Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I want to make it real clear, they are not mutually exclusive. We can balance the budget, we can actually pay off the debt, and we can simplify the Tax Code all at once. All it requires is the kind of discipline we have demonstrated for the last 3 years. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is putting up a chart now. We have to continually reduce the rate of growth in Federal spending. We have literally cut it almost in half in terms of the real rate of growth, inflation-adjusted dollars, almost any way we want to measure it. And as the numbers I indicated before, in fiscal year 1997, Congress took in over $110 billion more than we expected but we spent $20 billion less. It is that kind of discipline that will allow us to balance the budget, pay off the national debt, and simplify the Tax Code so that the average American can understand it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I have explained this program at town hall meetings in speeches around my State district. And almost everywhere, in fact everywhere, we get almost unanimous support for this plan. It is common sense. I think it is what the American people want. As I said earlier, it really is the American dream: Pay off the mortgage, leave your kids the farm. That is what we want to do for the next generation of Americans.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I saw the gentleman here on the floor and he was talking earlier about the budget. I do not know if the gentleman had a chance to talk a little bit about it. The gentleman from Wisconsin and myself both serve on the Committee on the Budget, and I know the gentleman from Georgia has been interested in the budget, but I think sometimes we need to remind people how well we are actually doing. I do not know if the gentleman shared this number with the folks who may be watching us in their offices, but when we passed our original 7- year balanced budget plan, we said that in fiscal year 1996 we would spend $1586 billion. Does anybody know how much we actually spent in fiscal year 1996? The answer is $1560 billion.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The Republican Congress spent $26 billion less than we said we were going to spend. But that is just part of the good news. That at a time when revenues actually increased by $20 billion more than we expected. Now, that is good news. I guess the problem with the media seldom does good news make the news. But if I can share what happened in 1997, because the news gets even better, and I think a lot of people have said, well, there really is not much difference, but let me give one other quick number. In fiscal year 1997, going back to our original 7-year balanced budget plan, we said we were going to spend in fiscal year 1997, $1624 billion. We actually spent, and, in fact, it may actually, when the final books are closed October 1st, and we do not have the final numbers yet, but the preliminary numbers of the Congressional Budget Office said we would spend $1612 billion.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. So if the gentleman's numbers are correct, in fiscal year 1997, we took in over $110 billion more than we expected and we spent over $22 billion less. Now, here is the question. Here is the question for anybody who happens to be listening to this, for any Member of Congress. Does anybody really believe that Congress would have actually hit its spending targets, in fact gone below its spending target, at a time when revenue increased by more than $100 billion? Does anybody really believe we would have spent less if the other party still controlled Congress?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I know that this chart is too small for people to see, but if people want to contact my office, I will certainly be happy to send them a copy, but it says that for the last 20 years, the 20 years from 1975 until 1995, on average, for every dollar that Congress took in it spent $1.21. For fiscal year 1997 that number will be less than $1.02. So when people say we are not making a difference, we are actually spending less than our original spending targets at a time when revenues are exceeding our wildest expectations. And I think the real good news, and the gentleman from Georgia is correct, balancing the budget is not just an accounting exercise. Sometimes we have to even remind people on the Committee on the Budget. It really is about what kind of a future are we going to leave to our kids. It is about generational fairness. For a long time those of us out in the Midwest, and I do not know if the gentleman has the same kind of feeling, I suspect he does in rural parts of Georgia, but the American dream, to a large degree, was to pay off the mortgage and leave the kids the farm. What Congress had been doing for so many years is we had literally been selling off the farm in small pieces and leaving our kids the mortgage. We all know that is morally wrong. And we were going to consign them to a lower standard of living. So balancing the budget is good. I believe we will do it next year. And that is just a start. We have a long ways to go. But it is really about leaving our kids a better future.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I think his assumptions are that we would still increase Federal spending at faster than the inflation rate.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. So we are not talking about draconian cuts in any Federal spending.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, On rollcall No. 447 I have been notified that I was improperly recorded as voting ``aye.'' I am opposed to the Norton amendment and my vote should reflect a strong ``no.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, in our discussions today it is important to remember the boy behind the bill. Eleven-year-old Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped at gunpoint in rural Minnesota on October 22, 1989. He is still missing. All of us hope and pray for his safe return. I was a member of the Minnesota State Legislature when we passed an early version of the Wetterling Act in 1991. In 1994 Congress recognized the importance of this idea, and required all States to register the addresses of convicted kidnappers or child sex offenders. Last year we passed Megan's Law to notify communities when one of these people moves into the neighborhood. While every State now requires registration of child sex offenders, many community notification programs have been stalled by legal challenges and confusion as to what plan would be most effective. Because of this, it is unclear how many States are fully following the Wetterling Act requirements. H.R. 1683 gives the States much needed flexibility as they seek to comply with this law. To help States even further, 31 of my colleagues, and I want to especially thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lampson], have joined me in cosponsoring and introducing House Concurrent Resolution 125, which provides the States with a model community notification program that they can follow if they choose. I encourage all of my colleagues to consider cosponsoring it. Winston Churchill once said, ``Never give in; never give in; never, never, never, never--in nothing great or small, large or petty--never give in except to convictions of honor.'' These are fitting words for Patty Wetterling, Chairman McCollum, and everyone who works tirelessly to protect America's children. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1683, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to listen to some of the discussion over the last several weeks about education, and I think those who have been watching on C-SPAN see the real differences between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats invariably talk about more money for education; principally, more Federal money for local education. But Mr. Speaker, if more money alone were the answer, Washington, DC, would have the best schools in America. We are spending about $9,000 per student on the schools here in Washington, DC. Now, we obviously need to make certain that our schools have adequate resources. What we really need, however, is to encourage parental involvement and use the miracle of the marketplace. Competition works. The best way to improve poor schools is to give poor parents the same choices that the wealthy have.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my Governor, Arne Carlson, of Minnesota. Back in Minnesota we are very proud of our schools and we are very proud of our students. Many people listen to Garrison Keiler when he talks about Lake Wobegone, and sometimes we talk about the Lake Wobegone syndrome. In fact, we do believe our women are strong, our men are good looking, and our children are above average. And there is reason to believe that. If we look at the numbers, Minnesota students rank second in graduation rate. On the ACT test, we once again ranked in second place in all of the United States in 1996. But that is the good news. The bad news is, in some of the tests that we have been giving our students in the last several years on basic skills, Minnesota students are not doing as well as they should. In reading, for example, we asked students to read a few newspaper articles, then answer some questions, and only 59 percent of the students passed that test. That is why Governor Carlson, together with the legislature, began a process this year of real reform of our schools, and that was built around choices and giving parents more empowerment. It is tax credits. It is empowering parents with more deductibility for educational expenses. We in Washington ought to do the same. In fact, they say back in Minnesota, either lead, follow, or get out of the way. In terms of education reform, we ought to follow the lead of Governor Carlson and other brave Governors who are empowering parents to get better education for their kids.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, over 50 years ago, Mother Teresa left a comfortable teaching position at a Catholic high school to personally care for the beggars, lepers, and homeless on the streets of Calcutta. She began alone, following the call of the Cross, but her example inspired thousands to join her in service in 25 countries around the world. I have often told the story of a news reporter who followed Mother Teresa for a few days as she worked among Calcutta's dead and dying, cleaning their sores and comforting them in their last days. Finally the exasperated reporter asked her how she could possibly continue, with more dead and dying every day, saying ``You cannot possibly succeed!'' ``I was not called to succeed,'' Mother Teresa quietly replied. ``I was called to serve.'' Being present to see Mother Teresa receive the Congressional Medal of Honor earlier this year was one of the most memorable moments of my life. As she said, ``The world today is hungry not only for bread but hungry for love.'' Though she was less than 5 feet tall, her humble, unwavering devotion to the truth made her a towering giant of the 20th century. She was the most Christ-like person of this era; the embodiment of Matthew 20:26.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has just returned from a 3-week vacation on Martha's Vineyard. We all hope the President got some well-deserved rest, but in case he did not get a chance to pick up a paper or watch the news, here is some of what he missed during the last 3 weeks. First of all, Paula Jones got her date in court. It was also revealed that Vice President Gore used his soft touch to raise some hard cash at the White House on the taxpayers' dime. It was also reported in the news that his former Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy, was indicted on 36 counts of garden variety corruption and unethical behavior. And finally, the Whitewater prosecutors obtained another guilty plea from a witness. Augusts are usually pretty dull months here in Washington, but not with this administration.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. You do not have to teach the Bible to teach the principles that have made not only this society successful, but every successful society in some form or another has subscribed to the basic principles and values we are talking about. But it is important those values be taught to our kids. I hope we can come back to why values do matter in the long run and this original discussion that we started out that got me to come over here.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I knew this story and I forgot it and it came up this week. There was quite a debate when Jefferson wrote the term ``the pursuit of happiness.'' Do you know originally many of the Founding Fathers wanted that sentence to be ``the pursuit of virtue?'' There is a difference. I thought that was an interesting debate that we have somewhat forgotten. Obviously, we want to be able to pursue happiness, but many of the Founding Fathers felt it was even more important to pursue virtue. ``Virtue'' is a term we hear almost none of in this capital city any more I go back and I will close, and I know our time has almost expired, but I do want to say this about virtue and values, because I believe he was paraphrasing someone else, but I often quote Jessie Jackson, Sr., who politically I do not agree with on too many issues, but I agree with something he said a few years ago. He said, ``If you want to change the world, you have to first change your neighborhood. If you can't change your neighborhood, at least be a good example.'' I think particularly those of us on this side of the ballot, on this side of the elections, who serve in public offices and have the privilege to serve in the U.S. Congress, I think sometimes we all want to try and change the world; but what we have really got to do is talk about how can we change our neighborhood, and, finally, and most importantly, how can we be good examples. I think once in a while we have to remind people that values and virtue are important, and they do make a difference. It is difficult sometimes when you read the stories in the press of what happens here in Washington, and the way you started this conversation tonight, and everybody is talking about campaign finance reform, but, in the end, at the end of the day, it seems to me that whether you are the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, a Member of the U.S. Congress, it seems to me you have a responsibility not just to obey the letter of the law, not just to find legalism, to stay within what you technically and your attorneys may say is the law, but it seems to me you have an example, you have a responsibility, at least, to set a good example. That is one of the things that has frustrated me over the last number of months, because we have had a lot of our colleagues talking about campaign finance reform. We need campaign finance reform. I step back and I say I certainly believe that we do need campaign finance reform. But it seems to me before we reform any laws, we have to make certain that the laws that are currently on the books are being adequately enforced. Frankly, I do not think it is too much to expect of us or members of the administration or anyone else that they not only obey the letter of the law as they are on the books today, but they set a good example. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman. I hope that perhaps we can finish and talk a little bit about that, because if we are really going to teach our kids, we teach them best by example. We do not teach them by example by hiding behind legalisms, we set an example and live by that example, and that is what they hear the most from us.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. It is lead, follow or get out of the way. For too long the Federal Government has been in the way.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and education is something that obviously all Americans are very concerned about. And we were very fortunate the last several days we had our Governor Arne Carlson from the State of Minnesota, who has been with us here in Washington and been visiting with a number of educational groups. He has spoken to a number of different organizations while he has been in town. He was on C-SPAN. He gave a speech yesterday at the Heritage Foundation, talking about real educational reform and what has been happening in Minnesota. I think the real excitement, like welfare reform, the real reform that is happening in the United States today is not happening at the Federal level; it is happening at the State and local level, and it is happening primarily where we empower local school boards and, more importantly, parents themselves to become much more involved in the education of their kids. There is a tremendous success story that is happening in all of the States, but I think Minnesota has been one example where we had a courageous Governor who was passionately involved in doing what he could to try to improve the overall quality of education. He told us today in a meeting that I attended that in the city of Minneapolis, and we pride ourselves on great schools, but the results more and more are demonstrating that even in States like Minnesota and in cities like Minneapolis, the quality of the education that kids are receiving is just not what they need. Fifty percent of the kids are either dropping out of school or they are graduating with diplomas which are virtually worthless. So on one hand has always been the answer, we need more money, we need more money, we need more money, and certainly more State and local and even Federal funding is part of the solution. We certainly do not want to say that we are totally opposed to making certain there is adequate support financially for our public schools or private schools or education in general. But what the Governor said very emphatically is that the real answer is not just in more money, and it certainly is not more mandates from Washington; the real answer is empowering parents to take a much more active role in the education of their kids. Again, we get back to one of those fundamental principles that I think has made this country so strong and so great through the years, and that is the whole issue and principle of personal responsibility. What they have done in Minnesota with tax credits and deductions is, they have empowered parents to become much more actively involved in their kids' education.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. That is an excellent point, and one of the other points that our Governor made today is that for too long, in terms of education, we have been so concerned with process, and we have not really been concerned with outcomes. The good news, I think, is that at all levels the cause is being driven that we have to be far more concerned with what kids actually can do and what they understand and what they know rather than the overall process of education. I do want to make a point, and I think the gentleman makes it well, that the truth of the matter is there are literally hundreds of thousands of incredibly dedicated teachers in this country and sometimes we get confused when we start debating education policy. And some of our critics like to say, you are just trying to bash teachers. That is certainly not the case, because the gentleman knows and I know, and I think since I have been elected I have visited something like 24 schools. I try to do that often. When I meet with teachers, I find groups of people, particularly at the elementary level, who are incredibly dedicated. But because of the bureaucratic redtape and rules and regulations that go with it, sometimes they are prevented from doing what is best for their kids. So when we talk about empow- erment, we want to return more of the decisionmaking back to the classroom and back to the parents.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think the gentleman makes a good point. I got a few of those paddlings myself when I was in school.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I hope my mom is not watching because I will get a paddling when I get home as a result. But it is an important point. Not only did it benefit you, but more importantly it benefited a lot of your friends, seeing that the punishment was fair and that it was meted out quickly and promptly and justly, so we had better discipline in the schools. It is interesting when you poll what teachers are concerned about in terms of what is happening in the schools today with what was happening in the schools when I was in school as a baby boomer. Back then it was about talking in the halls and chewing gum and occasionally somebody trying in high school, at least trying to steal a cigarette out in the back of the school. Today the problems are much, much more severe. Today the problems are drugs, the problems are real violence, guns in the schools, things like that. My own sense, and I do not think this is the only answer and there are a lot of other social problems and obviously schools reflect a lot of our socioeconomic problems we have in this country today, but on the other hand I do believe in the schools where they still allow adequate and prompt and just discipline that they keep those problems, the bigger problems, from beginning to multiply. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to get back to the point about discipline. You made the point that most employers say if they have to choose between a candidate for employment who has all of the right knowledge and one who has the right character and values, they will tend to lean toward the person. They are not mutually exclusive. I think we should make that point. This fall, or last spring, I toured two schools, one in Minneapolis, one in St. Paul, and both of them had done something rather remarkable. One was a charter school, which we were one of the first States to begin allowing charter schools to start. The other was a regular public school. It was interesting, though, the reason that these two schools had been chosen by some people who wanted me to see what was happening in education, they had both committed themselves to a curriculum that was very, very strong on values: Value education. You mentioned we have more or less taken religion out of the public schools, and some would argue that is good, while some would argue that is bad. But I do not think you necessarily have to separate education from the importance of teaching kids on a regular basis the importance of some of those traditional values. It was interesting what happened at both of those schools. These were inner city schools. These were relatively poor neighborhoods. They had, up until they had begun to switch their curriculum, had pretty poor test scores. But two things happened. When they began to really reinforce some of those time-tested principles and values, what happened was, first of all, the discipline improved. Without doing anything else, discipline improved. Then, not only did discipline improve, but the academic side improved. When you have discipline, when you have kids who understand that it is important to be honest, to tell the truth, to work hard, to be cooperative, to behave yourself, to be quiet when the teacher speaks, to be respectful of adults, all of those values which we were really taught when we were in school back in the fifties, really, the changes in those schools and the academic performance of these kids went up geometrically. So it can happen. More importantly, it is happening. It is happening not only in private schools, but it can happen in public schools. So the whole idea that it can only happen in private schools or only happen in charter schools really is not true. But it does take the commitment of the parents. It takes the commitment of a principal. I am sorry, I should remember the name of the principal, I wish I had it for this discussion tonight, but a very courageous principal who said: ``We are going to change the school. It is going to be cleaner, it is going to be safer, the kids are going to be disciplined, and we are going to teach values.'' It is just amazing to see the differences in that school and in those kids. The beauty of all of that is, in the long run, the real winners are going to be those kids. At the end of the day and the end of their time in school, they are going to get so much more out of it than what the school was like a few years ago when it was rowdy, it was dirty, the kids did not behave and they did not pay attention to the teachers, and their academic performance was way at the bottom. Now their performance is moving way up toward the top. It is not mutually exclusive and it does not require just private or charter schools. But I think one of the things that did encourage this particular school to at least be aware of it was the fact that charter schools were becoming available, and that we had increased and are now dramatically increasing the deductibility as well as tax credits for educational expenses in Minnesota, so there is a competitive force now, and people understand if parents do not feel that the local public school is really doing the job, then there is an option out there. There is a competitive factor. Again, there is the miracle of the marketplace, and some innovation by the school administrators has made a tremendous difference in those schools and in the lives of the kids who go to school there.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, he makes a good point. I tell some of my friends it is not right because it is in the Bible, it is in the Bible because it is right and it works. The time-tested principles and values that we talk about, work, thrift, personal responsibility, respect for your elders, those are not right just because they are in the Bible; they happen to be in the Bible because they are right and they work.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman is really talking about the miracle of the marketplace, in allowing innovation and in effect some competition to exist. What he is saying is if Minnesota's plan works as well as some think it will, other States will copy it. But if it does not, somebody else can innovate something else.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.