Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Apparently, we had brought to the desk a modification of an original amendment. I was not sure if it was No. 2 or 7. If the Clerk would please make it clear which amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman that that is the amendment we have been debating for the last 4 minutes, yes.

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say, if I might, there was some confusion. There apparently is a different list. We were item No. 7, now we are item No. 2. In either event, I intend to offer my amendment to reduce expenditures across the board 1.9 percent. If that requires a unanimous consent request to withdraw this amendment, I would be happy to do that, but I do intend to offer the amendment in either event.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. It is amendment No. 2.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the Committee on Rules for their work as well as the members of the subcommittee for bringing to the floor, I think, a good bill, but today I want to offer an amendment which I hope will make this bill even better, perhaps what I would describe as a perfecting amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Minnesota to offer a fairly simple amendment to this bill. Our amendment would place a cap of 2,300 on the number of executive branch political appointees that can be named. This figure would be down from approximately 2,800 now, but has been even higher in past administrations. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new idea. In fact, the Vice President of the United States made a similar suggestion in his National Performance Review. And the National Commission on the Public Service called for an even lower cap of 2,000 political appointees. Furthermore, Citizens Against Government Waste and the Concord Coalition have endorsed this proposal, and we have gathered broad bipartisan support within this House. But Mr. Speaker, most importantly, a savings resulting from this cap has already been assumed in the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Resolution Conference Report. A similar suggestion was made in last year's budget resolution as well. Our amendment would simply follow through on this language. Some interesting facts--in 1960, there were 17 layers of management at the top of the Federal Government; by 1992, there were 32. During that period, the number of senior executives and political appointees grew from 451 to 2,393--a 430 percent increase. Now ask yourselves, Is the Federal Government more responsive--more responsible--more efficient? Mr. Chairman, report after report shows that greater quantities of such political appointees does not bring about a more responsive government, but actually confuses the communication channels and adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. We can make important progress toward balancing the Federal Budget by eliminating a few hundred of these positions, which average $86,000 per year in salary. The public believes that our Government is too large. This amendment begins to address this situation. This is not a drastic reduction, but a good first step toward operating a leaner and more efficient government. Last year we here in Congress reduced our staffs by a third, and many private-sector businesses have eliminated bureaucratic layers in the last several years to become more responsive and effective in a very competitive economic environment. It seems only right that we should suggest the executive branch do the same, and it's my guess that any President can get along just fine with 2,300 political appointees. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment. This is a good amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the genesis of this number is the fact that we reduced our staffs by one-third. We think this is a corresponding number. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

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

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, shock waves reverberated through the sports world on Friday. Kirby Puckett told us what we did not want to hear, that this was the last day that he would wear Twins uniform No. 34. Baseball is a game for optimists. ``We will get them tomorrow'' and ``wait until next year'' are examples created by baseball fans. We all wanted to believe that the doctors would perform magic and that Kirby would once again be patrolling the outfield and bedeviling American League pitchers. It was not to be. If baseball is a game for optimists, Kirby Puckett was its best salesman. Maybe it was all that energy and enthusiasm trapped inside that teddy bear body that allowed him to defy the laws of gravity, the laws of physics. With leaps that would make Michael Jordan proud, Kirby robbed countless hitters of home runs. In a sports world dominated today by megabuck contracts and even bigger egos, he was a throwback to an earlier day, to earlier day heroes. He did not believe in trash talk. He let his play speak for itself, and speak it did. His record of excellence shouts at you. In his roughly 12 years in the major leagues, he appeared in 12 All Star games. He won six Golden Gloves. He hit 207 home runs, had a lifetime batting average of .318, and he has two World Series rings to show for it. Not bad for a kid who almost spent his life at the Ford assembly plant on Terrance Avenue. He got laid off and returned to baseball, and we all are richer for it. Kirby was the youngest of nine children, raised by two loving parents in the projects of Chicago's south side. We are all proud of Kirby but no one should be prouder than his mother. To paraphrase one fan, Kirby Puckett is a wonderful human being who just happened to be one of the greatest ball players of all time. Every day he demonstrated one of the most important eternal truths, that the key to happiness is to be thankful. And so, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Twins fans in the upper Midwest and sports fans all over the world, permit me to send this personal message: Thank you, thank you, Kirby Puckett. Good luck and may God bless you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I am one of those Members of the freshman class in the 104th Congress, and I do believe that 2 years ago the American people sent a very clear message and they sent 73 new Members to this Congress for a very important reason. In fact, I think there were three or four major things they wanted us to do. First of all, I think they wanted us to put the Federal Government on a diet. Second, I think they really wanted us to pass term limits. Third, I think they want commonsense regulatory reform. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think the American people want us to change the way Washington does business. Well, Madam Speaker, I think we have made real progress. As a matter of fact, we passed the balanced budget amendment out of this House. Unfortunately, it failed by one vote over in the Senate. We went on to pass the first balanced budget plan in over 25 years. We have eliminated over 270 programs and, as a matter of fact, we have saved the taxpayers, this Congress, over $43 billion. The budget is moving in the right direction, and we are moving towards balancing the people's books. On the very first day we began to change the way Washington does business, the way we work. We passed the Shays Act. We said that Congress is going to have to live by the same laws as everybody else. That was a very important change. For many years Congress would pass new rules and new laws that everybody else had to live by, but at the bottom of that bill it would say something to the effect that nothing in this enactment requires the Congress or the Federal Government to live by the same rules. Also, on the first day we opened the committee meetings to the public for the first time. We ended proxy voting, and this Congress passed the toughest gift ban in the history of the United States. Madam Speaker, there was one area where this Congress failed, and that is on the very important issue of term limits. We can dress it any way we want, but I think that is one thing the American people want from this Congress, and that is to limit our own terms. They have been too long where Members who have served for years and years and years are no longer accountable to them and they begin to believe that all wisdom emanates from here in Washington, rather than from back in the districts which they are supposed to serve. Madam Speaker, I have held over 75 town meet meetings in my district. Frankly, at virtually every one of them the issue of term limits has come up. Another issue that people are concerned about is the whole concern about congressional pensions. As a matter of fact, almost monthly we read about some Member of Congress who is receiving a six-figure income after they retire from this body. We have read recently, just in the last year, that a former Speaker, and I will not mention names, but a former Speaker is getting $123,804 per year; that a former minority leader of this body is getting $110,538 per year; and another gentleman who served as the Chair of one of the more powerful committees, who will soon become a constituent of mine, will receive a pension of $96,462 per year. The public is saying enough is enough. They did not get term limits. There is one way that we can perhaps kill two birds with one stone. That is by passing a bill that would limit pension accrual for Members to 12 years. If we cannot force Members to retire after 12 years, at least we can take some of the money out of it. To that end, I have introduced H.R. 1618, and we have a companion bill which is much easier to remember in the Senate. It is Senate bill 1776. So Members watching on TV and those on C-SPAN, if they remember Senate bill 1776, they can remember the bill. What this bill says is that Members would limit their pensions accrual. After they had served for 12 years, their pensions would stop adding up. What that would mean is that at the current level of salary for a Member of Congress, the maximum level of pension that a Member of Congress could get would be $27,254. Now, under this plan, if this bill were in law today, the total savings to the taxpayer per year would be $7,892,140. But, more importantly, we would take some of the incentive away for Members staying years and years and literally beginning to grow roots here in Washington. I think the American people are speaking loudly and clearly that they support this basic notion. There was some polling done recently by the Luntz Research Company, and what it demonstrates is this: Would you be more or less likely to vote for a Member who voted to reduce the growth in congressional pension? Sixty-five percent of the people in the United States said they would be more likely to vote for those candidates. I think the American people are speaking loudly and clearly. They would like to see term limits and they would like to see limits on the amount of pensions that Members of Congress can collect. I think the bill that we have introduced, and my sponsor over in the Senate is Senator Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, I think we have introduced a bill that makes sense. It is fair. It is reasonable. It is responsible, and it is long overdue. Madam Speaker, everywhere I go, and as I say, I have had 75 town meetings, people ask me, ``Gil, why are you not doing more in terms of reform of Washington?'' And they ask me, ``Gil, are you going to pass term limits? When are you going to pass congressional pension limits, so that we do not see Members retiring with six-figure parachutes?'' We did not get term limits through, but saying ``Sorry, we tried'' is not good enough. Working families in America want us to change the way Washington does business. They want Congressional reform. I hope we can get it in the next several weeks.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

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

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] control the 5 minutes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I would first of all like to thank the committee Chair and the subcommittee chairman for their hard work to reduce spending. I do appreciate the hard work that they have put into this. This is a difficult challenge. Just to restate what this is all about, this once again is the amendment to take 1.9 percent across the board from all of the discretionary spending in the remaining bills, and the reason of course is when we passed our budget conference committee report a few weeks ago, people on the other side of the aisle and frankly some of the people on our side of the aisle criticized us because we were allowing spending to go up. And in fact the deficit is going to go up this year contrary to what we were told last year. So some of us got together, some of us freshmen, and decided that we were going to offer a 1.9 percent reduction on every bill that was remaining in terms of the appropriation bills to recover the $4.1 billion. This is about keeping the faith, this is about keeping our promises, this is about restoring the American dream for our children, and if we are not willing, Mr. Chairman, to reduce this small amount of expenditure, this 1.9 percent, how is it that we can look at our constituents and particularly the children in our districts and say that we are going to be able to make $47 billion worth of cuts in just a couple of years? I think a journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step. This is a very small step. It is a very small price to pay, but I think if we are willing to make these small sacrifices along the way, then ultimately we can balance the budget, we can secure a good future for our children. This is one small step. I might add, Mr. Chairman, this 1.9 percent across-the-board reduction will reduce only $1.2 billion of the $66 billion in discretionary spending. This is only one-half of the increase over last year.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it has been 31 days now since President Clinton promised to take action on Wisconsin's welfare waiver request. Thirty-one days--no action. Another welfare promise by Bill Clinton will most likely fall by the wayside. In the meantime, millions of Americans are caught in an endless cycle of dependency and poverty. On May 18 this year, Bill Clinton held up the Wisconsin plan as a model of good welfare reform. Let me just quote from his radio address that day: All in all, Wisconsin has the makings of a solid, bold welfare reform plan. We should get it done. I pledge that my administration will work with Wisconsin to make an effective transition to a new vision of welfare reform based on work . . . That was Bill Clinton on May 18 talking on welfare. Today is July 10, and all we hear is silence. His 30 days are up and all we hear is the silence of another broken welfare promise.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I will be ever so brief. This is an important amendment. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting this amendment. Really what we are talking about is prioritizing the Foster Grandparent Program. As Mr. Fox indicated, this really is the ultimate public-private partnership and the return on our investment is really very, very excellent. It taps into one of the most underutilized resources in this country, our senior citizens. Most importantly, it is revenue neutral.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the important point. We have spent $5.2 trillion on the war on poverty. It is terrible in terms of the cost in dollars, but the real tragedy of the welfare system we have created in the United States is not the cost in terms of dollars; it is the cost in terms of human potential. As I say so many times, we do not have to walk very far from this Capitol building to see the effects of what we have done on people. Go to any of the housing projects. In fact, 85 percent of the violent crime in this city is committed within 3 blocks of a Federal housing project. We see the despair and despondency and dependency that we have created. The cost is astronomical in terms of dollars, but the cost is so much higher in the cost of human potential. The real reason is when we try to substitute Washington-run welfare systems for those old- fashioned traditional values that really made this country work, things like work, and family, and faith, personal responsibility, those are the cornerstone values that really have made this society work. The problem with the welfare system is not the cost in terms of taxes; it is that it erodes and destroys and eats away at those cornerstone values. That is why we need to reform the welfare system, not just to save money for taxpayers this generation or the next. We need to reform the welfare system and move away from a Washington-run welfare system because we have destroyed all of those basic values. Look at the families that have broken up, and people do not see themselves as personally responsible anymore. We do not encourage faith. All of those things made this country work. In the 1840s there was a French gentleman who traveled the United States and he wrote several important books. One was called ``Democracy in America.'' I am talking about Alexis de Tocqueville, and he said it in so many ways so beautifully. It was this volunteerism that really made America work. He talked about religion. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] talked about Ernest Istook's bill that I am cosponsoring as well. De Tocqueville said religion is the first instrument of democracy. Yet somehow we have driven religion and faith from the public square. The only welfare system was through the churches and faith institutions, and now we have said they cannot participate. I do believe that we have to reform the welfare system and help the President keep his campaign promise. It is much more about human potential and the waste that the Washington-based welfare system has created.