[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H868-H873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      TRAVEL HABITS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] is recognized for 
40 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Commerce Department has 
made news. But it's not news about any new trade deals it won for 
American business. It's for the travel habits of the Secretary of 
Commerce. It seems that the Secretary has a penchant for travel, one 
that has cost the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars.
  In fact, the current Secretary's travel costs have increased by over 
145 percent from that of his predecessor. One can only assume he is 
using the same travel agency as the Secretary of Energy.
  This weekend, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Department of 
Commerce's own inspector general was sharply critical of Secretary Ron 
Brown's travel expenses, noting that ``His spending levels are 
particularly striking since he took over the job from a Republican 
administration that was often under fire for incurring excessive travel 
costs.''
  The Los Angeles Times goes on to add, ``Brown, a former chairman of 
the Democratic Party, was accused by his critics of using his travel 
budget to gain favor with political allies and party contributors, many 
of whom have been invited to accompany the secretary on his extensive 
foreign trips.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Los Angeles Times article.
  
[[Page H869]]

  The article referred to is as follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 22, 1996]

             Audit Cites Travel Costs of Commerce Secretary

                            (By Sara Fritz)

       Washington.--Under Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown, 
     travel expenses for the secretary's office have risen at 
     least 145% over those of a well-traveled GOP predecessor, 
     while many of Brown's aides are improperly using government 
     credit cards for personal purchases, according to a 
     confidential audit report obtained by The Times.
       The report by the Commerce Department's inspector general 
     also sharply criticizes Brown for supplementing his 
     escalating travel budget with millions of dollars that 
     Congress intended for other purposes.
       In addition, it questions the Commerce Department's 
     practice of paying in advance the expenses of nongovernment 
     workers who travel as ``consultants'' for the administration. 
     It notes that more than $360,000 in travel advances to these 
     private citizens have never been repaid.
       The report, which generally calls into question Brown's 
     financial management of the Commerce Department, comes to 
     light in the wake of the controversy over excessive travel 
     spending by Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, whose penchant 
     for numerous and expensive foreign trips was detailed by The 
     Times.
       Brown is already under investigation by a court-appointed 
     independent counsel on a variety of charges unrelated to his 
     travel expenditures--most of them involving his personal 
     finances.
       His spending levels are particularly striking since he took 
     over the job from a Republican administration that was often 
     under fire for incurring excessive travel costs. In 
     particular, the extensive travels of former Commerce 
     Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher, who served in the Bush 
     administration, were often questioned by Democrats in 
     Congress.
       Like Mosbacher, Brown, a former chairman of the Democratic 
     Party, was accused by this critics of using his travel budget 
     to gain favor with political allies and party contributors, 
     many of whom have been invited to accompany the secretary on 
     his extensive foreign trips.
       Carol Hamilton, Brown's press secretary, said the increased 
     spending reflects the secretary's determination to be more of 
     an activist than his predecessors in promoting the interests 
     of American business.
       ``The Brown Department of Commerce is a far more activist 
     Commerce Department, particularly in terms of export 
     promotion,'' she said.
       At the same time, she said, the department has taken steps 
     to clamp down on the misuse of credit cards and to eliminate 
     other problems cited by the auditors.
       Judging from individual expense reports filed by Brown and 
     his traveling companions, which also were obtained by The 
     Times, the Commerce secretary's costs have risen in part 
     because he makes numerous domestic and foreign trips. But 
     records also show that he adds to the cost by taking along a 
     sizable entourage of advisors and security personnel, along 
     with an advance team whose tasks include arranging for hotel 
     accommodations and ground transportation.
       Overall, according to the audit, travels by Commerce 
     Department employees cost the taxpayers nearly $68 million in 
     1994, exceeding the budget set by Congress by about 55%. One 
     Commerce Department agency alone, the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration--which helps pay for Brown's 
     trips--exceeded its travel budget by $22 million in 1994.
       Auditors found that the secretary and his office staff 
     spent nearly $1.4 million from their own budget on travel 
     during 1994, nearly 1\1/2\ times more than the $552,389 spent 
     in 1991 by Mosbacher and his aides.
       In addition, auditors found, the secretary has supplemented 
     his travel budget with hundreds of thousands of dollars drawn 
     from other agencies within his department, including NOAA, 
     the International Trade Administration and the Economic 
     Development Administration.
       For example, the report says the ITA and the EDA 
     transferred funds from their budgets to pay for Brown's trips 
     to Russia in March 1994 and to India in January 1995. Records 
     indicate that NOAA routinely pays for Brown's bodyguards, 
     both on foreign and domestic trips.
       As a result of Brown's decision to use other agencies' 
     funds for his trips, auditors were unable to determine 
     precisely how much money the secretary has spent on travel. 
     But the report quotes ITA officials as saying his travel 
     expenditures from their budget reached $2 million in 1994 
     alone.
       The inspector general's office says the practice of 
     transferring funds between agencies was troublesome, but not 
     illegal. ``We found no violation of the letter of the 
     appropriations law,'' the report says. ``But we are concerned 
     that the transfers weaken the integrity of the budgeting and 
     appropriation process and expend funds in ways not 
     anticipated by Congress.''
       Hamilton said Brown disagrees with the inspector general's 
     criticism.
       The report was first obtained from the Commerce Department 
     by Citizens Against Government Waste, a conservative, 
     Washington-based watchdog group, and the inspector general's 
     office has declined further comment on it.
       But on Capitol Hill, where decisions about Brown's travel 
     budget are made, a spokesman for Rep. William F. Clinger Jr. 
     (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Government Reform and 
     Oversight Committee, expressed strong dissatisfaction with 
     Commerce Department spending practices.
       Brown's travel spending, he said, appears to be ``in 
     violation of Congress' power of the purse.'' Clinger, who 
     also has a copy of the audit report, added that Americans 
     would prefer to have their economic development funds spent 
     on local community projects, not on foreign trips for Brown.
       The auditors found widespread abuse of government credit 
     cards within the Commerce Department, including ``unpaid 
     charges, use of charge card for personal purchases and 
     automated teller machine advances not related to official 
     travel.'' Among those issued these credit cards, according to 
     Hamilton, are some nongovernment workers--some of them 
     political associates of Brown--who are hired as consultants 
     to accompany the secretary on his trips, often to make 
     advance arrangements.
       Specifically, they identified 293 employees with delinquent 
     accounts and 567 who had used the card for ATM advances or 
     personal charges, such as meals at fancy Washington 
     restaurants, liquor, jewelry, flowers, books and music, 
     online service fees and automobile insurance.
       Hamilton described the problem as simply a ``bookkeeping 
     issue'' and said department administrators have assured Brown 
     that the money was not ``inappropriately spent.''
       When confronted by the inspector general with these 
     apparent abuses of government credit cards, according to the 
     audit report, most agencies within the Commerce Department 
     appear to have made a good-faith effort to ferret out the 
     problem and respond in writing.
       But Brown's own office appears to have been less 
     cooperative. The report notes: ``The coordinator in the 
     office of the secretary gave us oral explanations for some of 
     the questionable accounts, but told us that because of other 
     pressing duties, she did not have sufficient time to provide 
     written explanations.''
       At NOAA, the expense account coordinator complained that 
     she could not possibly do a thorough job of monitoring credit 
     card expenditures because she was the only person responsible 
     for 5,000 to 6,000 cardholders.
       Although the department subsequently made arrangements with 
     American Express Co. to automatically block retail 
     expenditures made with a government credit care, the 
     inspector general noted that the system was far from 
     foolproof.
       The Commerce Department's efforts to collect repayments of 
     travel advances from consultants also have been inadequate, 
     according to the report. As of March 31, 1995, these 
     nongovernment personnel had received 525 advance payments 
     totaling $360,110 that had never been repaid.
       Of the 83 nongovernment workers who traveled with the 
     Commerce Department between 1992 and 1994, the report says, 
     only two of them repaid their travel advances in full. While 
     most of them made some accounting of their expenditures, 
     however inadequate, nine of them filed no vouchers.
       The report says 260 of the advances, totaling $119,552, 
     were more than a year old and probably uncollectable. 
     Recipients of 367 advances, totaling $195,861, had ignored 
     four government notices seeking repayment.
       Perhaps the hardest criticism leveled in the inspector 
     general's report points to a lack of concern within the 
     Commerce Department about these matters of financial 
     management. ``Oversight of travel spending by agencies 
     appears virtually nonexistent beyond the commitment of 
     funds,'' it concludes.

  Earlier this year, 60 of my colleagues and I introduced legislation 
that would have dismantled the outdated and unnecessary bureaucracy at 
the Department of Commerce.
  The Commerce Department is typical of the old way of Washington 
thinking that I was sent to challenge. While the Department is supposed 
to be helping the Nation's businesses, the truth is that business 
leaders from across the country have indicated their overwhelming 
support for eliminating the Department.
  A Business Week poll of senior business executives taken last year 
indicated that those business leaders favor eliminating the Commerce 
Department by a two to one margin. A survey of business executives in 
my home State taken by the Detroit Chamber of Commerce found only 6 
percent of executives and business owners in favor of keeping the 
Department as it is.
  Yet despite this resounding vote of no confidence from the very 
people the Department is supposed to be serving, Secretary Brown and 
his liberal allies continue to defend the Department and justify ever 
bigger budgets.
  If the Department of Commerce were truly the voice for business it 
claims to be, it would be supporting the things that business wants: a 
balanced budget and the lower interest rates and stronger economy it 
will bring; legal reform; and regulatory reform.
  Instead, the Department has advocated against all these things, in 
the mistaken belief that American businesses are looking for a 
Secretary of 

[[Page H870]]
Commerce with a lot of frequent flyer miles.
  Is it any wonder that the majority of business leaders in this 
country say get rid of Commerce?
  I think I speak from some experience when I talk about dismantling 
the Commerce Department because I came to Congress from the business 
world. I started a company from the corner of my living room that went 
on to provide jobs to over 1,200 families and did business in 52 
countries.
  During the whole time I ran my company, I never once called on the 
Department of Commerce for their help, and they never called me to 
offer any.
  And as a businessman, if the vast majority of my customers said they 
thought my company was no longer needed, I would think it was time for 
some major reengineering.
  That is precisely what the Department of Commerce faces today. When 
over two-thirds of the Nation's businesses--the Department of 
Commerce's customers--say it should be dismantled, it is time for some 
serious reengineering.
  Our Department of Commerce Dismantling Act provides a serious and 
responsible blueprint for the reengineering of the Department.
  It streamlines the beneficial programs of the Department, 
consolidates the duplicative programs, privatizes the programs better 
performed by the private sector, and eliminates the unnecessary 
programs.

                              {time}  1415

  One of the other key features to this dismantling act is that we have 
found a way to consolidate many of the programs. We have 115 different 
trade programs that my good friend from Florida, Mr. Mica, will talk to 
us about, that we have consolidated into one office of trade.
  If I could yield to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Mica, maybe he 
could embellish on that, because it was his amendment to this bill that 
gave us a concept for trading that puts us on a level playing field 
with all of our major trading partners in this country.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do want to say what a pleasure it has been to work with the 
gentleman from Michigan and the refreshing viewpoint that he brings to 
the Congress, and also the background and knowledge. He is not an 
attorney, I am not an attorney. We both come from a background of 
business. He has dealt in international trade, knows what he is talking 
about. I ran a small consulting business that represented big and small 
firms around the world that was involved in international trade, and we 
think we have some idea of what is going on out there and what we need 
to do.
  I spoke earlier on the floor to my colleagues about what the 
President said and what he did not say. One of the things that people 
were concerned about that I talked to and that I am concerned about is 
our opportunities for trade. The President talked about global 
competition. I cannot think of any country, major industrialized 
country that is more ill-prepared than the United States to deal from a 
government standpoint in international trade. The gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] has seen it, I have seen it, and others who 
have been involved in international trade.
  The President did not tell you that the trade deficit that we are 
facing, that this Nation is facing, is the most staggering from last 
year in probably the history of the recorded statistics, that we are 
going down the tubes, that we are losing jobs, we are losing 
opportunities for the future. We are losing good-paying jobs because we 
do not have our act together.
  It is easy to stand here and criticize, but in fact, the President 
and this administration are blocking the proposal that Mr. Chrysler and 
I and others have worked on. It was not an easy task to come up with a 
reorganization of this Department of Commerce.
  Let me tell you how disorganized our trade effort is. There are 11 
committees of jurisdiction; Mr. Chrysler and I went to at least 5 or 6 
of these committees with our dog and pony show to explain what was 
going on, to say we needed to make a change, we needed to reorganize 
the Department of Commerce, not just to spend money wildly or in 
excess, like you have seen the abuses outlined by Mr. Chrysler, but in 
some organized, cohesive fashion.
  That is what we propose. That is what is in this budget that we have 
proposed, and that is what has been sitting on the President's desk and 
has been sitting for consideration and ignored. Unless these kinds of 
program changes are made, we will continue to lose our shirts and our 
pants and our wallets and our opportunity for the future, because we do 
not have our act together.

  Now, that is some of the bad news. Let me tell you, it gets worse. 
You think about the Department of Commerce. Now, what does the 
Department of Commerce do? Do they help commerce? Are there a few folks 
involved?
  Let me give you the exact statistics. There are 37,009 employees in 
the Department of Commerce. Do you know how many are in Washington, 
DC?; 20,199 as of last January, 20,199. Now you think they would all be 
involved in helping promote commerce. Wrong, wrong again. What they are 
involved in, 16,000 of them are involved in the Weather Service; 16,000 
in the Weather Service. Less than 3,300 are involved actually in trade 
and commerce and international export promotion. But we have scattered 
throughout 17, 18 other Federal agencies this responsibility for export 
promotion, for assistance for finance and for the other things that 
will help our medium and small businesses compete.
  In fact, we propose to bring together trade assistance, trade 
negotiation, trade promotion, and trade finance. You cannot cut a deal 
in business unless you have the ability to finance. Our medium and 
small businesses cannot compete. When you have the right hand not 
knowing what the left hand is doing and 18 agencies involved in this 
spending of over $3 billion in a disorganized fashion, this is what you 
get, the biggest trade deficit in history.
  The White House continues to ignore this, and most of the people here 
know nothing about it. They have never been in business. Most of them 
are attorneys and most of them have been running for office most of 
their life. This new group has come in and said: We do not want 
business as usual, we want to conduct international business. We want 
our people to have good-paying jobs, and we need to get our act 
together.
  But let me tell you. It does not matter if it does not work; they 
want to continue doing it that way. It does not matter if it is 
ineffective. They want to continue doing it that way. It does not 
matter if it is costly, we will spend more money on it. And you see the 
results of what you get with someone like Mr. Brown running the Agency.
  So we have to make some changes. Even in the Weather Bureau, with 
16,000 people, you know, they are still there. Let us put our thumb out 
and see what the weather is, our finger. That is how they did it 10 
years ago, not recognizing that there are technology changes, not 
recognizing that we also have a Weather Service with the Department of 
Defense and FAA. How about some consolidation? How about some 
elimination of positions of duplication?
  So we propose an organized attempt for this country to get together. 
The freshmen are called extremists. Well, yes, they are extremists if 
they want to see your dollars spent properly. Yes, they are extremists 
if they want to see 2 or 3 people doing the same job that used to take 
10. Yes, they are extremists if they see us losing our pants in 
competition. Yes, they are extremists if they see 30,000 people in the 
Department of Commerce and 20,000 of them in Washington, DC, right 
here.
  Now, folks, we have to get a grip. This Congress has to get a grip. 
The American people have to grip and look at what is happening with 
their money and look at what is happening in the area in which we have 
the most opportunity for the future.

  This country always depended on domestic trade. Now we have to 
compete in an international arena the President said, and yet they do 
not have one idea. They will not come forward and accept this well-
thought-out, well-negotiated proposal to allow us to compete, to allow 
us to get our act together, to allow us to give some opportunities for 
the future.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the first things I did as a Member of Congress as 
a member of the Aviation Committee, I flew out to Washington. I was 
there because they were laying off over 10,000 employees at Boeing. We 
cannot allow this to 

[[Page H871]]
happen. That was one of the few areas where we excel and exceed in 
exports. Now they are beating our pants off with Airbus and other 
activities. We are not able to compete.
  We have to have a new relationship between business and Government 
working together to create jobs, to create opportunities, and to 
compete with the other guys who are beating our pants off. The Germans, 
the Japanese, the English, they have been trading with the Europeans 
for centuries with international markets as part of the nature of 
things. We have relied on domestic markets. Now we have to change.
  Now, this class of freshmen who are not all attorneys, who are 
business people like Mr. Chrysler, have come here. They are bringing 
their knowledge, their experience, and applying it to an agency like 
the Department of Commerce. They wanted to do away with four or five 
agencies. Did you see the parade the other day when they started coming 
in, the Cabinet members? My goodness, they took up a whole row of the 
House of Representatives. There is not enough room for the Cabinet to 
sit at the table anymore.
  Even Mr. Panetta, when he was on this floor and a Member of this 
House, had recommended that we downsize to seven Cabinet members. We 
are talking about consolidation of one activity, the most important, 
commerce, commerce and business that pays the bills for all of the rest 
of it. It pays for welfare, it pays for Medicare. None of this is 
provided by the tooth fairy; it is provided by the taxpayers, and then 
we get the funds and we spend them. But we have to have some basis for 
that, and that basis is business. Our best opportunity for business is 
export and getting the Department of Commerce together.
  I yield back to the gentleman, and I thank him so much for the 
leadership he and his class has provided, for the abuse you have taken 
in trying to bring this country into the 21st century as far as 
business, economic opportunity, and I salute you.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. I 
appreciate the help of the gentleman and his expertise in the area of 
trade.
  Trade is a very important issue to this country, but we need to do it 
so we can compete on a level playing field with all of our trading 
partners.
  In this Commerce dismantling act that we have passed here in the 
House, over 7 years the plan will save taxpayers $7 billion of their 
hard-earned money, money that will not be going to fund Secretary 
Brown's worldwide junkets any longer. And just getting rid of the 
Department of Commerce, which is the mother of all corporate welfare, 
giving away over $1 billion a year in the Department of Commerce, if 
you do not have a Department of Commerce for 25 years, you do not give 
away $25 billion of taxpayers' money.

                              {time}  1430

  Dismantling the unnecessary and duplicative bureaucracy at the 
Department of Commerce is a hefty down payment that we can make today 
on our efforts to balance the budget. If the President is serious about 
getting rid of wasteful Government spending, as he indicated the other 
night in his State of the Union Address, he should join us in this 
effort to make Government more effective and more efficient.
  Certainly, one of my colleagues that has worked extremely hard at 
that in this 104th Congress is the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback]. He has worked to try to right-size this Government. He has 
worked to dismantle not only the Department of Commerce but the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and HUD. I am proud 
to say that three of those four departments were included in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 in the House bill.
  If you want to protect the status quo, then you will continue to do 
what Alice Rivlin indicated the other day when we met with her and 
said, well, she was not ready to look at dismantling the Department of 
Commerce because she wanted to keep it around.
  I would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback], and let him tell us a little bit about his experiences of 
trying to right-size Government while trying to eliminate the wasteful 
spending of a Secretary with the total disregard for the taxpayers' 
money that he has shown here.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
  I want to recognize what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] 
has been doing. Here is a businessman coming into the Congress. 
Normally, people would say, well, this would be the type of person that 
would defend the Department of Commerce, help the Department of 
Commerce because it is going to deliver goodies back to him or to his 
organization or people that he knows. Instead, he is going in saying, 
``Why do we have this Department of Commerce the way it is currently 
configured and can we not save money and help the American people and 
help the American taxpayer in the process?'' I think that is a very 
worthy goal and objective and something that the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] has really put forward.
  Mr. Speaker, the other night I was really attracted to very 
supportive to very supportive of the President's statement in the State 
of the Union where he said at the outset, ``The era of big Government 
is over.'' The era of big Government is over. It is over.
  He said that, and he said that we have got to get on past this point 
in time. I was very appreciative of him saying that, that the era of 
big government was over. And I anticipated that shortly thereafter in 
the speech, the State of the Union, that he would call for the 
elimination of the Department of Commerce as an indication that the era 
of big government is over and here is something we can do without and 
we can save $7 billion in doing this, $7 billion. We can cut corporate 
welfare in the process of doing this, as well, and we can deal with 
some of these issues of excessive travel expenditures in the process, 
too. We can show a smaller, more focused, more limited Federal 
Government.
  We can do as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has talked about 
previously as well, consolidate our trade functions. Instead of 19 
different agencies and entities doing trade promotion, get it into one, 
and we can have an effective, focused force in international trade that 
will help us, although I think the biggest help we can do to help 
ourselves in international trade is negotiate good treaties, have less 
regulation, have less litigation, have less taxation and a balanced 
budget to cut interest rates by 2 percentage points, and if we could 
get the Federal Government as a smaller percentage of the gross 
national product, that is going to do more than anything else to help 
us promote international trade and get our balance of payments.
  I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I just want to remind the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback] also of the Freedom to Farm Act. That is the one we need to 
get through, too.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, to be able to allow farmers to decide themselves 
what they want to plant rather than somebody that is planning for this 
out of the centralized bureaucracy in Washington telling my dad and my 
brother what they can plow on their farmland in Linn County near 
Parker, KS. They sit out there now and they go, ``Now who is telling me 
that I have got to plant this many acres of corn and this many acres of 
wheat,'' and they are saying, ``Well, OK, I will go along because that 
is what the system is.''
  But you have got to question, is that really the way it should be 
decided? Should the marketplace not send those signals and then 
individually decide in that system? And they would much rather do that.
  I would say, as well, there are a number of very good things done by 
the Department of Commerce that we keep. Patent and Trademark Office, 
you have to keep that and you want to keep that. The National Weather 
Service does a very good job. I think we could probably do some more 
with some increase in technology, but they do an excellent job as well, 
and there are other things within that agency that do a good job.
  But it is also well known about the political nature of many of the 
appointments within the Department of Commerce. There are problems that 
it has had recently, and we have seen these recent reports about the 
Secretary in the Department of Commerce.

[[Page H872]]

  I think overall, as a statement of faith and as a statement of 
commitment from the President of the United States and this Congress, 
that the era of big government is over, we should take this very first 
step and eliminate the Department of Commerce, keeping the core 
functions that are good and necessary, eliminating the corporate 
welfare, getting it out, saving the American people $7 billion in the 
process, and showing them a smaller, more limited, more focused Federal 
Government.
  I would be happy to yield back to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], who has brought this debate thus far with a 
great deal of difficulty.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I thank the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  The gentleman mentioned the era of big government is over, and it is 
true the President of the United States said that three times in his 
speech.
  This is the same President that wanted to give us the biggest health 
care, national health care program, in the history of this country, 
gave us the biggest tax increase in the history of this country, and 
then presented a balanced budget to us on January 6 which he could have 
just as easily presented to us on December 15 and we would have had no 
Government shutdown. So we ask ourselves, Who shut down the Government? 
Only the President, the President that could have submitted that budget 
when the law that he signed said he would. So he broke the law, did not 
keep his word and shut down the Federal Government. That is very easy 
to understand.
  In that budget, $400 billion went for a bigger government here in 
Washington, DC. There was also another $200 billion tax increase. And 
Bill Clinton has again just demonstrated that he is a tax-and-spend, 
liberal Democratic President. This, when he is standing there saying 
out of the other side of his mouth, the era of big government is over.

  At this point, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] for the tremendous work he has done 
looking at wasteful government spending, and, make no mistake, there is 
a lot of waste.
  You are exactly correct that Republicans probably made a mistake when 
they simply said we want the President as a starting point to give us 
his balanced budget that balances in 7 years as scored by CBO. So what 
does he do? He gives us a budget that increases taxes, does not cut 
spending and said, well, this is it. But do the people of this country 
really want to continue down that path of more taxes and more spending 
and more borrowing.
  On the Department of Commerce, I think when we have a department that 
is not necessary and we start appointing political cronies to head up 
those departments, there is a danger of misuse of their positions.
  So I am not only concerned about Secretary Brown's international 
travels, I am also concerned about his domestic travels. This is an 
individual who was chairman of the National Democratic Party, who was 
the major fundraiser for Democrats, who does a political evaluation 
test for the people that he brings in to make sure that they are 
partisan Democrats.
  I think what happens is not only a waste of taxpayers' money but a 
misuse of the Department, when instead of appointing the highest 
qualified individuals, you go to those political patronage jobs who 
have done the most for your political Democratic Party or for your 
reelection as President and you say this is the person I am going to 
bring in to head this Department.
  So it is no wonder that there is an abuse of travel. When we 
investigate this, and I would hope everybody would just take the time 
to read the Monday, January 22 Los Angeles Times article where it cites 
the travel costs of the Commerce Secretary that are 145 percent higher 
than his predecessor, that has evidence of misuse of credit card by the 
staff of that department. Here is not only the head of the Department 
but essentially a whole department that should be wiped out, eliminated 
from the Federal Government. The useful functions of that department 
can well be accomplished by other agencies and other departments at 
much lesser cost.
  We have got a problem in this country, and it is about time we face 
it. It is about time that every individual, say, at least under the age 
of 50 years old, better start looking at this Federal budget, they 
better start looking at the ramifications that this overspending and 
overtaxing and overborrowing is going to have on their future lives. 
Because if you look at how long Social Security is going to last, the 
estimates are now that Social Security is going to be broke by the year 
2020, that Medicare is actually this year spending out more money than 
it is taking in. We have made overcommitments, we are overspenders.
  Politicians in the past have decided that by promising more and more 
good things to people, it increases their chances of being reelected. 
The U.S. American citizens, when they go to the poll every election, 
better be saying, Is this person going to be doing what is right for my 
future, my kids' future and our grandkids' future? We are in a big 
battle now.
  I will yield back to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler]. He 
can yield maybe on this point.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments this afternoon, and certainly they 
are very, very well noted.
  I yield at this point to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] and 
the other gentleman from Michigan.
  I wanted to say that it is interesting that just this morning I was 
speaking to a senatorial candidate from Georgia, and he said he started 
politics in 1974. In 1974 the big issue, when he was running for the 
State legislature, was let us balance the budget, we cannot have these 
deficits going on and on forever. He said, finally, after all these 
years, 17, 18 years later, we finally have a Congress who is doing 
something about the budget.
  When I hear a lot of the folks back home who are bureaucracy brokers 
and status quo preservers saying, Oh, you can't do this, you can't do 
that, nobody said it was going to be easy to balance the budget. Nobody 
said that you could just do it overnight. We did not get in this 
situation overnight, and we will not get out of it overnight.
  I always think it is kind of like dismantling an old white-elephant 
kind of house, one board at a time and maybe 1 year at a time. Perhaps 
we underestimated how quickly we could turn this government around. But 
we got used to borrowing money. Back in the days of Lyndon Johnson, we 
got used to borrowing money. It got so bad that by 1969, we said good-
bye to our last balanced budget, and since then we have just been 
comfortable year after year of borrowing money.
  While that would terrify our constituents back home, our moms and 
dads running households, to us it is not as terrifying because we have 
always been able to print more money. But I am glad that this Congress 
is taking a critical, crucial step. I wanted to just support what the 
gentleman from Michigan was saying in that regard.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and my 
other colleagues that have come out to talk about the scandal at the 
Department of Commerce and our meager attempts to try to reorganize one 
agency in this huge bureaucracy. I talked about 37,000 employees in the 
Department of Commerce, and 20,199 just in Washington, DC.
  Here we are trying to balance the budget, we are trying to make some 
tough choices. It is not any fun to tell people they are going to get 
less, or the increases will not be as much, or some programs have to be 
eliminated. But then you have the responsibility, and I serve on the 
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, charged with 
looking at investigations and audits of these Federal agencies, and 
then these are the reports that we get about the Department of Commerce 
that Mr. Chrysler is highlighting today. Listen to this. Here is what 
these 20,000 people are doing in the Department of Commerce just in 
Washington. 

[[Page H873]]

  This audit specifically identified 293 employees with delinquent 
accounts. They had Federal Government credit cards within the 
Department of Commerce, including unpaid charges and use of credit 
cards for personal purchases, even with ATM's--293 employees had 
delinquent accounts. Now listen to this; 567 had used the card for ATM 
advances for personal charges for meals at fancy Washington 
restaurants, liquor, jewelry, flowers, books, music, on-line service 
fees, we do not know what that is, and automobile insurance.
  Would not all of my constituents in the Seventh District of Florida 
like to have one of these handy cards? This is not just a few folks; 
this is 567.
  Now, we came, we looked at the Department of Commerce, and we saw 
disorganization. We saw 20,000 people out of 36,000 just here in 
Washington, DC. We saw us losing our shirt and pants and economic 
opportunity in the international trade arena, and we tried to 
reorganize it. We proposed that and got slammed in the face. We have 
been ignored.
  Then we have the President come here and talk about global 
competition, and no one is less prepared than the United States of 
America to compete in this global market.
  So here is what is going on. These are the choices we have to make. 
These are the choices Americans have to make, and we have got to do 
something about it. We wanted to change much more. We acceded to one 
department, and this is what the people are getting for their money. 
Their money is being wasted. We are not competing.

  You heard Mr. Brownback. The answer that the gentleman gave is true. 
We can do more for business with a balanced budget. We can do more to 
promote business with less taxation, less litigation, less government 
regulation. Those are all part of our agenda here, what we have tried 
to do in a sensible, responsible, commonsense business fashion.
  But people do not want to listen to that. They want to stand up and 
say the Republicans are hurting the elderly, environment, and 
education. It sounds good and gets on a bumper sticker, but it does not 
jibe with the facts.
  These are the facts, that this department and other departments are 
out of control, that this Federal bureaucracy is out of control. When 
you have 350,000 Federal employees within just a few miles of my 
speaking distance from the floor of the House of Representatives, that 
is what this argument is about.
  These freshmen have come here from business, from every walk of life, 
and they do not care whether they get reelected. That is the difference 
here. They do not care whether they get reelected. They came here to 
get this country's finance in order. They came here to get this 
Government in order. That is what they care about. They do not care 
about the next election, they care about the next generation.
  When you see this country, the threat of our debt carrying us into a 
lower credit rating on the international market, when you see the 
President talking about responsibility with pension funds, while 
Secretary Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury, is rocking the shreds 
that are left of our Federal employees' retirement funds. It is a 
pitiful state of affairs for this country, for this Congress, and for 
the future of any American.
  So I thank the gentleman. I get a little bit wound up on this, but I 
care too, and I know the gentleman cares, and that is why we came here. 
It does not matter whether we come back, because others will come to 
this job. It has to be done. It must be done, and it will be done for 
the future of this country.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I thank the gentleman and appreciate those words. The 
gentleman mentioned 37,000 employees in the Commerce Department. Two-
thirds of those employees were deemed nonessential during the first 
Government shutdown, 24,000 employees. My legislation only reduced it 
by one-third, or about 12,000 employees, which says we are not extreme, 
just conservative. The extreme position is when you want to protect the 
status quo, and we are here to change it.

  To that point, I would sure like to yield some time to my good friend 
from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan. As we are 
gathered here on the floor to have a little straight talk, I think it 
is very interesting again to recall the words of our Chief Executive, 
who stood here at the podium 2 nights ago and who said the days of big 
government are over.
  Well, maybe there is a word we should insert there, because I think 
what the American people want to know is that the days of big spending 
government are over. For how could the President make that assertion 2 
nights ago, and be here in this Chamber with his Cabinet officers, 
including two of the biggest spenders the executive branch has ever 
seen? If not the biggest spenders, certainly two of the most well 
traveled Cabinet secretaries this country has ever seen?
  I exchanged pleasantries with Secretary O'Leary. Much as been made, 
and, indeed, the record of her travels has been chronicled for all in 
this free society to see. And apart from recognition of those problems, 
the White House has turned a deaf ear. Of course, this White House, 
goodness knows, has problems of its own.
  Then Secretary Brown. It is almost as if the receptionist at the 
Commerce Department could make a recording that rhymes: ``Mr. Brown is 
out of town.'' That in itself would not be so bad, I suppose, Mr. 
Speaker, but Mr. Brown is out of town, and he is on your expense 
account, you, the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us in here, all of the American people who pay 
their taxes, who play by the rules, are financing trips that need some 
oversight, expenditures that this Congress should take a very real look 
at, and, again, not questioning the sincerity of the service, but 
instead looking at the evidence, the compelling evidence.
  A few years before we got here there was criticism of another 
Secretary of Commerce who served under a Republican President, and 
previous Congresses chose to investigate that Secretary of Commerce. 
And yet expenditures for the current Secretary of Commerce are some 145 
percent above his Republican predecessors. Now, I realize in this town, 
and given the kind of quirky mathematics employed by the liberals 
inside the beltway, they will probably try to say that is a cut. But it 
is an increase, and it is to the credit of the gentleman from Michigan 
that he has brought it to our attention and a credit to the fact that 
it has not gone on his credit card, but has been brought to the 
attention of the American public.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Now more than ever it is time to dismantle the 
Department of Commerce.

                          ____________________