Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple amendment. We simply limit the funding for Public Telecommunications Facilities Program to what the President originally requested, $15 million, and use the additional $6 million to support the Weed and Seed Program, a comprehensive crime fighting and neighborhood revitalization program. Mr. Chairman, the story I am about to tell, if it were not published in several newspapers, I would have a difficult time believing myself, but it involves public broadcasting and what has happened over the last several years. And as Members will recall, after the 1994 elections many of us came in and said it is time to wean public broadcasting from taxpayer dollars. And at that time I remember we had some of the people from public broadcasting came to my office and we had some lengthy discussions about the value of public broadcasting as well as the costs, and what ultimately were being paid in terms of salaries to some of the executives at NPR and other public broadcasting entities. I remember at the time I was told that all of these reports that the salaries and the compensation were exorbitant were way overblown, and that these people were being paid less than they would be paid at broadcasting facilities of similar size in the private sector. We all believed that that was true. Then the facts began to come out, and let me give my colleagues some examples. What has really happened in public broadcasting, particularly back in Minnesota, is they have found very creative ways to take a nonprofit agency, spin off for-profit companies, and then take some of those profits from that company, not so much just to help the broadcasting cause but to help themselves. For example, in 1995 one of the spin-offs of NPR, a company called Greenspring, had total sales of $135 million. Now, it was then that there were published reports that while the executive director, the president, was being paid $67,000, it was estimated his total compensation package was somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000. Well, they denied that and said it was not true. But later, when the facts came out, it was learned that in 1995 the total compensation for the gentleman in question was $291,000. Now, the story gets better. In 1996, it is estimated that the total compensation was $526,000. In fact, we subsequently learned, according to a copyrighted story in a Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis, that the total compensation was $75,000 from the Public Broadcasting Corporation but he had an additional $451,000, to give him a grand total compensation of $526,945. Now, I do not argue that executives should be well paid, and that is not my purpose here. But let me take this one step further. Another group they spun off as an umbrella corporation from NPR was a group called the Riverfront Trading Company. Now, in 1998, the spring of 1998, it was sold off to the Dayton Hudson Corporation. As a result of that spin-off, not only was the president of NPR paid, with salary and bonuses from Greenspring, somewhere in the area of $500,000, he was also paid an additional bonus of $2.6 million. That was the bonus on top of his annual compensation. Now, I am not here to just bash this particular individual, but the numbers are a matter of public record now. The president was paid a total compensation in 1996 of $526,495, the vice president was paid $270,000, and another person who works for him was paid $529,000. The point of all of this is that we have lost the battle about completely cutting the umbilical cord of public broadcasting, but the President came in this year and asked for $15 million for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, and in this appropriation bill we have awarded them $21 million. We believe we should at least go back to the original request. We have found that people in public broadcasting can be extremely creative in terms of ways that they can turn a dollar, especially if some of those dollars can return to them. I am in favor of some form of bonuses. I think these seem to be a bit steep. But frankly, we can take that additional $6 million and put it into a program which has shown that it is making a real difference in our core cities, and that is the Weed and Seed Program. This is a comprehensive crime fighting, neighborhood revitalization program that really attacks our problems of high crime, drugs, all the problems we see in our inner cities, and we attack it with a twofold approach: First of all, aggressively fighting the crime, the drug sales and trafficking that goes on in the inner cities; and then, secondly, using some of the funds as grants to encourage more economic development. I think this is a good amendment. It is a fair amendment.

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about education here in the United States. For the past year, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, has been conducting hearings all across the United States. They have been to 22 different cities. They have been to large cities, they have been to small towns, and they have been to rural communities. They visited 26 different educational institutions. They have had 200 expert witnesses, and they have talked about what is happening in education today. They are going to be coming out very soon with a report, and I invite all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get a copy of this report, because they have spent an awful lot of time and a certain amount of taxpayers' dollars to find out what is really happening in education in America today. Their findings are somewhat troubling. They find, for example, that there has been no real improvement in education in America since the report entitled ``A Nation At Risk.'' They found that Washington programs have done nothing to improve children's education; and, finally, they have determined that this is not acceptable to the Congress and certainly is not acceptable to the American people. So what do we have to do? An important thing about this report also is it has recommendations. We must focus on children by strengthening the role of parents. Now, that should not surprise many parents. We must restore local control by getting Washington out of the way. We must get dollars into the classroom instead of losing them to the bureaucracy; and, finally, and most importantly, we must emphasize basic academics rather than social experimentation. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will get a copy of this report, and I hope they will all read it. I include for the Record a copy of same. The ``Education at a Crossroads'' Report Methods 22 Congressional hearings across America and in Washington,

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, in honor of the memory of John Michael Gibson and Jacob Joseph Chestnut, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we gather today to honor two men in a way that has been reserved for Presidents and military heroes. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we would honor these two slain Capitol Police officers as only 26 other Americans have been recognized. Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson were heroes. They chose to place themselves in harm's way every day they came to work. In that awful moment last Friday, they did not flinch from making the ultimate sacrifice to protect coworkers, friends, and even complete strangers. They were more than just officers, though. They were husbands, fathers, and a grandfather. We grieve with their families, mourning their loss and ours. Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson were part of that thin blue line that runs through every community in America. As we remember their heroism this week, let us not forget that their colleagues here at the Capitol and in law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation still stand ready to protect and search. Let us appreciate the contributions they make and the risks that they take each day when they put on that uniform. As Ronald Reagan said, those who say we don't have heroes anymore, well, they just don't know where to look. We lost two of those heroes on Friday.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we gather today to honor two men in a way that has been reserved for presidents and military heroes. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we would honor the two slain Capitol Police officers as only 26 other Americans have been recognized. Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson were heroes. They chose to place themselves in harm's way every day they came to work. And in that awful moment last Friday, they did not flinch from making the ultimate sacrifice to protect co-workers, friends, and even complete strangers. They were more than just officers, though. They were husbands, fathers, and a grandfather. We grieve with their families, mourning their loss and ours. Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson were part of the ``thin blue line'' that runs through every community in America. As we remember their heroism this week, let us not forget that their colleagues--here at the Capitol and in law enforcement agencies throughout the nation--still stand ready to protect and to serve. And let us appreciate the contributions they make--and the risks they take--each day when they put on that uniform. As Ronald Reagan said, ``those who say we don't have heroes anymore just don't know where to look.'' We lost two of those heroes on Friday.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, of all the scandals coming out of this White House, one scandal above all is perhaps the most disturbing. This scandal is more disturbing than the 900 FBI files on Republicans that somehow showed up in the White House; more disturbing than the use of private investigators to smear political opponents; more disturbing than the use of the IRS and the FBI to smear Billy Dale and the Travel Office employees; more disturbing than the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice; and even more disturbing than the vast left- wing coverup of all of the above. I am talking about the shocking revelation that the White House has helped the Communist Chinese Government with its missile program. We do not know if this administration gave a waver to Loral Corporation because the chairman, Bernard Schwartz, was the Democrat's top donor in 1996 or not. But whether this administration did it for the money or not, the scandal is still almost beyond comprehension. At best, the administration inadvertently helped the Communist Chinese Government to develop its Long March missiles. The American people expect and deserve an explanation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, you may have seen in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other newspapers, articles about the current farm crisis. The hard times in farm country are real and demand immediate attention. The $5.5 billion package introduced by the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and the half billion dollars approved by the Senate are good starters. Unfortunately, some folks cannot resist making a political football out of the misfortune of others. These folks say that the 1996 farm bill, which the President signed, is to blame for all the woes in farm country. Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to avoid the blame game, but if the goal of the Democrats is to place the blame they do not have to look very far. How about the congressional Democrats' unwilling less to pass fast track trade negotiating authority with their president? At least he used to say this was so critical to U.S. farmers and ranchers. When one-third of our farmers' cash receipts come from exports, how can congressional Democrats defend their opposition to fast track? When EU subsidies in 1997 were at their highest level in this decade, at nearly $47 billion compared to $5.3 billion here in the United States, how can they oppose fast track? When the start of the next World Trade talks are only 5 months away, why would Democrats oppose the President's request for fast track so that the United States can have a seat at the negotiating table in order to tear down these trade barriers? The answer may be the Democrats are more interested in collecting big labor PAC checks for their reelections than protecting their own farmers. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, fast track is not my only priority but it is one of our most important priorities. It is the priority also of most of the U.S. leading farm and ranch organizations. It only makes sense. In 1996, when ag exports were at their all time high, $60 billion, farm income was up, but now that ag exports have dropped over the last 2 years by an estimated $5 billion, farm income is down. How about trade sanctions? Over the past 60 years, Mr. Speaker, we have imposed approximately 120 different sanctions. Despite relatively peaceful times, guess which administration has imposed over half of these sanctions in just the past 6 years? You guessed it. This one. This administration is willing to impose unilateral sanctions at the drop of a hat, and I am not sure what these sanctions have accomplished in the way of national security. What I do know is that it forecloses U.S. ag sales to millions of the world consumers. If we still want to place the blame, what has the administration been up to while ag exports have been precipitously dropping? You would think they would be scrambling to sell ag commodities using the ag export enhancement tools authorized under that dreadful 1996 farm bill, but according to a recent General Accounting Office report, that is not true. The administration has used only 44 percent under the dairy export incentive programs to promote U.S. dairy exports. This is despite a mandate in the horrible farm bill that says that the DEIP program should be used to the maximum extent practical under GATT. Despite an annualized $5 billion authorization under the 1996 farm bill for the GSM export program to move our ag products, this administration has used only $3.2 billion and $2.9 billion in the 1996 and 1997 fiscal years respectively. In other words, $3.9 billion in GSM export assistance went to waste while our ag exports have tumbled. Guess how much of the 1.5 billion export enhancement program dollars authorized under the farm bill have actually been used by this administration? If you guessed only $7 million, you would be right. Mr. Speaker, the President and congressional Democrats know that the success of the 1996 farm bill depends on favorable tax and regulatory policy, improved research and crop insurance and perhaps, most importantly, trade. The Democrats resisted and continue to resist tax relief for farmers or for anyone else, as far as that goes. The administration is talking about a new EPA program with more regulations that could strangle many of my dairy, beef and pork producers who are already overregulated. The President held hostage ag research money until he got food stamp money for legal aliens. He also held hostage critical crop insurance money to fix funding problems that he created back in 1994. When it comes to trade, the President and Congressional Democrats are AWOL. Democrats also charged that Republicans somehow have taken away the safety net for farmers. As a former Democratic Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. De la Garza pointed out, over the last decade on the Democrat's watch, Congress has cut the agriculture farm bill by more than $60 billion. Importantly, the Republican House budget resolution does not call for a single cut in support of U.S. farmers and ranchers. Mr. Speaker, I could remind our Congressional Democrat friends that if we go back to supply management, for every acre we leave unplanted, Argentina will be happy to plant one. Mr. Speaker, it is time to cut the rhetoric and work together. It is time to get the job done for American farmers. It is time to open our trade relations with our partners and get more export enhancement programs going so that we get more farm income to our farmers.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, let us listen to what some people have said about Judge Ken Starr's character and integrity. I quote, ``Starr has the confidence of most of those of us who know him and, I suspect, the confidence of most of us in the Senate.'' A Republican? No. That was Senator James Exon, Democrat of Nebraska. Here is another, and I quote, ``Judge Starr is certainly a neutral party. No one, I think, has accused him of being on a fishing expedition.'' A Republican? No. That was Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, these two comments represent many, many comments made by Democrats about Judge Ken Starr's character back in 1993 when Judge Starr was asked to investigate sexual misconduct charges against former Senator Bob Packwood on behalf of the Ethics Committee. Democrats once praised Judge Starr, but now they either criticize him or stand silent in the face of White House attacks on his character. What has changed? Well, it could be that Democrats praised Judge Starr because he was investigating a Republican. We can only wonder.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on this project, which is so important to my home State, the community of Wabasha, me and, most importantly, to millions of Americans eager to see this remarkably beautiful symbol of our Nation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, concerning the proposed National Eagle Center in Wabasha, Minnesota. Many of my colleagues may recall a CBS report last winter concerning efforts in the City of Wabasha, Minnesota, to construct a National Eagle Center. In his news report, anchorman Harry Smith stated that it makes his heart quicken to see this magnificent symbol of our Nation in its natural environment: Hundreds of bald eagles perched in the cottonwoods and fishing along the banks of the Mississippi River near Wabasha, a community of 2,500 people made famous by the movie, ``Grumpy Old Men.'' Mr. Chairman, Harry Smith is not unlike millions of Americans who are thrilled to have a rare chance to see a bald eagle in the wild. In fact, CBS News officials said the network received more phone calls requesting copies of this story of Smith's than any other. For the past 9 years, 70 volunteers from in and around Wabasha, Minnesota, have generously donated their time and talent in order to share this once-in-a-lifetime experience with the thousands of visitors who come each year to see this remarkable bird. These thousands of visitors come to Wabasha because nowhere else in the lower 48 States can one find a better view of this, our national symbol. Nowhere else can visitors benefit, free of charge, from a trained staff of volunteers who help them spot and learn more about the Bald Eagle. But as my colleague knows, Minnesota can get very cold in the winter, and that is why the City of Wabasha and the State of Minnesota have joined forces and contributed $1.9 million, about half the amount necessary, to construct an indoor eagle viewing and educational facility for the benefit of visitors from all over the country. Mr. Chairman, I have asked the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, if he would lend his support for the National Eagle Center. I understand the chairman will consider this request as the Interior bill is taken up in conference with the Senate.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very instructive debate. I think it gets to the core of what we are talking about. Just a few moments ago the gentleman from Connecticut said he wanted reform. I submit what we really want is compliance. Mark Twain once observed that human beings are the only creatures that God has created that can blush, or needs to. What has happened to our ability to blush? What has happened to our moral outrage? Twenty- seven million dollars was raised at White House coffees. We do not really need reform, I say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), we simply need people who lead by example. Most of what we are talking about here tonight, most of the abuses we have read about, headline after headline, those are things that I think all of us know are wrong. They are simply wrong. I would call the gentleman's attention to this amendment. I rise in support of this amendment. But even this amendment is fatally flawed, especially if somebody can legalistically rationalize no compelling legal authority. Then all of the rest of this, for example, the language is, ``any official residence or retreat of the President, including private residential areas and the grounds of such a residence or retreat.'' Does that mean Camp David? I think it does. But somebody else may say it does not. We can purse, we can come up with legalisms, we can come up with excuses. That really, at the end of the day, is the fundamental argument about ``campaign finance reform.'' Our entire legal system, and particularly campaign finance, relies on voluntary compliance. When we have people who are bound and determined to use their power, to use their office, to abuse the influence of that office, I do not think we can write campaign finance laws that are strong enough. I wish we could. If anybody in this room, probably the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and myself would love to see the stopping of this nonsense we have seen, the abuses of issue advocacy advertising and soft money and all the rest. But I suspect in the end the Supreme Court is going to say that that is protected political free speech. In the end what we are going to come back to is that certain people are going to figure out a way to get around whatever language we put in. We had campaign finance reform before, and we will probably have it again. But in the end, only good people are bound by the law.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I remember the Cuban missile crisis. I remember fallout shelters. I remember the drills we had to do when I was a child to protect us from a nuclear attack. During the 1950s, America was practicing for what we thought was the inevitable. I do not want our Nation's children to ever experience that. It is time for us to build a national missile defense to protect our children. The good news is we have the technology to knock missiles right out of the sky. The bad news is the administration does not think it is necessary. That is right. If an enemy missile was launched at the United States, our super-sophisticated computers would pick it up right away and calculate exactly where it was going to hit and when. And then nothing. All we could do is wait for it to hit its target and pray for all of the lives that would be lost. We have the capability to protect ourselves with a national missile defense. We just choose not to build it. Madam Speaker, I remember the 1950s. Let us use our technology to protect our kids. I want our kids to grow up happy and carefree, not practicing what to do when nuclear missiles are launched at us. Let us build a national missile defense. Let us do it for our kids.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller- Schumer amendment. U.S. sugar policy is a win-win proposition. We win by reducing the debt and by protecting our farmers from unfair foreign trade. As a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I want my colleagues to know that U.S. sugar policy has been run at no net cost since 1985. Since 1991, the U.S. sugar policy has actually been a revenue raiser for the Federal Treasury. Former President and Member of this House John Adams said ``Facts are stubborn things,'' and here are some very stubborn facts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that U.S. sugar policy will generate $288 million in revenue over the life of the farm bill. By law, every single cent of this is earmarked for debt reduction. U.S. sugar farmers are among the most efficient in the world. Two- thirds of the world's sugar is produced at a higher cost than that in the United States. That is why U.S. sugar farmers endorse free trade. Unfortunately, the world is far from free trade. More than 100 countries produce sugar, and every single one of them intervenes in the market to protect their producers. That is why the world sugar market fails to reflect the real cost of producing sugar. For the past 15 years, the price of sugar on the world market has averaged only one-half the cost of the average production. When most of our trading partners do not play fair, how can we expect U.S. sugar farmers or any American farmer to unilaterally disarm? Mr. Chairman, unilateral disarmament was a stupid idea during the Cold War, and it is a stupid idea for American farmers. Mr. Chairman, I support a win-win sugar policy. Let us defeat the Miller-Schumer amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, a wise man once defined insanity as doing more of what you have been doing and expecting a different result. Our friends on the left are talking about giving more money to schools which have produced terrible results, confident in the belief that schools which have failed so miserably the last time Congress gave them more money will do a better job this time around. Republicans talk about improving school performance, for we believe that the focus should be on results, not just on inputs. Democrats talk about spending more money from the Federal Government, unconcerned that Washington bureaucrats will then have more control over our children's education. Republicans want exactly the opposite. We want parents and local authorities to have more power, and we want less meddling from Washington bureaucrats. Two different visions and, I submit, two fundamentally different approaches to the education of our children.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if one appreciates law or good sausage, he should watch neither being made. And today maybe we ought to add cheese to that description, because this is really kind of an ugly display of region against region. Several years ago we all cheered when the Berlin Wall came down. And not too long after that the flag over the Kremlin came down for the last time. And when it did, one of the business newspapers ran an editorial. I thought it was the Wall Street Journal, but it was not. They ran an editorial and the headline said, ``Markets are more powerful than armies.'' If we look at the Soviet experiment, for 70 years what they tried to do was hold back markets. What they found was it cannot be done. It will not work. And it is true of milk. It is true of our commodities. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), I agreed with much of what he said. But let us just examine. He said what the dairy farmers, and what the farmers in his area or the farmers around the country today, what they are paying for a combine is enormously different from what they were paying 20 years ago. And what they receive for their commodities, whether it is corn or soybeans or wheat or milk or whatever they produce, is different today than it was 20 years ago. In many respects, farming is a tougher business today than it has ever been. If we talk to our farmers, and I have as well, they will tell us that. What they will also tell us is that the price of corn is the same whether it is grown in Iowa or Minnesota or Vermont or anywhere else. We do not have different price for corn. We do not have different prices for soybeans. It is the same, whether it is grown in one area of the country or another. The entire milk marketing order system is Byzantine. It is antimarket. It may have made some sense back in 1935, but it makes no sense today in the day of the interstate transportation network, in the day of advanced refrigeration so that the milk can be produced on a farm in Minnesota or Wisconsin one day and literally be in a bottling plant in Washington, D.C. the next. Mr. Chairman, the whole idea of this one region against the other is anti-American. One of the reasons that the colonists came together and organized this country was so that we would not have States setting up barriers against other States. The idea of a dairy compact is un-American. It really is not just about dairy; it is about if we really care about free trade. We will probably have several debates here in the next several months about free trade and opening up markets, whether it is in Asia or the European Union. Many of us want to have fast track so that we can negotiate more trade agreements with our trading partners. Would it not be great if we had fast track between Minnesota and Vermont so that dairy products could move back and forth across State borders? This whole concept is crazy. Let me just finish with this. For people to stand on the House floor with a straight face and say that we must defend to the end this dairy policy, which incidentally has cost us 152,000 dairy farmers over the last 10 years. Let me say that again. The system we have today that many are up on the floor of the House today defending has cost us 152,000 dairy farmers. It is an abysmal failure. It is Byzantine. It is anti-American. It is what the colonies came together to fight against and it should be stopped. One of the reasons we are so aggressive today in fighting the extension is because we have fought it so long. This fight has been going on for 60 years and now they are saying is all we want is another 6-month extension. We fear, and I think we have reason to fear, that then there will be another 6-month extension.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the commerce clause of the Constitution, and in fact we ought to have some debate within the Committee on the Judiciary, I think the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has a much different view of what this is all about. For States to come together and put up trade barriers around those States in my opinion, and I stick with my term, is un-American and it is unconstitutional in my view. But worse than that, it is bad economics. It makes no sense. Let me close with this. Some may know that I am also an auctioneer. And this is one thing I understand about auctions. Markets are much more powerful than anything we can do. We can suspend the law of supply and demand only so long, but we cannot repeal it. Ultimately, the markets will prevail. They will prevail over the Northeast Dairy Compact and any other compacts that ultimately are created.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first of all let me say I am not a Supreme Court Justice. I only have one opinion. But in my opinion, any time that States come together to try and create trade barriers, and I might just yield back to the gentleman to ask what is the purpose of the dairy compact if it is not to keep out other dairy products from other parts of the country?

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, an important measure was recently passed by this House that begins to liberate American families. Those of us who talk about values like faith, family and personal responsibility must pursue policies that reinforce those values. Allowing families to save for their children's education through education savings accounts is one such policy. Fourteen million American kids will benefit from this program. Our friends on the left say that they know best how education dollars should be spent. We say parents do. This is one more chapter in the ongoing debate. Mr. Speaker, we want to return power and resources from the bureaucratized Federal Government back to American families. The good news is American families are winning.