................10
d. Depends on the circumstances.......................................7
e. Not sure/don't know................................................6

\1\ Respondents could pick more than one answer.
                             no sacred cows

       I'm going to read you a list of business subsidies or 
     incentives that might be eliminated in order to balance the 
     budget. Should each of the following be eliminated or not in 
     order to help balance the federal budget?

                                                                        
                              [In percent]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Not sure/
                                           Should     Should     don't  
                                                       not        know  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Farm subsidies......................         83         13          4
2. Incentives for energy development                                    
 and efficiency........................         65         27          5
3. Federal loan guarantees.............         65         29          6
4. Export-promotion programs...........         59         34          7
5. Research and development support for                                 
 emerging high-tech industries.........         51         45          4
6. Small-business grants and loans.....         49         47          4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             AXING AGENCIES

       Supporters of a balanced budget are proposing to eliminate 
     some federal agencies. Do you oppose eliminating:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Not sure/
                                           Favor      Oppose     don't  
                                                                  know  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Energy Dept.........................         71         24          5
2. Housing & Urban Development Dept....         69         27          4
3. Commerce Dept.......................         63         33          4
4. Education Dept......................         52         46          2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             read our lips

       Separately, GOP spending proposals would balance the budget 
     by relying exclusively on spending reductions. As a last 
     resort, would you favor or oppose modest tax increases to 
     help balance the budget by 2002?
                                                                Percent
a. Favor modest tax increases........................................39
b. Oppose modest tax increases.......................................57
c. Not sure/don't know................................................4
                           top of the agenda

       Which of these issues is THE most important to American 
     business
                                                                Percent
1. Balancing the federal budget......................................31
2. Improving the U.S. educational system.............................28
3. Helping to make U.S. companies more competitive globally..........17
4. Cutting taxes......................................................9
5. Fighting crime and drugs...........................................6
6. Reforming the welfare system.......................................5
7. Providing guaranteed health care for all Americans.................1
8. Reforming campaign finance laws....................................0
9. Not sure/don't know................................................3
                          no time for tax cuts

       Which do you think is more important--balancing the federal 
     budget or cutting taxes for business and individuals?
                                                                Percent
a. Balancing the federal budget......................................79
b. Cutting taxes for business and individuals........................19
c. Not sure/don't know................................................2
                           ye of little faith

       All in all, do you think the federal budget will be 
     balanced by 2002 or not?
                                                                Percent
a. Will be balanced..................................................11
b. Will not be balanced..............................................86
c. Not sure/don't know................................................3
             [From the Journal of Commerce, June 27, 1995]

Commerce Department Seen Less Vital Than Deficit Cut--Business Support 
                            Wanes for Agency

                         (By Richard Lawrence)

       Washington.--The Commerce Department, struggling against 
     its abolition by Congress, is mustering little business 
     support.
       Although Commerce is the business community's most vocal 
     supporter in the administration, most business executives say 
     budget deficit reduction is more important than retaining an 
     advocate in the Cabinet.
       However, there is growing support that Commerce's duties, 
     especially regarding international trade, be distilled into a 
     new Cabinet-level trade agency.
       House and Senate leaders agreed last week to a budget 
     resolution to eliminate the department by fiscal 1999, 
     although some of its functions, such as the Census Bureau, 
     Patent Office, Weather Bureau and import and export 
     administrations would be transferred to other agencies or 
     made independent.
       The resolution, however, is not building, and senior 
     Commerce officials maintain that ``at the end of the day'' 
     the Commerce Department will prevail.
       ``I'm optimistic,'' said Jim Desler, a Commerce Department 
     spokesman, ``that the department's essential functions will 
     remain intact, although there may be some (funding) cuts.'' 
     Business support for Commerce is 

[[Page H 7693]]
     gaining momentum, he said, and will likely become more visible as the 
     congressional proposals are more closely analyzed.
       The department's fate will be up to a number of 
     congressional authorizing and appropriations committees, 
     though the president could have the final say. An early tip 
     as to how Congress may proceed may come Wednesday when a 
     House Appropriations subcommittee takes up Commerce's fiscal 
     1996 funding.
       To survive, Commerce officials acknowledge, the department 
     probably needs solid support from business groups, in 
     particular small and medium-sized firms. But that has not yet 
     come.
       A spokesman for the National Federation of Independent 
     Business Inc., which represents more than 600,000 small 
     businesses, finds among federation members little support for 
     keeping the Commerce Department. It is more important, they 
     feel, to cut the federal deficit than save Commerce, he said.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports its members feel the 
     same. The key, says Willard Workman, the chamber's vice 
     president-international, is that lower budget deficits 
     translate into lower interest rates and higher profit. 
     Commerce's budget fund about $4.6 billion a year.
       ``I've received only four phone calls from member companies 
     asking that we lead the effort to save the department,'' Mr. 
     Workman said. The chamber has more than 200,000 members.
       But, he added, the chamber is open to proposals to 
     consolidate the administration's trade functions, in 
     particular the export controls bureau and the import 
     administration, which investigates unfairly priced imports. 
     Those functions must be retained, he said.
       Others are more directly suggesting a possible new trade 
     agency. The National Association of Manufacturers, in a 
     letter to a House Appropriations subcommittee, argues that 
     ``some elements of Commerce's trade and export functions 
     should remain together under the leadership of a Cabinet-rank 
     official.
       A similar call came from the Emergency Committee for 
     American Trade, which represents about 60 U.S. based 
     multinational firms. U.S. business, like labor and 
     agriculture, must have Cabinet-level representation, said 
     Robert McNeill, the group's executive vice chairman.
       Business spokesmen and the Commerce Department clearly 
     share one view: strong opposition to a House Republican bill 
     to scatter Commerce's trade functions to different agencies.
       Meanwhile, support to be growing in Congress, although 
     proposals differ over how this would be done.
       Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., promises to push for a 
     consolidated, Cabinet-level trade agency once a bill to 
     dismantle Commerce reaches the Senate floor. Senate Majority 
     Leader Robert Dole, R-Kan., is reported considering the idea 
     of a trade agency, but one below Cabinet-level status.
       In the House, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., is about to introduce 
     a trade agency bill, which unlike Sen. Bond's 
     proposal,includes the U.S. Trade Representative's office.
       By mid-July, Sen. William Roth, R-Del., the Governmental 
     Affairs Committee chairman who has long proposed a department 
     of international trade, will hold hearings to explore these 
     and other views. And House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-GA., has 
     said he favors a congressional task force to examine how best 
     to organize the government's trade-related activities.
       It probably will take a year or two, perhaps longer, to 
     sort out the Commerce Department's future and more 
     specifically how the government's trade activities should be 
     organized, business spokesmen estimated.
                                                                    ____

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 1995]

Orphan Agency--A Little of Everything Is Done at Department of Commerce 
  Today--Vague Mission Is One Reason It Makes GOP Hit List; Business 
                            Sheds Few Tears

                           (By Helene Cooper)

       Stephens Passage, Alaska.--The officers aboard the U.S. 
     ship Rainier are smartly dressed, in khaki maritime workwear. 
     In the captain's quarters, polished wood gleams brightly. At 
     the helm, Lt. Commander Art Francis guides the vessel as it 
     surveys the clear waters of southeast Alaska. ``I love this 
     job,'' he says.
       At the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, 
     meanwhile, government scientists work to determine the 
     migration and breeding habits of the dwindling stock of 
     Pacific salmon.
       Nearby, workers from the Hazardous Materials Response and 
     Assessment Division await the phone call that alerts them 
     that there has been an oil spill--anywhere in the world. Then 
     they whisk off to help in the cleanup.
       These federal employees aren't from the Navy, the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service or the Environmental Protection Agency, as 
     their job descriptions might indicate. They work for the 
     Commerce Department.
       The Commerce Department? The tentacles of this cabinet 
     department, marked for elimination by the Republican-
     controlled Congress, spread across the country and into the 
     ocean. The Rainier, in fact, is but one ship in a fleet of 25 
     Commerce Department vessels commanded by three admirals.
       With a loosely defined mandate to aid U.S. businesses, the 
     department, with 37,000 employees and a $4.2 billion budget, 
     is a hodgepodge of bureaucratic functions, some overlapping 
     with other agencies. It is currently involved in tasks 
     ranging from trade talks with Japan on cars to scientific 
     research on the zebra mussel. Commerce, its critics say, is 
     the very symbol of bureaucracy run amok.
       Given the millions in business subsidies and technology 
     awards that Commerce has doled out to U.S. businesses, one 
     might expect its corporate beneficiaries to be leaping to the 
     department's side as the budget-cutters approach; Not so.
       Consider the congressional testimony of Eastman Kodak Co.'s 
     Michael Morley, a human-resources executive whose boss 
     accompanied Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on a trip to China 
     to try to nail down some contracts. At a House Budget 
     Committee hearing on how to streamline government, Mr. Morley 
     noted that Kodak planned to ``sell, discontinue or close 
     those businesses and functions that were not germane to our 
     vision'' and added: ``For the federal government, an example 
     might be closing the cabinet agencies of the departments of 
     Commerce or Energy.''


                          Defining the Mission

       Robert Mosbacher, Commerce secretary in the Bush 
     administration, is harsher still. He calls his former cabinet 
     office ``nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in 
     everything that you don't know what to do with.''
       With the party of business now in control, these should be 
     salad days for Commerce in the Congress. Instead, Republicans 
     are talking about either a gradual death (in the Senate 
     budget plan) or summary execution (the House's plan) for the 
     department of business. Part of the problem is that no one 
     can quite figure out what business, exactly, the Commerce 
     Department should be in. Even top officials of the agency 
     have a hard time describing.
       ``We are at the intersection of a variety of significant 
     policy areas that spur economic growth,'' says Jonathan 
     Sallet, Commerce's policy director. Commerce, he says, ``is 
     about combining them into effective parts of economic 
     strategy. The strength of this department is in the fact that 
     we make that connection.''


                              Some Goodies

       Commerce does offer some goodies that business likes, such 
     as $400 million-plus in annual awards for research in 
     electronics and materials. But corporate lobbyists say these 
     don't compare in importance with the feast of legislation 
     they would like from the GOP Congress: tort reform, 
     regulatory relief, a capital-gains tax cut and a scaling back 
     of environmental restrictions. And even some Clinton 
     administration allies appear hard-pressed to defend this 
     bureaucracy. Asked if Commerce should get the ax, C. Fred 
     Bergsten, director of the Institute for International 
     Economics, replies: ``I don't think much would be lost.''
       Adding to the department's woes is the battering that 
     Secretary Brown has taken on questions about his private 
     dealings. While Mr. Brown has received extensive media 
     attention and praise for his work at the department, he is 
     hobbled by a Justice Department investigation into how he 
     made $400,000 from the sale of his assets in an unsuccessful 
     company in which he invested no money and little time.
       There is no question that some useful work gets done at 
     Commerce, particularly in the National Weather Service. At 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
     Commerce arm that runs those ships (and that takes up almost 
     50% of the departmental budget), scientists do research aimed 
     at averting oil spills. Map making that goes on aboard the 
     Rainier is crucial to making sure tankers don't run aground.
       But Commerce officials have a hard time explaining why some 
     of these important functions belong in the department, and 
     why others shouldn't be privatized. For example, some of the 
     oceanic research--into zebra mussels, shark feeding and 
     disposal of crab wastes--could be handled by industries that 
     care about such things.
       They are also often at a loss to explain how the department 
     has grown so big. Mr. Mosbacher's hall-closet analogy isn't 
     far off the mark. Departments and agencies that didn't fit in 
     other cabinet offices were, over the years, simply tacked 
     onto Commerce. This haphazard growth is typical of the 
     federal bureaucracy. So too is the inertia and turf 
     protection that may make it hard to do away with the 
     department.


                             life at hazmat

       Take a look at the Hazardous Materials Response and 
     Assessment Division, often called Hazmat. A Commerce arm 
     based in Seattle, Hazmat has branches in all the major 
     coastal cities. It employs some 100 biologists, chemists, 
     oceanographers, geomorphologists (geologists who work on 
     beaches) and geologists who ``dash off to oil spills around 
     the world,'' says David Kennedy, Hazmat's chief.
       Mr. Kennedy explains the mission: ``We're a liaison and 
     technical support to the Coast Guard for oil spills and 
     hazardous-material spills,'' he says. ``We're involved in how 
     to clean up the mess. . . . How clean is clean?''
       If these duties sound similar to the EPA's; that's because 
     they are. Hazmat scientists routinely work with EPA people. 
     Critics say the agencies could probably be merged, and 
     overlapping jobs cut.
       No, Mr. Kennedy says, Hazmat is different. EPA's mandate is 
     to focus on human environmental dangers, he says, while 
     Hazmat focuses on spills that affect shipping and commerce. 
     So he says Hazmat needs to remain separate.

[[Page H 7694]]

       Leonard Smith, a regional director of Commerce's Economic 
     Development Agency, makes a similar argument in explaining 
     why the Commerce Department is helping create a university in 
     Monterey, Calif. When the nearby Fort Ord military base 
     closed, officials were frightened for the local economy. 
     ``Who's left to come in and help the community?'' Mr. Smith 
     asks.
       Who else but Commerce? So last year, the department put $15 
     million into turning the base into California State 
     University at Monterey, whose doors will open to 1,000 
     students in September.
       But if California needs another campus for its sprawling 
     university system, shouldn't whatever federal help was needed 
     have come from the Department of Education? No, says Mr. 
     Smith. ``We're not just creating universities, we're creating 
     jobs.''
       At Commerce, job creation is taken especially seriously 
     when the jobs belong to the department itself. Officials are 
     upset over a proposal from Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina 
     to return the department's U.S. and Foreign Commercial 
     Service to the rival State Department where it rested before 
     1980. (``They're still stuck in the Cold War over there,'' a 
     senior Commerce official says.)


                            exports and jobs

       So Commerce has mounted a public-relations offensive. 
     Reporters were brought in recently to tour the office's new 
     export-advocacy center, where U.S. companies trying to enter 
     complicated foreign markets can seek aid. Security is tight; 
     special codes and complex locks restrict entry. One mission 
     is to track the 100 biggest business deals around the globe 
     for which American companies are competing. In an almost 
     eerie display, a bank of empty computers each display the 
     same message in purple letters against a turquoise 
     background: ``Exports--Jobs.''
       This is the Commerce Department's byword, and it has fueled 
     a drive by Secretary Brown to open foreign markets. Mr. Brown 
     has led corporate delegations to China, Brazil and Africa, 
     helping to forge new contracts valued at $25 billion and 
     creating 450,000 new jobs, according to department estimates. 
     Past Commerce chiefs, including Mr. Mosbacher, also stumped 
     on foreign territories for U.S. companies, but none with the 
     zeal or effectiveness of Mr. Brown.
       But even in this high-profile line of work, Commerce comes 
     under fire. ``There's no economics in the argument'' that 
     export promotion creates jobs, contends Robert Shapiro, a 
     Clinton political ally and vice president of the Progressive 
     Policy Institute, a Democratic Party think tank. ``These 
     export subsidies certainly don't reduce the trade deficit. 
     All you can do with [them] is increase jobs for companies 
     with the clout to get the subsidy. But that's at the expense 
     of industries that don't have that clout. You're just 
     shifting things around.''


                              faint praise

       Given the energy Commerce spends seeking foreign business, 
     one might think U.S. companies would be rushing to defend at 
     least these Commerce initiatives from the Republicans' ax. 
     Most aren't
       ``A few of their programs I see value in,'' says a lobbyist 
     for a large U.S. company that has received several Commerce 
     research subsidies. ``But the entire department, with what it 
     costs to run it? It's hard to justify.''
       For his part, Mr. Brown calls the proposals to eliminate 
     his department ``the height of nonsense.'' He argues that 
     rather than make it smaller Congress should make it bigger, a 
     sentiment that President Clinton apparently shares. 
     Commerce's fiscal 1995 budget is 28% higher than that for 
     fiscal 1993.
       ``I think you can made a reasonable argument that money 
     spent in Commerce gets more bang for the buck than anywhere 
     else in government,'' Mr. Brown says. ``It attracts private 
     investment. It creates jobs for the American people.''
       And Commerce may be saved by the very thing that makes some 
     people want to kill it: its long reach. If Commerce is axed, 
     asks one of its midlevel bureaucrats, ``Who would forecast 
     the weather? Who would do the census? Who would operate the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission? Who would take CEOs to 
     China?''
       In fact, the Republican proposals to drop the department 
     would save some of its key functions, such as weather 
     forecasting, by putting them elsewhere. There are those who 
     say talk of eliminating Commerce is a deceptive attempt by 
     politicians who want to give the appearance that they are 
     cutting government waste. ``You have to distinguish between 
     programs that actually abolish Commerce and programs that 
     simply eliminate the letterhead,'' Mr. Shapiro says.
       Consider the antics of Republican Sen. Spencer Abraham, 
     head of a Senate panel to consider eliminating Commerce. 
     ``There is simply too much waste and duplication,'' he said 
     last month. ``Our goal is to make government more efficient 
     and less expensive.''
       But the senator is from Michigan, where zebra mussels are 
     clogging sewage pipes. Three days later he voted to restore 
     $2 million for zebra-mussel research in the Commerce 
     Department.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady from Idaho 
talking about a very necessary method of removing the unneeded 
bureaucracy, and we have on the floor with me tonight the author of the 
bill to dismantle the Department of Commerce, and I think that we 
should commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] for his 
efforts to eliminate the bureaucracy because it is really an historic 
event.
  I was not surprised in my own efforts to head up a task force to 
eliminate the Department of Energy when I went to the Government 
Accounting Office, or the GAO, and I asked them how do you dismantle a 
cabinet level agency, and they said, well, we simply do not know. We 
have only been in the business of creating Government agencies and we 
have never dismantled one before.
  So what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] is doing now is he 
is going through the process of finding the best way to eliminate the 
Department of Commerce, and it is quite a task, an historical task, and 
one that has never been taken on.
  There are some questions I personally have about how it is going to 
occur and I wanted to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] to see if we cannot bring out into the open, 
Mr. Speaker, some of these issues.
  I think one of the most fair questions is, is the gentleman's 
proposal simply a reshuffling of boxes on an organizational chart, or 
is it a serious transformation of a Government bureaucracy? Would it 
not be better to cut the fat out of the current Commerce Department, or 
is it better to eliminate the entire department?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Well, I thank the gentleman from Kansas, and that is a 
very good question.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly as we looked at dismantling the Department of 
Commerce, it was a product of over 6 months of study by a task force of 
several Members of Congress: Mark Sanford, Mark Neumann, from 
Wisconsin, Helen Chenoweth, of course, who we just heard from, and Sue 
Kelly, from New York; Jack Metcalf from Washington, Wes Cooley, and Jim 
Talent, our token sophomore on this group, as well as former Commerce 
Department officials and outside policy experts.
  We looked at each of the over 100 programs within the Department of 
Commerce and asked three simple questions: No. 1, is this program 
necessary and should Government be involved in it, and is it worth 
borrowing the money to pay for it only to have our children pay it 
back? Is it necessary? Does the Federal Government need to be involved, 
or is this something better left to States, communities and/or 
individuals? If the Federal Government does need to be involved, are we 
currently doing the job in the most effective and efficient manner?
  I think my colleague from Idaho, Helen Chenoweth, could tell me a 
couple of real life examples she has experienced out in the great 
northwest.
  Ms. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some very interesting experiences that we are 
going through in the great northwest and it involves the Endangered 
Species Act. By listing a species known as the sockeye salmon or the 
spring or fall Chinook salmon, because this is a species that crosses 
State lines in its trek back to its spawning grounds or spawning 
habitat in our streams in Idaho, it naturally falls under the 
Department of Commerce. Therefore, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service is competing with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 
the Interior, as well
 as various other agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
to manage this particular species.

  In trying to manage the species to get it to the point where it is no 
longer endangered, they have proposed doing away with numerous dams, 
but, most importantly, because water is such a precious resource in the 
arid west, we find an agency under NOAA, under Department of Commerce, 
literally taking command and control of our water in the Western 
States.
  Due to the planning of our Founding Fathers and the people who forged 
the western States and forged the living and the communities and built 
the irrigation systems and the reservoir systems, very well thought out 
systems, we were able to turn the west into a productive community. 
Today we have an agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, who is 
calling on our water in our storage reservoirs over State law. They are 
ignoring State law, 

[[Page H 7695]]
absolutely ignoring State law, and calling on the State water for a 
very questionable program called flow augmentation.
                              {time}  2200

  By calling on the water in the storage reservoir, this means the 
irrigators cannot apply the water to the land for their crops. Truly, 
because of the action of an agency under Commerce, it is exacerbating a 
problem that we commonly call the war on the West, because without 
water in the West, we are not able to grow our crops. We are not able 
to produce electricity.
  For one agency, under the direction of the White House, to be able to 
command the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to open the headgates and 
drain the reservoirs for a questionable program for the salmon is truly 
a taking of States' and individuals' property rights.
  Mr. Chrysler, and Mr. Speaker, it is because, under Commerce, we saw 
an agency totally overreaching.
  In addition to this, we have seen this agency, working with the 
Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, totally lock up our 
ability to work our resources in the West because no decisions are 
made. Our States are suffering under continual threats of lawsuits, and 
many of them are brought about by friendly lawsuits that are supported 
by the agencies.
  So we look forward to having some common sense streamlining of agency 
responsibilities in the Northwest by doing away with the Department of 
Commerce and eliminating these kinds of responsibilities under the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, that has created so much confusion 
in the Northwest.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, certainly we can see that the Department 
of Commerce has been much more regulatory in nature than any kind of a 
supporter for the business community, and when measured against the 
criteria, the Commerce programs rarely live up to their expectations.
  If we found a program that was duplicative in the Department of 
Commerce, we consolidated it. If a program was better performed by the 
private sector, then we privatized it. If it was beneficial, we 
streamlined it. If we found a program was unnecessary, then we 
eliminated it.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I believe that you have laid out a good case for the 
elimination of the Department of Commerce, but does your proposal allow 
for an orderly termination? This is something, as we said earlier,
 that has never been done. Is it an orderly termination of this 
department that have you in mind?

  Mr. CHRYSLER. What we are doing with this program, and of course we 
will vote tomorrow on the Commerce, Justice appropriations bill, and 
the thing that we are going to look at is in the consolidation of 
September 22, after the authorizers have acted, is to bring the House 
and Senate together and terminate the 21 different agencies that we are 
looking at in the Department of Commerce.
  The Department of Commerce, as Ms. Chenoweth has said, is a 
collection of over 100 programs and we had to analyze each one of those 
programs. Each member of the task force took a section of the 
Department of Commerce, looked at it very carefully, and made 
recommendations of what should be done with it. Seventy-one of them are 
duplicated someplace else in the Federal Government, so it was very 
easy to consolidate many of them.
  Of the 100 programs, 97 of them were either duplicated someplace else 
in the Federal Government and/or they were duplicated in the private 
sector, so only 3 programs were really being done that needed to be 
done by the Government.
  So we create a Department of Commerce Resolution Agency and that 
agency will be set up within 6 months and that agency will be a 
sublevel Cabinet position that will take care of resolving all of 
Commerce's business over a another 2\1/2\ year period.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very orderly transition to dismantle a 
department of Government, to give the people in this country a little 
less government, a little lower taxes. We want to let people keep more 
of what they earn and save, and make more decisions about how they 
spend their money and not Government, and we think that Americans will 
always make a better decision than the Government will.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I am sure you have done a lot of research when you looked 
into how the Department of Commerce operates, and you must have spoken 
with past Secretaries of Commerce. What has been the reaction of not 
only the current Department of Commerce but also those who have headed 
up that agency in the past?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Well, certainly Robert Mosbacher, who was the last head 
of the Department of Commerce, has been a very strong supporter of the 
dismantling act. He has called this the hall closet where you throw 
everything when you do not know where else it should be.
  In fact, the Department of Commerce, 60 percent of it is NOAA, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which to all of us in 
America is better known as the weather. And when you look back through 
the history of this and start studying it, why did NOAA end up in the 
Commerce Department, you find that there was a point in Richard Nixon's 
presidency where he was upset with his Secretary of the Department of 
the Interior, and so he just took NOAA and gave it to the Commerce 
Department instead of putting it in the Department of Interior, where 
our bill will have it end up. That is where it rightfully should be.
  Certainly the weather-related portion of NOAA will be in the 
Department of Interior. The satellites can be better managed by the Air 
Force, who does the best job in our Government of managing all 
satellites. I think, as we move through this process, looking at each 
and every area, there is a uniformed group in NOAA that will be 
eliminated.
  We take this step by step in order to come to a very orderly, well-
thought-out program of how we
 can dismantle this agency. And people like Elizabeth Bryant, who is at 
the University of Michigan now, who was the head of the Census Bureau, 
has absolutely endorsed this program to dismantle the Department of 
Commerce.

  We have suggested putting the Census Bureau in the Department of 
Treasury, but there are others that have said we should create a 
separate statistical agency and use as a foundation the Bureau of 
Census and be able to share some of that information with other Federal 
agencies. I believe we could probably cut most other Federal 
departments by as much as 3 to 5 percent just by letting them get their 
statistical information from a central Government statistical agency.
  Mr. TIAHRT. As a former businessman, you have been in touch with the 
business community, and I wonder what has been the reaction from the 
business community about this so-called voice for business in 
government? What has been their reaction to the elimination of this 
voice?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Well, we have many, many letters from the Business 
Leadership Council, National Taxpayers Union, Small Business Survival 
Committees, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, and the list goes on.
  We also have a poll that was taken in Business Week magazine, that we 
entered into the Record on June 5, where business executives were 
polled on whether they would want to eliminate the Department of 
Commerce. And by a 2-to-1 margin, those business executives said, Yes, 
dismantle this Department of Commerce.
  Certainly, business leaders like myself, and I had a company that I 
started in the corner of my living room, building convertibles after 
the automobile companies stop building convertibles, Cars and Concepts; 
10 years later I sold that business to my employees. I had 1,200 
employees at that point, and we did business in 52 different countries 
around the world, and not once did we call the Department of Commerce, 
nor did the Department of Commerce call us.
  That is a certainly testimony of a person that has created jobs, have 
lived that American dream, and have not needed the Government. I 
contend that it is not big government and/or big government programs 
and/or government bureaucracies that have built this into being the 
greatest country in the world. It is, in
 fact, entrepreneurship, free enterprise, capitalism, and rugged 

[[Page H 7696]]
individuals that go out and risk their capital to create jobs.

  You never see an employee unless you see an employer first. You have 
to have people to create jobs if you are going to have jobs. And that 
is what this is all about, is job creation. I think most business 
leaders, are convinced that the Federal efforts would be better focused 
on cutting taxes, enacting regulatory and tort reform, and balancing 
the Federal budget. That is what American businesses want us to be 
doing and that is what our business here in Congress is all about.
  For the first time, Todd, we have elected more people from business 
to the U.S. Congress on November 8 than we did people from any other 
profession. That speaks loudly and we are here to conduct the business 
of the country. This is the largest business in the world called the 
U.S. Government and it needs to be run more like a business.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I came across an article in the Washington Times today 
and there is a quote in here, it also quotes you talking about that you 
think that a lot of business has been successful without the help of 
the Department of Commerce, and they say that it would hamper American 
companies from performing in the global market if you eliminate this 
voice of business at the Cabinet level.
  But there is a quote from Joe Cobb at the Heritage Foundation:

       The claim by the Commerce Department that its cheerleading 
     for American industry has increased the sales is about as 
     accurate as the belief that the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders 
     are responsible for the football team winning its games.

  I think, as you point out, that American business has done an 
excellent job of expanding. I have a company called Caldwell 
Incorporated, run by Art Tieschgraber, and it has done a great job 
expanding into Siberia and a lot of other places.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Along those lines, it is a fact that the Department of 
Commerce claims a lot of successes with their trade effort and a thing 
that we have to understand is that the trade effort of the Department 
of Commerce is only 4 percent of the Department of Commerce. What we 
are talking about certainly is the other 96 percent that we are looking 
at.
  But with only 4 percent being focused on trade and of the programs 
that the Commerce Department claims to have brought new business and 
created jobs with, in fact, 83 percent of those are trade missions that 
American businesses would have completed successfully without the help 
of the Department of Commerce, and only 17 percent, again a very small 
number, that have really been directly helped by the Department of 
Commerce.
  Now, I think that one of the things that we are looking at with the 
Department of Commerce in this dismantling act is my good friend from 
Florida, John Mica is introducing a companion bill to H.R. 1756, to the 
Dismantling of Commerce Act, that will create an office of trade where 
we will take the USTR; there are 19 different departments in the 
Federal Government that deal with trade, and what we want to do is 
create one strong office of trade that will have a seat at the Cabinet 
level, or at the President's table, that will have a negotiating arm, 
an export arm, and an import arm that can do a better job at dealing 
with trade in this world than any other country in this world, and 
certainly the best job that the United States of America has ever had.
  I think trade is an important part of our economy. We do live in a 
global economy today with fax machines and telephones and computers and 
all the technology. Moving into this new Information Age, the third 
wave of technology, we do have to compete on a global economy and I 
think we can build an office of trade that, in fact, will be the 
strongest that this country has ever seen.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I appreciate your response to the questions I have given 
you. You know, we as freshmen had often sought the leadership of others 
and there is a gentleman from your State, Mr. Chrysler, Congressman 
Smith from Michigan, that would like to give some comments on the 
elimination of the Department of Commerce. We really appreciate him 
being here and helping us with this.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. Tiahrt, thank you very much. I appreciate your 
yielding. I want to start out, Todd, Dick, Helen, with the fact that 
the freshman class, having more businesspeople in that class than any 
class in recent history, has made a tremendous difference of bringing 
common sense back to Washington.
  And you know, it is such a tremendous hole that we have dug for 
ourselves. I heard the analogy, how do you describe what it means to be 
$5 trillion in debt and why is it important that we look at departments 
that are not serving a useful function like the Department of Commerce 
to try to reduce the system of this overbloated bureaucracy?
                              {time}  2215

  Mr. Speaker, I heard one example that I thought was interesting, and 
it gives a little perspective, and that is, if you tightly stack a 
bunch of $1,000 bills and you make it 4 inches high, you end up with 
the equivalent of $1 million. If you keep stacking tightly that $1,000 
bill stack and you go 300 feet high, it is $1 billion. If you go 63 
miles high, it is $1 trillion. If you get over 300 miles into outer 
space, it is this Federal budget.
  We have to start now. The reasonable place to start is with 
departments that are not fulfilling a useful purpose.
  I would particularly like to commend my colleague from Michigan who 
has come from business and is trying to make some common sense out of 
this huge Federal bureaucracy. One of the issues that he has been 
working on is the dismantling of the Department of Commerce. I say yea. 
I say, the freshmen class and people like Dick Chrysler is what is 
going to make it happen to be a reality, to do what Alan Greenspan 
says.
  If we are able to reach a balanced budget, then we will have such a 
strong underlying economy that this Nation is going to take off in 
jobs, and our kids and our grandkids are going to have a better 
standard of living than we do. If we do not do it, if we are unable to 
reach a balanced budget and we go back to the old ways of taking pork 
barrel projects home, of doing more and more things because we think it 
is going to help us get reelected, then we are going to end up with our 
kids and our grandkids not paying the huge debt that we are 
accumulating, but they are going to have a lower standard of living 
than we had.
  I just think it is so exciting, after decades, after 40 years of 
moving toward a bigger and bigger, huge Federal bureaucracy, we are 
looking at not just freezing the size of this bureaucracy, but looking 
at actually reducing it, by taking one of the departments, the 
Department of Commerce, and we can eliminate the hub of corporate 
welfare and political patronage by doing away with the Department of 
Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department is an amalgamation of Federal agencies, 
many of which have duplicate services. Dick Chrysler's bill moves us 
into a situation where we take the good, useful parts of the Department 
and we privatize them or we move them to other sectors of the Federal 
Government. The areas that are not serving a useful purpose, where we 
have just loaded up the different agencies with political patronage, we 
are doing away with. It is a start. It is a $7 billion start over 5 
years.
  I am proud to be a part of the discussion tonight, and I would like 
to ask Dick Chrysler the question of how you see American businesses 
expanding job opportunities in this country if we are not able to 
reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Thank you very much for the kind words and your support 
and your guidance.
  Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, being a freshman here and going through 
all that we have had to go through in the first 6 months, well in 
excess of over 500 votes, and finding a place to stay and hiring staffs 
and setting up offices, it has been a real challenge, and it has only 
been through your guidance and your help and your advice that we have 
been able to keep pace with the guys that have been here for a few 
years, and they have been, and you especially, have been very helpful 
to us.
  When you are looking at business and getting down to starting to run 
this Federal Government like a
 business, you know, I think that is really what 

[[Page H 7697]]
dismantling this Department of Commerce act is all about. Of course, I 
guess when you get right down to it, it is for our kids, my kids, Rick, 
Phill, Christy, and my grandkids, Chloe and Heather.

  When it is their turn, we have to make sure that they at least have 
the same opportunity that we have been blessed with in our lives, and 
furthermore, I think they deserve it. They deserve at least the 
opportunity that we have had in our life. That is really what it is all 
about. I think it is the kindest and most compassionate thing that we 
can do for the American people and every child and every grandchild out 
there.
  As we look at the job creation, which I think is the best welfare 
program we could have in this country is to create jobs, and as we go 
through with the Contract With America, creating jobs, creating a job 
provider's climate, which is so essential to job creation. As I said, 
you never see an employee unless you see an employer first, which means 
you have to have people that are going to be willing to take the risk, 
take the chance, risk their capital to create those jobs.
  By streamlining this Federal Government, as Nick Smith said, reducing 
the debt and the deficit, Alan Greenspan has said that we can reduce by 
2 percent the interest rates, at least 2 percent was his statement. 
What that means to just farmers, and certainly Nick Smith is a farmer 
from the State of Michigan, he still lives on a farm, has lived on a 
farm all of his life. For farmers alone, we could save farmers on just 
farm property in this country $10.65 billion just by reducing that 
interest rate by 2 percent.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield? It seems to me in 
discussing the Department of Commerce or any reduction in the Federal 
Government spending, there are two questions: Does it make sense to cut 
this particular program, and the overall picture is how important is it 
to cut? You related to the fact that it is important to cut. But I 
wonder how many people listening to us tonight realize what percentage 
of all of the money lent out this year will be borrowed by the Federal 
Government? The Federal Government will borrow 42 percent of all of the 
money lent out in the United States this year. That means that people 
that want to have that money available to buy a car or go to college or 
most importantly, expand their businesses and jobs, are not going to 
have that money available.
  If government gets out of insisting that they take 42 percent of all 
of the money that is up for borrowing, Alan Greenspan, our top banker 
in this country, Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 
says that interest rates will drop exactly the way you say, Dick. They 
are going to drop some place between 1.5 and 2 percent. That means 
everything is going to be cheaper in this country for people that need 
to borrow money, whether it is going to school or buying a home or 
expanding their business. So it does make a difference.
  On the second point, how about how are we going to know whether it is 
reasonable to close down the Department of Commerce? Well, I called our 
Michigan Department of Commerce in Michigan that is very active in 
promoting jobs and business opportunities in Michigan, I said, how 
often do you call the United States Department of Commerce? They said, 
never. They do not contact the United States Department of Commerce; it 
is not a service in terms of their efforts for business and job 
expansion.
  I asked the Chamber of Commerce in the United
   States that has 200,000 members, how many of your members have 
called in expressing concern about closing the Department of Commerce? 
Four. They said, four. Out of 200,000 members, they said four have 
called in, saying are we sure this is the right thing to do?

  I think it is evident that this is one department that people do not 
use that does not expand business, and I just congratulate the freshmen 
and encourage them to keep the spirit, because your spirit is what is 
keeping the rest of us going today.
  Mr. TIAHRT. You know, we have been talking about this dream for a 
better America and pointing out that the Federal Government borrowing 
so much money and driving interest rates up by 2 percent is almost 
overwhelming, when you think about how much money, $10.65 billion just 
for farmers alone, extra interest that they have to pay.
  When I went home to Kansas the last time, I got out of the airport 
and my necktie blew over my shoulder, so I knew I was home. But on my 
way home, it was 10:30 at night, and out there they were still 
combining, trying to get a few more bushels, because they want to save 
as much money, they want to pass on the farm to the next generation. My 
parents tried to do that for me. I grew up on a farm. But because 
things were too tough for them, they could not pass that on to their 
kids. So it is important.
  When I think about how much money they spent, one year they spent 
$85,000 in interest alone, and how that could have gone toward taking 
down their notes, it is just amazing what they do.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to say really 
thank you to both of the gentlemen, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Tiahrt] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler]. I think you 
really represent the hope of this country, and I cannot tell you how 
much I admire you and what you are trying to do. You were sent here 
with a specific message or directive of an overwhelming mandate, 
probably one of the rare times when everybody from one party across the 
board or across the country got elected.
  But you are the leaders. I came just a few months before, 24 months 
before, this is only my second term, with some of the hopes and dreams 
and aspirations for changing the Government, making it a better place. 
But it was very difficult. We did not have the votes. You have the 
votes and I admire you.
  I also would ask you to read this little comment up here above me in 
the back by Daniel Webster. You know, as I was sworn here, it impressed 
me, his words about leaving something worthy for future generations to 
remember. And that is what I think you are doing. You embody the spirit 
of change and reform that I think the American people want and have 
anticipated.
  I ask you not to give up on your attempt to restructure one agency. 
You are down to one agency. I know you have been beaten over the brow; 
I know you have been urged not to proceed, and I know there are 1,000 
reasons for deviating. But really, I think we can start with the 
Department of Commerce, and I think you have shown that that could be 
an example. It is an example of, you know, Commerce has been sort of a 
dumping ground over the years. Most people think it is 95 percent 
helping commerce and trade. That is why some people say well, save 
this, it is important today that we do that. Actually, they do not 
realize really, in trade and export it is less than 5 percent of the 
entire budget and a small number of the employees.
  So there are many people, myself included, rooting
   for you. Let me tell the gentlemen, this place is the hardest place 
to bring about change. It is very difficult, but in fact you can do it. 
Our freshmen class, we abolished the select committees when they said 
you could not do that. We were threatened to be thrown out of here if 
we exposed who signed the discharge petitions and the gag law. We stood 
here, just a few of us, like you are standing here tonight, and we 
changed the course of this place and the way this place is run.

  There are not many of you out here tonight, it is late at night, it 
is kind of like the night we were out here and made that dramatic 
change in the conduct of the business of this Congress.
  So I salute you, I commend you, you are on the right track. Mr. 
Chrysler has not proposed--I have read his proposal to just trash all 
of the good functions in the Department of Commerce. In fact, I think 
he has started the debate. Let's look at how we can do things better. 
Does it make sense to have the Federal Government do these functions 
that have been done? Does it make sense for this to be done by the 
private sector? Can we apply a cost-benefit to this, which is something 
we tried to get?
  The business thinking that you have brought to this Congress as an 
approach is so important, and that is what you need to apply to this 
dismantling of the Department of Commerce, 

[[Page H 7698]]
that we see that the functions are appropriately assigned and then 
revised. That is exactly what you are proposing, not any destruction, 
not any unnecessary elimination, but an improvement, and you can do 
more with less, just a totally different approach.
  So again, I commend you. I have enjoyed working with you. I have a 
proposal that we are trying to reach a consensus on because we know 
there are some good things in the Department of Commerce, particularly 
in trade, where so many people have said, let's save the trade 
functions. We have a joint proposal which we hope to introduce later 
this week that saves all of the elements. It actually will spend less 
money, and it will provide us with the mechanism so that the United 
States can compete in the decades ahead in a new arena where most of 
the jobs are created, where most of the opportunities are in exports 
and in trade, and provide us with the tools to do the jobs.

                              {time}  2230

  So, we are working together and have, in fact, come up with a plan to 
salvage the most important elements. The other elements, as I 
understand it, will all be examined, looked at, by the appropriate 
committees.
  So I cannot tell you from the bottom of my heat, from the bottom of 
the heart of everybody I talk to when I go home, around the country, 
how encouraged we are by what you are doing. Do not give up. Do not let 
them throw roadblocks in front of you. Continue, and continue on a 
responsible, reasonable course like you have, and you can make a 
change, and you can make changes that will be worthy of being 
remembered by future generations, just as that little edict up there 
commands each of us who have the honor and privilege of serving here.
  So I thank both of you for your leadership for the other 71 freshmen. 
I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] for his leadership, and 
the others on this issue and the others who have spoken here tonight.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I suppose we get a little closer to the time. I want to 
allow the gentleman from Michigan
 [Mr. Chrysler] to close up his convincing story on the elimination of 
the Department of Commerce.

  Mr. CHRYSLER. Well, I will only say to my good friend, John Mica from 
Florida, that in the words of Winston Churchill we will never, never, 
never, never, never give up and you know, if we had a Department of 
Commerce that was a true voice for businesses, what that Department of 
Commerce would be taking about is eliminating the $550 billion worth of 
regulations that are put onto American businesses that make us 
uncompetitive in the rest of the world. We would also be dealing with 
this litigious society that we live in with some true, meaningful tort 
reform.
  I mean in today's litigious society we would not even bring 
penicillin and/or aspirin to market; that is how bad things have 
gotten, and of course, most importantly, as we are doing, working to 
balance the budget, to create capital for businesses, and I think, and 
you look at the 163 job-training programs in the Departments of Labor 
and Education, of which they only want to claim about 70 because the 
rest of them have never created a job, and in fact one of them are 
spending about a half-million dollars for each job that they create, 
and I mean I said just give a person the money, why are you wasting 
their time here if they are going to spend that much money?
  But I would like to see that consolidated down to about three job-
training programs. I would like to see one of those job-training 
programs specifically work toward helping and training entrepreneurs 
because for every entrepreneur we can train and make successful, we can 
create 5, 6, 10, or maybe even 100, or certainly in my own case 1,200 
new jobs. That is the way to create jobs. That is what a Department of 
Commerce should be doing to help the business community. That is the 
kind of government we want to create.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I think my summation, Mr. Speaker, would be to 
the American people that, look, these are politicians down here. If the 
American people decide this is important, those of people that might be 
viewing this tonight, you know, call your Representatives in Congress, 
give them some encouragement, because we need the will of the American 
people to make sure we accomplish this giant task.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here with this delegation, and I 
just hope the American people feel that it is important that we bring 
down the size of this overbloated Government, that we support this 
initial step of doing such things as closing one of the least useful 
departments at State government.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] for any 
closing remarks.
  Mr. MICA. Again I salute you. This is just the beginning of the 
story. The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, is that 19 
agencies of Federal Government dealing in trade and export, spending $3 
billion, and in fact you are creating a nucleus for many, many more 
potential savings in government and, again, trying to make an inroad.
  The hardest thing to do around here, I have always found, is to 
present a new idea, but you have a new idea, you have a new approach. I 
commend you, and I urge you to go forward, and we can do a lot better, 
not only with the Department of Commerce, but with the rest of this 
huge government bureaucracy.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I just want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Mica] for coming down and bringing this very important issue to the 
American public, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], also the 
other gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], and I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  You know the American public needs to know that this is an historical 
event. The elimination of a Cabinet-level agency has never occurred 
before in the United States. We are about to make history once again in 
the 104th Congress, so stay tuned.


                          ____________________