Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think you said it exactly right. When I left, there was progress. I was looking for progress. I think it is a three-legged stool. I think you have to have military or security progress.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Exactly. That is where I really was disappointed. I thought Baghdad would be much more secure than what we saw or learned about it. But you have to have military security progress, and you have to have economic progress, and you have to have political progress.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jones Metal Products of Mankato, Minnesota, on receiving the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve's Above and Beyond award. The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, ESGR, was established in 1972 to promote cooperation and understanding between Reserve component members and their civilian employers. Their mission is to continuously gain and maintain active support from all public and private employers for the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve. Local and national representatives stand ready to help employers understand federal laws that affect the call-up of their employees. The Above and Beyond award recognizes those who have gone beyond what federal law requires for supporting activated Guard employees. Minnesota businesses that employ Guard members are an essential link in family support for deployed service members. The state of Minnesota is recognized as a leader among those employing Guard and Reserve members and received the 2004 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. Jones Metal Products, one of 475 companies nominated for the Above and Beyond award, was nominated by Staff Sgt. Juan Berrones. While Staff Sgt. Berrones was deployed to Iraq, Jones Metal Products provided him pay raises, two bonuses and showed continuous support to his family. I extend my sincere congratulations to Jones Metal Products for receiving the Above and Beyond Award from the National Committee for Employer Support of Guard and Reserve and commend them for the extraordinary services provided to those who serve our country.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate St. Joseph's Mayo Health System Hospital of Mankato, Minnesota, on receiving the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve's Above and Beyond award. The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, ESGR, was established in 1972 to promote cooperation and understanding between Reserve component members and their civilian employers. Their mission is to continuously gain and maintain active support from all public and private employers for the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve. Local and national representatives stand ready to help employers understand Federal laws that affect the call-up of their employees. The Above and Beyond Award recognizes those who have gone beyond what Federal law requires for supporting activated Guard employees. Minnesota businesses that employ Guard members are an essential link in family support for deployed service members. The State of Minnesota is recognized as a leader among those employing Guard and Reserve members and received the 2004 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. Immanuel St. Joseph's Mayo Health System Hospital, ISJ-MHS Hospital, one of 475 companies nominated for the Above and Beyond Award, was nominated by Chief Master Sgt. Dennis of Mankato, Minnesota. I extend my sincere congratulations to Immanuel St. Joseph's Mayo Health System Hospital for receiving the Above and Beyond Award from the National Committee for Employer Support of Guard and Reserve and commend them for the extraordinary services provided to those who serve our country.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Archer Daniels Midland of Mankato, Minnesota, on receiving the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve's Above and Beyond award. The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) was established in 1972 to promote cooperation and understanding between Reserve component members and their civilian employers. Their mission is to continuously gain and maintain active support from all public and private employers for the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve. Local and national representatives stand ready to help employers understand Federal laws that affect the call-up of their employees. The Above and Beyond award recognizes those who have gone beyond what Federal law requires for supporting activated Guard employees. Minnesota businesses that employ Guard members are an essential link in family support for deployed service members. The state of Minnesota is recognized as a leader among those employing Guard and Reserve members and received the 2004 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) was nominated by Sgt. Dave Bonnifield who has been mobilized twice with the Army Guard. ADM has been extremely supportive by providing pay differential and continuous support to Sgt. Bonnifield's family. Archer Daniels Midland was one of 475 companies nominated for the Above and Beyond award. I extend my sincere congratulations to Archer Daniels Midland for receiving the Above and Beyond Award from the National Committee for Employer Support of Guard and Reserve and commend them for the extraordinary services provided to those who serve our country.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard a lot about who is right and who is wrong. Let me quote, at the outbreak of the Civil War, from Leroy Walker, who later became first Confederate Secretary of War. He said that he could wipe up with one handkerchief all the blood that would be spilled in the coming dispute between the North and the South. He was wrong. We have been wrong, too. We were wrong about weapons of mass destruction. We were wrong about the costs, and we were wrong about the tenacity of this insurgency. But Tony Blair came here about a year and a half ago and he gave a great speech, and he said something very important we ought to be reminded of. He said if we were wrong about weapons of mass destruction, and all we did was liberate a noble people from a brutal dictator, he said that history would forgive. But had we failed to act, and had we been right about weapons of mass destruction, he said that history would not forgive. So this debate about who is right and who is wrong, I think, misplaces the interest of the United States. We were right that Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons were a clear and present danger to his people, his neighbors, the region, and to American interests. Saddam Hussein plotted to kill a former U.S. president. And just like megalomaniac leaders of the past, he attacked his neighbors in Iran, and he invaded Kuwait. Some prefer to ignore the historic comparisons to the Sudetenland and Liebensprau. Montezuma was right, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Dr. Henry Kissinger was right, too, when he said that with domestic policy, actions have consequences. But with foreign policy, inaction can have consequences. We are now seeing the suffering played out in Darfur and Somalia because of inaction. Millions of innocent women and children are now at the mercy of the followers of bin Laden and al Zarqawi, and al Qaeda understands what some in this body refuse to acknowledge, that Iraq and Afghanistan are part and parcel of their war against us. When they are defeated there, and I pray that they will be, their ability to wage terrorist war against us will be diminished dramatically. When we talk to the troops who come home from that region, they talk about progress. They talk about schools and hospitals that are open. Members, let me read for you from an e-mail that came back from a Minnesota soldier back to Minnesota. This was after the first election in Iraq. He said, despite everything that has been going on around them, they still voted. Despite all the violence, they stood in line to be heard. Word is that despite the insurgents' best efforts, voter turnout may be as high as 72 percent across the country. Shoot, even in the States, that would be a great turnout. All I can say is that together we, the United States and the Iraqis, no kidding, we did it. I know full well that this doesn't solve everything. Sure, there will be tough days yet to come. But for today, we won, we all won. Our returning military personnel tell us something else. Iraqi and Americans have one thing in common. They want American forces to come home, but not just yet. Members, now is not the time to go wobbly. Let's give victory a chance and a lasting peace will surely follow.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of LCpl Robert G. Posivio III, who died a hero in a roadside bomb attack on May 23, 2006, while protecting his country and fighting for freedom in the al Anbar province of Iraq. As a devoted son, brother, and Marine, Lance Corporal Posivio will be missed by many. Lance Corporal Posivio was born on October 4, 1983, in Mankato, MN, to Robert M. Posivio, Jr. and Patricia A. Posivio. He enlisted in the United States Marines while attending Martin County West Senior High School in Sherburn, MN, where he graduated in 2002. Lance Corporal Posivio was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, based at Camp Pendleton, CA. He is preceded in death by his grandmother, Ardis Posivio; his uncle, Don Wood; his brother, Daniel L. Posivio; and other relatives. Lance Corporal Posivio was on his third tour of duty in Iraq and was scheduled to be honorably discharged on July 28. He returned to combat on April 30 after suffering injuries in a mortar attack on April 13 in which two members of his unit were killed. Lance Corporal Posivio told his family that if he died, he wanted the following quote placed on his tombstone: ``Freedom comes at a price that the free will never know.'' We owe Lance Corporal Posivio and all the brave men and women serving in our Armed Forces a great debt of gratitude. We ask them to defend our Nation; we need to let them know they are not forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I offer my condolences to Lance Corporal Posivio's parents, Robert, Jr. and Patti; his sister, Sarah Peltier, and her husband, Colin; his grandparents, Robert F. Posivio and Eugene and Evelyn McDonald; and the many other friends and family who loved him and miss him. In this time of sorrow, may our thoughts and prayers comfort them, and may his memory bring them peace.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the Bipartisan Congressional Rural Caucus. The amendment we offer tonight is real simple: It preserves the right of the FCC to require VoIP providers to contribute to the universal service fund and pay appropriate intercarrier compensation fees. Today, VoIP providers do not contribute to the USF, which is the mechanism that helps build and maintain the communications network that we all rely on, especially in rural America. All other voice providers contribute. Regardless of where you live, we all depend on a vibrant, strong communications network. So why are we doing this on this bill? Title 3 of the COPE Act is a VoIP title. The language grants VoIP providers all the benefits of being telecommunications carriers, such as the right to interconnect with networks and access to right-of-way. It also gives VoIP providers some of the same responsibilities, such as providing the E-911 service, complying with regulations for the disabled, number portability, et cetera. However, H.R. 5252 does not classify VoIP providers as telecommunications carriers, and therefore they do not have all the same social responsibilities such as USF contributions and intercarrier payments. Our amendment would not mandate that VoIP providers contribute to USF or pay intercarrier compensation fees, nor would it require the FCC to force them to do these things; it merely preserves the FCC's authority to do so. We need to assure the FCC that it is not congressional intent to exempt VoIP providers from the duties required under other communications networks. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment and the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my cochair of the Telecommunications Task Force of the Rural Caucus, Mr. Stupak of Michigan.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a very active member of the Rural Caucus.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to just comment on a couple of things. First of all, I rise in support of this rule. Now, there are people on both sides who may say that this rule is not perfect and the bill is not perfect, and they probably would be correct; but I think considering what we can get done this year, this is a very good rule, and this is a very good bill. I want to call particular attention to an amendment that was made in order that will be offered by me, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Peterson, and a group from the Congressional Rural Caucus. It deals with the issue that many Members of Congress, and I suspect many of our constituents, do not completely understand. It is a new technology called voice over Internet protocol. Why is that important? Well, it is a technology that is growing by leaps and bounds, and it has to ride on the telecommunications system, the interstate highway, if you will; and the interstate system is only as good as its weakest link. Everyone wants to serve the suburbs and most companies want to serve the cities, but when you get out into the distant parts of rural America, it becomes more and more difficult to serve those areas. One of the ways that we have tried to level that playing field is with what is called a universal service fund, and the base bill says nothing about the universal service fund and the obligation that providers of voice over Internet protocol have to participate in the universal service fund. So the amendment that we are going to be offering, and I hope Members will consider supporting the amendment, will simply say that nothing in this act shall be construed to exempt the VoIP service provider from requirements imposed by the Federal Communications Commission or a State commission on all VoIP service providers, among others, to participate in the universal service fund. This is a very important amendment. In many respects, it is innocuous but it is important, especially in rural America; but if you think about it, it is important for everyone because the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This bill will provide valuable homeland security dollars to communities and infrastructure in our country. I'm particularly pleased about one provision included in this bill. It will prevent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from seizing the property of Americans. Believe it or not, this is being done today. For years, individuals have been allowed to purchase prescription drugs for personal use from Canada and other foreign countries. Last November, without notification, CBP began to seize medicine that Americans had bought from Canadian mail-order pharmacies. We now know that between November 2005 and February 2006 almost 13,000 packages of drugs were seized. Preventing these life-saving drugs from getting to their intended destination puts Americans' health at risk. Many seniors on fixed incomes lost hundreds of dollars worth of drugs when they were seized. That may not seem like much to a pharmaceutical executive, but this is a lot of money to someone on a fixed income. Section 532 of H.R. 5441 states that ``None of the funds made available in this Act for United States Customs and Border Protection may be used to prevent an individual not in the business of importing a prescription drug . . . from importing a prescription drug . . .'' This will put a stop to our own government confiscating the medicine on which its citizens depend. I urge passage of this bill. We should insist that this provision remain in the final bill that the House receives from the Conference Committee.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the FY 2007 Agriculture Appropriations bill. I am especially pleased with the funding levels prescribed for the Domestic Food Assistance programs such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program CSFP) and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutritional programs. This year, the President proposed eliminating CSFP as part of his plan to streamline government services. Participants in this program were supposed to move to either the Food Stamps program or the WIC program. I disagreed with this proposal, and that is why I am pleased that my colleagues on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee chose to ignore the elimination proposal and instead increased funding for this program by $11 million above last year's level. Under the House-passed bill, CSFP will get $118.3 million in fiscal 2007. It is my understanding and hope that the Senate will include a similar amount in its appropriations bill and that future conferees will protect this valuable program from elimination. More than 2,000 seniors in my district depend on this important supplemental food program, which provides them a box of food staples once a month to seniors who are at or below 130 percent of the poverty level. Pregnant, breast feeding and postpartum women, infants and children up to age six also are eligible for CSFP if they are at or below 185 percent of federal poverty guidelines. For young children, the program is used as a bridge between their eligibility for WIC and their eligibility for free school lunches, which generally happens around age 6. There is no doubt that CSFP works. In Minnesota, about 15,000 participants--85 percent of them seniors--receive a box of food at the beginning of each month. The box is about the size of a banana box and weighs about 60 pounds. Each box contains about $55 worth of pantry staples such as canned vegetables, fruit and meat, as well as evaporated milk, juice, rice and pasta. The foods are nutritionally balanced and approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Minnesota receives about $3.2 million each year to purchase these foods and deliver them to four food banks throughout the state. Volunteers then deliver the boxes to centralized distribution sites and in some cases to the front doors of home-bound seniors. In Southeastern Minnesota, the Channel One Food Distribution Center in Rochester, delivers CSFP food packages to 1,750 participants in a 13 county area. The average income for a senior receiving CSFP assistance in this area is a meager $8,846 a year or $737 a month. That's why CSFP is so vital for our nation's low-income seniors, particularly those in rural America. Seniors like Harriet Salisbury from Ceylon, Minnesota; Elsa Suter of Fairmont, Minnesota, and Edward Levy of Brownsdale, Minnesota, need these vital food packages. When the Administration proposed eliminating CSFP, these seniors took pen and paper in hand and let me know exactly what they thought about that proposal. They told me CSFP was their ``lifeline,'' and some even begged me to save this vital program from elimination. Today, I am here to tell these seniors and thousands more across our nation that I know how important CSFP is to them, and that I will fight to save this vital program from elimination. In conclusion, I want to thank Chairman Bonilla for his continued support for CSFP.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple amendment, but I think it is very important and one that an awful lot of groups are paying attention to. There is a program we have had in the farm bill for a very long time, the Wetland Reserve Program, that has become extremely important on a variety of fronts. It is important to wildlife, it is important to our water quality, it is important to flood control, and I think it is important to most Americans who care about the environment. It is especially important to those of us in Minnesota. We have 10,000 lakes. We take water very seriously. And the Wetland Reserve Program is something that we want to do everything we can to preserve and keep at its current levels. Currently, we authorize in the farm bill about 250,000 acres for the Wetland Reserve Program. And I understand how difficult it has been for the subcommittee and the chairman and the staff to squeeze all of the requests into the amount of money that they have been allocated in this appropriation bill, so I have a great deal of empathy for the problems that they have. But I wanted to come to the floor today to offer an amendment to restore to 250,000 acres the overall authorization for the Wetland Reserve Program. Currently, under this bill that authorization drops to about 144,000 acres. I understand that the committee had to find $82 million. And by passing this amendment we create an $82 million hole in their bill, and I am empathetic to that. So what we have done, working with the Department, we take $65 million from the ARS Facilities area and $16.5 million from the CSREES Research and Education Activities fund. No one likes to take money from those funds, but as we looked at all the potentials for offsets, those were the best we could find. So, Members, I think this is an important amendment. I think it is one that will be watched by the Ducks Unlimited, the Pheasants Forever, lots of the wildlife groups and sportsmen groups, and it is important as well to the folks who are really concerned about preserving our wetlands and improving our environment. So this is a very important amendment, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Gutknecht amendment. MR. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to work with the chairman on this. We worked with the professionals who draft these amendments. We told them what we wanted. We were willing to find offsets. We worked with the Department for those offsets. We understand those offsets do cause some heartburn for the Department, but it is my understanding they can work with those offsets. I would appreciate it if we could at least adopt this amendment, and we will work with you through the conference committee process to perfect that language, if that is necessary. I hope that this body wants to send a clear message that the Wetlands Reserve Program is a high-priority program. And I would work with you on that, but I would like to have this amendment adopted, even if it is not perfect in your eyes. MR. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of my eyes; it is a matter of the professionals that have scrubbed this language; and again, the gentleman would not be accomplishing what he is hoping to accomplish. I might say as an aside, too, there is an issue related to this. We understand that there may have been some unethical and perhaps even illegal activity by the Department involved directly with this issue, in terms of attempting to lobby Congress on it. And I want to say for the record that we are not done with this issue after we vote on this amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. We have heard so far this morning some people say that this bill is about somehow suspending the laws of science. But I would argue this bill is really about restoring some common sense, and we have heard some excellent testimony by Members of both sides of the aisle. In Minnesota we have the Superior National Forest. It covers about 3 million acres in northeastern Minnesota. It is not in my district, but I have had the opportunity, as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee, to go up there on several occasions. Now, the forest itself is beautiful. It is perhaps one of the most beautiful national forests in the entire galaxy. But you don't have to visit there very long to understand the sense of frustration among the locals in the way that we manage that forest. In a State that is dominated by public timberland, the national forests in Minnesota have a reputation of being too bureaucratic, slow moving, and unresponsive. When there is a catastrophic event, county and State foresters, and certainly private land owners, are far quicker to move to salvage and reforest than the National Forest Service is. H.R. 4200 is a step in the right direction. It would require the National Forest Service to rapidly evaluate the need for recovery projects and then allow the salvage to go forward if necessary. Many of my colleagues today will give examples of catastrophic events in their districts or States, how the National Forest Service responds to them, and, therefore, why this legislation is needed. For me, the example of a windstorm that swept northern Minnesota in July of 1999 is a great example. It damaged nearly 500,000 acres, over 600 square miles, in the Superior National Forest alone. This was one of the largest blowdowns ever recorded in North America. To date, only 50,000 trees have been cleaned up. The Forest Service's attempts to deal with this blowdown illustrate the need for H.R. 4200. The only legal or administrative tool at the agency's disposal to deal with an unprecedented event like this was alternative arrangements to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and those required approval of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. While the CEQ granted those agreements to the Forest Service, actual debris removal didn't occur until long after the windstorm hit. By this time the downed trees had deteriorated significantly, losing much of their value. Unless we act today, the national forest will continue to face events like this blowdown without the authority to quickly analyze, propose and move forward with forest recovery projects. To me, it is clear the agency needs this new authority to act quickly to capture the value of damaged timber and restore our forest to a healthy and growing condition. The goal of H.R. 4200 is to provide consistent and uniform procedures for the Forest Service to follow after catastrophic events. The bill does not open wilderness areas or other withdrawn from harvest to new timber cutting. It merely requires that the agency has to quickly evaluate whether expedited salvage is necessary, and then it allows it to cut through the red tape to make sure that the project gets done. The people of Minnesota care deeply about our national forests and so do the professionals who manage those forests. H.R. 4200 simply gives them the tools to demonstrate their commitment whenever Mother Nature throws our forest a curve ball. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan and important legislation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I would be happier if Americans are watching this debate, or if they are not watching the debate. I am an auctioneer and it sounds almost like an auction: no matter how much we spend it is not enough. But here is something I think all Members need to be aware of. Next year the taxpayers are going to generously provide this Congress and this Federal Government with a 12 percent increase in revenue. Over the next 5 years, the estimate is it will be at least an increase averaging 5.4 percent per year. Now that is at a time when we expect the inflation rate will be somewhere less than 3 percent. In other words, revenue to the Federal Government will be almost double what we project the inflation rate to be. And Americans watching at home are asking a simple question: Why can't you live within your means? And that is what this budget is about. That is what this debate is about. And I think Americans watching at home must be wondering, how in the world, why is it with a 12 percent increase next year and a 5\1/2\ percent increase averaging over the next 5 years, why can't you figure it out to live within your means?

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican Study Committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute. On March 8, I joined with my colleagues from the Republican Study Committee to renew our commitment to the principles of the Contract With America. We must control government spending. While I may not agree with every line of this substitute amendment, I do support its overall goal of balancing the budget in five years and saving taxpayers nearly $360 billion. The attack of Sept. 11, the War on Terror and national emergencies like Katrina are largely to blame for our deficit . . . but not completely. Wasteful government spending also adds to the national debt, and we need to address it. Our Nation's growing deficit amounts to a generational transfer of wealth. Today's youth will pay for the decisions we make today. For years, we have increased government spending, and now, we must work together to help rein it in and cut the deficit. Here are some frightening statistics: Since 2000, the amount the government spends on average per American household has grown 15.1 percent--the highest level since World War II. In recent years, the federal budget growth has far outpaced the growth in the average American family budget. This year's deficit may well exceed $400 billion. Americans are saying enough is enough. The RSC budget will balance the budget in 5 years and eliminate more than 150 federal programs that are no longer making the grade. Congress has some tough decisions to make during the 2007 budget process. This is no different than those Americans who establish their own annual budgets. Over the next five years, Americans will generously provide the federal government with an average increase of 5.3 percent in federal tax revenue. Congress must learn to live within that. Think about it. When our constituents sit down to figure out their family budgets, they don't start by figuring out how much they want to spend. They start by figuring out how much they have to spend and then they work back from there. We should do no less. In the end, we must ask ourselves, what legacy do we want to leave our children? Will it be a massive government and crushing debt? Or the legacy of hope, prosperity and a lean and responsible government? Mr. Chairman, budgeting is about making tough choices. Congress must return to the path of fiscal responsibility. We must balance the budget and rein in spending, and the RSC budget alternative is the best place to start.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).