Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Would it be the gentleman's intention to continue to try and save $338 million should this bill go forward into the conference committee with the Senate?

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, earlier we heard from people on both sides of the aisle, but we were particularly criticized a few weeks ago when this House adopted the conference committee report on the budget, and it was widely reported, and correctly so, that for the first time in 4 years we are going to allow the budget deficit to actually go up. I and a number of my colleagues were very frustrated to learn that, and as a result after the passage of that budget agreement many of us went back to try to decide what we could do to help the House recover this fumble because, as I have said on previous amendments that I have offered on appropriation bills, I think that the general public sent a very clear message in November 1994 that they wanted us to make the Federal Government live within its means and they wanted us to help balance their budget. But this year we are increasing spending by about $4.1 billion over what we said we were going to spend just last year. I think that is a terrible mistake from a policy standpoint, and I think it makes it even more difficult for us to say that we are going to actually reduce spending in the outyears. In fact, what I said last night was, how in the world can we say in good conscience to our constituents that we cannot cut an additional $4.1 billion worth of spending this year and yet somehow miraculously in 3 years we are going to have the discipline to cut $47 billion worth of spending? I think it a mistake, and, as I say, as a result of that we came up with a very simple amendment that we are going to offer to every single appropriation bill from this point forward to simply trim 1.9 percent from each appropriation bill in discretionary domestic spending so that if all of those amendments were passed, it would at least get us back to the promise that we made just last year. But as I looked at this transportation appropriation bill, I must be honest that we find that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and his committee have done a very good job, and, as a matter of fact, their appropriation bill is $338 million less than the 602(b) allocations. And unfortunately, around this place, altogether too often no good deed goes unpunished, and so as we looked at this, essentially we came to the conclusion that this is one committee that has already met the challenge which we laid out in terms of trying to recover that $4.1 billion. So as a result, Mr. Chairman, if I could engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], I think we can resolve this matter and move forward to the next order of business. I ask the gentleman: It is true that under this bill, H.R. 3675, the gentleman proposes to spend $338 million less than the budget authority allocated in the transportation subcommittee by the full committee?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The amendment that I am offering would save approximately $232 million and obviously a savings of $338 million is greater than 232. So in light of this fact, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the full committee for the work that they have done and foregoing the extra mile in terms of trying to preserve the American dream for our kids. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to go over again, and I do understand that there will be cuts as a result of this 1.9 percent reduction, but if we look down the path, sooner or later we are going to have to pay the price for this. If we cannot make $4.1 billion worth of cuts this year, how are we going to make $47 billion worth of cuts in a couple of years? The answer is we probably are not. Let me just say this. Again, this 1.9 percent reduction will not affect mandatory spending on veterans benefits, including compensation of veterans, pensions for veterans, veterans insurance and indemnities, readjustment in education benefits and burial benefits. This amount will affect none of those. It affects domestic discretionary spending. If we could adopt this simple little amendment that is less than 2 cents on every dollar, we can recover the fumble this House made a few weeks ago when we reneged on the promise we made last year. Mr. Chairman, my grandmother said, ``If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got.'' Unfortunately, this Congress is starting to do what previous Congresses have always done. We are starting to say well, manana, manana. We will balance the budget in 2 years or 3 years. Well, some of us will not be back next year, and maybe this amendment will cause some of us not to be back, but, ladies and gentlemen, as long as we are here, we ought to do the right thing, and the right thing is to keep the promises we made in the campaign of November 1994. To keep the promises we made last year with our 7-year budget plan, we need to get back on our path towards a balanced budget; 1.9 percent on the rest of the appropriations bills will get us there. I hope Members will support the amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that this debate really is about what is responsible, and I think that is what this Congress should do. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to cast any ill feelings toward the chairman of this subcommittee or to the other subcommittees. In fact, I think the entire Committee on Appropriations has done a very good job. If some will remember the Fram oil filter commercials from years ago, ``you can pay me now or you can pay me later.'' What we are really saying is we do not have the moral fortitude, we do not have the courage to actually cut an additional $4.1 billion this year from domestic discretionary spending, but somehow in just 2 years, we will find the courage to cut $47 billion. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about 2 cents this year. I do appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done, and I certainly appreciate these programs and I appreciate the veterans as much as anybody. But I think most veterans understand that balancing the budget transcends all of our responsibilities, and I think if we say, well, this group is going to be exempt and this group is going to be exempt, we will never get to the goal of balancing the budget. So with all due respect, I think that this is a good amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, some of us were extremely disappointed a few weeks ago when we passed the conference committee report on the budget because in that budget, we reneged on a promise that we made last year and we increased spending by about $4.1 billion over what we had agreed to spend in last year's budget resolution. Back in November 1994, the people of the United States I think sent a pretty clear message. They wanted us to put the Federal Government on a diet. They wanted us to balance their budget. I think, by backtracking on some of the commitments we made last year, we made a serious mistake and not only a breach with the taxpayers of America today but, more importantly, with our children. So I am offering again the same amendment that I offered last week, and I intend to offer it to every appropriation bill from this point forward to eliminate the 1.9-percent in discretionary spending on every appropriation bill that comes through this House. Now, if we will do that, we can recover that fumble and get back the $4.1 billion that we overstepped in the budget agreement just a few weeks ago. I want to just briefly say what this 1.9-percent amendment will not affect, because I think there will be some misstatements on this floor of the House, and I think there is some misunderstanding. First of all, this amendment will not affect compensation of veterans. It will not affect pensions for veterans. It will not affect veterans insurance and indemnities. It will not affect the readjustment in education benefits for veterans, and it will not affect burial benefits, because I think sometimes people are concerned about that. It will not affect mandatory spending. So, Mr. Chairman and Members, what will the amendment affect? Well, it will affect discretionary spending, including administrative costs for the Federal bureaucracy. It will include $1.2 billion for Mission to Planet Earth, $4.3 billion for community development block grants. It will affect the $50,000 travel budget for the VA Secretary. And it will affect up to $15 million for the EPA employee bonus program. Finally, it will affect, although a previous amendment may have changed this, the $365 million for AmeriCorps. So it will have some impact. Mr. Chairman, what we are really talking about is less than 2 cents. It is about keeping our faith with the American people, set about keeping the promise we made just 1 year ago and the promise that many of us made in the elections 2 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I hope that Members will support the amendment.

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would cede to the chairman of the subcommittee, yes, 20 minutes, 10 each side.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in the last election cycle the people of the United States sent a pretty clear message. I think they wanted us to go to Washington to put the Federal Government on a diet, to balance their budget and to make the Federal Government live within its means, and I want to congratulate the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee for all the work they have done in terms of trying to bring the Federal budget under balance, and I congratulate them, for example, in this bill, by reducing spending by $482 million over last year. Overall I think this is a good bill, but I think we have to refocus on the big picture, and what we did a few weeks ago when we passed the budget resolution conference report is we in fact said that we are going to increase spending by about $4.1 billion over what we had agreed to spend in last year's budget resolution; $4.1 billion. What we are offering today is an amendment which will reduce spending 1.9 percent across the board, and I intend to offer this amendment on all of the appropriation bills from this point forward, not because they are bad bills, but if we can actually recover that 1.9 percent, we can get back to the budget targets that we set for ourselves a year ago. We cannot, Mr. Chairman and Members, in good conscience increase the debt load on our children. That has to stop. If we reduce spending just 1.9 percent across the board on the remaining appropriation bills, we can reclaim that $4.1 billion. I think through shared sacrifice we can go a long way to create a better future for our children, and that is what this is all about. This is not a mean-spirited amendment. It is about keeping our faith with what we said last year, and, Mr. Chairman and Members, remember what some of the debate was about, the budget resolution. Some of our friends on the other side were saying, ``You're increasing spending too much.'' This is a chance for people on both sides of the aisle to say what we mean, mean what we say, to actually force the Federal Government to stay on that glide path toward a balanced budget. When we talk about putting the Federal Government on a diet, if we compare that to a belt, we are actually asking the Federal Government, through this 1.9-percent cut, to tighten its belt less than one notch.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for the purpose of response.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if anybody read this morning's Washington Post, but there is a great story in there about a doctor who is paid $117,000 a year to sit in an office and see no patients. He is paid by the Federal Government, by the Federal taxpayers. It seems like every day if we study or look enough, we will find in newspapers, in the national magazines, the media and so forth are telling these stories about the waste of Federal spending. For people to come to this floor and say that we cannot find an additional 1.9 percent, well, I doubt if many people in this room really believe that. I know the people of America do not believe that. I believe that the chairman has operated in good faith. This is a good faith amendment. It is about keeping faith with our kids. After we passed the budget resolution conference report just a few weeks ago, the Appropriations Committee added $718 million to this bill. We are simply asking to reduce that expenditure by $230 million. That money can be found, it must be found, if we are to keep faith with our kids, if we are to keep faith with our word, if we are to keep faith with the promise that we made last year. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It is supported by the Citizens for a Sound Economy, and I suspect many other organizations out there will be studying this vote. I hope Members will keep faith with what they said last year. Please support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from New York, we are not going asking for a pint, we are asking for a few more drops. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, when talking about children, there is one significant difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe it takes Washington programs and Washington spending and Washington bureaucrats to raise a child. Republicans disagree. After 30 years of excessive taxation, after 30 years of a failed welfare system, after 30 years of a rapidly failing public education system, after 30 years of a deteriorating justice system, Republicans have a different answer--in just three words--two responsible parents. That's what it takes to raise a child successfully today--two responsible parents. We should not be asking the question ``what should government do for children.'' Instead, our question should be ``What must we do to get parents to do more.'' What children need is not more Government spending but a mother and a father who care about them. Americans have correctly lost patience with Washington, but they have not lost their compassion for the children and their commitment to the common good. When talking about children, Republicans begin with three principles: First, that the moral health of a nation is no less important than its economic or military strength. That fact is, you cannot have a healthy moral environment to raise children in America when 12-year- olds are having babies, 15-year-olds are killing each other, 17-year- olds are dying of AIDS and 18-year-olds are graduating with diplomas they cannot read. If we are to restore the moral health of America, this behavior has got to stop, Second, it is the results, not the rhetoric, that counts. Anyone can sound compassionate, but the truly compassionate are those that go out and find ways to make the lives of our children more happy and healthy, and Third, we must be willing to face ourselves in the mirror and be honest with the American people about the failure of the Washington welfare system to help those who need it most. It is our responsibility as elected officials to acknowledge that Washington got it wrong, so that next time we can get it right. We have created a welfare trap in this country that literally enslaves generations of Americans on Government assistance. Our welfare system has deprived hope, diminished opportunity, and destroyed the lives of our precious children. Just look at our inner cities. You'll meet a generation fed on food stamps but starved of nurturing and hope. You'll see second graders who don't know their ABC's; fourth graders who cannot add or subtract. Yet every year Washington spends more money on more programs to help more people--expanding the welfare trap from one community to another, from one family to another, from one child to another from one generation to another. The Washington bureaucracy is well intentioned, but what the Democrats don't understand is that raising more taxes to hire more bureaucrats to expand a welfare system that doesn't work now will only make matters worse later. And welfare isn't the only problem facing children. Among industrialized nations at the start of this decade, we had the most murders the worst schools the most abortions the highest infant mortality the most illegitimacy the most one-parent families the most children in jail and the most children on goverment aid. We were first only in the number of lawyers and lawsuits. A Washington-based social policy does not help children. It destroys them. It does not keep families together. It tears them apart. Instead of turning urban areas of America into shining cities on a hill, it has made them into war zones where no one dares go out at night and often in the day as well. Instead of turning schools into bastions of knowledge and learning it has served as an employment agency for bureaucrats. Washington politicians drag children to Washington to hear a couple of speeches by Washington politicians and Washington lobbyists. I want parents to take their children to school on weekdays and to religious services on Sundays. Washington politicians talk the talk. We need to do the work. And that work begins with welfare. Let me state this clearly so there is no confusion. We have spent over $5 trillion on welfare related programs, and yet we have more poverty, more crime, more drug addiction, more broken families, and more immoral behavior. The Washington welfare system is broken. The Washington welfare system does not work. The Washington welfare system needs to be shut down. We need to start over. Period. Right now, there are alternatives to the Washington welfare bureaucracy that are less expensive and work better than the current system. Let me just mention two. Why does Habitat for Humanity work so much better than HUD? Because Habitat for Humanity first requires recipients to learn the responsibility of home ownership, then requires them to build a home for someone else, and only then do they build their own home. What does HUD require? Absolutely nothing. Do you see the difference? The private charity requires something of the individual. The Washington bureaucracy requires only something from the taxpayer. Why does Earning for Learning work so much better than the Washington Department of Education? Earning for Learning pays young children in inner cities to read books. The more books they read, the more money they make. They gain knowledge and learn about positive incentives. Who does the Washington Department of Education educate? Absolutely no one. Do you see the difference? The Private charity produces results. The Washington bureaucracy produces rules, regulations and not much else. The current Washington-based welfare system demands no responsibility, no work ethic, no learning, no commitment, and in the end, no pride. What we need is locally based solutions that involve local citizens working with local children on a face-to-face, person- to-person basis. Spending more on the current Washington welfare system will not help children. It's time we take away the blindfold and accept reality. We have to rebuild parents, families, and communities, but you cannot do it from high-rise office buildings in Washington. It has to be done at home, in school and on Sunday. Changing the welfare system will help children. Encouraging families to stay together will help children. Putting welfare recipients back to work will help children. Restoring the work ethic will help children. Improving the quality of local education will help children. Encouraging spirituality will help children. But even that is not enough. It's time we tackle the problem of American culture. We have grown to accept prostitution on our streets, crime in our neighborhoods, and garbage on television and in movies. This complacency has to stop. And so the question for America is whether we move into the future, or remain in the past. Do we demand more from parents, or do we leave it to Washington to solve all our ills? Do we return control of education to the local community, or do we run education from a Federal department in Washington? Do we change the welfare system and restore hope and optimism to the next generation, or do we continue to accept the welfare world of dependency, illegitimacy and despair? And most importantly, do we make a real commitment to improve the lives of children across the country, or do we use children as political pawns in the upcoming election?

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] talks about the Nixon White House, because as far as the latest White House blunder the President's silence has been almost deafening. The unanswered questions keep piling up, and the President still has not taken responsibility. What was the White House doing with over 340 private citizens' FBI files? How did these files just happen to be of members of the former Bush and Reagan administration? And why is the President not taking responsibility for these actions? Mr. Speaker, once again we have a case of feigned innocence by higher-ups at the White House, but this is one time too many that lower level staffers have had to take the blame for major mixups. The excuses are running thin, the coverup game has gone on a little too long. It is time for the White House and the President to come clean about the FBI search. The American people demand no less.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Committee on International Relations; the Committee on National Security; the Committee on Resources; the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and there are no objections to these requests.