Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Oklahoma will yield, the gentleman from Michigan is absolutely correct. Obviously, we would certainly like to take some credit for what has happened since 1995. But the truth of the matter is, what the American people finally said was, enough is enough. I mean, higher taxes were the answer to every one of our problems, and the American people understood that higher taxes were not the problem. They certainly were not the solution. The problem was too much spending. I remember when the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and I came as freshmen and we looked at what the President proposed, and this is not according to the House Republican Conference, this is according to the Congressional Budget Office. We should have this on a bigger chart, but I think the chart, if people at home or in their offices can see this, can recognize that what was happening was the deficit was bad, but worse, it was going to get worse every single year, and we were looking at potential deficits by the year 2009. This is using the old accounting standard. We are going to talk about the differences and what we really think the next step ought to be. But we were looking at deficits by the year 2009 approaching $600 billion a year. The Congressional Budget Office came out shortly after we came to Washington in 1995, and the American people said, enough is enough, and they sent 73 new Republican freshmen, including the two of us, to Congress. But they understood, the American people understood that that was not the answer. The Congressional Budget Office told us that if we did not do something about controlling the rate of growth in Federal spending, about eliminating some of the needless duplicative bureaucracy here in Washington, the real problem was that by the time our children reached middle age, and I hate to admit it, but I am approaching that age myself.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is important to note that for too long in Washington, the name of the game was how can we spend more of the public's money. In fact, the unwritten rule of Washington always was, no good deed goes unpunished. There was no real reward for trying to save money, because back in the 1960s, in order to cover the cost of the Vietnam War, they created a whole new system of counting here in Washington. What they did was they took in all of these 66 different trust funds we have, they put them all in the same category, and it made it look like the deficit was smaller than it was.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), and I do agree with much of what he just said, this debate, and I will try to confine my remarks to this amendment, but I think we cannot talk about these amendments without talking about the underlying bill. In some respects I am reminded of the story that during the dark ages, there was a debate that raged through Europe in terms of how many teeth a mule had. Finally, one bright young man said, well, why don't we count them? I would suggest that as we debate these amendments and ultimately the underlying bill, we ought to talk to the administrators, the school people in our districts, and find out what they think. Why do we not ask them? So we did exactly that in my office. I would like to read for my colleagues some quotes from some faxes and e-mails that we have gotten in my office from school administrators in my district. The first one is a school administrator in a very small school in my district; in fact, it is one of those schools where they still play 9- man football. Let me read what he says. He says, ``Federal mandates cost money, and the money is never offset by increased aids. While we appreciate the Federal funding we do receive, it is never and will never even begin to cover the costs incurred by the federally mandated programs we have been forced to set up. Besides, rarely is national education policy aimed at any school district smaller than Chicago, and never is there any policy aimed at helping rural schools.'' Let me read another quote more directly to the issue we are debating now about the Eisenhower program. This is a superintendent from a slightly smaller school, but still a small school. He said, We receive Eisenhower funds and block grant funds. We find the regulations on the Eisenhower funds to be somewhat rerestrictive, as they can only be spent for math and/or science teacher training. The guidelines are so narrow that each year dollars go unspent when there are needs that relate to science and math but do not meet the guidelines. However, if there is a seminar 150 miles away, which may be of questionable value, we can spend the money traveling to that site, spend it for meals and lodging, and then sit and listen to a dry and (of dubious value) lecture. New methods of teaching teachers are not encouraged with the present guidelines. If we could buy software and some hardware with that money, we could have teachers teach themselves here in Gopherville, rather than by an expert in Minneapolis. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that is what this debate is about, who knows best. Let me just close by quoting our new Governor, because a lot of people ask, what does Jesse, the Governor, have to say about some of these issues? We had lunch with the Governor about 1\1/2\ weeks ago. He was very simple and direct. He said, listen, we do not need new fiscal Federal programs. We do not need you to subsidize 100,000 new teachers. We do not need you to help us build new schools in Minnesota. What we need for you to do is fund the programs that you have already set up. If you guys would simply fund the special education program the way you promised to maybe years ago, we could take care of the rest. Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple debate. It really comes down to who knows best. I think we ought to listen to the people who are actually out there teaching our children, working in the schools as school administrators, and if we do, we will come to the clear conclusion that it is time to say that Washington does not know best.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, just 4 years ago when they unveiled their budget, the administration acknowledged that we would see $200 billion deficits well into the next century. But the new Republican Congress said that that was unacceptable. Against the shrill cries of our friends on the left, we reformed welfare, saved Medicare, eliminated over 400 Federal programs, and cut the growth in Federal spending by more than half. Today our budget is balanced and we can look forward to a decade of surpluses. We can now begin to tackle the great issue of our generation, saving Social Security, if, if only we continue to exercise the fiscal discipline begun with the balanced budget agreement. Unfortunately the President in his budget reneges on the spending caps. I am happy to report today that the congressional leaders have said that they will renew their pledge to abide by those spending caps. This means that we can secure every penny of Social Security taxes only for Social Security. It also means that American families can expect lower interest rates and a stronger economy well into the next century.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor today. I rise as a representative of Rochester, Minnesota. And over the last 7 to 10 years, King Hussein probably spent about as much time in my district in Minnesota as anywhere in the United States. And I always knew when he was in town because this big, beautiful airplane that he was so proud of was there at the Rochester Airport. Many people may not know it, but he was very fond of flying that Lockheed L-1011 all the way from Jordan to Rochester, Minnesota. We regret that, in the end, the procedures that were attempted to save his life were not successful. But I rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents because many of them got a chance to meet King Hussein and his Queen wife and the rest of the royal family and all the people from Jordan who came with him, and they were always impressive. In fact, in the last several years sometimes literally he and his wife would rent a little red Volkswagen Beetle and they would travel around southeastern Minnesota and many people got a chance to meet him, and everyone who did was impressed with his humanity and the way that he dealt with people. All the people who touched King Hussein were impressed by him and his gentleness. He was in many respects a dichotomy. He was a king and yet he had the common touch. He was trained as a warrior but he spent most of his life fighting for peace. He was a pilot and yet he was down-to-earth. He stood barely five-foot-five inches tall and yet he will be remembered as a giant of this century. We mourn his loss today. We share the pain of his family and of his people. We must now renew his commitment to humanity and his commitment to peace.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support today of H.R. 169, the Competitive Pork Pricing Act. This is a very modest first step in terms of providing some transparency in terms of the pricing of pork. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, 80 percent of the finished hogs were sold at auction markets, and I know a little bit about the auction business. When people went to the auction ring, they could see what hogs were actually selling for. In fact, 5 years ago, 87 percent of the hogs being purchased by large packers were bought on a spot basis. Today, that situation is reversed, and with the increase of contracting, we now have big pork producers and large packing concerns who have worked out long term contracts for hogs. Contracts in and of themselves are not necessarily inherently evil, but they have had a profound impact on what is happening to smaller pork producers throughout the United States. What this has done out in farm country is created a tremendous amount of distrust. There is distrust among producers, because we may have one farmer on one side of the road who is being paid one price for his pigs, and another farmer who is paid a different price, and they could be in a situation where neither would know what the other one is actually receiving for their hog. This has caused distrust among producers, but it has caused intense distrust among the producers with the packers, and the packing industry itself has become the villain in this story, and perhaps there is some truth to that. But as we move inherently towards a much more market-oriented agriculture, it seems to me that we at the Federal level have some responsibility to make certain that those markets are orderly, and that the participants in those markets at least have equal access to information. As I say, this is a very modest step in the right direction in terms of providing some transparency to all producers as far as what prices are actually being paid. Now, we cannot guarantee here at the Federal level that everyone is going to make a profit, but we must guarantee that every producer gets better and more accurate information. A good example would be the New York Stock Exchange. We created the Securities and Exchange Commission many years ago, and that is an ongoing auction every day, and one can, on line, literally see every transaction and know what the price of a particular stock is at any moment in time. Such is not the case in the livestock industry. It seems to me we ought to create a system whereby producers have better access to better information. Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that America's farmers are like the ultimate gamblers; they sit down at the casino every day. I think the best way to think about this particular legislation is it is the first step to making certain that all of the cards in that casino are dealt face-up, and everybody knows that all the cards are on the table.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, the President said something recently in Buffalo, New York, that I think perfectly captures the attitude of our some of our friends on the left when it comes to tax cuts. In Buffalo the President spoke about what should be done with the projected budget surpluses over the next 15 years. He said, ``We could give it all back to you and hope that you spend it right, but . . ..'' ``Hope that you spend it right?'' Excuse me, what exactly does the President mean when he says ``hope that you spend it right?'' Is the budget surplus something that belongs to the government, or does it belong to the people who earn the money? Well, it does not belong to Washington, and it does not belong to the politicians. It belongs to the people who sent the money to Washington in the first place. They are called taxpayers, and, yes, some of us believe that they ought to get some of it back.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, due to flight cancellations earlier today, I was unable to be present to vote on Tuesday, February 2, 1999, for the following votes: Rollcall No. 7--H.R. 68--I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 8--H.R. 432--I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, this is a solemn and sober occasion. It is day and a duty that all of us had hoped we could avoid. But, this day and that duty came. On historic days like this, we must draw strength from the heroic figures who have gone before us. From Valley Forge, to Gettysburg, from Normandy to this very day, Americans have found the courage to do what was required. And we, in our day, with God's help, will meet this challenge. We will stand today for the rule of law, or we will submit to the rule of men. Mr. Speaker, the matters before us are difficult, but they are not complicated. Our friends on the other side offered no real defense for the charges. Indeed, in their own resolution, they acknowledged that Mr. Clinton failed to tell the truth to a Federal Grand Jury. They agree that he has brought dishonor on himself and on the high office he holds. On several occasions, Mr. Clinton put one hand on the Bible and took an oath. Twice he pledged to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' As President, he has the responsibility to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Subsequently, Mr. Clinton swore under oath ``to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'' He was warned by his supporters and his attorneys of the dire consequences of breaking that oath. As an attorney himself, Mr. Clinton understood very well the gravity of perjury. He understood the seriousness of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Our entire system of justice and indeed our very rule of law is built on the bedrock that oaths are sacred. Were it not so, why would we use Bibles? Or, why take oaths at all? The evidence is overwhelming, the Constitution is clear. My conclusion is inescapable. Bill Clinton violated his oath of office. He violated his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He did willfully commit perjury, obstruct justice, and subvert the legal process. His actions have brought dishonor upon the high office that the American people have entrusted to him. If we in Congress fail to act in this case, we will have set a terrible precedent. We will have said that there are two standards--one for powerful politicians, and another for everyone else. Mr. Speaker, we must today rise to our Constitutional responsibilities. We must do our duty. We answer to our conscience and to posterity. It is with a heavy heart but a clear conscience that I will cast my vote in favor of these Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Steven Covey in his book ``The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People'' says one of the most important habits is to think win-win. I am very happy about this bill today and I am very happy to stand in support, particularly of the biodiesel portion of this because this is not just win-win, it really is win-win- win. It is a win for our environment because when you blend soybean oil with diesel fuel, you cut particulates by almost half. If you have ever sat behind a diesel truck or a bus when it was taking off, I think the whole notion of eliminating or cutting those particulates by 50 percent is something that clearly is a win for the environment. It is also a win for our farmers because the Soybean Growers Association says this bill will add between 7 and 10 cents to the price of a bushel of soybeans. Particularly in this market, that is very much an important win for our farmers. But finally it is a win for our energy independence. We really have not had much of an energy policy for the last several years. This is a good step in the right direction. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and all of the Members of Congress who have worked on this very important piece of legislation. It really is a win-win-win situation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, let us look back at where we were just four short years ago. Deficits were headed up to $300 billion. Millions of Americans were being trapped in a welfare cycle. Medicare was headed towards bankruptcy, and that was threatening seniors' health care. Billions were being wasted on Washington programs that were unnecessary or ineffective. Interest rates were too high, and our economy was teetering, and taxes on families were going up and up and up. Mr. Speaker, let us look at where we are today. Deficits no longer exist. We have balanced the budget. We have taken 2 million families off of welfare rolls and put them on payrolls. Medicare is solvent. Three hundred programs have been eliminated here in Washington. Interest rates have dropped by over 2 percent, and taxes on families is going down. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican Congress has made.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, one of the central planks of our Contract with America was real welfare reform that required work and personal responsibility. Three times we passed our plan that gave States wide latitude to reform their systems. Twice the President vetoed. Our friends on the left warned of dire consequences. Donna Shalala was, quote, visibly shaken when the President finally signed the bill. Since then welfare rolls have been cut by nearly 40 percent. Over 2 million families have moved off of welfare rolls and onto payrolls. Dependency and despair have been replaced with hope and opportunity. Billions of dollars are being saved, but, more important, we are saving millions of children from one more generation of poverty. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican Congress has made.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what this Congress has done to provide tax relief for hard working American families. The $500 per child tax cut will help people provide for their kids. Education savings accounts and the $1500 Hope credit will help them pay for college. Roth IRAs and capital gains tax relief will help people save and invest for their future. Tax free home sales, three-year income averaging for farmers and death tax relief will also reduce the burdens on American families. We all know that they can spend the money a whole lot smarter than the Federal Government can. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Congress gave the American people more good news on taxes, voting to extend the R&D tax credit through 1999, accelerate the full deductibility of health care costs and extending the work opportunities tax credit. We still have much more to do but this is a great start. What a difference a Republican Congress has made.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, there is an expression around this town that ``people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' We have heard a lot in the last couple of weeks about this Congress and how little it has accomplished, but let us look at the facts. For the first time since I was in high school, we have a balanced budget. We have more than that. We have a surplus this year. And for the first time since Tiger Woods was 5 years old, American families are actually going to get some tax relief. Let us talk about some of those tax cuts and what they mean to American families. We are allowing for a $500-per-child tax credit. We are making it easier for families to send their kids to school and to college, and we are also making it easier for them to save and invest for their future through capital gains tax relief and estate tax relief. IRS reform. We are now saying that the IRS has to prove that you are guilty rather than the other way around. In the area of agriculture, we have made significant progress in terms of helping our farmers get through these tough times. In health care, we have made it much more portable so if you lose your job or change jobs, you can take your health insurance with you. In the area of education, this Congress is saying that 90 percent of the funds ought to go to the classroom rather than be consumed by the bureaucracy. On all the areas people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Southeastern Minnesota High School Honors Choir and their director, Richard Kvam, on the successful completion of their European concert tour. As the American representatives to an international competition of high school choirs, these 73 high schoolers from across the First Congressional District represented the best our country has to offer. They did not disappoint us, taking first place in the competition over choirs from as far away as South Africa, Denmark and Japan. More important than their award, however, was the way that the students conducted themselves in concerts and impromptu performances throughout Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic. Whether singing in historic churches or modern airport terminals, they were always respectful of their European hosts. Best of all, they made beautiful music. We in Minnesota have been blessed with an unusually strong choral music heritage. Our Honors Choir follows in the tradition of such internationally-acclaimed groups as the St. Olaf College Choir and the Dale Warland Singers. As someone who has heard the Honors Choir perform on more than one occasion, I can attest to the fact that they deserve to be called the best in the world. Congratulations, once again.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 4017 because it is a win win-win proposition. Americans win with cleaner air. We win with greater energy independence. And, we win with higher farm income and a stronger rural economy. As one who fought for the 5.4 cent ethanol blenders' tax credit and as one who originally cosponsored H.R. 4017, I want to commend my colleagues in the 105th Congress for their outstanding record of achievement in the advancement of renewable fuels. It was the 105th Congress that extended the critical ethanol blenders' tax credit to the year 2007, and it is this Congress which now proposes to formally recognize biodiesel as an alternative fuel. Biodiesel is proven to reduce harmful air pollutants--and does it without imposing costly and burdensome regulations. Biodiesel will build on ethanol's success by further reducing our dependence on foreign energy making America's future more secure. And, biodiesel promises to add between seven and ten cents per bushel to the price of soybeans. That's good news if you come from Mankato, Minnesota where we crush more beans each day than anywhere else on Earth. Mr. Speaker, this is an especially good day for Minnesota farmers and I want to compliment my good friend and colleague, Congressman John Shimkus, for his leadership throughout the 105th Congress in making it possible. I am proud to be an original sponsor of this legislation and I urge its adoption.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, I was forced to choose between keeping my promise to provide additional tax relief to working families and my pledge that every penny of Social Security taxes should go only to Social Security. The Democrats' demagoguery rings hollow. For 40 years they raided the trust fund. All of this year's $80 billion surplus will go towards debt, not new programs. But there was a grain of truth to the arguments that they raised. Ending the marriage penalty and making Social Security solvent are not mutually exclusive. A compromise can be reached so that tax cuts can be phased in after our obligations to Social Security have been met. This could begin as early as next March. When Americans allowed Washington to take money from their paychecks to fund Social Security, they never told Washington to keep the change.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that some of the debate I have heard so far today on the floor of the House is almost embarrassing. We have literally heard Members say: I would have voted for this bill 6 months ago, and I will vote for it in January, but I cannot vote for it now. Mr. Speaker, it almost gives hypocrisy a bad name even here in Washington. This is a very important vote, and as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, many of our farmers are in the middle of the harvest right now, and, frankly, we need to make sure that that harvest has a market. As my colleagues know, a lot of people have criticized the farm bill and they say farmers are going broke today. Well, of course they are. We have lost $5 billion worth of exports. Trade was at record high back in 1996, and so was farm income, and it is no coincidence. Exports have dropped, and so has farm income. We cannot eat all that we produce here in the United States. Trade is critically important to us, and I want to call attention to something that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) said just a minute ago and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) said earlier as well: This bill has in it super 301 language so that our government is now going to be responsible for enforcing the trade agreements that we have. Heretofore we have required that the trade groups have actually had to enforce them. In the end, Members, this is a debate between those who believe that America can compete in a world marketplace and those who believe that America cannot. I, for one, am not willing to give up on America's farmers or America's workers because I believe that America can and will and must compete in a world marketplace.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we must do everything we can to give America's children the education they will need to succeed. I am proud of what we have done so far, passing tax cuts for families with kids and making it easier for them to afford higher education. But there is much more to do, especially for younger children. State and local taxes pay most of the cost of education. They always have. But while the Federal Government provides only about 7 percent of all the funding for local schools, it creates over half of their paperwork. Mr. Speaker, that is why I have cosponsored legislation to guarantee that at least 95 percent of Federal education funds get to the classroom instead of being consumed by the bureaucracy. We cannot allow Federal paperwork to continue to siphon off valuable time, energy and resources away from the classroom. Our children are too important.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to visit a number of schools in my district. After one visit, I was surprised by one of the teachers who told me that she appreciated the welfare reform that this Congress passed back in 1996. So I asked her to tell me about that. And she said, well, there was this boy in her class, she said, let us call him Johnny. All of a sudden Johnny started to behave better. He had a better attitude, he was a better student. Everything about Johnny was better. Finally she asked Johnny, ``Is there something different at your house?'' And Johnny responded, ``Yeah, my dad got a job.'' Mr. Speaker, a job is more than the way you earn your living. A job helps to define your very life. Despite what some of our liberal friends claim, the real purpose of welfare reform was not so much to save money. It was about saving people. It was about saving families. It was about saving children from one more generation of poverty, dependency and despair. It has certainly made a difference in Johnny's life. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican Congress has made.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important issue, not only for people in my district, but I think for people all over the United States. Yesterday morning I met with farmers in Kasson, Minnesota, and we talked about low commodity prices. For the benefit of Members who probably do not follow commodity prices and how they affect our farm economy and ultimately affect the entire economy, I would like to bring our colleagues up to speed. Yesterday I think the posted price in Kasson, Minnesota, for corn was $1.44 a bushel. To inform my colleagues, the cost of production on that corn is somewhere north of $2 per bushel. I know that some of our colleagues on the left are saying the problem is Freedom to Farm, that that was a huge mistake in the farm bill we passed several years ago, and that is the reason for that. It is curious, however, they were not complaining when the price of corn was in excess of $3 a bushel. The truth of the matter is, allowing farmers the decision about where and how they want to plant their crops and which crops to plant on which acres, the whole notion of allowing freedom to farmers I think is a good idea and an idea whose time had come. The problem is that we have lost over $5 billion worth of exports over the last year or year-and-a-half. That is $5 billion that has come right out of the pockets of farmers throughout the United States. But it has particularly affected the farmers in the upper Midwest where we are very dependent on export markets. Why has that happened? For a variety of reasons. One is the decline in the economy in Asia. That was a very large export source for us, particularly in the upper Midwest. But $5 billion has come right out of the pockets of farmers. Coincidentally, this administration has failed to use nearly $5 billion in export enhancements. At the very time we need to export more, the administration has done less in terms of encouraging more exports. What are we going to do about this? I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to respond, and to respond this fall. Obviously, because we have had relatively good farm incomes for the last couple of years, we are not in a crisis state yet, but we certainly will be, unless Congress takes some immediate and important actions and takes them yet this fall. First of all, I think we need to make certain that the United States has a seat at the bargaining table as it relates to trade talks. One of the most important things this Congress can do, and I hope we will do it next week, is to vote on Fast Track. As I talk to farmers around my district, and literally I have talked to thousands over the last month, one of the most important things they all tell me is that we need to pass Fast Track. Whether you are talking to the Corn Growers Association, the Soybean Growers Association, the Farm Bureau, virtually any farm group that you talk to put as one of their top priorities passing Fast Track so we can negotiate with our trading partners and get a bigger share of the world market out there. The next thing we have got to do is make certain we enforce the trade agreements that we currently have with our trading partners. It is no secret that many of our trading partners are not living up to the agreements they have signed with the United States, whether it is the heavy subsidies in Europe or our friends to the north in Canada. There is clear evidence, and now we finally have the administration filing a 301 petition in the World Trade Organization against Canada for some of the things they have been doing. They have not lived up to their agreements under the North American Free Trade Agreement as far as we are concerned, particularly on the issue of dairy. We see where they are continuing to try to keep American exports out of Canada. They are applying penalties to the United States and using some of that penalty so they can further subsidize their exports into other markets, further putting American producers behind the 8-ball. So we have to do more to enforce the trading agreements that we have. Another point that has come up in many of my discussions with farmers is we understand that we have got to do all we can as a Nation to help rebuild those economies, particularly in Asia. The issue of the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, has come up at many of the meetings I have been at. I think there is generally support for doing something to try to strengthen those economies, but there is a growing concern, and I share that concern, that much of the money we have given to the IMF has been wasted. In fact, I think Indonesia and Russia are good examples. When you look at the evidence of the billions and billions of American tax dollars that have been spent in those regions, we see very little evidence that it has made much difference. So I and some of my colleagues are talking to people here in Washington about rather than giving in to the administration's request for another $18 billion of American tax dollars going into the IMF, why do we not take at least half of that money and provide low interest loans to some of our trading partners so they can buy some of this surplus grain that we have here in the United States at low prices? We are like that car dealer or that carpet dealer that is overstocked, and we are having a sale of the century. We ought to move that grain and use that money so that our trading partners can buy that at low-interest loans. There are a number of things that we can do here in Washington in the next several weeks to improve the lot of farmers in Minnesota and around the country, and hopefully we can get that done.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has accomplished something that was once considered impossible. When the other party controlled this House, some of their Members talked a good game about balancing the budget, but when I was elected just 4 years ago, the deficit stood at over $200 billion and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, was going to get worse, not better. We said that we would balance the budget within 7 years by slowing the growth in entitlement spending, putting a flexible freeze on defense spending and making targeted cuts in domestic discretionary and other areas. We eliminated over 300 wasteful and unnecessary Washington programs and streamlined countless others. Mr. Speaker, on October 1st, we will celebrate the first balanced budget in almost 30 years, 4 years ahead of schedule, and we will have a large surplus. We did it while keeping our promise to provide tax relief for working families. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican Congress has made.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to put a couple other facts on the record. Even the President recognizes that this is a very low priority item. In his FY 1998 budget request, he requested zero funds for this program. He received $21 million anyway. This year he requested $15 million and we are giving him another $21 million. I think what I tried to demonstrate with my earlier remarks about what is happening in Minnesota, these people are extremely creative. They will figure out a way to fund these enhancements. And I understand that this is not where we will talk mostly about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But I really think this is one area where we at least ought to honor the President's budget request, use those additional funds for programs that we think really do make a difference in the inner city.

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