Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday and Friday, June 18 and 19, due to my son's graduation, I missed roll call votes 245 and 251. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: On roll call vote number 245, on establishing the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China, yea. On roll call vote number 246, on ordering the previous question on the resolution establishing the rule for further consideration of H.R. 2183, yea. On roll call vote number 247, on agreeing to the resolution establishing the rule for further consideration of H.R. 2183, yea. On roll call vote number 248, on agreeing to the resolution establishing an open rule for consideration of H.R. 4059, the military construction appropriations bill, yea. On roll call vote number 249, on agreeing to the Thomas amendment to the Shays substitute to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act, yea. On roll call vote number 250, on agreeing to the Maloney amendment to the Shays substitute to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act, yea. On roll call vote number 251, on agreeing to the Gillmor amendment to the Shays substitute to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act, yea.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I wanted to thank the chairman for his distinguished leadership on this subcommittee for all of these years, and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and all the members of the subcommittee. I rise today in support of the bill as the cochairman of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, which is a bipartisan group of Members who work together to protect this historical natural resource. The EMP, the Environmental Management Program was something that was started a number of years ago and really has been a model of success. The EMP program forces commercial concerns, environmental concerns, and those with recreational concerns to work together to protect the Mississippi River. The House has approved $19 million for this program as part of its fiscal year 1999 budget. I would point out that this is more than the President has requested. But I would also say that this has been something that the House has done a better job over the last several years of funding than has been requested by the administration. But this is a classy example of a win-win situation where environmental concerns, recreational concerns, commercial concerns are all brought together, people work together to create a better Mississippi River, a better environment, and frankly I think this is a model program for the rest of the country. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and members of the committee for funding it this year.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank first of all the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time, and for his leadership on this. I also want to say a special ``thank you'' to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her leadership on this issue. I rise in support of H.R. 3824, but I want to talk just for a few moments about the history and how the United States got into this business. About 10 years ago, there was a walkway at a hotel down in Kansas City that collapsed. Many believed that the reason was faulty fasteners. It is interesting that that was the motivation of getting us into the business of regulating the manufacture of fasteners. The truth of the matter is when the final study was done, it was not the result of faulty fasteners even in the first place. Mr. Speaker, let me just read a paragraph from a letter from Mr. Bruce Josten from the United States Chamber of Commerce. This is the middle paragraph: ``The Fastener Quality Act sought to ensure the quality of industrial fasteners by requiring uniform inspections and testing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology accredited laboratories. Despite its enactment in 1990, its emanating regulations have not been implemented due to the enormous difficulty in fulfilling the Act's requirements and its attendant burdens and costs to manufacturers, particularly small businesses and consumers.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what a lawyer would say, and what I would say, is a $20 solution to a $2 problem. And frankly I am delighted that we have this bill before us today. I think it is a good step in the right direction. But even better news is that the chairman of the Committee on Science and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology have agreed that this is a good starting point and that we ought to have hearings to talk about repealing this legislation altogether. When this bill was first introduced eight years ago, the National Institute of Standards and Technology opposed this bill, and they oppose it still. So this is a step in terms of common sense. I support the bill, and I do support having additional hearings geared towards ultimately eliminating this needless regulation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for all of his work, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. This amendment is the work product of working together with all of the States attorneys general, people from the Justice Department, people on the Subcommittee on Crime. I want to thank all of them for their work because, as I said at the beginning, I can think of no issue that is more important to this Congress or to this Nation than protecting the safety of our children. This is a good example of, working together on a bipartisan basis, how we can make real progress, send a clear signal to the States and those who would abuse our children that we are serious about this issue. I hope that Members will join me in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to join my colleagues to discuss how we can better protect and ensure the safety of our Nation's children. I can think of no issue that is more important than this one. Over 2 years ago, this Congress passed Megan's Law, which requires States to develop a program to notify communities when a sexual predator is released from prison and moves into their neighborhood. While most States are moving forward to implement Megan's Law, we have seen that many are facing both legal challenges and confusion as to what plan would be both constitutional and effective. Because Megan's Law is too important to risk creating any confusion, I have introduced a resolution to provide States with a model community notification program that they can follow if they choose. Let me emphasize, this is in no way a congressional mandate. It is only a model which is an amalgamation of successful notification programs of 11 States, including my home State of Minnesota. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, this resolution first encourages States to set up an advisory board when a sex offender is released from prison. The board will recommend that the sentencing court give him a designation based on the degree of likelihood that he will repeat his crime. If the risk is low, the individual will be assigned to tier I designation and local law enforcement agencies will be notified. If the risk of repeat offense is moderate, he will be assigned a tier II designation, and law enforcement officials, victims organizations and any of the offender's past victims are notified of his address. Finally, if the risk of repeat offense is high, the offender is given a tier III designation, and the general public is notified of his new residence. This resolution also encourages States to implement a community education program where neighborhoods and law enforcement officers can meet together before a convicted sex offender moves into their community. This has proved to be very helpful in Minnesota where over 1,000 members of the general public met at the first of these meetings in the Twin Cities last year. Let me say that I am very pleased with the support that this bill has received here in Congress. This resolution has over 40 cosponsors, which is almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. I am also extremely grateful to have the support of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Klass Foundation for Children, the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. In addition, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is introducing this resolution in the Senate. I hope my colleagues will join us in this important effort to help our States protect our kids. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, last night when we closed debate on the rule, I was trying to figure out over the weekend an analogy which would demonstrate what this debate is really all about. There are really two debates going on here. One is inside the Beltway, and one is outside the Beltway. Inside the Beltway we hear people saying we cannot tighten that Federal budget belt one notch. Let me demonstrate. What I had my staff do was go out and get three belts. We put them together. What we have here is a nine foot belt. Every foot on this belt represents $1 trillion worth of Federal spending over the next five years. That is $9 trillion. That is a nine foot belt. I do not think anybody in this House could actually wear this belt. All we are asking in the Kasich budget is for our friends on the appropriations committees to tighten this belt one notch, one inch out of a nine foot belt. Yet we hear from some of our friends here inside the Beltway that that cannot be done, that nine feet is not enough, that there is no waste, there is no fat, there is nothing left in the Federal budget that can be trimmed so that we can tighten this belt even one notch. Now, inside the Beltway, I think to a lot of people on that side of the aisle, that debate makes sense. But I will tell you what, outside the Beltway in that great middle part of America, the places you call ``fly-over country,'' out there I think most Americans would look at this belt and they would think of this analogy, and they would say to me things like, ``You mean only one notch?'' But the great news is, if we can get our friends on the appropriations committees to tighten that belt just one notch, guess what? We can eliminate the marriage penalty tax. Every year over 21 million American families pay a penalty of almost $1,400 per family just because they are married. My wife and I celebrate our wedding anniversary this week. We have been married 26 years now. I believe she still loves me, but I wish the IRS would stop tempting her to leave me. That is what happens to 21 million American couples. Every year they pay a penalty just for being married. All we are asking here today is if we can possibly get our friends on the appropriations committees and our friends over in the other body to tighten this budget belt just one notch, so that we can eliminate the marriage penalty tax, so that my wife will not be tempted to leave me, and a lot of other spouses, not only of Members in this body, people all over the United States. Let us eliminate the marriage penalty tax, let us protect Social Security, let us start paying down some of that debt, and let us eliminate some of the fat, the waste, the fraud and the abuse in the Federal budget so we can do the right thing, not only for American families but for future generations of Americans as well. Mr. Chairman, I support the Kasich plan. I respect the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the budget plan they are offering. I think the only plan that can pass is the one offered by Mr. Kasich and the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the participants for this debate today. I think this is a very important debate. Just the other night, all of us were invited to a presentation by the local public television station. They are doing a three-part series on the Face of Russia. It was interesting, because the public television group has gone over there. They spent 5 years making this film. And on the cover of this invitation, there is a picture, a replication, of the Holy Icon of Vladimir. Now, they also asked us to watch an 18-minute video which talked about Russian culture. In that video, fully two-thirds of the time was taken talking about the influence of religion on the Russian culture. Perhaps I was the only one in that audience, knowing that we were going to have this debate later on this week, who saw the irony, that you cannot talk about the culture of Russia without a serious discussion of the effects of religion on that culture. Yet here in the United States we are almost barred today from having an honest discussion of the influences religion has had in our culture. That is why I think this is an important debate. We can debate, and I think the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is, in effect, saying, yes, it is time that we have this debate; the courts have gone too far. And we can argue about the language, and perhaps this amendment will not pass today, but this is not the end, this is the beginning of a very important debate to return some form of balance to our public discourse and the influence that religion has on our culture. Let me also suggest it was about a year ago that his All Holiness, Bartholomew, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, came to this Capitol and received the Congressional Gold Medal. When he gave his remarks after receiving that medal, he said some very important things. He talked about religion in the Eastern European continent, particularly in Russia, and what an influence religion had had. When his All Holiness closed his remarks that day, he closed with a very powerful statement, because he said that he had been following the religion and the effects of communism on religion in the Eastern Bloc, and he said this, and we ought to all be reminded. He said, ``Faith can survive without freedom, but freedom cannot long survive without faith.'' I think that is important for us to discuss as we discuss this important amendment. This is a very important discussion. It is time for us to restore balance in the public square and the influence that religion has had upon our culture. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward, and I thank the gentlemen for the debate.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from somewhere in California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about this debate, and what we have been doing for the last several months in talking about the budget. I was trying to figure out what I could say tonight and to my colleagues and to my constituents about this budget. But I was listening to the debate earlier. It was interesting because it almost seems like deja vu. Have we not been here before? Have we not had this debate before? With people saying, ``You can't do that. You can't eliminate 300 programs. You can't balance the budget and provide tax relief. You can't reform welfare. You can't require able-bodied people to work.'' We did all of those things. And the budget is now balanced. We have come so far. Now they are saying, ``Well, you can't reduce the rate of growth in Federal spending by 1 percent and eliminate the marriage penalty tax.'' They are saying, ``You can't do that.'' I was trying to think, how can we use some kind of a prop or some kind of an analogy to demonstrate what this debate is all about. Finally, I came upon it. I asked my staff to go out and see if they could not find a nine foot belt. We could not find a nine foot belt. What we found was three belts. We put them all together. It is nine feet long. Every foot of this belt represents $1 trillion. That is how much the Federal Government is going to spend over the next 5 years, $9 trillion. Anywhere you go, whether it is in Texas, whether it is in Ohio, in Minnesota, Michigan, wherever you go, I think everyone will agree that $9 trillion is a lot of money. What the Committee on the Budget has come up with is a fairly simple plan. They said if we could get the Federal Government, if we could get our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to simply tighten this belt one notch, one notch, we can eliminate that marriage penalty tax. As earlier the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, this affects about 21 million couples and they pay a penalty of about $1,400 per family. Everyone that spoke tonight has said that is wrong, it is bad tax policy, it is bad family policy, and frankly it is downright immoral that we require married couples to pay a higher tax than if they lived together without the benefit of marriage. And so all we are asking tonight is for our friends on the Committee on Appropriations, and if we work together on a bipartisan basis, I believe, and frankly I will guarantee you 98 percent of the people who might be watching this on C-SPAN will agree that we can get ourselves to tighten this nine foot belt simply one notch. I know there are people on this side of the aisle, in fact, I think there may even be some people on this side of the aisle who say, ``You can't do that.'' But I will flat guarantee you that out in middle America, most Americans believe that you can tighten this belt one notch. That is all we are asking for. I submit this rule is fair. We will have a thorough debate of three different alternatives. But in the end, Mr. Speaker, I will suggest to my colleagues that the Kasich budget, it is fair, it is reasonable, it is responsible, and frankly it is long overdue. I think we ought to approve the rule, we ought to vote for the Kasich budget and we ought to send a clear message to America that yes, we can tighten this nine foot belt simply one notch.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) runs out the door, I want to say a special congratulations and thanks to my colleague. I remember a couple of years ago when we first started having some joint town hall meetings. I represent Minnesota, he represents Wisconsin. When we first started talking about actually balancing the budget, and more importantly, even paying down some of the $5.4 trillion worth of debt that we have run up, that this Congress in the past, at least, has run up on our kids, a lot of people thought we were both crazy. We said that we believed we could balance the budget not just in 7 years, that it could actually be done in much less time. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) came over to my district last year, we had a couple of joint appearances, and then we both predicted that there was a very good chance we would not only balance the budget this year, but there is a very good chance we would have a surplus this year. How has that happened, I know many of our colleagues and folks ask who have been watching this discussion here in this special order this afternoon. It is important, sometimes, to go back to where we were. The charts the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) was showing a few minutes ago showed what was happening for the last 30 years. I had my staff do a little analysis. For the last 30 years, prior to the 1994 elections, for every dollar Washington took in it spent an average of $1.22. That was the pattern for every year. They could raise taxes, sometimes they would cut taxes, but the problem was spending. In fact, a farmer in my district perhaps put it better than anybody else when we were talking one afternoon out on his farm. He said to me, the problem is not that we do not send enough money in to Washington. The problem is that Washington spends it faster than we can send it in. He was exactly right. That is what had been happening for the last 30 years. For the first time in 1995, with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich) and the Committee on the Budget, they came out with a plan to dramatically change the way Washington does business. In the process, we have eliminated 300 different programs here at the Federal level; some of them big ones that people have heard of, like the Interstate Commerce Commission, and many small ones. But the point is, we began to change the whole tenor, the whole debate, the whole discussion, and the whole principles that were at stake here in Washington began to change. In the process, we have reduced the rate of growth in Federal spending. Now, some people said we were making draconian cuts, that kids would lose their school lunches, all of these terrible things would happen to our senior citizens. Most of that was hyperbole and is not true, but it is true that this Congress has dramatically reduced the rate of growth in Federal spending. As a matter of fact, we have cut the rate of growth in Federal spending almost in half. When we combine that with a much stronger than expected economy, and I must say, again, that my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, as a former entrepreneur and businessperson himself, understood that if there were some signals going out both to Wall Street and to Main Street, that for the first time in 30 years Congress was serious about reducing that $1.22 of spending for every dollar it takes in; that that message would be translated into the lower interest rates that folks on Wall Street and folks on Main Street would understand, that for the first time Congress was serious about controlling Federal spending. The net has been that the economy has been much stronger than even some of the most optimistic prognosticators told us a few years ago. So when we combine a much stronger economy with real restraint in Federal spending, what we see today for the first time since I was in high school is not only a budget that is going to be in balance, but more important than that, a budget which will probably produce a significant surplus, we believe somewhere in the area of $80 billion this year, and also has a very good chance of producing surpluses in the $80 to $100 billion range every year for a number of years to come. That is where we were back throughout the sixties, the seventies, the eighties. For every dollar that Washington took in, it spent $1.21. Now that number is actually 99 cents. For every dollar Washington will take in this year, we will spend 99 cents. We still have a lot of problems. One of them is Social Security. I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) has talked a lot about this. I am not certain if he got a chance to talk about it earlier. We do have a significant problem with Social Security. It really is generational. I think we need to talk about generational fairness, when we talk about Social Security. Most of us have parents, and I am fortunate that both my parents are still living. They are both on Medicare, both on Social Security. Obviously, the last thing we want to do is pull the rug out from under them. I happen to represent the baby boomers. I was born in 1951. We once had a demographer tell us there were more babies born in 1951 than any other year. We are the peak of the baby boomers. I understand the consequences to the Social Security trust fund when the baby boomers begin to retire in about the year 2010. I also have three children, and I want to make certain that we do not do things with our generation that would make it impossible for the next generation to enjoy anywhere near the standard of living that we have enjoyed. So we really have three separate generations we have to deal with with Social Security. When we talk about Social Security, and one of the things as it relates to the budget, currently we are taking in about $100 billion a year more than we are spending on Social Security. We should have a trust fund, there is a trust fund, but what happens is the money comes into the trust fund and then is loaned back to the Federal Government. In the process, it disguises the size of the debt. That started back in about 1964. Some of us would argue that it was a mistake to go to the unified budget and use the surpluses in Social Security to make the budget deficit look smaller. But that is the way it is, that is the way it has been. I think at some point in the future, hopefully in the near future, we will begin to change that entire budget process so we have an honest and fair budget accounting. So even though we will show a surplus this year technically, we will still be borrowing about $100 billion this year from the Social Security trust fund. We have to solve that and at least be aware of that. I want to say a special congratulations to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich). No one has fought harder in this Congress over the last 5 or 6 years to balance the Federal budget to get control of the Federal spending that that farmer talked about than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). I also want to congratulate him, because as a member of the Committee on the Budget, we have been working long and hard over the last several months trying to come up with a budget plan, number one, which will advance the values that I think most Americans have and want. That is, they want us to pay down some of that national debt, they want to save Social Security, they would like to shrink the size of the Federal Government to allow for additional tax relief. That is exactly what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the Republican members of the Committee on the Budget have been working on, and within the next week or 10 days we are going to be unveiling that plan, hopefully have it here on the House floor. Essentially what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the Committee on the Budget are talking about is restricting the rate of growth in Federal spending over the next 5 years to the inflation rate. I know when that budget hits the floor there are going to be people who are going to say, oh, my goodness, you cannot restrict the rate of growth in Federal spending to the inflation rate. But ultimately they are going to have to ask themselves this question. They are going to have to choose between family budgets and the Federal budget; why is it more important that the Federal budget grow at greater than the inflation rate when many family budgets are not? If we can do that, if we can exercise even that fiscal discipline to find an additional $100 billion, this does require some cuts in terms of what people had expected to spend in some of these programs. But generally speaking, as I say, we are going to allow Federal spending to grow at approximately the rate of inflation over the next 5 years. In doing so, we will generate significant surpluses in our opinion, and more important, we will make room for significant tax relief. The tax I want to talk about that we hope that we will include in the final budget resolution, at least as a recommendation to our colleagues here in the House, will be for the marriage penalty tax. I believe my numbers are correct. There are approximately 12 million American families who pay a tax penalty for the privilege or the right or the blessing, if you will, of being married. I like to tell the story that in less than a month my wife and I will celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary. I steal this story from Senator Phil Gramm over in the Senate side, one of our colleagues over there, who says he has been married a long time. He believes his wife still loves him, but says, I wish the IRS would stop tempting my wife to leave me. It is almost unconscionable, and frankly, I think it is almost immoral that the Federal Government charges married couples a higher tax rate, so that approximately 12 million American families pay a tax penalty of almost $2,000 per family for being married. We ought to encourage stronger marriages, not discourage them. Here in Washington one of my favorite expressions, and altogether too often it is true, is that no good deed goes unpunished. In other words, if you work, you get punished; if you save, you get punished; if you create jobs, you get punished. That is the kind of thinking that really has occupied Washington for too long. What we are saying is that it is time to reverse some of those perverse incentives. Clearly the marriage penalty tax is one of those. Our estimates are that to get rid of the marriage penalty tax, it would take about $100 billion over the next 5 years, which, coincidentally, if we limit the growth in Federal spending to the inflation rate over the next 5 years, frees up enough money to make that tax penalty go away. I think that is a good idea. I think that is an idea that once the American people have a chance to evaluate that, to understand it, I think they will agree that it is time to end the marriage penalty tax and, if we can make the Federal Government go on just a slight diet over the next five years and, to put this in context, over the next five years it is estimated that the Federal Government will spend about $9 trillion, that is with a ``T'' now, $9 trillion, that is how much we are expected to spend under the budget agreement that we set with the President last August 5. What the Committee on the Budget is going to ask all Members of Congress to do is to tighten the Federal budget by $100 billion. To put that in some kind of a context that perhaps we can understand better, let us assume the Federal Government has a belt that is 9 feet around, in other words, the waste, the girth of the Federal budget is 9 feet or $9 trillion. What we are going to ask our colleagues to do is find a way to pull that belt in one inch. We are going to pull that belt in one notch. If we can do that, we can eliminate the marriage penalty tax, we can create greater surpluses to make Social Security more solvent. We can begin to pay down the debt and ultimately, by sticking to a very simple formula of limiting the growth of the Federal budget to approximately the inflation rate, we can provide additional funds for tax relief. We can make Social Security solvent. But here is the best news of all, we can pay off the national debt. We can pay off the national debt in approximately 21 years. That may seem simple and it may seem almost too hard to believe, but we have run the numbers and they are accurate. Now, I talked earlier about the generational fairness and being fair to our senior citizens. Certainly we do not want to pull the rug out from under them as it relates to Medicare or Social Security. We also understand what the baby boom generation is going to mean in terms of its retirement, what is going to happen when we begin to draw on those Medicare benefits. What we really want to do, though, is preserve the American dream for future generations. I cannot think of anything better to leave our kids than a debt free future. I think if the American people have a chance to think about this, I think they are going to agree that the time has come to dream big dreams. There was an architect from Chicago who said, make no small plans. The American people have always made big plans. We are a people of big dreams. In fact, Winston Churchill once observed, when he was talking about the American people, he said, you did not cross the oceans, fjord the streams, traverse the streams and deal with the droughts and pestilence because you were made of sugar candy. The American people are a tough people. They believe in big dreams. They believe in paying down the debt. Out where I come from in farm country, it is almost the American dream to pay off the mortgage and leave our kids the farm. It is unfortunate, if you stop and think about it, what we have been doing here in the United States, particularly here in Washington over the last 30 or 40 years. They literally have been selling off the farm and leaving our kids the mortgage. That is worse than just bad politics. It is worse than just bad economics. It is fundamentally immoral. So what we are saying is, if Washington can find a way, if we in Congress can take that 9-foot-long belt and if we can pull it in just one notch, one inch, we cannot only balance the budget, we can actually begin to pay down the national debt, and we can make room for tax relief for working families. We can make it easier so that they can take care of their kids and their families by eliminating the marriage penalty tax. That is a big dream. That is a big goal. But Americans love big dreams and big goals, and I think that this Congress is up to that task. I think we can get it done. It is going to take the help of the American people. I think we have to help. We have to explain it to the American people so that they understand these are not draconian cuts we are going to be talking about. We are actually talking about limiting the growth in Federal spending over the next five years to the expected inflation rate. It can be done. In fact, if you compare what we are talking about to what has happened in corporate America over the last 5 years, these are very modest decisions that we are making today. And the budget proposal that we will bring to the floor of the House here in the next week or 10 days is incredibly modest and some might even say timid. But if you begin to make the right decisions, as we did 3 years ago, in terms of balancing the budget, limiting the growth in Federal spending, eliminating 300 different programs, taking other programs and figuring out ways to make them run more efficiently, ultimately there are big dividends for the American people and ultimately for the next generation of Americans. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), members of the Committee on the Budget. We have come a long way. We have made tremendous progress in terms of balancing the budget, reforming welfare, saving Medicare. We still have a lot to do. We have got to make Social Security not only solvent for our parents and for the baby boomers, but we need to create an entirely new retirement system for the younger generation. Among those options that we are looking at, and I think deserve very serious consideration, is the notion of personalized retirement accounts. Perhaps we can use some of those budget surpluses to make every American stakeholders in a brighter future and in their own retirement system using personalized retirement accounts. For example, if we have a $50 billion surplus and we divide it up among approximately 100 million taxpayers, we could put $500 in everybody's personalized retirement account. That is every American who pays taxes. And they could also contribute to that for themselves. Ultimately this becomes a profit sharing plan for the surplus. It encourages all Americans to take an active role in their government, to make certain that we do not have wasteful spending and that we keep control of Federal spending so that ultimately we have larger and larger surpluses, which then, portions of which could be distributed back to the American people through these personalized retirement accounts. It is an idea whose time is coming, and we are going to have some interesting debate and discussion on that. I think ultimately a growing consensus will agree that that is one way that you can save the next generation in terms of their own retirement. So, as I say, we have made enormous progress. I am very pleased with the work we have done. I think if you consider where we were few years ago, it is amazing to look now at the American people and say, yes, we have a balanced budget, at least using the accounting terms that we have had since 1964. There is much more to be done though. We have to save Social Security. We have to further strengthen Medicare. We have to create personalized retirement accounts for young people, and we have to create a system and almost an ethic here in Washington that makes it sure that we do not have deficits anymore, that we are always working trying to figure out ways to guarantee that we have surpluses. That will guarantee lower interest rates so that more Americans can afford homes and cars. It ensures a stronger economy so that more people who perhaps were on welfare, who were on those welfare rolls can move on to payrolls. That is really the goal, and so we can all have a brighter future and a better future for the next generation of Americans. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) for yielding me the time. I see my friend from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has joined us. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I appreciate the gentleman. And the whole issue of taxes, I know this sometimes drives some of our more liberal colleagues into orbit when you talk about tax relief, allowing people to keep more of their own money. Sometimes we have to look at that from an historical perspective as well. Back when I was growing up, my parents were able to raise 3 boys on one paycheck. The reason they could do that is the average family sent only about 4 percent of their gross income to the Federal Government in the form of taxes. Today the average family, when you put total taxes, now we are talking State, Federal and local taxes, altogether, the average family spends over 38 percent of their gross income on taxes. I think most Americans are shocked when they learn that the average family spends more on taxes than they do on food, clothing and shelter combined. And that is why so many parents, now both parents have to work and, frankly, that has caused some social problems. Mr. Neumann also has an excellent presentation when he talks about you can almost predict which kids are going to get involved in drugs, which kids are going to get involved in smoking cigarettes. It has something to do with having at least one parent home when they come home from school. There are lots of things that could be solved if we could give parents more time to spend with their kids. If we can eliminate the marriage penalty tax, you take that 12 million American families that pay a penalty for being married, and this is why it is so unfair, if those people were living together without the benefit of marriage, they could file separately and save themselves thousands of dollars, $100 billion in taxes over the next five years. There is something just almost insidiously wrong with that. I think we have an opportunity in this budget plan to right that wrong. I certainly support lowering the death tax. I would like to see lowering, if not eliminating capital gains. There are lots of areas where I think this Congress can effect tax relief. But there is one that I think stands out like none other, and that is this marriage penalty tax which, coincidentally, if you limit the growth in Federal spending to exactly the inflation rate for the next five years, you free up enough in terms of additional savings of Federal spending, less than projected, to afford to pay for this tax relief which I think families deserve and I think is the right thing to do.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. As the gentleman says, this is about values. And if my colleagues believe in faith, family, work, thrift, and personal responsibility, the budget we are putting forward, where we are going to spend $9 trillion over the next 5 years, all we are going to ask the government to do is tighten its belt one notch. I think there is nobody who believes that in a 9-foot belt we cannot find 1 inch of fat that can be reduced in the Federal Government. And if we do that, we allow families to keep more so they can spend more, they can spend more time with their kids and they can build a better future not only for themselves but for their country, because they will spend that money a whole lot smarter than we will. I want to thank and welcome the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and yield to him at this time. Microsoft Antitrust Case

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we have been having a debate here on the floor of the Congress about school choice and particularly here in the Washington district. Jonathan Rauch writes on this issue in the last November 10 edition of the New Republic. He says he has always found it odd that the liberals have handed the issue to the Republicans rather than grabbing it for themselves. He writes, ``It's hard to get excited about improving rich suburban schools. However, for poor children, trapped, the case is moral rather than merely educational. These kids attend schools which cannot protect them, much less teach them. To require poor people to go to dangerous, dysfunctional schools that better-off people fled and would never tolerate for their own children, all the while intoning pieties about `saving' public education, is worse than unsound public policy. It is repugnant public policy.'' Mr. Speaker, we agree.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important issue I think to every American, especially American families who have children. Two years ago, Congress passed Megan's law, which requires States to develop programs to notify communities when sexual predators have been released into their neighborhoods. To date, 45 States have done that. But I must report that not every State is doing the kind of job that I think needs to be done. In fact, recently, NBC News did a special, and they found in one precinct 222 released sex offenders were living in that one ZIP code. The bad news is that none of the neighbors, none of the families, none of the parents knew who they are or where they were living. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Congress to provide some additional leadership to the States. As a result, I have introduced a resolution in the House, and soon it will be introduced in the Senate as well, a resolution which will help States to comply with the requirements under Megan's law, to make it easier for States to comply and notify communities, to notify neighborhoods, and to notify families when sex offenders are moving into their neighborhoods. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important resolution.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Only in Washington, only in Washington dominated by the liberals would we have a birthday party, in effect, a anniversary party of the fifth anniversary of the largest tax increase in the history of the world. Only in Washington.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I always try to bring it along to the meetings we have on Thursday mornings. It has become almost a tradition. People who have not enjoyed it recently, we do recommend that Spam. You just warm it up in the microwave or fry it, and it is a wonderful product. More importantly, it is a wonderful product for export. This is a product that we can export anywhere in the world. Asia loves to buy more Spam. But when you devalue currencies, when you raise taxes, as the IMF is recommending to many of these economies, it really is the wrong prescription. It is a little like giving poison to someone who is already weakened. This is like the old remedies that they had during the Dark Ages where if a patient had a fever, they would do bloodletting. And that is exactly what the IMF has been doing to so many economies. It is the wrong remedy and wrong prescription. And what is the answer that we are asked to deliver? More taxpayers' money to do exactly the wrong thing.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is even worse than that. They have gone to a lot of our farmers, and obviously we have lost market share in Asia. Whether you are shipping milk and cheese in Wisconsin, whether you are shipping pork and other commodities from Minnesota or whatever, beef and other products from Colorado, a lot of our farm groups have said, we have to do something to get these farm markets back. We certainly agree with that. But if we take Indonesia, for example, and we take their currency, and we devalue it by 10 or 15 or 20 or 50 percent, 50 percent I think was the number in Indonesia, how much can they really buy from us? The fact of the matter is they cannot buy anything from us anymore, whether it is Spam, whether it is cheese, whether it is beef, or whether it is any other product from the United States. We are really hurting ourselves.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, not only do they not talk to the taxpayers, the people in Colorado, the people in Wisconsin, the people in Minnesota, they will not talk to us. They will not tell us what exactly they intend to do. They will not tell us what their policies are.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate this special order tonight. I was at that briefing, as well. I must tell the Members, it was eye- opening. When we look at what they are asking for, I was reminded that somebody once observed that the definition of insanity is doing more of what you have always done and expecting a different result. If we look at what has happened in Asia, where they have gone in and forced some of the Asian economies to raise taxes, to devalue their currency, then they are surprised when, ultimately, that has a devastating impact on the economy, and it just seems to me this is wrongheadedness elevated to an absolute art form. When we heard some of the examples today of what has happened in Asia and what happened in Indonesia, what has happened in other parts, what happened in Hungary, for example, and then they are coming in and saying, by the way, what we need is another $18 billion from the American taxpayers, and, incidentally, we want no debate on this, we want you to do this as part of a supplemental emergency bill so that there is no debate here in Congress, no debate here on the floor of the House, so people do not have any chance to ask some serious questions, it really illustrated what is wrong with things here in Washington. We have a lot of things here in Washington that are wrong, a lot of things that need to be questioned, and this certainly is one of them. We have our friend here, the gentleman from Colorado, and I would like to hear from him as well.

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I think many of us in Congress would be willing to do something to try and strengthen the economies in Asia. I think historically the American people have been more than generous with people around the world. We understand the importance of world trade. We want to strengthen those economies. But before we give $18 billion to this fund, I think that we in Congress have a right to some serious discussion and, more importantly, some real answers to some of these questions about what is their policy. What exactly are they trying to impose upon these economies, and what in the end will it really mean in terms of world trade? Will it mean stronger world trade? Stronger economies? Better markets for American-grown products and produced goods? Or will it in fact have the adverse consequences that we have seen in the past? I would yield to my colleague from Colorado.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I do not think the people back in Wisconsin or Minnesota, at least the common-sense people sitting around the coffee shops and the feed mills, I mean they would say this is crazy, especially when we are supposedly having a war on drugs. In fact, what makes it even more bizarre is we have some folks in Washington who want to have this war on tobacco. And, on the one hand, we are going to do everything we can, and I certainly support the notion of doing everything we can to try and keep kids from starting smoking, but, on the other hand, we have some of the most dangerous drugs which we know, for example, if they are a heroin addict ultimately it will kill them; and somehow we have this bizarre notion that we will make it safer by providing clean needles to heroin addicts. This is sort of the tortured logic that has run this city for too long, and I think we have got to get back to some of those old- fashioned notions, things like personal responsibility and ultimately calling things the way they are and saying we have got to do everything to keep people from using heroin rather than making it easier for them to use heroin with cleaner needles.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I remember on the floor of this House, in fact, he came and we did some town hall meetings, one in Winona, Minnesota, and one in Mankato. And I think a lot of people thought we were crazy then when we said there was a very good chance that we would actually balance the budget this year. This was a year ago. And my colleague and I were a very small fraternity then who believed not so much that we believed at what was being done in Congress, I think the real thing was we believed in the American people. The American people do not need a big incentive. They do not need large incentives to do what they have done throughout the generations. And literally since the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, the history of this country has been that people would work, they would invest, they would save, they would produce and ultimately produce more wealth for more people. The marvelous thing about this free enterprise system we have in the United States is that it has an enormous propensity to produce wealth not just for the wealthy but for all Americans. John Kennedy reminded us back in the sixties that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that is what we are seeing in this economy. It is not perfect. There are still people being left behind. And we have to be aware of that and do what we can to pull our brothers along. But the American people are doing what they have always done before, and that is they have been investing and saving and producing. They have been growing wealth and growing jobs and growing the economy. And, as a result, we have more revenue than anybody except perhaps my colleague would have predicted just a year ago.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think we should. My colleague mentioned several times about the old accounting standards and how we use Social Security to make the deficit look smaller. I think we need to talk about it. Because the truth of the matter is, and I think the American people understand, we have made enormous progress, if we look at where we were just 4 years ago in terms of the deficit going up. As a matter of fact, we need to be reminded that when the Congressional Budget Office scored the President's budget back in 1995, shortly after we came here, they said by the year 2002 we would be looking at deficits of $322 billion. And that is when we began to roll up our sleeves. We have eliminated 300 programs. We have dramatically changed the way the entitlements worked. We reformed welfare and Medicare and Medicaid. We made a lot of changes. And, as a result, we cut the rate of growth in Federal spending by about 40 percent. So where we were 4 years ago was headed towards disaster. Where we are today is that the economy is stronger, the deficit under the old accounting standards is gone. And I think my colleague and I have been working on some of the numbers. My colleague does a better job, it seems to me, than almost anybody in Washington in terms of predicting where the economy is going and what it is going to mean to our budget. My colleague is predicting, and frankly I agree, that we are going to see a surplus by the end of this fiscal year of somewhere in the area of $50 billion. That is good news. But what gets even better as we look forward, we are going to see surpluses perhaps if we continue to exercise the kind of fiscal discipline that we have for the last couple of years. If we continue that kind of discipline, we can actually see surpluses in the area of $250 to $300 billion. And what a great debate to have. And now we can start talking about how do we save Social Security? How do we make some of those changes permanent so we can begin to guarantee our kids a better standard of living and a better quality of life in the future? I would be happy to yield back. Because I say, nobody in Congress has done a better job than my colleague has of creating a model and a computer model so that we really have a blueprint of where we can go in the future.