Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We have seen inflation rates running 1.1 percent. It does not take a Fulbright scholar or a genius to figure out why can we not steal some of those ideas that are working so well in the private sector to control cost, and still provide people with the health care they need and want. Why can we not steal those ideas and apply them to Medicare and Medicaid? We have been joined by our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. I wonder if he would like to join us in this colloquy.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If I could just join this here, because I really do think the gentlewoman has hit on a very important point, and that is that long-term I believe the facts are our friends. I think the more people get to understand the facts of what we are talking about in terms of where we are now and how we got to where we are now, and the reforms that we are talking about, I think the more people understand the facts of the situation, and I have found in my town meetings where people begin to understand the direction that we are going, we have found less and less resistance and people begin to appreciate it. When we talk, for example, about what has happened back in Minnesota, where on the public sector side when you are talking about Medicare or Medicaid or medical assistance, we have been seeing, and last year I think we saw in the State of Minnesota about a 10.4 percent inflation rate when you are talking about the public sector side on Medicare and Medicaid and medical assistance. The inflation rate on that side of the equation has been about 10.4 percent. On the private sector side, where they have used managed care and competitive forces and created markets, it has been running 1.1 percent.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. I would just like to say first and foremost, not only are we both freshmen, but I think we both have parents, and parents are both on the Medicare system. They are concerned. And I am concerned as a good son. I want to make certain that my parents get the health care that they need. But I think also, I come at this also not only as a freshman and as someone who has parents who are on the Medicare system, but I come at this also as [[Page H 9868]] a parent of teenagers. So there is a generational responsibility I think we have, not only to our parents, but I think we have a responsibility, and a special responsibility, to our kids. For too long here in Washington, politics as usual was ``Well, we will try to patch it over and get past the next election, and then we will worry about it and really solve the problem.'' I think the message of last November was that ``politics as usual'' just is not getting the job done. They wanted people to come to Washington and really look at the problem; take off the partisan glasses, if you will, and look at the problem, and try to come up with solutions that will really solve it long-term, so that we save the Medicare system, for example. Not just to get through the next election, but so that we save the Medicare system for the next generation. I think that is the charge we were given, and I think up to this point, we have responded appropriately. Let me just read, if I could, a couple of quotes from that report that you alluded to earlier. This has been said before, but I do not think it can be said too often. The trustees said, ``Under all sets of assumptions, the trust fund is projected to become exhausted even before the major demographic shift begins.'' What that means is the program is going to go bankrupt even before the baby boomers start to retire. That was what they said on page 3. They went on to say on page 13, ``The fact that exhaustion would occur under a broad range of future economic conditions and is expected to occur in the relatively near future indicates the urgency of addressing the HI fund's financial imbalance.'' In other words, we have got a serious problem and we need to get busy now about solving it. And the longer Congress waits, the more they sit and twiddle their thumbs and play politics as usual, the worse the problem will become. To their credit, I think our leadership here in the House and in the Senate have had something like 36 different hearings, talking about the problem and how we got to where we are. In my district, for example, I have had 33 town hall meetings. I do not know about in your district.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. It goes deeper than that. It is not just choice. It is about markets and it is about competition. We saw this, and part of the reason the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed, and the Wall Street Journal ran such a beautiful editorial shortly after that. I think the headline was ``Markets Are More Powerful Than Armies.'' What we saw on the other side of the world was that if you have a monopolistic system where the Government controls, you have enormous inefficiencies. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] talked about the FAA. They are the largest buyer of vacuum tubes in the world.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to make a couple of quick points. I think what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] just said is important. Many of the Members of our freshman class are baby boomers, and I think we do come here with a special responsibility. Both of my parents are on Medicare, and we have a special responsibility to our kids. I want to come back to something that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] made, and I think it is the heart and soul of what really is the philosophical debate, and it is the crossroads that we stand at here in the United States today. The debate about Medicare and the debate about Medicaid is really a debate between those people who fundamentally believe in Government control, and in Government decisions, and in Government bureaucracy, and between those who want to give people choices and options, who believe in freedom and in markets. Mr. Speaker, we believe that if we get more freedom, if we get more market working out there, if we get real market forces controlling this thing, we can absolutely control the cost. It is happening in the private sector. The average cost of health care increases over the last 18 months in the private sector has been something like 1.1 percent. On the government side, when you are talking about Medicare or Medicaid, it has been over 10 percent. We believe this system is going to work, and my sense is, some people on the other side fear it is going to work.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think he is the newest.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Exactly. If I could just reclaim my time briefly, I hate to question the motives of anyone, but sometimes I wonder. The reason that we have heard the harsh rhetoric that we have had for the last 3 or 4 months is not I think that some people fear that this reform plan is going to fail, I think they are afraid it is going to work, and that seniors are going to like it. The reason that they know it is going to work is because a lot of things that we are talking about in terms of reform are currently working in the private sector. Mr. Speaker, we are not reinventing the wheel here. Managed care and PPO's and HMO's and medical savings accounts are currently working. We saw a report on the news the other night, I think it was NBC, who talked about where some of these programs are actually being implemented, seniors love them. At my town meetings where we have had seniors who are already members of what is called Senior Gold out in the State of Minnesota that is sponsored by BlueCross BlueShield, they love it. I mean, where these things are actually happening, it has become very popular. I think sometimes it is not the fear that this will fail, I think it is the fear that this will succeed and that somehow, we will get the credit. Mr. Speaker, one of my favorite Founding Fathers was John Adams, and this is one of my favorite quotes. He said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' We can ignore the facts and we can deny the facts, but in the end facts are facts, and the facts are that the Medicare system as it exists today is headed for bankruptcy. Another fact is we are going to be spending more money on the system in 7 years than we are spending today. Another fact is that if seniors want to stay right where they are, they can.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, just to sort of review again all the things we accomplished on that first day, we opened the committee process so that staff and the press could come, the public could see what was happening in the committee meetings. We mandated a three- fifths vote on any tax increase, and began a comprehensive audit of the House books. For the first time, we are opening up this process to the public, we are going to show our books to the public so people have an opportunity. I do want to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the author of the Shays act. Incidentally, I want to reinforce what an important act that was. When I was campaigning last year, I was surprised to learn how many laws that the Congress itself, in fact it had almost become routine for the Congress to exempt itself from the implications of a lot of the laws that they passed against everybody else. I think a big part of changing the attitudes of Members of Congress was to make us live by the same laws that we impose on everybody else. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. He does not necessarily have to talk about the Shays act. I do not want him to brag about himself, necessarily, but I do want to talk a little bit about Medicare or Mediscare that is going on around the country now. I think the good news is that the American people are a lot smarter than some people give them credit for. They understand that increasing the expenses per capita from $4,800 to $6,700, they understand that is not a cut, that is a significant increase. They believe the system can be saved. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can explain baseline budgeting. Essentially, I think the way it works is that the budget automatically goes up by about 6 percent. Anything you reduce from that is called a cut around Washington. Everywhere else, in every coffee shop, in every family, at every business, when you actually increase spending in real terms from one year to the next, that is called an increase, but with the convoluted baseline budgeting that has been used around here, that is not the way it is.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the author of the Shays Act. It is important for us to look back and see how much has changed. As you indicated, it is no longer a debate about if we are going to balance the budget, it is a debate about when and exactly how we are going to balance the budget. It is no longer about when we are going to save Medicare, it is about how we are [[Page H 9729]] going to save Medicare. We have completely changed the debate. That all started on the very first day. I was so privileged to stand on this very place on the first day on the job and be the lead spokesman on the adoption of the rule for the Shays Act, H.R. 1. I was also privileged to have been the first freshman in 100 years to have been invited to the White House for the first bill signing. That was not the only thing we did on the first day. I think sometimes people forget how the paradigm shift began on the very first day. On the very first day, let us remind ourselves, we slashed the number of committees and committee staffs by one-third. We ended baseline budgeting. We changed the way the budgets are put together around here. We ended proxy voting, so Members actually have to go to committees.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I am telling you this technology was developed in 1955. That is what you are going to fly home on. The telephone companies route millions of calls using computers, and they do it without even thinking about it. Yet we are using vacuum tubes. The Speaker carries one around. That is the difference between a Government-controlled system and a market system. Competition makes them fund efficiencies. We can find those efficiencies if we allow markets to work.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think you have highlighted something very important. It really was not, I do not think, our leadership that tried to turn this into a partisan issue. I think everyone would be happier, I know the senior citizens of the United States would be far happier if we could debate this more rationally rather than some of the harsh rhetoric that we have heard. It has been turned into a partisan issue. I think that is incredibly unfortunate particularly for the senior citizens because sometimes they wonder what really should they believe. That is why I made the point earlier about the facts are stubborn things. If they would just look at and study the facts, look at the options they are going to have, I think we could solve this problem, and it would be far better if it were on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank everyone for participating. We are making huge differences. It started with the Shays act on the first night. We are going to balance the budget, we are going to save Medicare. We are going to change welfare as we know it. We are going to keep a lot of the promises, actually, the President made when he was campaigning last time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to also interject that the whole issue of Medicare, people who think that we have not had enough public hearings or discussions, in my own case I have had 33 town meetings. At every one of those town meetings we have talked about Medicare and some of the ideas we are considering. So I do not think anyone is going to be surprised when they read some of the details that are going to be in this plan because we have had something like 36 hearings on the issue, of various committees on the issue of Medicare. This is not something we are going to sneak up on the American people, particularly on the senior citizens. I think by the time this bill is signed by the President, I think everybody in the United States will have a very thorough understanding of what we are talking about and frankly I think it will enjoy widespread public support as well.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I think we do want to have a little discussion about Medicare, because there is still so much distortion going on out there about what really is going to happen with Medicare.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, to begin this special order tonight I would like to read a statement and some passages to pay tribute to a young man in my district. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to a truly remarkable youngster. His name is Niles Randolph, and he is the first-place winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars ``Voice of Democracy'' broadcast scriptwriting contest for the State of Minnesota. Niles is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Randolph and is currently a senior at Mayo High School in Rochester, MN. He was sponsored by VFW Post 1215 and its ladies auxiliary in Rochester. His interests include football, playing the guitar, soccer, and racquetball. He is also a member of the National Honor Society and has held the offices of 6th grade class officer, 9th grade class officer and 11th grade junior representative. Niles is interested in attending the University of Wisconsin at Madison or Drake University in Des Moines where he intends to pursue a degree in Public Relations--I am sure he will be very successful. His essay titled ``My Vision for America'' was a genuinely patriotic piece of writing, and I am honored to share several passages from that tonight: I was once told the story of two brothers who quarreled all the time. The father of the boys, to tech a lesson, gave them a bundle of sticks tied together and challenged them to break it. Try as they might, they could not. Then the father untied the sticks and gave each one separately to the boys. He again challenged them to break the sticks. They did with ease. The father then said, ``You see my sons, untied as one, the sticks are strong and cannot be broken. Apart, they are weak and vulnerable.'' No longer did the brothers quarrel. My vision for America is one of unity. As the story relates, we are strong when tied together. When we are separate, we are weak and vulnerable. When we are together as Americans, free from prejudice, ignorance and selfishness, we are strong. That is my vision for America. To attain greater unity, I feel we must look at the basic unit of our nation. That unity is the family. The strengthening of the American family is an essential key to the solidarity of our nation. The family is the teacher of moral principles and values, the most influential guide in someone's life. Too many times in modern society do we see the decay of family; failed marriages and single parents, or the increase in gang numbers due to lack of family support. The family has been the backbone of American society throughout our history. It has been the reason America has remained as strong as it has. The family is where it all starts, where everyone develops their character and their values, where everyone must attain their moral principles. In becoming a more unified nation, we must eliminate prejudice. Racial and sexual prejudice undermine the American idea of equality and equal opportunity. All of these factors combine to make a unified America. Through patriotism, stronger family bonds, education, and elimination of prejudice, we stand united as one, as the sticks were unbreakable when tied together. Let us maintain our seat as leaders of the world in morality and virtue. Let us come together in unity. This is my vision for America. Mr. Speaker, I submit the balance of the text to be printed in the Congressional Record: My Vision for America I was once told the story of two brothers who quarreled all the time. The father of the boys, to teach a lesson, gave them a bundle of sticks tied together and challenged them to break it. Try as they might, they could not. Then the father untied the sticks and gave each one separately to the boys. He again challenged them to break the sticks. They did with ease. The father then said, ``You see my sons, united as one, the sticks are strong and cannot be broken. Apart, they are weak and vulnerable.'' No longer did the brothers quarrel. My vision for America is one of unity. As the story relates, we are strong when united together. When we are separate, we are weak and vulnerable. When we are together as Americans, free from prejudice, ignorance, and selfishness, we are strong. That is my vision for America. I am a member of my high school football team. Through experience, I have learned that teamwork is the key to winning. When members of the team fight, or become selfish in their interests, they are drawn apart and more often than not, we lose. In order to succeed there must be blockers for each running back and defensive support on every play. I can see a correlation between American society and my football experiences. If we are together in our interests and goals, we will succeed as a nation. If there is sound education for our youth, it is much like having the blocker for the running back. The youth and the running back are much more likely to succeed. If we have a strong family bond and support, it is much like the defensive support, as it reinforces. If we are drawn apart by prejudice and lack of patriotism, it is much like team members fighting or being selfish. Whether in football or in society we must be united to succeed. To accomplish this goal, we must embrace patriotism. People are often concerned only with their current situations and problems. Nobody must forget the America that has given us such unequaled opportunity and liberty. My vision for America would be a patriotic America. An America concerned about the future of our nation, as the past generations have been concerned. From the times of the Revolutionary War, to the times of Korea and Vietnam, our predecessors have given their very lives for the benefit of America and it's future generations. A revival of these principals and regard for our nation would unquestionably bring us together as Americans. To attain greater unity, I feel we must look at the basic unit of our nation. That unit is the family. The strengthening of the American family is an essential key to the solidarity of our nation. The family is the teacher of moral principles and values, the most influential guide in someone's life. Too many times in modern society do we see the decay of family; failed marriages and single parents, or the increase in gang numbers due to lack of family support. The family has been the backbone of American society throughout our history. It has been the reason America has remained as strong as it has. The family is where it all starts, where everyone develops their character and their values, where everyone must attain their moral principles. In the past, families have been the base of America. They can be the base once again. The strengthening of the family unit is my vision for America. [[Page H 9728]] In becoming a more unified nation, we must eliminate prejudice. Racial and sexual prejudice undermine the American ideal of equality and equal opportunity. Only through education can we curb prejudice, as prejudice stems from ignorance. My vision is to eliminate racial and sexual prejudice. Another aspect of American unity is education. Education, whether in the form of elementary schools or colleges, is the key to a successful future. Only by knowledge can we grow and adapt. The children of tomorrow demand a sound education in order to lead our country in the coming years. All of these factors combine to make a unified America. Through patriotism, stronger family bonds, education, and elimination of prejudice, we stand united as one, as the sticks were unbreakable when tied together. Let us maintain our seat as leaders of the world in morality and virtue. Let us come together in unity. This is my vision for America. Mr. Speaker, for the balance of this special order I would like to talk a little. We have heard from the other side of the aisle this evening about some of the things that this Congress has not accomplished. We have heard some complaints about our Medicare reforms and our Medicaid reforms, and I think it would be appropriate tonight to talk a little bit about some of the things that we have accomplished, and I would like to first call attention to a column which appeared about a week ago in the Washington Post by columnist David S. Broder, and even the title of the column, I think, says an awful lot about this Congress, the 104th Congress, and what has really been happening. The title is ``A Rout of Historic Proportions,'' and perhaps I could just read a couple of paragraphs, and the first paragraph starts: Whatever happens in the final weeks of this session, it is now a certainty that the 104th Congress will go into the history books as one of the most significant in the last half century. It marks as fundamental a rightward turn in domestic policy as the Great Society 89th Congress in the 1965-1966 session did in a turn to the left. In fact, let me just also close with the last couple of paragraphs where it says unlike Haley Barbour in 1993-1994, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee has been unable to coordinate a single message, nor have they been able to muster the kind of effective interest group and lobbying support that Republicans have used to get their allies in business in a broad range of ideological groups together. The result has been a rout of historic proportions in a Congress which will be long remembered, and I am happy to have with me this evening the gentleman from the great State of Florida [Mr. Scarborough], and I would like to yield to him to talk a little bit about some of the accomplishment of this Congress, some of the distortions we have heard from the other side, and some of the reasons, as we go forward, we are going to continue to press the agenda and change the way Washington does business.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We have one of our fellow freshmen, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], joining us. I would like to offer to yield to him for a few moments.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Not in the United States. We have to buy them from Czechoslovakia. You have probably seen the Speaker carries around one of those vacuum tubes that the FAA buys.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk a little bit about some of the testimony we have heard. I do not remember the exact number, Chairman McIntosh, of hours of hearings we have had about this issue, but there are several things that surprise me, and frankly just shock me, in the testimony we have heard. First of all, there are, in fact, groups out there receiving over 96 percent of their entire budget in Federal grants and then turning around and engaging almost exclusively in what I would describe as political activity. That is shocking enough. But I will tell you what surprises me even more, and that is that some groups have come to Washington and have lobbied against this bill, and some good groups that do good things that we all know the names of, the YMCA, the Boy Scouts, that they would come to Washington and in effect defend this kind of activity. This is an affront I think to every taxpayer. It is in an affront to every democratic loving American, that groups can literally use and abuse the taxpayers' money to advance [[Page H 9721]] their political agenda. It is almost as big an offense to me to see groups coming and defending this kind of activity. Now, I will be the first to admit that the legislation that is being advanced may not be perfect, but it is hard for me to imagine anybody saying that there is not a serious problem. This is a serious problem. This is probably only the tip of the iceberg. As the gentleman indicated, we are talking about $39 billion that is being disbursed. Much it is being funneled back into political activity. This may only be the tip of the iceberg. I think the taxpayers of the United States would be outraged if they knew this was going on. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has had the courage to bring this bill forward with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]. As I say, I think this is something that has been simmering beneath the surface for too long, and I am glad we brought it forward.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I do not expect the people on that side of the aisle necessarily to listen to us, but I would hope they would listen to one of their former colleagues and a Democrat who wrote the other day in the Washington Post. And, incidentally, he was my immediate predecessor, Tim Penny, who wrote a column entitled ``Medicare Mistake.'' In the column he says, ``By politicizing the issue, Democrats threaten the viability of the very program they created.'' He goes on to say, ``Democrats in Congress have not only opposed Republican reform initiatives, they have also refused to embrace the savings identified in President Clinton's plan. We cannot afford to ignore Medicare's shaky financial condition or put it off until after the next election. It is just too important. The Medicare trustees have given us a 7-year warning. These 7 years should not be squandered in indecision, stall tactics and politicking. We should view this time as an opportunity to devise and employ creative solutions. Democrats should be the leaders in this debate, not the obstructionists.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read this morning from an editorial which appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Anyone who is from the Upper Midwest would never say that the Minneapolis Star Tribune is a Republican propaganda organ. But I would like to read what they had to say last Sunday in an editorial entitled ``Medicare, the GOP's Well- Meaning Rescue Squad.'' Supporting the elderly already swallows up one-third of the Federal budget. Unless shifts are made soon, baby boomers will face a grim and threadbare old age. There's no mystery to all this, of course. President Clinton knows that Medicare is going under, and so do the Democrats in Congress. You'd think the witness to such a calamity might be moved to join the rescue team--or at least yell helpful comments. No such luck. Uninclined to get their feet wet, the Democrats seem content to play on the vulnerability of the 37 million Americans holding on to the Medicare lifeline. Their chief contribution to the discussion is the accusation that Republicans are trying to ``wreck Medicare.'' Surely the Democrats have more to contribute than potshots like that. The looming dangers for Medicare should revive the reform effort and spur earnest attempts at compromise. Instead of sniping from the safety of the shore, the Democrats should wade in and help with the rescue.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, this past week the Democrats' Special Caucus Task Force on Medicare held a series of mock Medicare hearings. Let us examine the record. Can anyone remember the exact number of Medicare reforms the Democrats Special Task Force on Medicare has proposed? The answer is zippo, zilch, nada, zero, the big goose egg. Liberals love to pose and posture. They love to pretend and feign concern. One week it is school lunches, the next it is student loans, and now it is Medicare. But the routine is pretty predictable. They distort the Republican position and make us look like monsters, but then they never propose any solutions for their own to deal with whatever the problem is. Mr. Speaker, the American people are completely fed up with this style of leadership. They want real answers to the real problems faced by their Government. They do not want mock hearings or mock concern about Medicare.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. We have sort of lived under this illusion and I just want to comment because one of our favorite expressions in this freshman class is that ``The status quo doesn't live here anymore.'' I think we came to Washington to make a difference and I think the American people said last November that the status quo was not acceptable and they wanted some real changes. One of the bills we worked on today and worked through the committee that we all serve on is procurement reform. Earlier this spring I was visiting with Congressman Duncan Hunter from California about the Department of Defense. I think we all believe in a strong national defense. I think once we are sworn in, we put on these pins, we do take a special responsibility for those young men and women who serve in our armed forces. I think we want to make certain that they have the best technology, the best training, the best equipment that we possibly can give them, particularly if we have to make a vote to send them into situations where they can get shot at and killed. So we want a strong defense. But let me just give one example that he gave me or a couple of examples. In the Department of Defense, we buy everything from paper clips to F-16 fighter aircraft. To do that, we have people who buy those things. We have people who are called buyers. I am told according to last count, we had something like 106,000 buyers. That is the bad news, but the news gets worse. Those 106,000 buyers have something like 200,000 managers. We buy about one F-16 fighter aircraft a week. To do that we have 1,646 buyers. I met with some electronics guys earlier in the session and they showed me this little circuit board. This circuit board goes in an M-1 Abrams tank. It helps control the fuel supply in an M-1 Abrams tank. They told me this cost them about $2 to make. Yet they sell it to the Department of Defense for about $15. Part of the reason they do is because they have to deal with a mountain of regulations to get through it. So what we passed today and worked its way through the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was a procurement reform to eliminate some of the paperwork, to make it a little bit easier. Long-term hopefully there will be more money available to buy the equipment, to buy the technology, to do the things we need to get done in government to protect our shores and carry out our foreign policy but at a much lower cost. As a matter of fact, the estimates are the bill we passed today may save as much as $2 million off the cost of an F-16. That is a lot of money. And it applies to buying these kinds of things and paper clips and everything else. That is what I think the American people want. That is what they have asked for. That is what they have demanded. And I think that is what this Congress is delivering.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was sitting here listening. The comments have been excellent, but it is interesting, even our speaker tonight is a fellow freshman colleague. As freshmen, I think it is exciting. I remember just a few years ago one of the Members of the House came before the House and put a paper bag over his head and in effect said, ``I am embarrassed to be a Member of this body.'' But I must tell you I am proud to be a Member of this Congress, the 104th Congress, and even more proud to be a part of this freshman class. I apologize I was not able to make it to the hearing in New Jersey. I hear that it was an excellent hearing, that the testimony was excellent. The other thing that I think that has come back in some of the comments we were talking about earlier, that there is so much common sense out there among the American people, and sometimes they wonder why they cannot see more common sense coming from Washington. One of the things I did was, I heard about this article that was in Reader's Digest a few months ago, ``The Death of Common Sense.'' I bought a whole lot of reprints. If anybody, any of my colleagues are watching and would like a copy, if they will get a hold of my office at the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515, we will send them a copy because in my own district I have had 33 town meetings. We had the Regulatory Reform Subcommittee of the full Committee on Government Reform and Oversight come out to Minnesota, and Representative McIntosh and a number of other Members of that subcommittee had hearings about regulatory reform. Frankly, I think that is something that is crying out. The American people are saying we just want some common sense. There are so many great examples. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] could let me just have a minute and give a couple of examples that are in this short article from Reader's Digest. One of them that our Speaker tonight, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], would appreciate says: Until recently, Dutch Noteboom, 73, owned a small meat packing plant in Springfield, Oregon. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had one full-time inspector on the premises and one supervisor who visited regularly. This level of attention is somewhat surprising, since Noteboom had only 4 employees. But the rules required it. Every day the inspector sat there, ``often talking on the phone,'' says Noteboom. But they always found time to cite him for a violation: one was for ``loose paint located 20 feet from any animal.'' ``I was swimming in paperwork,'' said Noteboom. ``You should have seen all the USDA manuals. The regulations drove me out of business.'' Those kinds of examples are repeated again and again, and what the American people I think are demanding from this Government, from this Congress, is common sense. If we are going to create a vision of what kind of government, what kind of a country we are going to live in in the 21st century, I think we have to start with the basic premise that we ought to have some common sense. The same common sense that the American people have ought to be permeating things here in Washington. I think the idea of field hearings like yours, and I would like to hear a little more from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] about the field hearing in New Jersey. But I just want to say that I am happy to participate in these special orders. I appreciate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] has done, because I think the American people need to know that we are making a difference, we are making a contribution, and even more importantly, we are listening to the American people.