Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. That is just the overhead.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think seniors can understand that. In fact, I met with one the other day working at a Wal-Mart store in Mankato. Her name is Muriel. If you stop and think about it, in effect Muriel is paying among the highest tax rates of anybody in the United States. As a matter of fact, there is a very good chance that Muriel is paying a higher tax rate than Ross Perot and some of the wealthiest Americans. The American people are not completely confident that we are going to be able to follow through on our promise to balance this budget in 7 years. They hope we do, they think we should, but the one thing they can understand is if next year they actually get this $500 per child tax credit. Let us talk a little bit, and perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] wants to talk about this chart as well, where the benefits really go, because some of our colleagues on the other side have attempted to sort of distort this issue and to explain that, well, this is a tax cut for the rich. I wonder if we could talk a little bit about this chart and where the benefits really go. Perhaps you want to share some of those ideas.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I want the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and I to come back to those numbers, but before we do, I want to go back to this basic point, the commitment to a 7-year balanced budget plan. I want to read this quote again for the Members who are watching in their offices and perhaps Americans who are [[Page H 14150]] watching at home: ``The President and the Congress shall.'' It does not say ``ought to,'' or ``it would be a good idea'' or ``may.'' It says, ``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session,'' that means before we start next year, ``of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.'' That is a direct quote. That is what the agreement was. That is what the President signed and, most important, that is currently Federal law. I guess it is good news and bad news. The bad news is the President vetoed our attempt today at that plan. We had a plan that we felt very good about, that we felt we could defend. It met the CBO test and it met the vote test and we were able to get the votes to pass it here in the House. That is the bad news, that he vetoed our plan today. The good news, though, is I think the President now is serious. I think the reason he is serious, as the late Senator from Illinois used to say, the late Everett Dirksen, ``The more I feel the heat, the more I see the light.'' I think the President is beginning to feel the heat and I think the administration understands that the American people want us to balance the budget in 7 years. There is another important point that I think the American people want. The more I hear from the American people, the more I hear them saying they also want that tax relief, because they understand very, very well what it could mean to them and their families if the $500- per-child tax credit passes. To many families, the average family with almost three children, let us say the average family with three kids in my district or your district, that is an extra $1,500 in their pockets every year, cash that they can spend to do some home improvements, to buy a new automobile, to take the kids on a vacation, a fishing vacation of some kind, or just to invest and save for the future for the kids' education. So that $500 per child tax credit, people understand very, very clearly.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, we all support that, and I think we can do that with the budget we proposed that the President vetoed today that calls for spending almost $12.1 trillion over the next 7 years. Let me point out something else, Representative Fox, and I think you are probably aware of this. But right at the bottom of this chart it also points out that the President's plan was offered for a vote in the Senate, and it got zero votes. As a matter of fact, it was defeated 96 to zero. To their credit, some of our colleagues here in the House offered their own budget alternative, and I do give them credit for that. They went to an awful lot of work to put together a budget alternative to ours. Unfortunately, it only got 73 votes. As you and I both know, one of the critical ingredients in terms of actually structuring a budget and putting it together is, you have to get at least 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate; otherwise, you are really just sort of whistling in the wind. It really does not make any difference. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the coalition in the House only got 73 votes for theirs. What we have put together, and I think it is important that we understand this, is not only have we put together a balanced budget plan which meets the CBO test, which actually balances the budget in 7 years or less, but we were able to get 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. So we passed the two most important hurdles.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Appointed by the President; I think three members of his own Cabinet.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. With this chart, we are only talking about part B. When you are talking about the part A trust funds, when you start talking about the trust funds, we are talking about saving the Medicare system from imminent bankruptcy, which the trustees of the Medicare trust fund came out earlier in April and told us that there is a drastic----

Mr. GUTKNECHT. So now we have a law, a Federal law, which is a commitment by the President and this Congress to work together to produce a 7-year balanced budget plan, scored by CBO. What were some of the other things that you mentioned, some language that provides adequate funding for what?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Now, Representative Fox, it seemed to me like you were reading something there. Was that an actual agreement that was signed?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think we should talk a little bit about how we got to where we are. You and I were both elected last November as members of this freshman class, and I think it is important sometimes to reflect back on what the American people were saying a little over 12 months ago. I think what they were really saying is that they understand that the Federal Government has grown too big, it spends too much, it wastes too much of their tax dollars, and they want the Federal Government to be put on a diet. I think they fundamentally believe, and that is what my constituents still are telling me, that it is time to make the Federal Government do what every family has to do, what every business has had to do. In fact, if you look at every major corporation, every minor corporation, every small corporation, every small business, every single day they have to figure out ways to be more efficient. But that is not true of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the first chart I want to show, and I am sure you are familiar with it as well, Representative Fox, is what the President originally proposed in terms of his, quote, ``balanced budget plan.'' Now, this is what the 10-year balanced budget plan would have produced in terms of deficits for as far as the eye could see. This is scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and I think that is the source that the President recommended a few years ago that we use, and the reason is, the CBO has historically been more accurate, more conservative, than any of the other sources which score some of our budget proposals. As you can see, in the year 1996, his proposal would have produced a $196 billion deficit; in 1997, $212 billion; in 1998, $199 billion; in the year 1999, $213 billion; 2000, $220 billion; 2001, $211 billion; 2002, $210 billion, and on out to the year 2005, over $209 billion, over $200 billion deficits literally for as far as the eye could see. That is not what I think the American people wanted when they asked us to balance the budget. I do not think they meant a 10-year plan which creates almost an additional $2 trillion worth of debt. Perhaps you want to talk a little bit about what the American people have said and what this plan said.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Say that again. I think that needs to be repeated. That it is a powerful set of statistics.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to first yield to the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania, the Keystone State [Mr. Fox]. We want to talk a little bit tonight about the budget, and then perhaps about the other big issue that I think Americans are concerned with, the issue of Bosnia. So I welcome Representative Fox, and maybe we can talk a little bit about how we got to where we are now and a little bit about the Balanced Budget Act.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it has been over a week since President Clinton committed in writing to an honest balanced budget in 7 years. The Republican majority has a specific plan--we have passed it in both the House and the Senate--now where is the President's plan. But, the President has not submitted a specific plan. Sure, he sent us 22 pages of general talking points this summer, 10 of which were charts and graphs. And last week, his Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, sent us a 2-page list of general principles that contained no numbers or specifics whatsoever. The American people have heard enough talk about general goals--they want action now. They want the President to put his plan on paper. Mr. Speaker, it is time to do what is right for our children's future. Let us sit down, work together, no more rhetoric--no more excuses. Both the Republican majority and the President have promised to balance the budget. Let us keep our promise and let us do it now.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield on that point, this is a critical point. They did offer a Medicare alternative. I think it only got about 100 votes. Not even their leader, Mr. Gephardt, voted for their plan. On their alternate budget, not even their leader, Mr. Gephardt, voted for their plan.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I would say one of my favorite heroes in world history was Winston Churchill. My wife needle- pointed for me one of my favorite quotes from Winston Churchill, which I have in my office. It says, ``Success is never permanent. Failure is seldom fatal. The only thing that really counts is courage.'' The thing that I feel proud about, what has happened in this Congress in the last 11 months, and particularly in this past week, we finally demonstrated some courage. I do not know if the American people have responded to that or whether they ever will. But you said this is really a moral issue. This is an un-American issue. If we look historically, the people who started throwing tea in Boston Harbor, who started this great revolution that started this great American experiment in self-government, the reason, partly, they did that was because they did not believe in taxation without representation. If we get down to the nub of it, when we talk about borrowing from future generations the way we have for so many years in this Government, it is taxation without representation, because we are taxing people who cannot even vote yet and it is morally wrong. We know it is wrong. I live in the Midwest and we have an awful lot of farmers in the Midwest. Most of us are no more than one or two generations removed from the farm, and farmers know this. Most farmers, what they want to do is pay off the mortgage and leave their kids the farm. But if we look at it from a societal standpoint, what our previous Congresses have been doing in Washington is they have been selling the farm and leaving the kids the mortgage. I think all Americans know in their bones that it is wrong. I hope that all Americans will begin to realize that those days are over and [[Page H 13649]] we have begun to change the paradigm and we are going to make this Government do what they have to do every single week and every month, and that is live within their means. That is the American thing to do and the morally right thing to do. I am proud to be a part of this Congress and part of the group of freshmen, and if we take the credit, so be it. And if we take the blame, so be it. But some day I hope that future generations of Americans will look back and say, ``Finally, they had the courage to do the right thing.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to talk a little bit about this, as both being Members of this freshman class, we have been called extremists, heretics, all kinds of names like that. I do think the American people sent a very clear message a year ago. I think they expect us to fulfill the promises we made. As you know, if I could, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough], I would like to read a letter that the gentleman helped me draft, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough], and signed by virtually every Member of our freshman class, that we sent down to the White House last week. I think it sort of frames the issue from our perspective and how much impact this ultimately had on the President's decision over the weekend to get serious about negotiating. We do not know. But, hopefully, it had some impact. If I could, I would like to read at least some excerpts from it. Dear Mr. President: Some are holding us Freshmen Members of the Republican House Caucus responsible for the actions of the last several days. Permit us to share our perspective on this important issue. It is unfortunate that 800,000 non-essential federal employees were furloughed. But we believe very strongly that it would be a tragedy of historic proportions if we were to back down now on our commitment to balance the federal budget in seven years. Twelve months ago, the voters of this nation sent a powerful message that we needed to change the way Washington does business. They wanted to put the federal government on a diet, and they wanted us to balance their budget. There is a misguided belief that the current debate surrounding the balanced budget issue is about politics. Balancing the federal budget, Mr. President, is about principle. This is not about the re-election of the Freshmen Class, it's about preserving the future of our country. In fact, we believe it goes deeper than that. What is at stake here is preserving the basic concept of self-government. If we cannot balance our budget when we are the sole surviving super-power, when we're at peace in the world, when we have a relatively strong economy with low unemployment, then when will we? We want to resolve this. The American people want us to work together. We have been granted an historic opportunity. Our children would not hold us harmless if we squandered it. This is a moment of truth. This is when ``We The People'' show whether we have the courage and moral character to stop stealing from our children and grandchildren. Future generations are counting on us to show some leadership and courage. Let us agree on the destination. We can then have a healthy debate about the road map. It was signed by virtually every member of our freshman class. We sent that down to the White House Friday because we wanted to send a message that this is not about politics, it is about principle, and it is about the future of this country and whether or not we have the moral courage and character to do what we all know is right. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] said it. Most of us thought we ought to balance the budget in 5 years or less, and we believed it could be done if we were willing to make some really rough choices. In fact, some might argue that our budget we are proposing today is actually too generous. But I would also like to read this, because there has been some distortion already today, and, in fact, it started as early as last night, and I was somewhat disappointed in the news conferences at some of the comments made by Mr. Panetta and the President and others about what they duly agreed to. At some point the American people, and, if you would like an extra copy, they can call my office in Washington, drop me a note in care of the Cannon Office Building, I will send them out a copy of exactly what the President and the leaders of the congressional delegation agreed. Too, if I could, I would just like to read this. It is just a paragraph and a half long. It says: The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office and the President, and the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to stimulate future economic growth and to help working families. Now, that is essentially, in fact, that is word for word, what was agreed to between the House, the Senate, and the President. It says no later than 2002. That means in not more than 7 years. But no sooner had the ink dried on the paper that it was agreed to on, than already the White House was saying ``Well, we did not quite really mean 7 years.'' I think that is what is frustrating to the Members of the Congress, I think it is what is frustrating to members of the public. I think the interesting point, there is a story told about Yogi Berra. He has become one of my favorite philosophers. One night Yogi went out by himself to have pizza. He ordered a small pizza. The waitress said, ``Do you want that cut into 8 slices or 6?'' Yogi said, ``Well, I'm not that hungry tonight; just cut it in 6. I do not think I can eat 8 pieces.'' That is sort of what the argument is we have been having about the budget lately, because we have not agreed to how big the pizza is going to be. Now we can have the debate, about how much is going to go to the environment, how much is going to go to national defense, how much is going to go to transportation, how much we will spend on welfare, how much we will spend on Medicaid and other entitlements. At least we finally have agreed on the size of the pizza. How many slices and exactly the way it is sliced, I guess, is not as important to us as the fact we have agreed. We have agreed on a destination. Now let us have a healthy argument about the road map. Let me say this. Two points need to be made. First of all, as far as we are concerned, this is like the Contract With America that we signed last year. The agreement that was reached last night is a contract with the American people, and we take it very seriously, and we hope the White House will take it very seriously. Second, and this is even more important, it is now incumbent upon the President and this administration to come forward with a budget plan that they like. Now, they spent the last 6 or 8 weeks telling everybody about the things in our plan they do not like. That is fair enough. That is part of the democratic process. They have every right to criticize some of the things they do not like in our budget plan. But now it is their responsibility to put their plan on the table. I think we in the Congress and the American people have every right and expect and should demand that they put a plan on the table.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about balancing the budget, and I think sometimes we have been characterized in the national media as mean spirited and that we are draconian and that this is simply an accounting exercise. But I think sometimes we need to step back and understand that there are going to be enormous benefits to the average American family if we are able to finally, at last, balance the Federal books. [[Page H 13648]] A study was done by DRI McGraw Hill that essentially says that if, and this is pursuant to what Alan Greenspan had said, that if we actually could balance the Federal budget for the first time in over 30 years, it was his opinion that real interest rates would drop by at least 2 percent and that economic growth would be at least 1\1/2\ points stronger. I think people need to understand what that means to the average family in terms of if real interest rates really do continue to come down, as they are now coming down. As a matter of fact, I think just with what we have been doing, and the belief now in the financial markets that we are finally serious, Congress is serious about putting the Federal Government on a diet and limiting the growth of entitlements, we are already seeing the benefits of that. What this will mean to an average family is, the average cost of a mortgage would drop by $121 a month. The average student loan repayment would drop by $4 a month. A car loan would be $9 a month cheaper. The child tax credit, the economic growth advantages all add up to an increase to the average family of at least $192 a month. That may not seem like much to some folks, but to the average family trying to get by on $30,000 a year, it works out to $2,300. What we are really talking about is allowing them to keep more of their own money so they can invest and save, and they can be responsible for themselves. There are enormous benefits if we can simply, for the first time, have the moral courage to say no to some of those interest groups, to limit the growth of entitlements, to actually downsize the Federal Government. We will have eliminated, at least on the House side, over 300 programs. We hope many of those cuts will survive. There are huge benefits and sometimes those do not get talked about enough. And I would yield back to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, that is what has really troubled so many Americans for so long. They have seen a lack of courage and will power in the Congress to actually follow through. It is what I call the ``yes, buts''. In fact, Representative Chris Shays the other day said it so clearly, I think, on the House floor here. He said you know, everybody gets up and says we want a balanced budget. Everybody wants a balanced budget. But he said if that were true, we would have a balanced budget. Everybody says yes, I want a balanced budget, but. Yes, but. That is what gets the American people so frustrated. I have to congratulate Chairman Archer of the Committee on Ways and Means as well. He went down the other day and said our plan is not perfect. I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would argue it is perfect. But there is one thing about our plan that nobody else can say about their plan, because they do not have a plan, but at least we have a plan, and it will work according to CBO scoring. CBO, as the gentleman says, has been the most conservative over the years. Frankly, I think perhaps too conservative, but I would rather err on the side of conservative when you are talking about balancing the budget and trying to save the future generations of Americans from a debt which is actually going to come crashing down around them. The gentleman talked earlier about polls. Sometimes we here in Washington get too much influenced by polls. The gentleman talked about one of my favorite newspapers, the Washington Post, which he indicated is not exactly a Republican propaganda organ. Many times in fact so many of those on this side of the aisle take what they say with a grain of salt. I would like to remind you of a poll done a couple of weeks ago by the Washington Post. Here is what they asked. It was October 30, 1995; that was a little over 2 weeks ago. They asked, ``Whom do you trust to do a better job with the main problems facing this Nation over the next few years?'' And they said, Republicans, 47 percent; Democrats, 39 percent. Now, when we took over this House, if I remember correctly, on that same test ballot question the day before the election, the score was Republicans, 44; Democrats, 41. We only had a 3 percent advantage a year ago, and we picked up 73 seats. Even more telling, it seems to me, they went on to ask a somewhat different question, but along the same lines; they asked, ``Which party better represents your views on national issues?'' And this is according to the Washington Post poll taken about 2\1/2\ weeks ago. Republicans, 55 percent; Democrats, 25 percent. I do not know how your phone messages were over the last week during the furlough of Federal employees, but mine were overwhelming. One day we received something like 270 calls saying hang in there, continue back up, do not blink. We had 27 calls which said cave in to the President. I think that is pretty reflective of where the American people were, and I think the American people were well served by our negotiators, because John Kasich and our Speaker and other leaders did not blink. As a result, we are going to have a balanced budget agreement. We now have a contract with this President, and a contract with the American people, that we are going to do what we said we are going to do. We are actually going to balance this budget.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, I move the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, here is candidate Bill Clinton live on the ``Larry King Show'' in 1992 and I quote: ``I would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget.'' Here is what the President said on August 1 of this year and I quote: ``I mean, I think that it's wrong to say you're going to do something and not do it.'' Mr. Speaker, this week we passed with bipartisan support a plan that would reopen Government. We had only one stipulation: He had to agree to balance the budget using legitimate numbers in less than 7 years. No specifics, a simple question. Mr. President, do you want to balance the budget? We want to work with him on this plan to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, the President has said, ``No, I don't want to balance the budget.'' Mr. President, if you meant what you said, then sign this bill. And, Mr. Morris, if you are really running the country, get the President to sign this bill.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, the debate is now clear and the battle is joined. As Paul Harvey has said, Americans hate statistics but Americans know what they expect from us. They want us to put government on a diet and they want us to balance their budget. We are a Nation that gets up early, rolls up our sleeves and gets the job done. To be told that we cannot balance this budget within 7 years is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. You promised to balance the budget in 5 years. Mr. President, if you meant what you said, then sign this bill.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, this whole budget showdown boils down to one question--why won't the President do what he promised and help balance the budget? This showdown is not about one side wanting to furlough Federal employees. This is about character, this is about trust, this is about our children, this is about our future as a nation. The American people can no longer shoulder the burden of debt that the Federal Government is placing on them year after year after year. We now have a $5 trillion debt. We spend over $200 billion every year just to pay interest on this debt. The irresponsibility has to stop. Period. Our President said he would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget. We challenge the President to end the excuses and end the gimmicks. We encourage him to keep his promises. He should not be keeping us from keeping ours.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill once observed that sometimes doing our best is not enough. Sometimes we have to do what is required. A little over 1 year ago the voters of this Nation went to the polls, and I think they sent a very unmistakable message to this Capitol and to the people who were elected to serve them. I think the message was clear: They wanted an end to business as usual; they wanted to put the Federal Government on a diet; they wanted to lift the burden of senseless regulation; they wanted to allow families to keep and spend more of their earnings. Finally, and perhaps most important, they wanted us, for the first time in more than two decades, to balance the Federal budget. Madam Speaker, from the very first day, this Congress, this House, and indeed this majority, has done its best to keep its faith with the American people. We have done what is required. We accomplished much in the very first day. We made the Congress live by the same rules as everybody else. We downsized the staff. We have made enormous attempts to open up the process so that the committee meetings are open to the public. We eliminated the process whereby committee chairmen could have all of the votes lined up and no one even showed up for committee meetings. We have opened up this process and changed the way this Congress does business from the very first day. We have marshaled through smoke screens of the defenders of the status quo, and during the flak from the media elites and the firestorm of special interests. We have been subjected to half truths, distortions, and indeed, bald-faced lies. For example, we are being accused today of cutting Medicare, of cutting school lunch, of eliminating student loans, when the other folks who say this know that these are not true. As a matter of fact, when one talks about Medicare, we are increasing Medicare by over 45 percent over the next 7 years. The average Medicare recipient will go from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in only 7 years. As a matter of fact, recently a poll came back and when Americans were informed that we are actually talking about increasing Medicare from $4,800 per recipient to $6,700 per recipient, 63 percent of the people, when informed of that, said that we are raising Medicare too much. School lunch, and some will recall we had this debate earlier this year, was being cut, but in fact, the truth is school lunch programs will increase, nutrition programs will increase by over 35 percent over the next 7 years. I wonder how many of our college students actually know that the total appropriations for school loans will increase by 47 percent over the next 7 years. We are also being accused of doing all of these very mean-spirited things in order to pay for a tax cut for the rich. Again, anyone who has studied the issue more than 10 minutes knows that this is simply not true. As a matter of fact, our $500 per child tax credit for families will go to benefit mostly families earning under $75,000 a year. As a matter of fact, 74 percent of the benefits of that tax credit program will go to benefit those earning less than $75,000 a year. More important, when they talk about tax cuts for the rich, frequently what they are really talking about is an increase of cutting the capital gains tax rate. But the truth of the matter is, even there, and particularly people back in the Midwest know this, that 44 percent of the people who get stuck paying a capital gains tax are rich for 1 day, the day they sell their farm, the day they sell their business, or the day they sell an investment which they have been holding and paying taxes on, in many cases for a long period of time. Madam Speaker, 3 years ago our President campaigned promising to downsize the Federal Government, to end welfare as we know it, to reform and save the Medicare system. He promised tax cuts for the middle class, and he promised to balance the budget within 5 years. He has not kept his promises. What is worse than that, and particularly on behalf of many of my [[Page H 12196]] freshmen colleagues, he is keeping us from keeping our promises. It is unfortunate that this impasse has been reached and that nonessential Federal employees are being sent home, but it would be a tragedy of historic proportions if we were to back down now on our commitment to keep the promises that we made and to keep the promises that he made. Madam Speaker, we must not turn back now. I think the American people are counting on us to keep our promises, to do what we said, to change the way Government does business and to make the Government live within its means.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, in the last several months we were warned repeatedly by the administration that if the train wreck happened, financial markets would collapse. Well, let us look at the facts; Financial markets hit a record high yesterday, and they are up again this morning. Why? Because Americans are expressing confidence in this Congress. We are serious about controlling entitlements and putting our financial house in order. It is unfortunate that we have been forced to send 800,000 nonessential Federal employees home. But it would be a tragedy of historic proportions if we backed down now on our commitment to balance this budget.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I almost feel after some of the remarks that have been made tonight that there is not really much to add to this discussion. But I think it is very important, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] for having this special order tonight to talk about it, because I was one of those people who came of age, graduated from high school in 1969. I was fortunate enough to have a high enough draft number that I did not have to go to Vietnam, but a lot of my friends did. I think sometimes we overutilize the Vietnam analogy, but I think there is one thing that is absolutely crystal clear in the comparison, and the analogy fits this particular discussion. We all saw what that war in Vietnam did to the American people, what it did to our society. It literally tore us apart. The time to have this debate is now. The debate should not be going on a year from now, when we are bogged down in a no-win situation, when we have sent not 25,000 troops to that area of the world, but perhaps 50,000 or 100,000; because we can talk about 20,000 to 25,000 American troops today, but the truth of the matter is if we get bogged down in a guerrilla-type war in the mountains of the Balkans, it may well be that the generals will be saying, ``What we really need are more troops, what we need are more air strikes, what we need are these things.'' We saw this all happen before. The time to have this debate, not only in this Congress, not only on the floor of this House but in this country, is before we find ourselves in a situation where the answer to every question is, ``We need more troops, we need more bombers, we need more air strikes, we need more materiel,'' and the potential for that, I think, is great. The reason is that the whole policy that we are seeing evolve in that area of the world, and Mr. John Hillen, who is the defense policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation has really nailed it when he said that the peace plan we are talking about, the Clinton peace plan, is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Instead of making troop commitment that is tailored to support a known, specific, workable mission, Mr. Clinton made the commitment of 25,000 U.S. ground troops first, more than 2 years ago, without any peace plan at hand. In fact, I think back then, between then and now, we have had something like 10 ceasefires and peace plans. The U.S. military commitment only incidentally is related to the military conditions that may exist on the ground. This strategy is backwards, a formula for confusion and disarray, and Members of Congress are correct to question it now. We should be having this debate before we make the commitment of American forces. In fact, I have told some of the people in my district that we hear a lot about the Vietnam analogy. Perhaps an even better analogy is what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. They found themselves bogged down in some warfare that had been going on in those mountains for years and years and years, and they never did win that war. They only lost thousands of young Russian soldiers in that area of the world. The truth of the matter is we are all becoming much more aware of where Bosnia and Herzegovina is, but if the truth actually be told, I think if you were to ask Americans to locate Bosnia on a world map or a world globe, I daresay that less than 25 percent of the American people can even find it on the map. To say that it is of some major national interest is to exaggerate in the 10th degree. The truth of the matter is, Americans have no real interest in what is happening in Bosnia, and most of them have little knowledge of the history of that area, but some of us in Congress have been forced over the last several months to become more expert in what the history is there. The more you learn about it, the more you begin to realize that this is a situation that has been going on for years. As a matter of fact, they have been fighting over there since the Turks first invaded in 1389, and there has been one form of conflict going on in that particular region of the world basically ever since. I think it sort of underscores American arrogance; that we can somehow, by sending 25,000 ground troops at a cost of over $1.2 billion, somehow bring peace to a region that has been fighting that long is, I think, as I say, can only be described as arrogance. When we talked, and many of the other points that needed to be made have been made tonight, but before we commit our troops anywhere in the world I think we have to have a clearly defined American interest, there needs to be a clearly defined mission statement of what it is we are trying to accomplish. We need to know the rules of engagement. Most importantly, I think we need to know, how will we know when it is time to come home? The truth of the matter is we have not had answers to any of those questions. The interesting thing from my perspective, as a freshman Member of this body, is that many of the people that I would regard as hawks on national defense, many of the people that I think nonpolitical observers out in America would say, ``These are the kinds of people who would be eager to commit American troops anywhere in the world, they are the hawks of this Congress,'' they are the ones who are the most dovish on this whole idea of Bosnia. The reason is they have asked those tough questions. We have given the administration every opportunity to come up here to Capitol Hill, to talk about their plans, to explain exactly what they have in [[Page H 11929]] mind, and with every opportunity that they have taken, if anything, the administration in selling their particular proposals to Congress, has lost ground. At every occasion the hawks of this Congress have, perhaps, been the most aggressive in saying that there is no American interest in that region of the world, there is no American mission. We do not seem to know what we are trying to do. There is no peace to keep. As the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] said earlier, the quote from the Krauthammer piece that appeared in the Washington Post says that the greatest targets people can have in the world are Americans, not only to shoot at them in some kind of guerrilla warfare but also to take them hostage. We have already seen that happen in that region of the world. So before we make this critical mistake, before we find ourselves bogged down in an unwinnable war, before we allow our sons and daughters to become the unwilling pawns in this unwinnable war that has been going on for over 600 years, we ought to have these questions answered. The American people ought to have them answered. I think Congress has a special responsibility, especially to those young kids who wear the American uniform, to make certain that we feel good about what exactly they are going to be asked to do before we ask them to do it. I think this is a huge mistake. I think the President needs to sit down with the American people and with this Congress, answer these tough questions, before we get into a war like we had back in the 1960s and 1970s that literally tore this country apart. The time for the debate is now, not after the troops are sent. The time for the Congress to get these answers is today, not next week, not next month, and not after the troops are sent in. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], for having this special order. I think we need to do more of this. I think we need to encourage the American people to become engaged in this, because I will just close, and I know the gentleman from California wants to share a few words, but a week and a half ago I spoke to some of the Legion commanders from my congressional district. One of the issues I talked about was Bosnia. I asked for some input from them. I have to tell you, the American Legion people who were at that meeting that day do not support the basic notion of sending group troops to that area of the world. Frankly, if you cannot sell the American Legion and some of the veterans' groups on the importance of this particular mission, then you cannot sell the American people. This is a mistake. We have to do all we can in the next several weeks to prevent it from happening, because all of those kids that we would be asking to go into that particular region have parents, they have lives of their own, and we cannot just offer them up on some altar just to protect the American ego. That is really, when you are talking about protecting American prestige, it seems to me that is too high a price when you are talking about real people, real kids who belong to real families, to send them into situations just to protect American prestige. In my opinion that is a huge mistake, and again, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me tonight. The gentleman from Ohio, again, is to be congratulated and thanked for having the special order.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Absolutely.