Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for yielding time to me. We just heard from my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] about the amount of regulation that we have in terms of Government procurement. Let me see if I can explain what that really means ultimately to the taxpayers. Earlier this year I was visiting with the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] who chairs one of the committees or subcommittees that is responsible for buying items for the Department of Defense. He told me that in the Department of Defense we have something like 106,000 people who are listed as buyers. That is the bad news. The news gets worse. It is estimated they may have as many as 200,000 managers of those 106,000 buyers. We buy approximately one F-16 fighter aircraft a week. To buy that fighter aircraft, we have something like 1,646 buyers. Just about one F-16 a week. And part of the reason it takes so many buyers and so many administrators and so many managers--and that is just the Department of Defense, that is repeated all throughout the Federal Government--is because of all of these rules and regulations that we have put upon the procurement process. Earlier this year I met with some electronics manufacturers. One of them gave me this little electronic disk, it is a little circuit board. This circuit board goes into an M-1 Abrams tank. It costs the manufacturer about $2 to manufacture this board. They sell it to the Department of Defense for $15, in part because they have to jump through all of these hoops to do business with the Federal Government. This is a very important bill, my colleagues. It will ultimately, I think, save the taxpayers billions of dollars. It makes common sense. As a matter of fact, one example, it is estimated that this could save in the purchase of each one of those F-16 fighter aircraft, we might be able to save as much as $2 million. That is real money. This makes common sense. This is the kind of thing I think the voters voted for back in November. So I strongly support H.R. 1670, and I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we will save billions of dollars for consumers.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Isn't that really the story of America? The naysayers and the pessimists and the cynics have never prevailed. In the long run, it is the optimists, the believers, the ones who really get out, roll up their sleeves and get it done. I know there are a lot of pessimists and naysayers here in Washington We read about them in some of the media sometimes. But the truth of the matter is, the American people believe that it can, and will, and must be done. There are people in this town who think it is absolutely impossible for this Congress to pass a balanced budget reconciliation this fall. They think it is impossible for us to save Medicare. They think it is impossible for us to pass a welfare reform that is really built on work and personal responsibility and strengthening families. They say it cannot be done, but the American people, the interesting thing in the town meetings I have had, they know it can be done. They believe it can be done. That is what has made this country work. It is that spirit that I think is not only going to help us get through this particular period in our history, but will help us chart our course in the 21st century. What the American people want is to get back to some of those old- fashioned things, as was mentioned earlier. They want more personal responsibility and less Government responsibility. They want more personal control and they want less Government control. They want a Government that works with them rather than a Government that comes at them. I think that has been the theme of this Congress and that is what will lead us into the 21st century. [[Page H 8900]] The interesting thing is, and I start my town meetings with the three most important words in this Democratic experiment, and they are the first three, ``We the people.'' I think as long as we continue to have these meetings and this dialog with the American people, I know I get my batteries charged every time I have a town meeting because there is lots of optimism. There is a lot of can-do attitude out there, and that is the attitude out there, and that is the attitude that will give us strength. And if we stay at it, I think we cannot fail.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think this speaks to it all. One of our colleagues in the other body recently said, you know, some of the cynics and the critics here in Washington are saying that this is a debate about how much we are going to spend on children and how much we are going to spend on education and how much we are going to spend on nutrition. It is not a debate about how much we are going to spend on children, nutrition or education. It is a debate about who is going to do the spending. So as we downsize the Government and as we allow individuals and families to make those kinds of decisions, as we give them some of their money back to spend, we know they can spend it more efficiently, that is really what this debate is about. As we move into the 21st century, we want a country that allows more personal freedom, gives more personal responsibility, but gives families more control on how they are going to spend their money. When the average family is giving over half of their annual income to government one way or another, it has gotten too big and they do not spend it more efficiently. They are more efficient at the local level than at the Federal level, but that is the debate we are having and we have to win it, not just to win, not as an accounting exercise; that is a good point. We have to win it for today's children because otherwise we are going to leave them a debt they will never be able to pay off. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for putting this together.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, it is $44 billion, but who is counting.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a special thank you and tribute to both the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] because they have worked very hard on this legislation. [[Page H 8510]] Mr. Speaker, I was one of the few Members of the Congress who got a chance, 2 weeks ago, to take a tour of the areas where these two facilities are going to be built. I also want to say a special tribute to the business community, because I think they have all pulled together on this, and particularly to the Pollin family. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my fellow Members, and particularly any of those on this side of the aisle, this city essentially has two industries. One is Government, the other is tourism and the hospitality industry. I did not know, until I took that tour, that actually the hospitality industry is the largest employer here in the District of Columbia. While those of us on this side of the aisle are doing our best to reduce the size of the Federal Government, I think we have some responsibility to do what we can to increase the size of that other industry. So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and the business community for working together. I think these are going to be projects that will be a tremendous attraction for the people of Washington, DC, and for people all over the United States of America. I think they are going to be a giant step forward in terms of rebuilding the economic infrastructure here in the District. Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone joins me in supporting H.R. 2108.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote Thomas Jefferson. We heard a lot about the first amendment tonight and let us just hear from the gentleman who actually wrote the first amendment. He said: To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. It is sinful and tyrannical. That really is what is at stake tonight, Mr. Chairman and Members. One example we heard in committee, a group that lobbies on the Hill and, incidentally, has a very large PAC, last year, they got 96 percent of their funds from the taxpayers. And guess what? They turn right around and come back and ask for more money from the taxpayers. To ask the taxpayers to continue to fund this kind of abuse is wrong. But let us really talk about what is so perverse here. I would like to thank Arianna Huffington. She not only testified but wrote a guest op-ed piece earlier. She said, what is happening in America today is many of these nonprofit groups are not helping people who need help. They think it is their mission to get the government to help them. And we should stop it. Please vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from Bill Bennett's Book of Virtues a poem entitled ``The Bridge Builders'' by Will Allen Dromgoole. The poem speaks of generational equity. An old man, going a lone highway, Came, at evening, cold and gray, To a chasm, vast, and deep, and wide, Through which was flowing a sullen tide. The old man crossed in the twilight dim; The sullen stream had no fears for him; But he turned, when safe on the other side, And built a bridge to span the tide. ``Old man,'' said a fellow pilgrim, near, ``You are wasting strength with building here; Your journey will end with the ending day; You never again must pass this way; You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide-- Why build you the bridge at the eventide?'' The builder lifted his old gray head; ``Good friend, in the path I have come,'' he said, ``There followeth after me today A youth, whose feet must pass this way. This chasm, that has been naught to me, To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be. He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.'' Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our seniors to save Medicare. But, we owe it to our children to balance our budget.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, author Stephen Covey likes to tell a story about the Navy captain of a ship who is adrift in a rather stormy sea one night and he saw a light coming at him. He orders his signalman to contact the oncoming vessel and ask him to change course 20 degrees. So the message is sent out, and very quickly a message comes back, ``You change course 20 degrees.'' The captain is a little upset by this message coming back, so he sends back and says, ``This is a U.S. naval battleship. We demand that you change course 20 degrees.'' The message comes back, ``We are the lighthouse.'' Mr. Speaker, I think the story is analogous to the problem we have with Medicare. Right now the message is coming back that we are on a collision course with disaster. We are headed for the rocks, and unfortunately, the Medicare system is picking up speed. In the private sector, we are seeing in the general economy inflation rates of about 3 percent. What we are seeing with Medicare is about 10\1/2\ percent. We all know, at least I think we all know, if we do not know, in fact it is available in a little yellow booklet that is being distributed, the board of trustees of the Medicare trust fund came out several months ago with a report, and in it they said many things. I think it is important that Members of this body and Members of the general public be as informed as possible about what they in fact said. Let me read some of the quotes. For example, they said, ``The Medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present form.'' They went on to say, ``It is now clear that Medicare reform needs to be addressed urgently as a distinct legislative initiative.'' They said, ``We feel strongly that a comprehensive Medicare reform should be undertaken to make this program financially sound now and in the long term.'' The message is coming out loudly and clearly from our own lighthouse that Medicare is on a collision course with disaster. Yet some folks tend to pretend that nothing is wrong and that we do not have to change course. In fact, the board's report stated: ``Under a range of plausible and demographic assumptions, the HI Medicare program is severely out of financial balance in the short range, adding that the HI fund fails the solvency test by a wide margin.'' Mr. Speaker, I would encourage anyone who is watching on television at home or other Members who are watching in their offices, if they do want a copy they can call 202-225-3121 and get the number of their Member. I know that the Government Printing Office is running a bit behind in terms of keeping up with the demand for these reports, but I think it is important that if people would like to get a copy for themselves, they can read for themselves about what the Medicare trustees have said about the future of Medicare. Mr. Speaker, that is the bad news, but unfortunately, it gets worse. Not only does the fund begin to spend more money than it takes in just next year, and not only does the fund go bankrupt in just 7 years, the really bad news is that people my age, I happen to be the peak of the baby boomers. As a matter of fact, when I graduated from college, I remember the speaker at our commencement address was director of the U.S. Census. He told us that there were more kids born in 1951 than any other year. The bad news is the baby boomers will start to retire in about 15 years. That is going to have a disastrous impact on the Medicare fund as we go forward. That is why the trustees, Mr. Speaker, have made it so clear that we need to change course. Like that battleship, we are getting the clear signal that we are headed for the rocks, we are picking up speed, things need to change. What we are proposing, really, are modest changes in the Medicare system. What we are trying to do is work with all of the providers, with seniors, with other groups, to try and come up with solutions. The good news is if we look at the private sector and what has happened in the private sector over just the last 18 months, we see some good examples of how costs can be contained. As a matter of fact, before I came to this Congress I was a Member of the Minnesota State Legislature. I was on the Health and Human Services Committee. I remember just a few years ago being told that we were going to see double-digit inflation rates in the health care system for as far as the eye could see. In the private sector, private insurance carriers, private employers, literally sat down and said, ``This simply cannot be allowed to continue at this rate,'' so they employed a number of different methods to try and control those costs. The good news is we have seen virtually zero inflation in the private sector over the last 18 months in Minnesota, so it can be done. We have examples in the private sector with just a little bit of working together. I think if the House and Senate can work together, if Republicans and Democrats can work together, I am confident that we can use some of the same things that have worked so effectively in the private sector to control costs here in the public sector, and particularly as it relates to Medicare. It is an undeniable fact, Mr. Speaker, you cannot sink half of a boat. We are all in the same boat together. I think we owe it to ourselves, to the taxpayers, to the 36 million current beneficiaries to keep this ship afloat.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, with a minute I cannot say much. I do want to share a few facts about how much this department has grown over the last number of years. Since 1980, we have gone from 54 programs to over 200 programs. HUD funding has increased from $12.7 billion in 1980 to $31 billion last year. It is one of the fastest growing departments in the Federal Government. I think the time has come to begin to downsize this department. Jack Kemp, the former Secretary of HUD, has agreed that maybe it is time to get rid of the Department of Housing and Urban Development altogether. Mr. Chairman, I think that eliminating some of these programs is a good first step. But I think if we are going to eliminate administrative overhead here in the House, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] and I recently introduced a bill to reduce some of the overhead at the White House, I think it is reasonable to eliminate some of the overhead at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I think it is a good amendment. I hope Members will join me in supporting it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and I stayed up because I wanted to talk on this issue of the McIntosh amendment. Earlier tonight we had a rather heated exchange here on the floor of the House talking about the FDA between the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from California. I think the gentleman from Kentucky referred to the FDA as a rogue agency out of control. That may have been too strong, Members of this body. But I do believe that Mr. Kessler and his agency needs to have their horns trimmed and be put on a shorter leash. Earlier today, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] talked about a credibility question about a story that was shared on the floor of this House. I want to share a couple of stories tonight, several of them that I believe to be true, one that I absolutely know to be true. I have in my district and in the State of Minnesota a number of medical device companies and an awful lot of physicians who work with them. Among other things, they have developed a number of new technologies which are being used in other countries, but they cannot or have not gotten approval here in the United States. For example, there is a simple device which can prevent people from having a second heart attack called a stint. I have cardiologists in my area who literally have to go now over to Europe to do the research on those technologies because they cannot get the approval, and it takes so long, and it is so expensive in the United States. In fact, when they go to Europe, sometimes they actually smuggle back into the United States liquid injectable aspirin because it is not available in the United States because it is too expensive to get FDA approval, and it takes too long, and it is not worth it. There are not enough people that need it. In fact, one of my cardiologists was in this town a few months ago for an international exposition, and he went down to look at technologies which are available in virtually every other country in the world but they are not available in the United States because the FDA takes so long and it is so expensive to get them approved. Let me just share this also. I believe this to be true. The last time the FDA approved a new food additive in the United States was 5 years ago. We are going to have hearings I understand next week, and they are going to be talking about some of the raids that this agency has been conducting on medical device companies. I know that we are going to, hopefully, have some hearings in the McIntosh committee. I do support this amendment, but I do believe what we really need is to rein in on this agency so that we can have the same devices here in the United States that they are enjoying in Europe and Japan.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. You know, this is a very difficult, divisive issue, and I think there are strong opinions on both sides. I respect the people on both sides of this issue. I happen to believe that life is a sacred gift from Almighty God, and I do believe that we have a moral responsibility to stand up and speak out on the things we believe deeply in. But having respect for that, I understand there are differences, but there is no difference on this, and that is that 72 percent of the funds, of the money that goes toward the purchase of health insurance, comes from the taxpayers of the United States of America. And it is interesting because that 72 percent represents about what you consistently see in the national polls of the American people that say that whether you believe abortion should be legal or illegal, over 70 percent believe that Federal funds should not be paid, used to pay for them. So the issue here today is not necessarily whether you are for abortion or whether you are against abortion, whether you believe life is sacred or whether you believe it is not sacred. The issue is: Are we going to be used to pay for them? I think I speak on behalf of the majority of the people in my district; I know I speak for the majority of all American people, whatever they happen to believe on that other issue, that taxpayers' funds should not be used to pay for them, and that is the issue before us today. That is the issue we are going to vote on in a few minutes, and that is why I hope that my colleagues will join me in opposing the Hoyer amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this amendment is being supported by most of the Members who have property adjoining or have parts of their district that adjoin the Mississippi River. It is also supported by the Minnesota Farm Bureau, Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Hardwood Lumber Association, the Illinois Association of Drainage Districts, Private Landowners of Wisconsin, Ogle County Farm Bureau, Blackhawk Area Landowners Association, CRZLR, Inc., Minnesota Agri-Growth Council, Inc., and B.A. Mulligan Lumber & Manufacturing Co. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``I would appreciate your support.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Jefferson once said that ``The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government.'' I have heard the will of the people of my district loud and clear and this afternoon I am asking Congress to act upon that will. These 3 books contain over 12,000 names of constituents from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa who strongly oppose designating the Mississippi River as a National Heritage Corridor. They believe that such a designation may be the Federal Government's first step towards increased Federal regulation in the 120 counties and parishes along the Mississippi. The amendment we are offering would eliminate funds for the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor Commission. Mark Twain once said that the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. Congress created the Commission in 1990 for a 3 year period. They were extended once, and now they're seeking an additional $142,000 for a fifth year. It is time to put an end to this Commission before it grows roots. There are basically two ways of looking at this Corridor Commission. Either it is, as 12,000 constituents believe, the early stages of a Federal takeover of the Mississippi corridor, or it is, as the Commission supporters have said, an innocuous group with no real power. If the latter is true, continuing to fund the Commission is a waste of taxpayer money. If the people are correct, we should do everything we can to make sure that the Father of Waters does not become the ``Mother of all Federal land grabs.'' The Commission has had 5 years to get public input on the National Heritage Corridor. To say that it needs an additional $142,000 to conduct 10 meetings is outrageous. Only in Washington could $14,000 per public meeting be considered a bargain. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself a minute and a half. (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman. I would just share, you know, in any football game, there are 60 minutes. If you look in the box scores, it will show time of possession, and you either are on offense or you are on defense. The games are almost always won by teams on offense most of the time. The good news about this freshman class, and we are happy to have the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] as an honorary member, is we are staying on offense, whether we are talking about campaign finance reform, lockbox reform, budget reform, and we are leading by example. As you say, we actually cut our own franking privileges by one-third in this Congress. We cut total legislative appropriations by $155 million, and again, you know, in a place where we talk about billions, that may not seem like a lot of money, but if we would reduce the entire Federal budget by that same percentage point, we would pay off the debt or we would get to a zero deficit within about 5 years rather than 7 years, and let me also say that we are contributing more to our pensions. We are reducing congressional pensions. I have a bill, and I hope you will all help me get it passed, which will limit pension accrual for Members of Congress to 12 years, which will mean the end of $100,000 pensions. It will mean the maximum pension a Member could collect would be $27,000. The good news about the 104th Congress and particularly the freshman class, and I thank you again for reserving this time, is we are staying on offense. We are pressing reforms, and I think as long as we do that, I think we are going to win. We are going to get more points on the board. I think that is the key. I think that is what the American people want.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I would just, in follow-up to what Representative Smith was talking about, I think the key component of what is happening here in Washington today is something, it is a line from Representative Pat Roberts, he said, ``The status quo doesn't live here anymore.'' And we were talking about this earlier today and one of our colleagues used the example of Cortez, when he came to the New World, he had his people burn their ships because there was no turning back. And hopefully we have come to a new world here in Washington. And there is going to be no turning back. In fact, the Vikings when they would invade the foreign country, Vikings are more popular in the neighborhood where I come from, they would do the same thing. They would burn their ships so they understood that there was no turning back and there was only one way they were going to leave and that was victorious. And the battles that we have in front of us, whether it be on regulatory reform, ethics reform, campaign finance reform, downsizing the Federal Government, bringing real sanity to the way the Federal Government spends our tax dollars, and more importantly our grandchildren's tax dollars, I think we have to keep that reformist attitude that there is no turning back. We cannot go back. There is only one way that we can leave. I want to share a couple of things, because we talked about the six- month anniversary that we celebrated last week of coming here as the new Members of the 104th Congress. But we also celebrated a couple of special holidays last week. One was, of course, Independence Day, the Fourth of July. But most Americans do not know that we celebrated on July 9th Independence from Government Day. Most people know that we work for the Federal and State government for a long, long time, but what most people do not know is if you add the total cost of regulations, regulatory reform has got to be on our list and certainly is, but the average American will work this year through Sunday, July 9th to pay all the costs of Federal, State, and local taxes and regulations.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Regulations and taxes. The average American, and this is according to some research done, and most of the numbers I think originally came from CBO, the average American will work 190 days this year to pay his or her share of government. That is 13 days to pay interest on the national debt, 15 days to pay for national defense, 29 days to pay for Social Security and Medicare, 36 days to pay for all other Federal programs, 42 days to pay for Federal regulations, and 55 days to pay for State and local taxes and other local regulations. The remaining 175 days, they get to work for themselves.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Representative Fox, I want to thank you for reserving this time tonight to speak to other Members who are watching in their offices, and Americans who may be watching, to talk a little bit about what has happened in the last six months. It really has been an exciting and historic time to be here in Washington. And I think it is important. As I flew home for the 4th of July recess, I said to myself, how lucky we are to be a part of this important point in history. And more importantly, how much has really been accomplished, if you look back in just six short months. In fact, I remember when some of our critics and cynics were saying in October, ``Well, the Republicans have this Contract With America, but they will never be able to pass it.'' And then as we went through the contract on the first day, as you will remember, as Representative Smith will remember, our very first official act in this congress was to pass the Shays Act, H.R. 1, which was to make certain that Congress had to play by the same laws and the same rules as everybody else. So that process began. We also cut the size of Congress itself. We eliminated three full committees. We eliminated 25 subcommittees. We cut our committee staff by a third. We banned proxy voting, which had become so customary, where Members would not even show up for committee meetings anymore. Now we have to actually show up to cast our vote. Those meetings are open to the public so people can see what actually happens. And we also required a three-fifths vote to pass any kind of a tax increase. That all happened on the very first day. Then we went through the Contract. The Fiscal Responsibility Act, Take Back Our Streets Act, Personal Responsibility Act, the Family Reenforcement Act, the American Dream Restoration Act, right on down through the list. We passed all of those bills with one exception, and that was term limits, and the Speaker has promised that that will be H.R. 1 in the next Congress. And I would not hesitate to mention that we got 85 percent of our Members on this side of the aisle to vote for it, while approximately 85 percent of the people on the other side voted against it. But even with that, the American people I think ultimately will prevail. We have made tremendous progress in beginning. As Representative Neumann said so well, when we came here the budget was a serious concern to all of us, the legacy that we are going to leave for our kids. And now as the appropriations bills come to the floor, we are seeing bill after bill that is actually meeting the mark and we are moving on that path toward a balanced budget. I think things are happening. Let me just mention one other thing. I serve on the Washington, DC, subcommittee and when I volunteered to [[Page H 6825]] serve on that subcommittee, I did not realize how serious the problems were here in Washington, DC. The more I learned, the more I wished I had volunteered for a different subcommittee.x But even there, I think there is reason for hope and there is progress being made. We have appointed a special oversight board to watch over the District, and largely, I have to give a tremendous amount of credit to our chairman on the subcommittee, Tom Davis, from just across the river in Virginia, who has been a tremendous leader and negotiator. But we are on the right path, I think, even in the city of Washington to getting the city's fiscal house in order. More important than even that, it was announced just last week that the Mayor and the chairman of the school board now have come together and they are talking about privatizing at least 11 of the most troubled schools here in Washington, DC, and if that is not enough, they are even going to experiment with vouchers here in Washington, DC.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. It is amazing. I am just amazed, and I would like to see their voucher plan expanded to nonpublic, private, religious- related schools. That is not going to be the case, at least for the first phase of this. But as I said, back in the Midwest we have an expression. When people say that will never happen, one of the ways of saying that is ``When pigs fly.'' Believe it or not, here in Washington we are seeing vouchers and experimentation with privatizing the schools. So I am not going to criticize them for not going full scale with a voucher plan, because when pigs fly, I do not think we should criticize them for not staying up very long. So, we are making tremendous progress.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. July 9th. The average American will work this year until July 9th to pay all of the costs of government.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare system is at a crossroads. The Medicare Board of Trustees have said, and I quote from page 3 of their report, ``* * * The fund is projected to be exhausted in 2001 * * *.'' That leaves this country with two options. We can either take the path to protect, preserve, and save Medicare or we can do what the President would like to do and walk down the road to no idea land that would throw millions of Americans off needed health benefits. Everyone agrees that there is a problem but only the Republicans pose a solution. Where's your plan Mr. President? Your own trustees agree that Medicare will go broke yet you do nothing. Does that mean that you would rather stay on the political median than save Medicare from bankruptcy? The answer to that question is clear. Our President is once again absent without leadership.