Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. President Kennedy once observed, ``We all inhabit this same small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future.'' One of the things that is most frustrating to me as a parent and one who cherishes my children's future and one who enjoys the out-of-doors, I enjoy the environment, I like to hunt and fish, one of the things that disturbs me so much is when we start talking about finally using cost- benefit analysis and good science to determine whether or not these solutions that are being imposed from Washington really makes good economic sense. When we start talking about real reform, the other side seems to always question our motives; that we somehow want the world to live with dirty water, that we want to put raw sewage into Americans' drinking water. Nothing could be further from the truth. But they measure success by how many dollars go into the programs. We are trying to measure success by what we really, ultimately get out of it. I want to give one more example. We have the director of the waterworks of the city of Des Moines, IA, who came and testified at one of the field hearings. He said, ``The EPA requires us to test for 53 different chemicals and organisms in the water. I have worked for the waterworks here in Des Moines for over 20 years, and nobody knows more about the water that goes in and out of these pipes than I do.'' As a matter of fact, he said, as far as he could tell, only about 16 of those chemicals or microbes could ever be found in the water surrounding Des Moines, IA, and yet they are required to spend over half a million dollars a year in testing for chemicals and testing for microorganisms which will never be found in the water around Des Moines. He said it is just nuts. He said, ``The other thing that is important is if somebody should get sick from drinking the water in Des Moines, IA, they are not going to call the bureaucracy out in Washington; they are going to come to me, because ultimately I am responsible for the quality to the water in this city.'' Really, that is also what we are talking about. We are talking about more responsibility down at the area where the people actually can have that responsibility, can exercise responsibility, and ultimately get the job done. Mr. Speaker, having a large bureaucracy, I think that the gentleman mentioned 6,000 people here in Washington----

Mr. GUTKNECHT. It does very little to ultimately guarantee we have clean water. As a matter of fact, one of my first trips to Washington a few years ago, and I had been to Washington maybe one or two times before that, maybe you remember this, there was a scare that came through in the water system here in Washington, DC. They thought it was somehow infected with Cryptosporidium. This is just blocks away from the EPA offices. They have their own water system. But the EPA did not take responsibility for that. Ultimately, the city of Washington, DC. took responsibility.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We do cherish our children's future, and we all breathe the same air and we all want a clean environment, but we want results. We do not want 70 percent of the Superfund cleanup money being spent on lawyers and consultants, we want results. That is what this Congress is really all about. I think particularly those of us in the freshman class came here to change the way Washington does business. We want to talk a little bit tonight, too, about the budget. We are being joined by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Lindsey Graham, and perhaps the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays, is going to join us as well. I am not sure. We want to talk a little about some of the budget numbers, where we have come from, what it is going to take, the kind of discipline. Again, I restate, if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got. Unfortunately, where we are today is at least some of the people in this Capital City want to continue to do what we have always done. That is, ``Well, we will continue to spend normally; but manana, or next year, or 5 years down the road, then we are going to start to really get serious.'' As somebody said the other day, it is a little like saying you are going to lose 20 pounds by the end of the month, but you are going to gain 5 pounds during the first 2 weeks, and you really will not get started on it until the last 3 days. That is sort of the way Washington sort of looks at balancing the budget. We have said that is not acceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank everyone for joining us tonight. As we started with Winston Churchill's quote, ``Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may deride it, ignorance may attack it, but in the end there it is.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield for one last minute to the gentleman from South Carolina. We are just about out of time. The clock is ticking.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We are doing some remarkable things. What we are talking about with Medicare--let me jump in, and I want to yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]--we are talking about using market forces, personal responsibility, and competition to help control costs. It works everywhere except in Federal programs. That is what we want to experiment with. I yield to the gentleman from Florida for a quick minute, as well.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman. I started this special order tonight quoting Winston Churchill and John Adams' famous quotation, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' I think that we have to continue to share with the American people those facts, because I have found, and we have had an awful lot of town meetings back in my district, when people are confronted with the truth about what is really in this budget, I think overwhelmingly what they are saying is, ``My goodness, you're being far too timid.'' In fact, in the Medicare numbers alone, when you tell people we are going from $161 billion to $244 billion, as a matter of fact, in one of my town meetings I had some school children, and I went through that fairly slowly with them. I said, ``Now, if you go from $161 billion to $244 billion, is that a cut or is that an increase?'' They all looked kind of funny and said, ``Well, that's an increase.'' And I said, ``You're right, but sometimes in Washington that's called a cut.'' Then I go through the numbers again with some of the seniors and I say that we are going from $4,800 average per recipient, because there are going to be more senior citizens in 7 years, we know that, but from $4,800 to $7,100. That is not a cut. That is a big increase. I think again when you are talking to people who have common sense, whether it is in South Carolina or Connecticut or Minnesota or Florida, anywhere around the country, people recognize that these are significant increases, and if anything we are probably being far too timid in our budget changes. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We have a moral responsibility to make sure we preserve this last best hope. If we do not make some changes, whether in Medicare entitlements, the way the Federal Government spends money, we are going to leave our kids a legacy no one can be proud of. If we continue down the same path, continue to do the same things, we are only going to get the same kind of results. I wish we had more time to talk about the President's budget. Recently he gave it to us. It is 20 pages, now, not a whole lot of detail, but it really, you know, back in January he said that the era of big government is over, but on the other hand, when you take a look at the budget and get the facts about this budget, you start to see that that obituary may have been written prematurely.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill, who was one of my favorite speakers, said that truth is incontrovertible. Malice may deride it. Ignorance may attack it. But in the end, there it is. John Adams, who I think was a Member of this body at one time, said essentially the same thing, far more simply. He said, facts are stubborn things. We can ignore the facts. We can deny the facts. But in the end, facts are facts. So tonight, for at least a few minutes if not the full hour, and I think we are going to be joined by some of my colleagues, we are going to talk about some of the facts, not only about the budget and some numbers and some facts about what we are really talking about and the consequences it brings for the American people, but also talk about some of those environmental issues. I want to first of all turn it over for a few minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], who would like to share a little information and a few facts about what the President has been saying and what the truth of the matter really is.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida because I think he makes some very good points. My grandma always said if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got, and unfortunately one team is saying that the real way to clean up the environment is to spend even more money on the failed programs we have had in the past, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing those studies. Those are not Republican studies, those are not Democrat studies. Those are independent studies done by the General Accounting Office which, I think, demonstrate that what we have done in the past has not really helped solve the problem. And I served with you on the Committee on Government Reform. I also serve on a separate subcommittee that looks at regulatory reform, the McIntosh subcommittee, and we have had some of those field hearings as well. And I remember just a few weeks ago we had some hearings in Iowa, and the mayor of Manson, IA, came to that meeting, Mr. Speaker, and talked about what they had had to do. The EPA came in, and they have had no problems with their water for 75 years. The EPA came in and tested, and they found 1 milligram more than the allowable EPA standard of one chemical, and they forced this relatively small town in Iowa to install over half a million dollars' worth of reverse osmosis filtering equipment to remove that 1 milligram. Now that dangerous chemical that they were required to remove at substantial expense was fluoride. Now fluoride is a chemical, as most of us know, that many cities, in fact virtually every city in the United States, now puts into the water. They were required to take out that 1 milligram. And frankly, we also at one of our other field hearings, we had a gentleman who helped develop the spectrometer. Now I am not a scientist, but a spectrometer is that thing that allows us to measure parts per million and parts per billion. He said, ``Sometimes I rue the day that we developed that technology, because just because we can now measure parts per billion does not necessarily mean they are statistically significant, or that they are dangerous.'' Again, we see that $50 solutions imposed on $25 or $5 problems.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. First of all, I want to respond to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs]. He has said that the law that we have today is working fine. As far as we know, Mr. Chairman, there has never been enforcement under this law. As a matter of fact, in testimony before our subcommittee, we heard of examples of groups receiving as much as 96 percent of their money from the Federal Government in various grants. And what do they do with most of that money? They turn right around, come back here, and lobby for more. This is pernicious, Mr. Chairman. It needs to stop. As a matter of fact, our estimates are, it could be as little as $200 million. It could be into the billions of dollars. All this little amendment does is require disclosure. This is a sunshine amendment. Members have probably heard this said before, that the single most important antiseptic sometimes is just a little sunshine. Only those who have something to hide fear sunshine. This is a good amendment. It ought to have unanimous support. We ought to find out exactly how much taxpayer money is flowing through some of these special interest groups and being used to lobby for more taxpayer money. It is a good amendment. We ought to have unanimous support.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of the great citizens of my hometown, Rochester, MN, on his 81st birthday: Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch has served his country with honor as a member of the U.S. Submarine Corps during the Second World War; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch has been honored by the city of Rochester for his community volunteer work; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch has been commended by the Rochester Chamber of Commerce for his many contributions to the Rochester community; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch was instrumental in the founding of the Northland House, which later became the Ronald McDonald House; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch currently serves as an officer and director for the southeastern Minnesota initiative fund, which helps build and strengthen local communities; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch was one of the original founders of the Greater Rochester Area University Center; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch has served on numerous committees for the Rochester Independent School District No. 535; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch has exemplified the generosity of the business community in order to better our community for many years; and Whereas, Phillip J. Henoch has contributed to both his country and community, thereby making both better places to live, work, and raise a family: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the U.S. House of Representatives join the leaders of the Rochester community in acknowledging the many contributions of Mr. Phillip J. Henoch and wishing him a happy 81st birthday.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, after the last hour we would like to talk a little bit about what is happening with the budget. The gentleman from Arizona is going to join me for a while and I believe one of my freshman colleagues from Idaho is going to join us in a little bit. I know that the gentleman from Arizona, I do not believe he had a chance to join us in Baltimore over the weekend, but I think we should maybe take a few minutes to talk about, because I know the press has talked a lot about what has happened in the budget negotiations of recent and that somehow, I know that within the course of just a couple of weeks, in referring to the freshmen, we have been described as being mean spirited, and then last week we were being described as being dispirited. I think the only thing I can honestly say is, we are still spirited as freshmen, are we not? I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. This sort of goes back to the discussion we were having in the last hour. While they continue to try and belittle Reaganomics, the facts are stubborn things. The economy grew at an unbelievable rate during the 1980's, in part because there was a commitment to lower taxes, to less regulation, and to smaller Government. It was not complete, but we have the opportunity now to complete that revolution and really free up the free enterprise system, to free up the American people, because the Government does not create jobs, the Government does not create wealth. Businesses do. People do. We have got to allow them to have more control over their futures. That is what this is about. I think it is important that we have this discussion, because I think there is a view out there perhaps that now we have been tempered now after a year, and that our basic goals and our basic mission and our basic visions of what ought to happen in Washington have changed. I do not think that is the case at all. I think we still understand who it is that controls the wealth, who it is that creates the jobs, who it is that can do the best job in helping to shape America's future. It certainly is not bureaucrats here in Washington. It obviously is people out in communities like Phoenix and like Rochester, MN, and all across the fruited plain. It is people out there who Ronald Reagan believed in that are going to make the difference, that are going to make this a better country. It is not 5 trillion dollars' worth of debt. We look at the welfare issue. Maybe we can talk a little bit about that. Unfortunately, sometimes when we talk about restructuring and reforming and in fact starting over with a blank sheet of paper, hopefully with the States having far more control in determining what kind of a system they are going to have to help people who truly need help. And I think there is a genuine commitment on all of our parts that when people genuinely need help, we should help them, but we should also find the most efficient way, and that the definition that we have used in the past of helping people simply has not worked. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think one of the most frustrating, and there are many frustrating parts about the debate we have been having in Washington about restructuring the way Government works and what functions should be done at the Federal level, downsizing Federal Government. One of the most frustrating things is facts do not mean anything anymore, at least according to some people. If you look at the facts, there is overwhelming amounts of evidence to suggest the Great Society has failed. In fact, even President Clinton in some respects when he gave his State of the Union Address the other night said the era of Big Government is over. I think he said that several times during his speech. But yet, the next day it was like some of the Members of this body did not hear that or do not agree with that or do not share that particular view. But I think we have to look at the facts. Facts are stubborn things. If you look at the facts about what has happened to the welfare state over the last 30 or 40 years, we have spent $5 trillion, and if you want to see the evidence of what we have gotten for $5 trillion, you do not have to go very far from this building, because Washington, DC is perhaps the greatest social welfare experiment of any city. In fact, if you go around Washington, D.C., you will see the product that we have produced. We have created debt. We have created dependency. We have created despair. If you look at the housing projects, for example, here in Washington, DC, 80 percent of the violent crime in the city of Washington is committed within two blocks of a Federal housing project. Some people believe the answer is more and bigger Federal housing programs. We believe it ought to be decentralized. We also understand there are some people who need some help. Maybe they need a voucher. We certainly do not need a large Department of Housing and Urban Development based here in Washington, DC, that has created what is has created, and that is throughout the entire social welfare system. It has been an abysmal failure. The facts demonstrate that, and yet so many of our colleagues want to ignore the facts. Now, is our answer perfect? No, absolutely not. But it cannot be any worse than the system that has been created over the last 30 or 40 years. That is the important point. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think that is the good message. We talked about the incurable optimist President Ronald Reagan was. If you talk about the freshman class, you will see incurable optimists. While we have stubbed our toes and made a few mistakes and have not accomplished all we wanted to accomplish, the bottom line, the truth of the matter is the entire fulcrum of this debate has moved, and even the President now is acknowledging the era of Big Government is over and big Washington solutions to all of our problems are not the answers. And now we may not win on every point now, but it is not really a matter of whether we win or the President wins, the Republicans versus Democrats. The real issue is whether the American people win. This is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between those who believe that the Government is the answer to most of our problems and those who believe that government is a big part of a lot of our problems; those who believe that Big Government solutions are the way to solve problems and those who believe we ought to decentralize and let individuals have more responsibility and authority in their lives, and we start with that basic premise, we the people. The three most important words are ``We the people.'' What has happened over the last several months has obviously given us a better education about how this place works, but it has not changed our optimism. It has not changed our view. We may have to change our tactics somewhat. We are not going to keep this Napoleonic, all lined up in a straight line and let people stand behind trees and fight a guerilla war; we are not going to change the goals, not going to change principles, not going to change what we came here for. As long as the people keep sending us back, we are going to fight for the fundamental principles President Reagan talked about, that we fought for in the last election. We are not going to give up. The freshman class is not going to change.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. After listening to Mr. Rohrabacher from California, particularly that close, it is really very difficult to speak, because we all have our own personal recollections and memories. I had never been to Washington, I do not think, during the Reagan administration; I had never been to Washington until the Bush administration, so my memory is somewhat different. I appreciate your having this Special Order. We have heard a lot today about President Reagan as the great communicator. Sometimes we forget, and we remember the tremendous speeches that he gave and some of the powerful things that he said. But it is easy to forget that communication is always a two-way street. It seems to me that one of the parts that is forgotten about President Reagan is that he had a tremendous listening ear. He understood. He had an empathy for the American people that sometimes is forgotten. One of his favorite expressions, and I have stolen a lot of things from the President; one of his expressions that he used frequently, and I subsequently found out he got from John Adams, but I use it a lot. He said, facts are stubborn things. You know, we can ignore the facts, we can deny the facts, but ultimately facts are facts. And he deeply believed that. He also believed that ideas matter, that words have meaning, and that actions have consequences. As Mr. Rohrabacher talked about earlier, when he went to Berlin and he said, Mr. Gorbachev, if you mean what you say, then tear down this wall.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I am a House Republican freshman. The President calls me an extremist, right-wing, radical Republican freshman. What am I so extremist about? Well, I want the Government to balance its budget, just like my family has to. A balanced budget means lower interest rates, which means cheaper car loans, mortgages, and student loans. Pretty scary stuff. I want to cut taxes for working families and I want to reduce capital gains tax to create more jobs. Yes, I know it will mean more take home pay for working Americans and better jobs. Well, I guess that is extreme if my colleagues are big government liberals. I have been in Washington for an entire year, and am still being overcome by commonsense, practical, and honest solutions to our Nation's problems. I guess in Washington that is pretty extreme. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to balance the budget and do the right thing for our children's future.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I represent two Federal prison facilities in my district. Last week I was advised that the guards would not be paid, but some of the inmates would. This is the perverse consequence of a Washington-knows-best mentality. It is precisely this mentality that this bill attempts to change. Even the Washington Post editorial board on September 21 of last year, which is hardly a Republican propaganda organ, says that our approach makes more sense: Crime is primarily a State and local issue. Mr. Speaker, let us grant locals some flexibility in dealing with it. Let us end this absurdity. Let us override this veto.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, the American people have probably heard a lot about how awful things are in Washington. They probably hear about the Government being shutdown, and about extremist freshmen holding President Clinton hostage, and on and on. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is, in fact, a celebration of freedom, of democracy, and of the constitutional framework our Founding Fathers crafted. Yes, there is a conflict over the budget. Yes, parts of the Government are closed. Yes, there are strong feelings. All of us here in Congress were freely elected. Some of us feel that the direction Government has taken over the last generation needs to be changed. And we are absolutely dedicated to balancing the Federal budget, not just for accounting purposes, but for moral purposes. Our children should not bear the consequences for our irresponsibility. And that is why I believe that, in the end, Congress and the President will do the right thing and balance the budget. Merry Christmas America.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2196 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. This legislation will encourage the transfer of basic science and research information from the Federal laboratories to the private sector. This bill also makes important and necessary changes to the Fastener Quality Act. These changes are of great importance to my constituents who are employed in the fastener industry. One of the fastest growing and best- run companies in the United States is based in Winona, Minnesota. The Fasten all Company is one of the dominant forces in the fastener industry. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, they would probably benefit, or probably do benefit, from some of the rules and regulations currently enacted, but they have told me that whether they benefit or not, it actually, in the long run, is bad for business and industry. In 1990, the 101st Congress enacted the Fastener Quality act to answer concerns that counterfeit and substandard fasteners posed a threat to our national defense and our public safety. In most cases, counterfeit and substandard fasteners are two separate problems. While well-meaning in nature, the original Fastener Quality Act required that fasteners be tested, inspected, and certified by accredited laboratories before being distributed to the market. Fastener manufacturers were required to register their fastener headmarkings with the Patent and Trademark Office and keep certification of performance and a copy of the test report on file. These requirements are typical of unnecessary regulations which previous Congresses have dictated. Today, we would be acting on the recommendations which have been made by the Fastener Advisory Committee, amending the Fastener Quality Act. The Fastener Advisory Committee, created by Congress, determined that the Fastener Quality Act will have an unintended detrimental impact on business. The Fastener Advisory committee reported that without these recommended changes, the cumulative burden of cost on the fastener industry could be close to $1 billion for absolute compliance to the Fastener Quality Act. The Committee has adopted recommendations in this legislation for amending the Fastener Quality Act that were submitted in March of 1992, and then again in February of 1995, to the Congress by the Fastener Advisory Committee. Such recommendations were the result of nine public meetings by the Fastener Advisory Committee involving more than 2,000 pages of transcript documenting the need for the amendments. Subsequent to the recommendations to Congress, the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] published proposed implementing regulations for public comment in August 1992. More than 300 letters were received from the public. Over 70 percent of the letters supported the recommendations of the Fastener Advisory Committee for amending the act. I urge all members to support this important legislation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.