Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I just want to reiterate a couple of things that Mr. Kingston has just said. First of all, seniors especially but indeed all Americans have a right to the facts. Frankly I think that there have been too many of these distortions and half-truths and mistruths and outright lies. Frankly the quotes that you have used tonight from the minority leader, I do not think they were taken out of context at all. I think for a number of months I think it was a calculated position by one side in this debate to basically say there is no problem and that the Republicans have made this up and they are trying to cut Medicare so that they can give this tax cut to the rich, which is bogus, anyway, but the point is this is serious, it is real, and the program is going bankrupt at an even faster rate than we were told last year. But the other point that was made, and it needs to be restated, this is not the time and this is not the issue for partisanship. This is an issue that deserves real statesmanship. But the first thing we have to do is face up to the facts. We have to get the facts. The American people and seniors have a right to the facts. The other point that Mr. Kingston made, and I think this is even more important, I think we have got to address this, and I personally do not address this as a Republican or even a Member of Congress. First of all I address it as the son of two parents who are both on Medicare, who both depend on the Medicare system, and hopefully will well into the future for their health care. A fellow came up to me at a meeting a couple of weeks ago and he said something so beautifully and so simply. He said, With the issue of Medicare and so many of the other issues that you're debating out in Washington, it's not a debate between the Republicans and the Democrats. In fact, it's not so much a debate between the right and the left. It's a debate between right and wrong. It is wrong to conceal the facts from the senior citizens when we know the facts. The fund is going bankrupt. Let me just finally say that it is also wrong to tolerate a system that is rife with abuse and waste and fraud. I do not care which study you use. When I have my town meetings, I have had people come up at my town meetings and talk about being billed $321 for a toothbrush. I mean, there is so much waste, fraud and abuse. The GAO, I think, said it was $23 billion. Somebody else said it was $30 billion. We do not know what the exact number is, but we know that the system we have today, with the centralized control bureaucracy, is wrong. Let me also say that the system we have, it is wrong for us to tolerate a system that is so complicated that my parents, and indeed I do not think most seniors can understand their bills. I mean, that is just wrong. They ought to at least know what they are being billed for. My father had surgery a few months ago and he got a stack of bills this deep. I could not understand them. So I am sure he could not understand them and I doubt if many people can understand them. We need a simpler system that is built on market forces, that gives people real choices and allows the market to help control those costs. Everybody who has looked at this, every independent objective observer who understands the health care delivery system says that our plan will work and it will give people those choices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was in a border State in Minnesota. We have been debating welfare reform for a long time. I think you have characterized it absolutely correctly, that this bill that passed the Wisconsin Legislature, it is a giant step forward in terms of encouraging more work and personal responsibility. The President went to Wisconsin, said that he supported what was happening in Wisconsin, would grant them the waiver, and then somewhere between getting on the plane in Madison to fly back to Washington, something happened and all of a sudden some of the bureaucrats here in Washington apparently got to the President and said well, maybe we cannot support all of those waivers, and all we are trying to do is actually help the President to keep one more campaign promise. I am really surprised at the characterization we heard here just a few moments ago.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would just add to that, the discussion we have had today and we have heard tonight on special orders is really again sort of back to this fundamental debate between those who believe that in the final analysis Washington knows best and those of us who would like to see, whether we are talking about Medicare reform or welfare reform, to decentralize this thing and allow States and individuals to make many of the choices themselves. It is really, and you hate to get back to this debate about Boris Yeltsin and some of the comments the gentleman made about the former Soviet Union, how we are encouraging them to move to a more market oriented system. Yet here in Washington it is easy to be in favor of welfare reform and Medicare reform when you are out on a campaign swing, but somehow when you get back to Washington, the influence of this city just says no, we must keep the decisionmaking, we must keep the power here in Washington.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would just say that this debate tonight, this discussion tonight, has been constructive, and it reinforces what I really believe, and that is the fundamental debate that is going on here in this Congress and in this country is really between those who believe in more Washington control and more Washington responsibility. Whether we are talking about welfare or crime, or whether we are talking about Medicare, I do not care what it is, the issue is whether we will have more control and more responsibility in Washington or are we going to reinforce more personal control and more personal responsibility. Those are the policies we ought to pursue. That is what the American people expect, that is what they want, and that is what this Congress is trying to deliver.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I think the irony of this, and someone else pointed this out to me, that we currently have some 20,000 or 30,000 troops patrolling the streets of Bosnia to make the streets safe over there. But I daresay it is not safe to walk the streets here in Washington, DC or in many of the cities in this country. Frankly, if we are willing to commit troops to make the streets safe in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we should be willing to do whatever it takes to make the streets of the United States safe.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I think the issue of crime and drugs, it is interesting, it is not just the big cities anymore. You can go out to the small towns. I remember the newspaper editor in one of my small towns last year. You have to be from a small town to relate to this. He said: You know, even here in Hayfield, Minnesota people are starting to lock their doors. I mean, this is a big issue. People no longer feel safe in small towns. Rochester, Minnesota, which is a beautiful city and we are all very proud of it, but even in Rochester we have had several murders just in the last week and a half. So whether they are drug related, some are, some are not, but the whole notion of appointing judges who do not believe that people are responsible for their own behavior, that is a very, very scary notion. I think the American people are saying very loudly and very clearly that we want a criminal justice system and we want judges appointed who understand that people who would prey upon other people need to be held accountable, and the innocent people need to be protected from those who would prey upon them.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, why is it that Washington is unable to address and solve a political problem until it becomes a crisis? Why is it that Washington's answer to any problem is to take more in taxes and waste more in spending? Well, they are doing it again, but this time it's serious. This time it's about Medicare. The President and the bureaucrats in Washington say there is no problem. I do not agree. The President wants everyone to ignore the financial problems surrounding Medicare, but I will not be silent. We have a moral imperative to fight back. And America needs to fight back as well. What would you think of your Federal Government if it knew Medicare was in trouble, yet did nothing to save it? What would you think of the politicians in Washington if they had the figures in their hands and knew the truth, yet chose to do nothing? What would you think of your Member of Congress if he or she allowed Medicare to go bankrupt when they could have saved it? You would be pretty angry. Right? You would never forgive them. You would vote against them next November. Well, guess what? That is exactly what the President has done. He knows the numbers. He knows what his own Medicare trustees have found. The trustees have admitted that Medicare is hemorrhaging money at a frightening rate. They have admitted that the program will soon be bankrupt. That is right. Bankrupt. That is not a joke. That is not some political claim. That is a fact. President Clinton knows it. But he has tried to hide this fact because the elections are coming up. We have a President who will say and do anything to get reelected--and that includes playing politics with Medicare. Sure, Republicans could have played along. We could have remained silent and done what politicians have done for decades--tell our voters that everything is fine until the crisis hits. But we did not come here to engage in politics-as-usual, and I did not come here to sell out my constituents just for the sake of the next election. Medicare is a matter of principle, and I would rather be sent home for telling the truth than remain here by telling lies. Medicare has to be strengthened financially--there is no choice--and we have to stop the mismanagement once and for all. This may not be what some want to hear, but they have to hear it anyway. It may be common in Washington to hide the truth, but I cannot. And I will not. It is your money and your children's money. You have a right to know the truth. I have seen the numbers issued by the Medicare trustees, and if we do not act soon, it will soon be too late. If we do not strengthen Medicare financially, we will continue to spend millions more than we take in, and it will go bankrupt. But it is not just a question of spending more money--and we Republicans want to spend 7 percent more per year, every year, on Medicare. It is a question of spending the money smarter. But strengthening Medicare financially is not enough. Washington has a way of making everything it touches more expensive, more complicated, and more difficult for Americans to understand. That too must change. The Medicare paperwork is overwhelming. We need to simplify the Medicare system so that seniors can read the bills and interact effectively with their doctors and hospitals. We have to end Washington mismanagement, and end it now. But even that is still not enough. Too many seniors have told me that their Medicare coverage is inadequate. It does not cover prescription drugs or eyeglasses. Seniors should be in charge, not the Washington bureaucracy. Seniors should have the right to choose the health care plan that suits them best, and no Washington bureaucrat should have the ability to deny them that choice. Remember, every dollar that is spent on the Washington bureaucracy is a dollar that cannot go to health care for seniors. And that also means an end to all the abuse, fraud, and waste in the Medicare system. Under the Republican plan, doctors and hospitals that abuse the Medicare system will not get a slap on the wrist. They will be punished--legally and financially. Washington may not have been serious about fighting abuse, fraud and waste, but Republicans are. It is our responsibility to strengthen Medicare financially so that it does not go bankrupt now or in the future. It is our responsibility to simplify Medicare so that every recipient will understand and be able to use the system easily. It is our responsibility to fight the waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. In short, it our responsibility to find a solution for Medicare for the next generation, not just the next election. I will fight for the right of every senior citizen in every district across America to get the facts. I will demand that the Medicare trustees and the White House make available to every American the exact financial details about Medicare. The President may not like it, but I believe the people who pay the bills have a right to know exactly what I know. You have a right to know the facts about Medicare. After all, it is your money.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to offer H.R. 3068, a bill to repeal the corporate charter of the Prairie Island Dakota Community in Welch, MN. The tribe contacted me last June requesting revocation of their 1934 charter. By law, revoking this 62-year-old document can only be done by an act of Congress. In its entire tribal government history, the Prairie Island Community has never used its corporate charter in the management of its enterprises. Additionally, with this outdated and paternalistic charter, the tribe is restricted from doing many of the things necessary to carry out business activities. For example, the community cannot sell or mortgage property, lease land for more than 10 years, or contract for work without approval from the Interior Department. This legislation acknowledges that the people of Prairie Island know best how to handle their business. It is another example of this Congress sending control back to local communities, and I am proud to be a part of that process. My colleagues, I and the good people of the Prairie Island Community would appreciate your support for this important legislation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, as I speak, literally millions of Americans are trapped in a cycle of dependence known as the modern welfare state. It is a system characterized by drug abuse, fatherlessness, violence, and the wholesale destruction of the family. The welfare state encourages teen pregnancy and destroys the work ethic. People have literally lost their freedom and their self-respect because of the so-called compassion of Washington's liberals. When he ran for the Presidency, Bill Clinton said that he would end welfare as we know it. Instead he vetoed commonsense welfare reform, not once, but twice. As we've seen in so many other instances, his word cannot be trusted. Bill Clinton is playing politics with the lives of millions of Americans. His broken word guarantees the survival of the failed welfare system. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reforming welfare, our President is the great pretender.

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 Government Reform and Oversight, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on National Security, the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with no sense of pride, with actually a sense of trepidation to a certain degree, because I want to talk about something that has been happening and developing over the last year, actually, which culminated yesterday in a vote in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on some of the actions taken by this administration by the committee. I think the American people need to understand what has happened and why. Yesterday the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted out a resolution to hold several high ranking members of this White House in contempt of Congress. This is an action which has happened only a handful of times in this century. I do not think anyone who serves on that committee wanted to see events lead to that. But I think that the people need to understand and I think the Members need to understand how patient Chairman Clinger and the committee have been with the administration in terms of getting to the bottom of this matter, and I am referring to the White House Travel Office and the scandal that has surrounded that issue since 6 innocent Federal employees were terminated and ultimately humiliated in public for actions which they were later found to be not guilty of. The story is a seamy story that involves abuse of power. It probably involves the abuse of the FBI, the IRS, and perhaps even the Justice Department. All we really want to do is get the facts and all of the documents out on the table and try to bring this matter to a final conclusion. Chairman Clinger has been after this for over 3 years. In fact, after finally saying that, after hearing again and again that the White House would cooperate, the committee issued a subpoena back in January, and let me just read for you what some of the President's words were and what some of the actions have been. And not only in our words, because I think now that folks on the other side of the aisle are framing this only as a partisan political witchhunt. Frankly, I think most of us would have preferred to have this whole matter put behind us many months ago. But early on in this investigation the President said, and I quote, ``the Attorney General is in the process of reviewing any matters related to the travel office and you can be assured that the Attorney General will have the administration's full cooperation in investigating those matters which the department wishes to review.'' That is a letter that the President sent to the former chairman of the Government Operations Committee. Here is what he said just this year in January, January 12, 1996, he said, and I quote, ``We have told everybody, we are in the cooperation business. That is what we want to do. We want to get this over with.'' That is what the President said in January. But I think people need to compare that with what has actually happened. Not what I am saying, not what Republican staffers are saying, but, for example, here is what Nancy Kingsbury of the General Accounting Office said, July 2, 1993, when she testified before our committee. She said, and I quote ``As a practical matter, we depend on and usually receive the candor and cooperation of agency officials and other important parties and have access to all their records. In candor, I can't say that there was quite the generous outpouring of cooperation in this case as might have been desirable.'' Let me just read a quote from Michael Shaheen, who heads the Office of Professional Responsibility for the President's own Justice Department, when he learned that there was a notebook that had been concealed for over 2 years that Vince Foster had put together that had extensive notes on the whole White House travel office affair. This is what Mr. Shaheen said, and I quote, ``We were stunned to learn of the existence of this document since it so obviously bears directly upon the inquiry we were directed to undertake in late July and August of 1993. We believe that our repeated requests to the White House personnel and counsel for any information that could shed light on Mr. Foster's statement regarding the FBI clearly covered the notebook and that even a minimum level of cooperation by the White House should have resulted in its disclosure to us at the outset of our investigation.'' Again, that is not a Republican staffer saying that. That is somebody from Clinton's own Justice Department. Later on one of the other officials that testified before us, Jack Keeney, who is reporting to the Acting Criminal Division Director, he said, and I quote, ``At this point we are not confident that the White House has produced to us all the documents in its possession relating to the Thomason allegations. The White House's incomplete production greatly concerns us because the integrity of our review is entirely dependent upon our securing all relevant documents.'' Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying this: Seldom in the course of American history have so many in the White House done so much to provide so little. Sunshine is the best antiseptic. Let us get all the documents on the table and let us get this matter behind us.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that liberal Democrats want to protect big government and that they are addicted to special interest money. But it is interesting to see the lengths to which they will go in order to protect the status quo here in Washington. Earlier this week, a Democrat leader said the following: ``We are simply going to shut this place down.'' What that means Mr. Speaker, is that the liberals in the Democratic Party are so extreme that they are willing to put a halt to the business of Congress in order to do the bidding of the union bosses here in Washington. What it also means is there may be no gas tax repeal. No Medicare reform. No welfare reform. No tax relief for America's families. And no balanced budget. It is sad that a once-proud party has resorted to extremism and blackmail to force their special interest agenda on the American people.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we saw during last winter's budget battle that if liberal Democrats down at the White House did not get their way, they simply shut down the Government. They fought with every fiber against saving Medicare, against commonsense tax relief for families, against welfare reform and a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, the cycle is repeating itself. Yesterday, the Democrat leader in the other body, issued an ultimatum: ``We are simply going to shut this place down.'' In other words, because the Democrats did not get their way, they are willing to shut down the business of this country. This is shameless. Liberal Democrats are willing to shut down the Government so that they can pander to the big union bosses here in Washington. Tax relief, welfare reform, a balanced budget, saving Medicare, all of that is on hold because the Democrats want to score a few cheap political points with the special interests here inside the beltway.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon, Congressman David McIntosh, chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, will be having a public hearing on the Superfund Program. The purpose of this hearing is to stress the urgent need to put politics aside and reform the Superfund Program for the sake of public health and the environment. Since 1980, only 291 of the 1,289 sites have been cleaned up. President Clinton, State and local governments, businesses large and small, environmental groups, and local communities alike agree that the current program is not doing its job to clean up hazardous waste sites quickly and effectively. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates that the average time for cleanup per site is between 12 and 15 years, at a cost of over $31 million. Moreover, as each day passes without fundamental reform, cleanups continue to be impeded by significant bureaucratic delays and endless legal battles. Legislation is needed to address these concerns. This must stop. Mr. Speaker, Americans expect these sites to be cleaned up without further delay and unneeded expense.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to pay tribute to a remarkable youngster from my district. His name is Christopher Deufel, and he is the first place winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Voice of Democracy Broadcast Script Writing Contest for the State of Minnesota. Christopher is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Deufel and is currently a senior at Austin Senior High School in Austin, MN. His interests include reading, debate, and swimming. He is also president of both his high school student council and the National Honor Society. Christopher is planning to attend St. Olav College in Northfield, MN, where he intends to pursue a degree in either physics or economics. His essay, entitled ``Answering America's Call,'' was a genuinely patriotic piece of writing, and I am honored to share several passages for the House today. We answer America's call by maintaining the ideals of democracy. Our Nation was founded on the ideals of compromise and equal opportunity. From Henry Clay to President Roosevelt, our leaders have sought solutions to our daily problems. These solutions do not come easily; they require foresight and effort, but there are solutions and it is our responsibility to answer this call. Often it seems that our society is out of focus. From big cities to rural towns, violence and poverty are issues we face daily. Too often we become immune to the problems affecting us. The desensitization of our culture is a growing problem. Acceptance of our current difficulties is acknowledgment that we have given up. Achieving social change can't be deduced to a simple formula, but two things will reverse some of the detriments we have created. Active participation and the willingness to cooperate can motivate even the most stubborn. Another way we can answer America's call is yet the most obvious. The right to vote has empowered the people with a voice and mechanism for change. The influence we wield goes deep into the concept of the ballot box. The informed citizenry is one of the most potent forces in a government. We work together to bring our Nation into focus. I see the world around me and witness both the good and the bad. I know I don't live in a perfect world, yet I will not complain about the changes that need to be made, but I will work to make those changes. Mr. Speaker, I submit the balance of the text for the Congressional Record. Answering America's Call Susan B. Anthony fought for the right to vote; Neil Armstrong took a walk on the moon; Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus. Through the framework of time Americans have risen to become the mechanisms for progress and change. There will come a time in our lives when we are called upon to protect and preserve the ideals of America. By utilizing our rights, maintaining the ideals of Democracy, and exercising our influence, we answer America's call. Patrick Henry professed that if a law is unjust we are compelled to violate this law. This was the premise that motivated the Son's of Liberty to begin the quest for freedom. We are endowed with certain rights that give us checks upon our government. Our constant questioning and evaluations of law have created a system of justice and dignity. We answer America's call by maintaining the ideals of democracy. Our Nation was founded on the ideals of compromise and equal opportunity. From Henry Clay to President Roosevelt, our leaders have sought solutions to our daily problems. These solutions do not come easily; they require foresight and effort, but there are solutions and it is our responsibility to answer this call. Often it seems that our society is out of focus. From big cities to rural towns, violence and poverty are issues we face daily. Too often we become immune to the problems affecting us. The desensitization of our culture is a growing problem. Acceptance of current difficulties is acknowledgment that we have given up. Achieving social change can't be deduced to a simple formula, but two things will reverse some of the detriments we have created. Active participation and the willingness to cooperate can motivate even the most stubborn. Another way we can answer America's call is yet the most obvious. The right to vote has empowered the people with a voice and mechanism for change. The influence we wield goes deep into the concept of the ballot box. The informed citizenry is one of the most potent forces in a government. We work together to bring our nation into focus. As the time arises for each of us to make a difference, we will have the power and tools to bring a positive change. As magnanimous as a bid for the presidency, or as mundane as lending a helping hand, we all can make a difference. When I was 5 years old my parents took me to visit the Vietnam Memorial. While I was still too young to fully understand, I was quite aware of the solemnity and power of that place. It represented thousands of Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice as they answered their call. Ever since I can remember I've felt the urge to make a difference. Each day as I settle into my chair at school, I imagine where I will be years from now. Some days I'm a doctor, others I'm a journalist, and there are days when I'm even the President. I see the world around me and witness both the good and the bad. I know I don't live in a perfect world, yet I will not complain about the changes that need to be made, but I will work to make those changes. As I continue onward, I carry hopes and dreams with me. Like others before me I will try to preserve justice in our Nation. And each day as I strive to realize this vision, I answer America's call.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I was listening probably more intently than most of the Members of Congress to this debate. I got excited by the discussion you have been having, and particularly about this chart, listening to what you are talking about. I think you have really sort of hit on what is, if I could describe it as, the nub of the great debate we are having in America today and the great debate we are having in this Congress. In fact, let me say it this way: Senator Phil Gramm from Texas said it so well earlier this year when he was accused by some of the administration, I think it may have been the President. He said, you know, if Phil Gramm's budget passes, it means that there is going to be less money spent on education, there is going to be less money spent on children, and there is going to be less money spent on nutrition. And he really said it right. He said this is not a debate about how much money is going to be spent on education, or children, or nutrition. This is a debate about who gets to do the spending. Ultimately, whether we are talking about housing policy, Medicare reform, all these others things we are talking about, the debate is about who gets to decide. Is it going to the American families or some magical bureaucrat here in Washington? We know it in our hearts, and I think the people understand this better than we sometimes give them credit for. They can make those decisions much better for themselves and their own families, and they will spend the money much more firmly than we can spend it here in Washington. We can beat on the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats, and as I think the gentleman from Kansas, Representative Brownback, said, these are good people. They are trying to do the right thing. But ultimately the system consumes the participants. In fact, I was reminded as you were speaking earlier of something Thomas Jefferson said so long ago. He said, ``Those who would trade freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither.'' We have bought into this idea over the last 30 or 40 years that somehow Washington knows best and somehow that elected officials and bureaucrats in Washington can make better decisions than families and communities and individuals back in their neighborhoods. So I am delighted to just take a few minutes to say I think we are on the right track. We are winning this battle. When we say we, I think we mean we, the American people, because this ultimately is not a debate between Republicans and Democrats, it is not a debate between the Congress and the President; it really is a debate about the future of this country. It is about real individuals and about real families. It is not about dollars and cents and CBO and GAO, because sometimes we get bogged down in this debate about numbers and accounting. This is not an accounting exercise, it is about whether or not we are going to preserve the American dream for our kids. So I congratulate you for participating in this special order tonight. I think the American people need to hear more about this, because as I have said before, facts are our friends. The more the American people see about what is really going on here in this Congress, I think the more they are going to agree that this is the direction the United States of America is going to have to move.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I probably will not take my 5 minutes. I do want to take a few minutes tonight and talk a little about a newspaper that came to our house that we get every month from the diocese of Winona. Hubert Humphrey, who came from Minnesota, a great Senator from the other party, once observed that if you love your God, you must love his children. I want to talk for a few minutes about the issue that was at the center of this month's issue of the Courier newspaper that is published by the diocese of Winona; that is, the partial birth abortion ban veto of the President by a few weeks ago. In some of the strongest language I think I have ever seen on the pages of this newspaper, they take the President and the veto and the entire issue of the partial birth abortion ban to task. I would like to read for the Record, and I will place this into the Record, a letter that was written by all of the Minnesota bishops to express their position on this issue, because, as I say, this is some of the strongest language I think I have ever heard them use, and I think it needs to be part of this debate. I think Americans of all faiths, Americans of all particular stripes, and frankly, an awful lot of Americans who would describe themselves as pro-choice, find themselves somewhat surprised by the veto, and are saying that it is time that the Congress try to muster the votes so we can override this veto. I want to read the letter that the Catholic bishops put together, because it is such a strongly worded letter and such a good letter. Let me read it: President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is no less offensive for being widely expected. We denounce it. We do so not only from the resources of our faith, but also as citizens who, like millions of others, fear that this veto further imperils the human rights principles that have guided our nation for over 200 years. The President claims that the Constitution forces him to veto the partial birth ban because Roe v. Wade requires an exception for serious adverse health consequences. But as the President and everyone familiar with abortion law knows, neither the Roe Court nor any other has ever ruled on the constitutionality of a law against killing a child during the process of being born. It is also well known that a ``health'' abortion, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, includes reasons having to do with a woman's marital status and age, as well as for any reason relevant to a pregnant woman's social or emotional ``well being.'' In other words, the exception the President insists upon would only ensure the continued practices of partial-birth abortions for virtually any reason whatsoever. No claims about ``what the Constitution requires'' and no rhetoric about ``safe, legal and rare'' abortions can camouflage the nature of this Presidential veto. It is a declaration of unconditional support for abortion--abortions under any circumstances and by any means whatsoever, even those bordering on infanticide. We strongly urge Congress to override this indefensible presidential veto and to begin to bring a modicum of sanity to the abortion debate in our country. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the strongest letters I think the Minnesota Bishops have ever put together, but this is an important issue. I hope that all Americans will join in this debate, and I hope all Americans will pray for this Congress, pray for this national leadership so that we can bring an end to this grisly, destructive practice which the Congress is attempting to outlaw. If we can get the votes to override this veto, we can bring an end to this procedure once and for all in the United States.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Exactly. That takes into account all the new seniors that are coming. One of the things that I found that really began to get people's attention is when I would stop after I had made that presentation, giving the real numbers and our budget numbers, and said if we do this we can save the system. If we continue to do what we have always done, the system goes bankrupt. Then I would always tell them that I was born in 1951, and that may not be significant, but when I graduated from college, the Speaker at our commencement address was the director of the U.S. Census. He told us something that day that I think is very important. He said that there were more babies born in 1951 than any other year. We are the peak of the baby boomers. There are more people right now 45, and, well, that has probably changed somewhat, but at that time there were more people 22 than any other single age. Both of my parents are living, and God bless them, I am happy to have my parents both living and we are delighted, and it is a blessing to have them with us. They are both on Social Security, they are both on Medicare. As a baby boomer, I feel that I have a moral responsibility to my parents. But on the other hand, I have three teenagers. I have a moral responsibility to them, too. I think we ought to offer them the same kind of opportunities, the same opportunities of the kind of standard of living which we enjoy today. So in some respects, I think baby boomers stand on the hinges of history. I think we have a moral responsibility to seniors to make sure they get the kind of care and benefits they are entitled to, but on the other hand, if we allow the system--as my grandmother used to say, if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always gotten. What we have got is a system that is going bankrupt. Frankly, I think we have a moral responsibility to do what is right, to save the system, not only for current seniors but for future generations of seniors. I am proud to say this Congress has been tackling that issue head on, and by using competitive forces, some of the marketplace changes that are happening out there in health care today, we can save Medicare. The same is true with the environment. One of my favorite Presidents was John Kennedy. He said that we all inhabit this same small planet, we all breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children's future. I might add, parenthetically, we are all environmentalists. Is there anyone who does not want clean air and clean water for their kids? I do not think there is anybody. But the question is, will we continue to impose $50 solutions, Washington-based solutions on those problems out in the States and the districts? I think if we work together, if we have an honest dialog, we can have a cleaner environment, we can have a balanced budget, we can have a lot of these things we are talking about, because we have got to get the whole notion that all good ideas reside in Washington, we have got to get that out of our system, because it has not worked. The evidence is overwhelming. In fact, if Washington-based solutions worked, Washington, DC, would be the most efficiently run city in the world, and we all know that is not true, because we live here. We see it every day. There is a lot of common sense in Louisiana, in Pennsylvania, in Minnesota, all over this country. We have got to tap into it. So I am proud of what we have done in the 104th Congress, I think we are doing the right things, making the reforms that need to happen. I must confess that we have not always communicated very well, but we have got to do a better job of that. I think once the American people understand what we are trying to do and how we are trying to do it, to decentralize the bureaucracy, put more of the decision-making back in the districts and in the States and in the hands of individuals, all sharing the same goals, I think we are going to change the course of history. I think once the American people understand that, they are going to be far more supportive than sometimes the polls show them.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. This is part of the frustration, the list that the gentleman just went through. I suspect most Americans, particularly American women, do not know how much this Congress has really done. It is so frustrating because it seems to me--and I do not mean to be critical of the press but maybe I guess I am--these are the kinds of things that need to be reported more, and frankly too many Americans do not know how much this Congress has accomplished. But, again, I am proud of the 104th Congress. This has been a can-do Congress from the very first day. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] remembers as I do that very first day, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] was on the other side of the aisle that day, but it is great to have him with us now. But the point is that from the very first day, we were enacting reforms which a lot of people, and I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] included, had been trying to get reformed here in this Congress for many, many years. The very first bill, H.R. 1, the Congressional Accountability Act, the Shays Act, to make Congress abide by the same laws as everybody else. We actually for the first time in I do not know how many years had an audit of the Congress, and frankly what the auditors found was, this Congress itself has not been very good at managing its own funds and has not been very accountable for its own funds. If we look at item after item, this Congress has really changed the course of history and we have changed the nature of the debate in this body. Frankly, it is frustrating sometimes to go home and have to re- explain that, because I think in some respects the press has done such a miserable job, in my opinion, of telling how many good things this Congress has done, and so sometimes it is very frustrating for us to have to go back and tell the story. But on the other hand, I guess that is part of our job, as well, to talk about what is happening. Frankly, let us also admit we have made some mistakes. That is part of being a democracy, that is part of a democratic republic. We are going to make mistakes, but I think on balance I am proud of the record of accomplishment of this Congress. It has been a Congress that has been dedicated to reform, whether it was welfare reform, Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, or even reforming the way we keep our environment clean and pure. We have been willing to take a look and take some of the tough votes, take some of the criticism, because I think in the long light at the end of the tunnel, at the end of the day, I think the American people will look back and say, hey, they were doing the right things, moving in the right directions, taking power away from Washington, decentralizing, using market forces wherever possible and ultimately trying to get more services, more good, more bang for the buck for the taxpayers who pay the bill. I am proud of this Congress. I am delighted to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] with us as a Republican. The gentleman gave a great presentation at noon for the consumption tax, sales tax, whatever we want to call it. I think that is another issue. We saw on April 15 the American people have had enough with our current tax system. I do not want to take too much of the time, but 6 billion man hours are invested in keeping records and filling out forms for the IRS. Frankly, the time has come for all Americans, we need a national tea party, because this country was founded by tax protesters who said enough is enough. Six billion man-hours, and put that in perspective. That is how many man-hours that are used to build every car, every truck, and every airplane built in the United States. That is how much time is spent just keeping records and filling out forms for the IRS. We have had example after example. Money Magazine has surveyed, you can go to 50 different tax professionals, you can go to 3 different IRS offices and get different answers from all of them. The truth of the matter is, we all know that the system we have in terms of collecting revenue for the Federal Government is broken. We have had the courage, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], and others have had the courage to take this issue on, go forward and begin to put some programs on the table, some bills on the table, so we can have a national debate, a national dialogue, and really come to a conclusion in terms of what kind of tax policy we ought to have, what is the maximum amount the Federal Government ought to get and what is the simplest way, the most efficient way for the Federal Government to raise the revenue. I congratulate the gentleman. His presentation at noon was one of the best I had ever heard. I congratulate the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], as well, because they have all been working together. In fact, when they started on that proposal it was clearly bipartisan. We hope to encourage more Democrats to join that debate as well.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think if I could jump in here, I think the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a giant step in the right direction, but ultimately what we need is a much simpler tax system than we have today. The idea that Americans are spending six billion hours, are intimidated by an agency that has 110,000 employees, that idea is an idea whose time has passed. The idea whose time has come is a much simpler tax system, whether it be the consumption tax, whether it be a flat tax, or whatever. I am not certain what the right answer right now is. Representative Tauzin does a beautiful job. I hope he will have some special orders between now and the end of summer so the American people can begin to understand what we are really talking about, what the problem is, and how your particular solution will address that. But I think we need that national dialogue, and ultimately what we need is a much simpler tax. Frankly, the taxpayers Bill of Rights does begin to level the playing field. Because heretofore the IRS had a huge advantage and they used the power of intimidation over individuals.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I was going to say, whether you are talking about tax reform, health care reform, Medicare reform, welfare reform, reforming the way Congress does business, opening up the process, really what this debate is about is whose country is it, and whose government is it, and who is in charge, and whose money is it? And for too long we have sort of taken, or our predecessors have taken the attitude in Washington that it is Washington's money and Washington's government. One of my favorite Presidents once observed we are a people with a government, and not the other way around. And really all of these reforms are about opening up the process. The beauty of this Congress is for the first time we are having honest and healthy debates about what kind of a Medicare system we are going to have, what kind of welfare system should we have? We have agreed that the problem with our welfare system is not that it costs so much money. The problem with our welfare system in America today is that it costs too much in human potential. We have created dependency. When Representative Tauzin talks about our tax system, it is a system riddled with perverse incentives. Throughout all of our programs, it is a system of perverse incentives. No good deed goes unpunished. Frankly, it is wrong, and the America people know it is wrong. If there is a reform party, I think once the American people get a chance to look at these issues, what has really happened in the 104th Congress, how the process has been opened up, how we finally had honest debates about real reform, returning more power back to the people, I think they will agree that there is a reform party in the United States of America, and it is our party, and it is this party that forged those reforms, it is this freshman class, if you will, that has really forced the agenda to make those changes, to change the attitudes in Washington, and begin the process of giving the people the power back. And that is what this Congress is about. I hope that as we go forward, we will have more opportunities this spring to have this kind of a dialog, this kind of a discussion, because I believe facts are our friends, and once the American people have the facts, whether it is about our budget, about Medicare, about tax reform, all of those other issues, I think it makes it very easy for us to win the debate, for them to win the debate, because facts are our friends and, as John Adams said, ``Facts are stubborn things.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and Louisiana for the special order. I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I want to thank you for the kind words about the freshmen. I think in many respects, though, the freshmen just represent the common sense values and views of the American people. This Congress started with a lot of excitement and fanfare, but I will never forget the day after this Congress started, I was out in the hall, outside the House chambers, and a reporter came up to Dick Armey, the majority leader of the House Republican Conference, and she said to him, ``How does it feel now that the American people have given you all this power?'' And he said something very important and very profound. He said, ``The American people did not give us power. They gave us responsibility. They loaned us power.'' That is part of the attitude I think reflected in this Congress. The American people have given us responsibility. For as long as we have that responsibility, I think particularly speaking on behalf of the freshmen, we are going to do everything we can to give the power back to them, because we know that ultimately here in the United States it is the people who are sovereign. For too long, they felt as if there was a government that had the people, rather than a people with a government. Frankly, I think we are bringing fresh attitudes, I think we are willing to tackle the tough issues. Have we done everything right. No. Have we made mistake? Yes. We may make mistakes in the future. But we are always guided by the basic notion that it is the people who are sovereign, and we work for them, and ultimately we have a responsibility to this generation, but, more importantly, to the next generation as well. So I want to thank Representative Tauzin and Representative Fox. It has been a great special order. We need to do this more often. As I said earlier, facts are our friends.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to be part of this 104th Congress. The gentleman and I, and I think most of us, went home and had town meetings, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and I suspect you did as well. One of the most frustrating things that I found was how many times what we really have accomplished, what has really happened in this Congress, has been in some respects misrepresented by some of our adversaries and not always accurately reported by the press. As a matter of fact, one of the things we did in our town meetings, talking about reform and saving the Medicare system, it has been difficult sometimes, because we have to go over the same ground, and I found in my town meetings where we could explain exactly how much we are spending today in Medicare, how much we are proposing to spend in Medicare, and it goes from about $161 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $247 billion in the year 2002. Once people get those numbers, some of them actually scratch their heads and say, ``Well, wait a second, I keep hearing you are cutting Medicare,'' when in fact we are making big increases in Medicare. As a matter of fact, a few say, ``Gil, maybe that is true, you go from $161 billion to $247; yes, that is probably an increase, but if you divide it by the number of seniors, there are going to be more seniors in 7 years than there are today, so what is that number?'' That number is $4,800, and it goes to over $7,100 in just 7 years.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, a great Democrat who came from my State, perhaps one of the most articulate spokesmen for the Democratic Party over the last 30 or 40 years, Hubert Humphrey, once said that if you love your God, you must love his children. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the tragedy of the partial birth abortion issue and what the President has done with his veto. I rise to congratulate the National Conference of Catholic Bishops because I think they have, in very strong words, expressed on behalf not only of Catholics but I think of millions of Americans that have conscience of both political parties the outrage of this grisly procedure and the action of the President by vetoing it, keeping it legal here in the United States. This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democrat issue. It certainly is not just a Catholic issue. I think it is an issue about our basic humanity and how we treat the most vulnerable among us. I would like to read for the Record a letter from a gentleman in Texas. For those who may be watching, I would be happy to make available to them a copy of this letter as well as a letter from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, because they are both extremely powerful letters. I think all Americans should have an opportunity to read them. I want to read this for the record, Mr. Speaker: Hon. Bill Clinton. Dear Mr. President: On Wednesday evening, when I learned that you had vetoed the partial birth abortion bill, I felt stunned and angry, but mostly I felt betrayed. Betrayal is a strong word. However, President Clinton, this is the anguish that I and many Democrats across the nation feel now. As a dedicated Democrat, I believed Bill Clinton during the primary campaign in Texas in 1992 and in the general election as our nominee when you vowed to protect the rights of individuals and to forge an era of the new Democrat, an era that would avoid the extremism of either side. I campaigned for that Bill Clinton and stood proudly in the cold in Washington at your inauguration when you gave your message of hope for those who have no voice. But Wednesday, with your veto, you ignored the rights of the innocent little children and literally sentenced them, thousands probably before this madness is brought to an end, to their deaths. Unlike the debate over abortion that has been ongoing for decades, this procedure is clearly the brutal taking of a human life. The right-to-choose position of the Democratic Party has largely been driven by the belief that a fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb. But in this case, medical evidence is clear that these babies could survive, but are destroyed in the most vicious and inhumane way possible. Our society demands that even dogs be destroyed in a more humane fashion. For what purpose, Mr. President, did you do this? To satisfy a minority of extremists whose votes you would have gotten anyway? And please, consider again your rationalization that you acted to ``protect the safety of the mother,'' when the bill permitted an exception if a doctor deemed the procedure was necessary to save the mother's life. You know full well that the bill would not have received the support of the Council on Legislation of the American Medical Society and 73 Democrats in the house if it did not. Mr. President, with all due respect, there is no valid reason for your action, ethically or politically. And it is certainly inconsistent with your positions that you have taken. Your presence and comments in Oklahoma last week on the anniversary of the bombing tragedy reflected your deep concern for those who perished, especially the children. Yet, you signed the death certificate on Wednesday for countless equally innocent children. Several weeks ago I saw you visibly shaken when speaking of the mass murder of the children in Scotland. You had a chance, with your vote, to prevent a much greater tragedy. Mr. President, you chose instead to trade those future lives for votes that you perceive are crucial to your reelection. In the past three years I have seen you time and time again speak out to the thousands, maybe millions, of young Americans who have been lost to the streets in a life of murder, destruction and mayhem, of drugs and disease. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the full text of this letter in the Record. The letter referred to is as follows: El Paso, TX, April 12, 1996. Hon. Bill Clinton, President of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear President Clinton: Wednesday evening when I learned that you had vetoed the partial-birth abortion bill, I felt stunned and angry. But mostly, I felt betrayed. Betrayal is a strong word. However, President Clinton, this is the anguish that I and many Democrats across the nation feel now. As a dedicated Democrat, I believed Bill Clinton during the primary campaign in Texas in 1992, and in the general election as our nominee when you vowed to protect the rights of individuals and to forge an era of the New Democrat. An era that would avoid extremism of either side. I campaigned for that Bill Clinton and stood proudly in the cold in Washington at your inauguration when you gave your message of hope for those who had no voice. But Wednesday, with your veto, you ignored the rights of innocent little children and literally sentenced them (thousands probably before this madness is brought to an end) to their deaths. Unlike the debate over abortion that has been ongoing for decades, this procedure is clearly the brutal taking of a human life. The right-to-choose position of the Democratic Party has largely been driven by the belief that a fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb. But in this case, medical evidence is clear that these babies could survive-- but are destroyed in the most vicious and inhumane way possible. Our society demands that even dogs be destroyed in a more humane fashion. For what purpose, Mr. President, did you do this? To satisfy a minority of extremists whose votes you would have gotten anyway? And please, consider again your rationalization that you acted to ``protect the safety of the mother'', when the bill permitted an exception if a doctor deemed the procedure necessary to save a mother's life. You know full well the bill would not have received the support of the Council on Legislation of the American Medical Society and 73 Democrats in the House if it did not. Mr. President, with all due respect, there is no valid reason for your action, ethically or politically. And, it is certainly inconsistent with other positions you have taken. Your presence and comments in Oklahoma last week on the anniversary of the bombing tragedy reflected your deep concern for those who perished, especially the children. Yet, you signed the death certificate on Wednesday for countless, equally innocent children. Several weeks ago I saw you visibly shaken when speaking of the mass murder of children in Scotland. You had a chance, with your vote, to prevent a much greater tragedy. Mr. President, you chose instead to trade those future lives for votes that you perceived are crucial for your re-election. In the past three years I have seen you time and time again speak out to the thousands, maybe millions of young Americans who have been lost to the streets in a life of murder, destruction and mayhem, of drugs and disease. You have pleaded with them to have respect for human life. But with this veto, you did the opposite. And we, as party officials, have been put in the untenable position of having to live with that decision. Mr. President, I cannot and will not support this action. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support your candidacy. As I contempleted this matter over these past days, I was reminded of the words of the late President Kennedy when he said, ``Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.'' Thus, it is with regret and sorrow that on this date, I have submitted my resignation as a member of the Texas State Democratic Executive Committee and Chair of the Mexican-American Caucus. I have informed our State Chairman, Bill White. While I do not intend to actively support of vote for any Republican or Independent candidate. I will be asking other Democrats to consider withholding their support of your candidacy while continuing to support Democrats for other offices. Very truly yours, Jose R. Kennard, State Committeeman, District 29.