[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12076-H12083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               IMPORTANCE OF BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Allard). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, 
particularly my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. 
Seastrand] and other colleagues who will be coming to the floor shortly 
in what promises to be, I think, a very special and informative 1-hour 
special order.
  We are going to talk about a variety of subjects tonight, Mr. 
Speaker; but, most of all, we are going to focus on the importance to 
America, to our constituents of passing a balanced Federal budget.
  So much really hangs in the balance or is at stake. I guess I should 
not say ``balance'' too often, for fear that the people might be misled 
a little bit, but so much is at stake here over the next several days 
or several weeks, depending on how long it actually takes us to 
ultimately get a balanced budget signed into law. But our constituents 
and our colleagues listening tonight and perhaps viewing on C-SPAN 
should realize that House Republicans, as the new majority in Congress 
for the last 10 months, have been absolutely dedicated to balancing the 
Federal budget for the first time in a quarter of a century.

  We have already passed on this House floor the 7-year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1995, which balances the Federal budget in 7 
years by limiting the growth, the increase in Federal spending, to 3 
percent per year.
  Now, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act also contains some very 
other important reforms, including genuine welfare reform that requires 
work for the able-bodied, emphasizes families, and provides people who 
are dependent on welfare in the short-term real hope and opportunity 
for the future.
  The Reconciliation Act also includes a significant tax cut for 
families and for economic growth and job creation in the private 
sector. This is the dividend, if you will, the economic dividend, for 
families resulting from getting our fiscal house in order at the 
Federal level. It is only right, since we all know that the beleaguered 
middle-class American family has been overburdened by the combination 
of high taxation and stagnant incomes for many, many years, it is only 
right that we keep our promises and provide them with much needed tax 
relief.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my California colleague, Mrs. 
Seastrand, I want to point out earlier today the House passed a 
temporary increase in the Federal Government's borrowing authority. 
That is known as the debt ceiling. Basically, we sent a bill to the 
other body, the Senate, that allows the Federal Government to continue 
borrowing money for the purposes of financing a deficit until on or 
about December 12.
  The passage of that legislation today follows on the heels of the 
past and of a continuing resolution which allows the Federal Government 
to keep the doors open and to keep paying its bills, meeting its 
financial obligations. That is the continuing resolution which passed 
on this floor yesterday.
  When it came time to vote on the temporary increase in the debt 
ceiling, the short-term extension until December 12, we heard some of 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, some of the so-called 
moderate Democrats, make statements about wanting to balance the 
Federal budget in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, they even went so far, 
as is the prerogative of the minority party in the House of 
Representatives, to offer a so-called motion to recommit. They claim 
that that motion to recommit would allow us to achieve a balanced 
budget working in a bipartisan fashion.
  But here is the flaw in their thinking. We would be remiss on this 
side of the aisle if we did not point out that a couple of weeks ago, 
we did pass the 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, which again 
was the key vote on whether a Member of Congress on either side of the 
aisle supports the idea of balancing the Federal budget in 7 years or 
less, whether that Member is willing to go on record as making the 
difficult decisions and the tough choices necessary to balance the 
Federal budget in 7 years.
  Now, when we had that legislation on the House floor a couple of 
weeks ago, only 4 Democrats, only 4, there are 199 Democrats currently 
serving in the House of Representatives and only 4 had the courage to 
cross this middle aisle, which you might refer to as the partisan 
aisle, to support the House 

[[Page H 12077]]
Republicans, the majority party, in approving and passing that balanced 
budget plan.
  Just before that vote, they had the opportunity, as again is their 
prerogative, as the minority party in the House of Representatives, 
they had their opportunity to present their budget alternative known as 
the Democratic substitute.

  When they offered that plan, the Democratic Party's substitute, which 
they claim would also balance the Federal budget in 7 years, only 72 
Democrats out of 199 supported the Democrat substitute. In fact, the 
House minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and 
the House minority whip, the No. 2 ranking Democrat in the House of 
Representatives, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], both voted 
against the Democrat substitute. That is to say, they both voted 
against their own party's version of a balanced budget.
  So my point is that only 76 Democrats, the 72 who voted for the 
Democrat substitute and the 4 Democrats who supported our balanced 
budget plan, only 76 out of 199 Democrats, far less than a majority, 
actually supported, when it came time for the talking to end and the 
voting to start, a balanced budget.
  When the debate had finally ended and it was really time, if I can 
use sort of a crass term, to put up or shut up, only 76 out of 199 
Democrats supported, with their vote, the concept of balancing the 
Federal budget and stopping the immoral practice of borrowing from our 
children's future to pay for today's spending binges.
  Despite this 11th-hour rhetoric we heard on the House floor today, an 
overwhelming majority of Democrats clearly believe that we can continue 
our merry deficit-spending ways.
  So I am a returnee to the Congress. I served one term, took an 
unintended vacation or sabbatical, depending on your point of view, and 
returned as a Member of our new majority. I learned in my first term in 
office, serving back here in Washington, a priceless saying that has 
been, I guess, bandied about this august institution for years and 
years, and it is simply paraphrased as, ``Don't listen to what they 
say. Look at how they vote.''
  When it came time to vote for a balanced budget, only 76 Democrats 
stood up to be counted. The remainder, out of 199, so that would be 123 
Democrats, voted against balancing the Federal budget, voted against 
the other reforms that were contained in that act.
  So here we are trying to solve problems for a generation, and all 
they can offer is more rhetoric.
  Before I yield, I want to also point out one other chart. Maybe we 
can understand their action, the action of our Democratic colleagues in 
the House, a little bit better if we understand that the President of 
the United States and the leader of their party has also failed to come 
to the table with a real, verifiable plan to balance the Federal 
budget. In fact, what I have put up here on this chart are the budget 
deficits that are projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office resulting from his so-called 10-year balanced budget plan.
  You can see, because this is not my word, for that matter this is not 
the claim of any of my colleagues, this is the considered professional 
opinion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as to how his 
budget, the President's budget plan remains unbalanced, generating $200 
billion deficits year in and year out over the next 10 years. Red ink 
as far as the eye can see.

                              {time}  1945

  So, in a way, I empathize with some of my Democratic colleagues 
because they really have not been able to look to the President of the 
United States and the leader of their political party for leadership on 
this particular issue, and that is what this issue is all about, real 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of working out the final details 
between the House and the Senate on the Balanced Budget Reconciliation 
Act, and as soon as we have done that we will be sending that, along 
with a longer term extension of the national debt ceiling and larger 
term increase in the national debt ceiling, and we will be sending that 
legislation to the President of the United States. It will be time for 
him, at that point, to decide if he is going to make good on his 
earlier promises to the American people to balance the Federal budget.
  And of course we know that the President is, unfortunately, inclined 
to say one thing and do another, but the reality is he is on the record 
very recently as telling Larry King, during the course of an interview 
on CNN, and I am actually now looking for his exact words here, he is 
on record as saying that he believes that the budget can be balanced. 
In fact, back on June 4 of 1992, the President told Larry King, ``I 
would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget''. Well, Mr. 
President, we are still waiting to see your 5-year plan to balance the 
budget, because, obviously, what you sent to Capitol Hill not only does 
not balance the budget, it adds a trillion dollars, over a trillion 
dollars more to the national debt; the aggregate debt of $5 trillion.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we believe that after months of delay, after months, 
to be honest about this now, of the President and some of his liberal 
Democratic allies in the Congress using every trick, every excuse, 
every scare tactic that they could to halt our reforms to balance the 
Federal budget, to preserve and protect and strengthen Medicare, to 
reform the welfare system, to cut taxes for families and private 
businesses, after months of delay the time really for the President to 
act is now. He is running out of excuses.
  The American people are clearly running out of patience. They expect 
us to do the right thing, and that means balancing the budget. We are 
absolutely committed to doing that. We say let us get the job done, no 
more excuses, no more Washington gimmicks. It is time to do the right 
thing for America's future and adopt a Federal budget that reflects 
America's values.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
[Mrs. Seastrand], my distinguished colleague.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs]. It is interesting when he says no more gimmicks, no more 
Washington excuses, let us just do it. I would note that his district 
is on the coast of California, way to the north. I am on the central 
coast of California. Many hundreds of miles divide our districts, but I 
know that when he goes home, as I do, and walk the parades and go to 
the town hall meetings, we hear our constituents, whether they be 
Democrat, Republican, independent or such, they give us that slogan, no 
more excuses, let us just do it.
  I would like to say that balancing the budget is really a nonpartisan 
issue.
  Mr. RIGGS. It should be.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. And, Mr. Speaker, we can do it in a bipartisan way. I 
would like to remind people that it has been over 25 years since we 
have balanced the Federal budget, and that goes back a long way.

  As I have said to people, my son is 25 years old, and being involved 
in politics for so long, grassroots politics, I remember writing 
letters to my Congressman. In fact, Congressman Leon Panetta was my 
Congressman in the late 1970's, and we heard a lot of talk about we are 
going to balance the budget. I know the distinguished gentleman is now 
in the White House, with a very important job to do, and we are talking 
about balancing the budget and here it is 1995.
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentlewoman should probably point out that he is at 
present the White House Chief of Staff, but as one of our former 
colleagues he was chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. He was 
chairman of the House Committee on the Budget when I served in the 
Congress 4 years ago, in the 102d Congress.
  And, in fact, my most bitter memory from that whole time period was 
losing the fight for the balanced budget amendment out on this House 
floor by six votes, and then Congressman Panetta helped lead the 
opposition to the balanced budget amendment and helped ensure that the 
balanced budget amendment was defeated back then, or else I think we 
probably would already have a balanced budget as the law of the land 
and be well on our way toward, obviously, reducing and eliminating the 
deficits and actually then beginning to pay down on the national debt.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I guess the point is we do a lot of 
talking. It has been 25 years. I remember 

[[Page H 12078]]
talking to my Congressman in the late 1970's and in the early 1980's, 
and there was a lot of talk when previous Congresses went home. I am 
sure Members of this House went home and said to their constituents 
that they were going to balance the budget, but we never saw it 
accomplished. Coming here into the House as one of those reform-minded 
freshmen, it is a joy to be surrounded by other Members that think the 
way I do.
  Mr. Speaker, being a mom and a wife, I had to realize that I had to 
have some kitchen table financial reality at least once a month, and so 
sat down with the checkbook and figured out what my priorities are with 
my husband for our family. And when we think about the families across 
America tonight that are probably going to be doing that very thing, 
the checkbook, the bank book, figuring out what are the priorities for 
the family, maybe they do want to take a trip or something but they 
just cannot afford it.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we all know what it is to be maxed out on 
our credit card. I think families across America might have been in 
that situation. I think when they get their monthly statement from 
their credit card and they see the amount of interest they are paying, 
and if they are sensible persons, taking care of their finances and 
sitting at that kitchen table, they have to come to the conclusion that 
they cannot continue maxing out on their credit card. One, there is a 
price to pay. They are not going to be allowed to charge on it anymore, 
but the fact is that that interest is eating their dollars up.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I like to use that comparison because I have a 
credit card here and it is one of 435. It is a very unusual credit 
card, and I would think that in previous Congresses it was one that was 
used and, well, they simply maxed out on their credit card. We have a 
new 104th Congress here, a Congress with a new attitude, realizing a 
simple fact of life; that we are maxed out and the interest is killing 
us. The experts tell me we are almost paying a billion dollars in 
interest alone on this credit card every day. We cannot continue along 
this line or we are facing really some terrible realities.

  So I am pleased to be one of those 73 reform-minded freshmen with the 
idea that we are going to balance the budget. We know it is not going 
to be easy, but this Congress needs to sit down at the table here and 
have some kitchen table financial reality just like all families do. We 
are maxed out.
  Each year American taxpayers pay almost $300 billion just to service 
that debt that we have accumulated. I do not know about my colleagues, 
but sometimes when I think about it, a billion dollars does not mean 
much to me. I do not deal in my checkbook with those kinds of dollars.
  Mr. RIGGS. Not that many zeros in anybody's checkbook.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. No. But I know we are in the red and I want to do 
something about it. What is so great is to know that we now have a 
plan, a 7-year plan. We have set priorities. Let me tell my colleagues 
that I have had to use this, if I can call this a credit card, now on 
many, many votes and made tough choices to pick out priorities of where 
we are going in this Nation as a family and how we are going to get out 
of the red. Very difficult choices and decisions that I have had to 
make; not pleasing to many people, pleasing to some.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, it comes to setting priorities. Just like in our 
own families we are not going to make everyone excited about the fact 
when we say we have to face reality, we have to pay the bills and set 
priorities, and we are not going to take that trip to the Caribbean. We 
might hear moans, but it is just a fact of life.
  I think we should realize that the debt, as of a couple of days ago, 
November 6, to be exact, was $4,984,737,460,958.92. A lot of dollars, a 
lot of commas, as it just is a fact that we have to have that kitchen 
table financial reality today.
  It is a pleasure and I am looking forward to the next several weeks. 
I hope we can get an agreement with the President and I hope in the end 
the President will see that he has a job to do. I think we are going 
to, hopefully, see decisions made for the best interests of all of our 
citizens across America, our families in America.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her observations 
and her comments because she is so right. Republicans in this Congress 
are different. We really are committed to doing business differently 
than the old way of doing things in Washington. We have proven that we 
are committed to keeping our promises, and that we are willing to meet 
the challenges of the Nation head on with no more excuses, no more 
Washington gimmicks, no more blame game, and that is a point I think 
the gentlewoman made particularly well.
  Again, I know from having served in this body before that it was easy 
for Members to go home and tell their constituents that they were all 
for the idea of a balanced budget, but then come back here and vote in 
a very different fashion, basically vote to continue to spend more than 
we take in, to continue our old deficit spending ways, literally 
imposing by future borrowings a tax, a hidden tax, a tax without any 
representation on future generations. By future generations I do not 
just mean our kids or grandkids. I am talking about those children not 
yet born who will inherit the national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, we have learned something in this Congress called 
generational accounting, and it really is stunning to realize that an 
American child born today can expect to pay, over the course of his or 
her lifetime as a wage earner and a taxpayer, $187,000 in taxes that go 
to pay interest on the national debt. Nothing else. Interest on the 
national debt. That is money that is not going for a college education, 
a home purchase, health insurance, or any other item. It is just money 
going to pay interest on the national debt.

  If we do not turn the situation around, if we were to adopt a budget 
like the President proposes, the percentage of taxes that an American 
child pays that goes to pay just interest on the national debt would 
continue to increase, to the point where the gentleman from Ohio, John 
Kasich, of the Committee on the Budget is fond of mentioning that at 
the current rates, or on this present path, if we do not reverse 
direction here, that soon an American child can expect to pay something 
like 80 percent of their taxes just in interest on the national debt. 
Obviously, it is a situation that we have to turn around and that we 
will turn around in the interest of our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I now want to recognize, if the gentlewoman from 
California will stay, because we were going to talk a little about the 
spending increases in our 7-year balanced budget plan and the benefits 
for our colleagues back in California, but I want to recognize our good 
friend, our classmate, the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Tiahrt]. I was 
just reading about him earlier today, because he participated, 
apparently, at a press conference held earlier today.
  I am actually looking now at the news release put out by the 
Republican National Committee headlined ``Congressional Republicans 
Celebrate Former Democrat Day,'' and it quotes our good friend, Mr. 
Tiahrt, who switched to the Republican Party in 1990 because he, ``Saw 
that there was a trend towards the loss of credibility in the 
Democratic Party by the way they fought for the status quo on social 
programs and spending, and I think that this loss of credibility is 
continuing.''
  Mr. Tiahrt goes on to day, ``I am proud to be part of a party that 
focuses on the positive, that focuses on hope for the future, a 
balanced budget, welfare reform and saving and preserving Medicare.'' 
And we are very proud that he is part of our party and that he is part 
of the new freshman class that has swept so much change into 
Washington, and I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs], and the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand], and I 
wanted to kind of carry on some of the discussion that my colleagues 
were having about the balanced budget.
  If I can be retrospective a little bit, if we go back to November 8, 
many of us new Members of Congress came in not because we were good 
looking or attractive or we spoke particularly well. We were elected to 
Congress because the United States was extremely frustrated at the way 
business was being 

[[Page H 12079]]
done here in Washington, DC, and there was that loss of credibility, as 
I referred to in the press conference today.
  I think that we are finding, after being here and seeing what the 
status quo was, we are starting to uncover more and more things that we 
are trying to bring forward in this 7-year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act that my friends have been talking about.
  Today, I want to spend just a little time developing an argument as 
to why we should pick out portions of the Federal Government that are 
extremely ineffective and inefficient and eliminate those portions or 
consolidate them, and also there is something that happened today that 
I want to talk about that kind of really brings this to the surface.

                              {time}  2000

  Let me go back to the review of the Department of Energy, which is 
one portion of the Federal Government that has approximately a $17.5 
billion budget per year.
  When we were looking at the overall Government, we found that this 
one agency was particularly a problem because of its ineffectiveness, 
because of its redundancy, because of poor contracting methods. It came 
out of the aerospace industry, out of contracting with about a dozen 
years of experience, and we could see that this was just one of the 
problems that they were facing. The GAO said that they had lack of 
focus, ``A vision a minute.''
  The Department of Energy was really a 1970's tax guzzler, and it 
really has outlived its purpose. It was formed out of the energy crisis 
and the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] will remember the gas lines that were part 
of the problems that we had in the 1970's, especially in California. 
But those were in part formed by price controls and allocation 
controls.
  When the 1980's came along, President Reagan eliminated those 
controls, and we found out that the crisis was gone. Even during Desert 
Storm when we had twice as large of a percentage interruption in the 
income of petroleum into the United States, we still had no gas lines. 
The crisis had been gone, but yet we were left with this bureaucracy.
  So in our further research, we found out that even Vice President 
Gore, through his National Performance Review, found out that the 
Department of Energy, particularly the environmental management, was 40 
percent inefficient. It missed 20 percent of its marks, that means that 
it was late on one out of every five projects, and that if we did not 
do something about it, that it would cost the taxpayers of this country 
$30 billion over the next 70 years.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is a legacy that we can leave behind it is that 
we remember that it is not the Government's money, it is the taxpayers 
money, it is the people's money, and we must be very cognitive of how 
we spend it.
  The GAO also finished a report in February 1995, and it fit in very 
nicely as far as timing with what we were trying to do in looking at 
the parts of the Government that were ineffective. I want to quote from 
one of their reports. It said, in effect, referring to the Department 
of Energy, ``They are unsuccessful as a cabinet agency.'' They are 
unsuccessful as a cabinet agency.

  Then it gave a couple of reasons. One is their inability to overcome 
management weaknesses. I think that is very important as we lay out 
this argument as to why we need to focus on this if we ever hope to 
balance the budget. Also, the second reason they cited is that they 
have the burden of mission overload, going back to that original quote 
where I said they have a vision a minute.
  So I think the original purpose of this agency, like other parts of 
the Government, has run its course, and in an effort to reinvent 
themselves to stay active, they are constantly reaching out into other 
areas.
  In 1977, the Department of Energy spent 80 percent of their budget 
dedicated to the energy function. Today, it is 20 percent, less than 20 
percent.
  So they have really reinvented themselves. We have a socialized 
oilfield now in the realms of the Government. It is called Elk Hills 
Naval Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, it is in southern California.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Yes, and even though we have this out there as part of 
this agency, and it is unnecessary, we should sell it off, we do not do 
a very good job of producing oil as a Federal Government.
  We have a charter to produce oil in Elk Hills Naval Petroleum 
Reserve, but we do not have a charter to produce natural gas. It is a 
byproduct of the whole operation there, and instead of selling it, it 
is pumped back into the ground to force more oil up to fulfill the 
charter. So we are again inefficient in the way we handle even the 
Naval Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve.
  We also have three-fourths of the effort within the Department of 
Energy that is defense-related functions and what that has caused is a 
redundant bureaucracy where we have entities inside the Department of 
Energy which are very similar, provide similar functions as entities in 
the Department of Defense. So what we have uncovered is a 1970's tax 
guzzler and we have decided it is really time to turn the lights out on 
the Department of Energy.
  Let me talk just a little bit about the budget, because it relates 
back to balancing the budget. As I said earlier, the Department of 
Energy's budget is about $17.5 billion a year. In the President's 
request for a budget back in January, Secretary O'Leary was requesting 
an increase in the budget of $337 million. Over the next 5 years, that 
type of increase would equate to a $1.5 billion increase.

  Well, as we are going through the legislative process of looking at 
the details inside the Department of Energy, developing legislation 
which would correct that and in effect eliminate the Department of 
Energy as a cabinet-level agency, the Secretary of Energy came out with 
an alternative plan last May or so, last spring, which said basically 
that if you allow me to play a little shell game, sell off a few 
things, I can save taxpayers about $14.1 billion over the next 5 years.
  So now we are seeing a shift from what was an increase of $1.5 
billion to a decrease of $14.1 billion, because people like us knew in 
Congress, or returning to Congress after a sabbatical, as is the 
gentleman from California, were putting pressure on the administration 
and on the system to change the way business is done, so that it is not 
done the same as it was prior tot he 104th Congress. I think that is a 
significant swing for the taxpayers, and again, it is their money.
  But this just kind of points out the fact that the Department of 
energy should be abolished. We have started even this year in the 
balanced budget amendment. We reduced their budget $500 million over 
what it was in fiscal 1995. Now, instead of increasing it $337 million, 
we are decreasing it about a half of a billion, which is a significant 
swing, almost a $1 billion swing, but we are headed in the right 
direction.
  We are going to privatize the Alaska Power Marketing Administration. 
This is something that is part of the legislation to eliminate the DOE, 
a very necessary action. Mr. Speaker, there are many power companies 
that do a good job of distribution power to the private sector, to our 
homes, to our companies, to where we work, where we go to school, where 
we shop, and for the Government to do this seems a little bit 
redundant. Often, it is done more efficiently by the private sector and 
we have started that process.
  We are going to sell the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve; I think 
is very important. We are going to sell the strategic petroleum reserve 
because of some infrastructure problems that we need to correct, 
and even the Secretary of Energy, Secretary O'Leary, as admitted that 
the lab structure is too big, too complex, and needs to be consolidated 
and downsized.

  So we see that the system with the new Congress is putting pressure 
on the administration to try to correct the problem. We have not gotten 
there all the way yet, but we have made a significant step.
  Then, next, we started seeing some evidence of the management problem 
and it came in the form of travel. There was an article that came out 
in the Washington Times from information that was received through the 
Freedom of Information Act that looked at cabinet-level travel, and it 

[[Page H 12080]]
was found that the Secretary of Energy, Secretary O'Leary, has the 
highest average trip expenses of anyone in the President's Cabinet, 
even higher than the Secretary of State, who is forced to travel 
overseas.
  Quite often her travel problems include upgrading herself to a resort 
or a four-star hotel, kind of living the life of luxury. She operates 
at first class, but more than that, she takes along a large contingency 
of staff, sometimes as many as 70 when going to foreign countries. We 
even found out that in the agency they made a T-shirt that had a globe 
on it, on the chest, and the different countries that Secretary O'Leary 
has visited this year, and it was titled, Secretary O'Leary's World 
Tour, kind of taking off from some of the concert tours that rock 
groups have gone on. But it is just a reflection of where there is an 
abuse here in the travel.
  The Committee on Science is currently looking at some of these 
problems, because what has happened is the travel budget has been 
diverted from some of the very important research programs to the 
Secretary's bureaucracy, central bureaucracy, so that she can fund 
these lavish travels.
  We also have a GAO audit going on requested by Congressman Hoke from 
Ohio and myself just to look at where this money is coming from, how it 
is being spent, is this the best use of taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, if I could just interject for a moment if I 
might. When we use the term GAO, we are talking about the General 
Accounting Office, really the accounting arm of the legislative branch 
of Government, the Congress.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. That brings us to today's 
story.
  In the Wall Street Journal today there was a story about how 
Secretary O'Leary has taken $43,500 from the taxpayers and hired a 
private investigative firm to go do research on reporters, on members 
of industry, and also on Members of Congress, and in this investigation 
there was some type of analysis as to who was giving the biggest 
negative impression of the Department of Energy and Secretary O'Leary 
down to the 25th, and through some of the inquiries, particularly in 
the Wall Street Journal story, it was found that Senate Majority Leader 
Dole was No. 1 on the list.
  I think this is a little peculiar since all they are trying to do is 
develop a good image for Secretary O'Leary by spending the taxpayers' 
dollars, but it just happens that it targets the No. 1 opponent to her 
boss, Secretary O'Leary's boss, President Clinton.
  Mr. RIGGS. The leading candidate for the Republican nomination and 
Senate majority leader.
  Mr. TIAHRT. That is right. It is very important that the President's 
image is up, so we are using taxpayer dollars to look at his 
administration trying to improve their image. But this is part of this 
enemy's list, so-called enemy's list as it was entitled in the article.
  We found out by contacting the Department of Energy themselves and 
talking to an assistant secretary that even I was named on the list, as 
were others, I believe; John Kasich, who is chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget, was also labeled. But I was No. 13 on the list, which I 
think is going to be particularly unlucky for the Department of Energy 
and also Secretary O'Leary.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I always regarded 13 as my lucky number, but 
in this case I will defer to the gentleman.
  Let me just for a moment hold up the Wall Street Journal article for 
our visitors in the gallery and for our colleagues and constituents who 
might be watching this special order, because it is a page 1 article, 
the Wall Street Journal today. The headline is, ``Turning the Tables, 
Energy Department Reports on Reporters'', and then there is a 
subheadline that goes on to say, just as the gentleman from Kansas 
mentioned, ``It paid $43,500 in tax dollars.''
  Mr. Speaker, these are American tax dollars to find, ``Unfavorables, 
a Little Bit of Nixon,'' the subheadline concludes, and the article is 
written by Michael Moss, a staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman from Kansas would yield, I think it 
is most interesting to know that we are talking about $43,000. Now, 
there is a number I can understand. You were talking previously about 
billions and millions, and yet it is interesting to note that while we 
are talking about billions and millions, $43,000 is a large amount of 
money for most people in America, and yet we are talking about other 
things that are costing millions and billions of dollars that we can 
save the taxpayer.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Well, if you think that the average income in the Fourth 
District of Kansas, which is the district that I represent, is $28,308, 
that is a significant amount of money. That is the average income; it 
means something, it is the average income for a family in the Fourth 
District of Kansas.
  Again, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. We have seen this 
mismanagement of taxpayer funds in travel, in the environmental 
management which has been 40 percent inefficient, and this goes way 
beyond just the gray areas. This is into the abuse of taxpayers' 
dollars. It is just another excess that we have.
  The reaction has been very interesting. The reaction in Congress has 
been widespread shock and amazement. I think this is really a 
significant step back to the way business was done as usual, the old 
business was done as usual. It is what we have been trying to get away 
from in this new Congress.
  I think this goes to show why I have joined with 69 others here in 
Congress, calling for the resignation of Secretary O'Leary. If the 
President does not push for her resignation, I think that he validates 
this effort, he validates the hiring of a private investigation firm to 
look into other Members of Congress, other members of industry, other 
members of the press, and he also validates the misuse of travel 
dollars and what has been going on inside the Department of Energy and 
the inefficiency efficiency that we have been talking about and that 
has been uncovered by the General Accounting Office.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just a reflection of the problems that we have 
and it is why the Department of Energy should be eliminated as a 
Cabinet level agency. It should go beyond. We should consolidate the 
redundant areas of Government. We should privatize like we are doing in 
the power marketing administrations; we should eliminate the waste and 
it should all start with Secretary O'Leary's resignation.
  I think that is why this logical process that I have just gone 
through calls for not only the resignation of Secretary O'Leary, but 
also the elimination of the Department of Energy as a Cabinet level 
agency.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Tiahrt] for his leadership and his initiative in this area. I know 
he has worked very, very hard on this issue and has been really one of 
the driving forces behind the call for dismantling the Department of 
Energy, which would follow on the heals of the plan that actually 
passed the House of Representatives today as part of the short-term 
debt limit bill, and that is our plan, really the New Federalists or 
House Republican freshman plan to dismantle the Department of Commerce.
  So I really commend the gentleman. It will be very interesting to see 
what comes of this investigation that he and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke] have called for by the General Accounting Office of these 
lavishly expensive travel habits of Secretary O'Leary.
  In just a moment I will yield to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Graham] who I know has some particular insights to share with us 
on this issue. But I just want to point out how extraordinary it is to 
get so many Members of Congress to sign a letter in such a short period 
of time.

                              {time}  2015

  The gentleman from Kansas mentioned the number again. I know I 
cosigned the letter today, but how many Members have signed this 
letter?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Sixty-nine as of this hour. When I left my office, we had 
another phone call that added the 69th name. As this information gets 
out, people are wanting to join in this effort because they see the 
abuse, that it is wrong and that it is time for a change.
  Mr. RIGGS. This letter has only been circulated really on this House 
floor over the last few hours.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Yes, because I also joined in signing the letter. I 

[[Page H 12081]]
  think as the article was distributed from information obtained about 
the Wall Street Journal article and such, I think people were outraged.
  Mr. RIGGS. Let me just read the conclusion of this letter that so 
many of us have signed today:
  Many serious questions have been raised about Secretary O'Leary's 
official travel. Now it has come to light that the Secretary has hired, 
and I will leave the name out right now, but apparently a private 
research or investigative firm to investigate reporters who cover the 
Department of Energy. The compilation of what is clearly an enemy's 
list is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent, one that we cannot 
countenance. Thus, we believe that Secretary O'Leary has forfeited her 
right to public office, and we urge you to ask for and accept her 
resignation immediately.
  Again, this is a letter that 69 Members of Congress, both Republicans 
and Democrats, have signed over the last few hours, late afternoon, 
early this evening today, and will, I am assuming, shortly be going to 
the President for his consideration. I thank the gentleman, and I hope 
he will stay for the remainder of the special order.
  I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
also like to congratulate the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] 
leading up the effort to abolish the Department of Energy.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what perspective I bring to this issue. 
I am from the Third District of South Carolina, and the Savannah River 
site is in my district. I have been told it is the largest DOE 
industrial facility in the chain.
  At one time, there were over 20,000 employees at the site. In the 
last 3 years we have had 8,900 people leave the site because we are 
trying to downsize the agency, trying to balance the budget. That means 
that every Congressperson up here will have some pain in their 
district, and that is what it is going to take to balance the budget, 
and we are trying to be fair about it. We are trying to shrink the 
Government, make it more efficient.
  Instead of spending millions and billions and getting nothing for it, 
we want to get some results. We want to change cost plus contracts to 
performance contracts, and I will have to give Ms. O'Leary some credit. 
She has brought about some of those changes.
  But in a time when people in my district are losing their jobs, when 
we are worried about the image of a Cabinet officer to the point that 
we are going to spend $43,500, I do not know about where you come from, 
but that is still a lot of money. That is somebody's salary, probably 
two people's salary for an entire year, money spent to go out and 
survey the media, rate reporters to improve her image at a time when 
people are having to lose their jobs, having to seek another way of 
making a living, having to retire early, to me that is very offensive. 
It is poor leadership.
  The reason the articles have been bad concerning the Department of 
Energy, one, it is a Department that should not exist. It cannot find 
its niche. There is no justification for a huge Federal bureaucracy to 
manage these issues, and we have spent millions and billions over the 
years to remediate the environment, and we are no closer than we were 5 
or 10 years ago.
  The national defense needs are suffering. One issue that is very 
important to me is the production of tritium. Tritium is a gas that is 
essential to develop a thermonuclear weapon. We are quickly running out 
of our supply of tritium.
  This Department of Energy does not have a plan to develop a tritium 
source. We have made tritium at South Carolina at the Savannah River 
site for the last 40 years. We now need to get back in the business, 
and I cannot get Hazel O'Leary or anybody at DOE to get serious about 
weapons production to maintain a nuclear deterrent force.
  The commercial spent fuel is overflowing in this country. Go to any 
powerplant in this country. They are having a huge problem with 
commercial spent fuel, because we will not live up to our end of the 
bargain to open Yucca Mountain up, and the DOE is dragging their feet.
  I am tired of it, and I want new leadership, want leadership that is 
not worried about their image but is worried about the country's 
problems, not worried about how they fly an airplane but worried about 
people, to deliver a quality product to the American people. I think 
any Member of Congress that took $10 out of their account at taxpayers' 
expense to try to improve their image should lose their job, and she 
should lose her job.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want to point 
out, we are joined now by the gentleman from Ohio, our theme team 
leader who has done a tremendous job on the House floor and certainly 
has spearheaded along with the gentleman from Kansas and the gentleman 
from South Carolina this investigation into Secretary O'Leary's travel 
practices.
  I want to point out that this is just the latest in a series of 
scandals that have rocked the Clinton administration. I can recall then 
candidate Clinton promising the American people the most ethical 
administration in history. Remember that? The most ethical 
administration in history. Or as the kids would say, ``The most ethical 
administration in history, not.''
  This follows on the heels of so many other broken promises from this 
particular President. We all recall candidate Clinton promising to end 
welfare as we know it, we all recall him promising to cut taxes for 
middle-class families. As I mentioned earlier, we all recall him saying 
that he will balance the Federal budget in 5 years.
  This is just the latest in a series of reversals by this particular 
President and this particular administration going back really on his 
fundamental promises to the American people. I yield to the gentleman 
from Ohio.
  Mr. HOKE. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I just got in and I do not know, have we heard, has the 
Secretary resigned yet? Has that occurred? Because I do not want to go 
over things that are really irrelevant at this point.
  Apparently not. In any event, this is the report. This is it right 
here. This is the Carma report. It is a wonderful name, the Carma 
report. $43,500 happens to be about $13,000 more than the average 
family household in my district earns. That is how much was spent on 
this report.

  I happened to look through some of it. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Tiahrt] will be pleased to know he is cited in this a number of times, 
apparently because of his interest in the Department of Energy. I have 
a couple of notices. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is in here. 
The Speaker is in here. Mastercard is listed. Senator Domenici, the 
Galvin Report, Yucca Mountain, Senator Johnston, USDC J. Edward Lodge, 
Senator Thurmond, Snake River Alliance, Representative Hunter, 
Representative Walker, House Appropriations Committee, Los Angeles 
Times, Representative Ensign, Phil Batt, President Clinton, Yucca 
Mountain. It is just stunning. I was thinking about this whole 
situation. I know we are pounding on the Department of Energy and 
particularly the Secretary, and I was reminded frankly of another thing 
that I had not thought of in some time and had not seen. But do you 
remember when the Secretary took a mission to India, it was supposed to 
be a trade mission? Well, one of the members of that mission was Carl 
Stoiber. He put together a little remembrance for everybody that 
included these cartoons, and he is a pretty good cartoonist. I believe 
he works for the Department of Energy. If not he was with one of the 
contractors that works for the Department. This is what he calls an 
alternative view. This was delivered or disseminated to all of the 
people that were on the trip.
  This says ``Prisoners of the Secretary of Energy.'' You can see they 
are taking off on their Air Force jet.
  Here we have got one that says, ``Yeah, the Air Force runs a really 
great flying cocktail lounge.''
  Mr. RIGGS. Does the gentleman know how many DOE employees went on 
that particular trip?
  Mr. HOKE. I think it was in the neighborhood of 70. I think it was 
about 70. I am not absolutely certain.
  Here is one, we see a fellow with a big red nose, apparently in a 
glass of suds, of beer, it says, ``Let's Make Sure We Stop in Shannon 
on the Return Flight.''
  Here is the Secretary, thinking to herself, ``Gee, maybe I should 
wear rose petals all the time.''

[[Page H 12082]]

  This is Secretary O'Leary's visit to Donnewas Village, in a kind of a 
caricature. Apparently they stopped off in Egypt, in Cairo so that they 
could see the pyramids and ride on camels. ``Whoa, Just Call Me Hazel 
of Forrestal,'' it says here, Forrestal being the name of the building 
that the Department of Energy is located in.
  And finally something that is probably not so funny. I do not think 
if I were an Indian national I would think this is very funny. I think 
it is frankly in extremely poor taste. I know that there are a lot of 
people that would feel very sensitive about it. It is a can that says 
``Simmered Milk with Cow Dung Patties.''
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the gentleman would yield for a second, to put this in 
context, a Department of Energy spokesperson when asked about the 
$43,500 expenditure and the investigation said, according to the news 
article, a reporter's unfavorable rating meant we were not getting our 
message across, that we needed to work on this person a little.
  What is the message?
  Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman would yield, I want to point out that 
part of this message they were developing, I think, was to put them in 
a good light, so that when we looked in the details of the Department 
of Energy, that we would no longer uncover some of these 
inefficiencies, some of the ineffectiveness, some of the problems that 
they are having which add to the argument and make the case for 
Congress that we should eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet 
level agency. I think they were trying to overcome this.

  Mr. HOKE. When you are doing things like this and you are putting a 
lot of energy from the Department of Energy into traveling all over the 
world, here is a mockup that was done on a Department of Energy 
computer, a color printer and computer, this was going to be on the 
back of a T-shirt until we exposed it in a special order one night. It 
says O'Leary's World Tour, 1993-94, Brussels, Islamabad, Lahore, St. 
Petersburg, et cetera, et cetera.
  The fact is that sure you have got an image problem, you can be 
absolutely certain you have got an image problem when you are spending 
the taxpayers' money in these things. I said this earlier when we were 
talking. But the problem, this idea of muckraking about travel and 
getting into the details even of this $43,000 that was spent, how 
anybody could have not realized that this is an inappropriate and 
utterly offensive use of taxpayer dollars to be hiring private eyes, 
private investigators to rate and investigate reporters. The fact is 
that is the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is the safeguarding of 
nuclear weapons, which is the No. 1 responsibility of the Department of 
Energy, and second of all, the safeguarding of the disposal of nuclear 
waste.
  Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman would yield, in the Wall Street Journal 
article, it talked about they thought about gathering this information 
inside the Department of Energy; however, that would have cost over 
$80,000. So instead, they hired a private sector, private investigation 
agency to do the job for $43,500, which is approximately one-half the 
amount of money that it would have cost to have done the job inside the 
Department of Energy. Once again this reconfirms that we have large 
inefficiencies inside the Department of Energy and that we do need to 
consolidate, get rid of the redundancy and eliminate the Department of 
Energy as a Cabinet level agency.
  Mr. HOKE. So that even when it comes to dirty tricks, you could hire 
private eyes to do dirty tricks at half the price that the Department 
could do them themselves?
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the gentleman would yield, the $43,500, to put it into 
perspective, the average income in my district is $13,000 per capita. A 
family is about $25,000, $26,000. Like I said, that is a lot of money 
and you should treat that money seriously.
  The bottom line of the story is when she was presented with the data, 
she said, ``Well, that's a little too confusing. I don't think that's 
going to help us.''
  What will help the DOE is to come up with a rational energy policy, 
to deregulate the cumbersome process of cleaning these sites up and 
getting on with the job. The message that she is not getting is that 
there is a limited pot of money to do the Nation's business with. You 
cannot always fly first class, you cannot always make the papers say 
what you want them to say. Part of a democracy is that when you engage 
in the public sector, in the public debate, you are going to be called 
on the carpet at times. She has been called on the carpet because she 
has no vision, she has no message. The administration has no vision or 
message. They assume that we can make enough money to make every 
problem go away.
  Two papers that were rated in this survey and investigation are in my 
district, the Augusta Chronicle and Aiken Standard. Like I say, the 
largest employer in South Carolina is the Savannah River site 
Department of Energy facility. I admire those two papers for taking the 
Secretary to task. Sometimes that is risky because they do control our 
future to a great extent. They are asking to build a technology in our 
district that is experimental in nature, that is twice as expensive of 
known technology to make tritium, and I along with other Congressmen 
and Senators in South Carolina and Georgia are saying, ``Don't buy us 
off. You're not going to build something in our district that's 
wasteful just because it is coming into our district.'' That is the 
message that needs to be said in the country.

                              {time}  2030

  Quite frankly, she just does not get it. The President does not get 
it. She needs to lose her job.
  Mr. HOKE. Now, when you said the Secretary indicated that it was too 
confusing, the report, and that she really did not get anything out of 
it anyway, it really was not something helpful to her, I have to tell 
you I think she was saying exactly the truth. I spent 20-30 minutes 
this evening looking through it. Honest to goodness, I cannot 
understand it either. I can understand one thing that is very clear, 
this is U.S. media announcements, December, 1994, overview. This report 
prepared on behalf of the Department of Energy, coverage received by 
DOE from the national media for the month of December; ratings in the 
report relate to the rating system, blah, blah, blah. Here is the 
graph. Overall favorability was 49 percent favorable, 25 percent 
unfavorable, 26 percent neutral.
  Where else have you ever heard of favorable and unfavorable ratings 
being done? Who does that? Do pollsters not do that? I think we are all 
familiar with favorable and unfavorable. The President gets one and all 
that. Who pays for that? Is that paid for by campaign moneys or by 
official moneys?
  It is always paid for by campaign money, because it is clearly a 
campaign expense. You never may use official moneys for this sort of 
thing, and it is obviously, brilliantly an ethics violation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the gentleman will yield, would you agree with me that 
it is part of an overall trend in this administration that we are going 
to make every hard decision by polls?
  Mr. HOKE. It is; it is. I think that Mr. Clinton had hired Mr. 
Greenspan, Mr. Greenberg, in 1994 to do most of his polling to the tune 
of millions and millions of dollars, not a very good job apparently, 
according to the 1994 election. But in any event, to Mr. Clinton's 
credit, he did not pay for those polls from official funds of the White 
House. He paid for those polls from the Democratic National Committee, 
which is what should be done.
  Well, that is not what has been done by the Department of Energy 
Secretary. This is wrong. This is an obvious and clear violation. It is 
the reason that now upwards of 70 Members of Congress have called for 
the resignation of the Secretary.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's contributions. Again, I want 
to point out this comes from the administration, from the President who 
promised us the most ethical administration ever and, of course, it was 
kind of a running joke back in Washington, the only way the Clinton 
administration can have a Cabinet meeting is if there is room for all 
the attorneys and independent counsels.

[[Page H 12083]]


  We know, of course, of the ongoing investigation, the Secretary of 
Commerce. We know about the investigation of the former Secretary of 
Agriculture. We know about the travelgate controversy or scandal, 
depending on your point of view, within the White House. We know that 
the Whitewater problem has implicated high level officials within the 
administration.
  So it is very clear again that this is one promise where the 
President has defaulted. It is another failure on his part to follow 
through on his commitments to the American people, following on the 
heels of his promise to end welfare as we know it, to cut taxes for the 
middle class and to balance the Federal budget.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], my fellow 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I believe, getting 
back to the focus of balancing the budget, one of the things we hear 
over and over again is the Republicans are balancing the budget on the 
backs of, fill in the blank, frankly, children, elderly, national 
parks, the Democrat Party, any victim of the day that the Democrats can 
conjure up.
  But I had an interesting conversation. I called home and had an 
interesting conversation with my 7-year-old daughter, and I try to keep 
my children interested in the legislation process. I always heard 
people say stories like this. I say I am about to throw up. I find 
myself telling the story and feeling this.
  She said, ``Daddy, What were you voting on?'' I said, ``Raising the 
debt ceiling.'' I try to give an accurate answer. She said, ``What does 
that mean?'' She is 7 years old.
  I was thinking to myself, how do I phrase it, how do I phrase my 
generation is going to stick it to your generation? That is what it 
means. It means we cannot control ourselves so my little 7-year-old 
Anne and all her little schoolmates and all the schoolmates that come 
after her are going to pay for it, because we as a Congress have found 
it is more important to stay elected than it is to say no.
  I do not like telling these sappy, syrupy stories, but to talk to her 
immediately after the vote, knowing who is going to be saddled with 
that debt, and yet as I tried to explain to here what debt was, I also 
found a lot of, I guess, you know, felt better about it when I said. 
``However, we are stopping this deficit spending more money than we 
bring in.''
  I tried to explain to her, ``It is like you have an allowance and 
spending more than you are getting.'' She could not believe that. I 
lost her on that one. How could I spend more than 25 cents if you only 
give me 25 cents?
  But, you know, the fact is that I could end the conversation with my 
7-year-old optimistic about the future rather than pessimistic, that if 
we can balance this budget and the interest rates come down, as 
Greenspan had indicated they would, and the American family can look 
for lower interest rates on home mortgages, on car loans, on credit 
cards, if we do not spend $200 billion each year on interest.
  Of course, we are going to continue to do that for a long, long time, 
but if we can at the end of 7 years see the light at the end of the 
tunnel, then it is worth working through this weekend, it is worth 
working through Saturday, Sunday, Monday night, and even worth working 
through Thanksgiving and Christmas as well, if that is what we need to 
do so that little boys and girls like my 7-year-old and your children 
can look forward to having a balanced budget one day, and that is not 
how they are going to look at it. But they should not be saddled with 
our debt.
  Mr. RIGGS. Those are inspiring words. I thank the gentleman very 
much. That really is what motivates us on.
  I know we are about to conclude. Our 1 hour has gone by very quickly.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California so she can make some 
concluding remarks.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I also understand what it is about little children. 
Sometimes they are very honest with us, and they have an understanding 
in very simple terms.
  Earlier we talked about dealing with billions and millions and 
trillions of dollars. What does that mean to you, not your 7-year-old? 
What does it mean to me and the average American out there?
  Well, we are talking about $43,000. This is a number that means 
something to people. You talked about in some instances, I think it was 
the gentleman from South Carolina that mentioned some of his people are 
making $13,000 a year. I know $43,000 is a lot of money.
  Yet tomorrow people will be reading additional stories about the 
situation with the Department of Energy, and they are going to look and 
say, ``Why aren't we balancing the budget? Why don't they just do it, 
get rid of those, forget about the gimmicks, do it,'' and I am going to 
look forward to the next several days and weeks, and I will be very 
glad to put my vote up to balance the budget for all of our children, 
whether they be 7 years old or 25 years old.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentlewoman. We are going to balance the 
budget with or without the help and cooperation of the President, for 
that matter, our Democratic colleagues in the House, because it is the 
right thing to do. We have to save the American dream for our children. 
We have to make America great again.

                          ____________________