Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I probably will not take the full 5 minutes. As we adjourn today and Members begin to return to their districts to celebrate the Fourth of July, I think we should remember what we are really celebrating is Independence Day. There were two events, two news items this week coming out of Washington that I think deserve some attention and may seem in some respects disparate but I think they are related. Like the fireworks displays that we are going to see in communities all across America next Tuesday, we should be talking about independence, we should be talking about freedom, but more importantly I think as it relates to government programs, we ought to be looking for ways that we can get the most bang for our buck. And so I would like to talk about a couple of news items. First of all, we have an expression back in the Midwest, ``When pigs fly,'' which is another way of saying that that is never going to happen. And I think if you would have asked people several years ago, Do you think the Congress will really get serious about balancing the budget? I think a lot of people would have said, ``When pigs fly.'' This week the House and Senate conferees came together and we now have a budget blueprint which will, in fact, balance the Federal budget. Second, I want to talk about something and congratulate Marion Barry, who many times we found reasons to disagree with, and the DC school superintendent, Franklin Smith. There is an article in today's Wall Street Journal where they have agreed to support a local voucher plan for the local schools and privatize up to 11 of the most troubled schools. I think that is terrific news. I think that is terrific news for the students in Washington, DC. I think it is about independence, I think it is about freedom, and I think it is about getting more bang for the buck. And so when we talk about the budget, some people are saying we should take 10 years instead of 7 years to balance the budget. When I talk to my constituents, they think we ought to balance it in 3 or 4 years, rather than 7 years. There is criticism no matter what you do. Frankly, as it relates to the Washington, DC, public schools, I would like to see them open the system up even more so that parents could choose from private, religiously affiliated schools as well, but they are taking the most important first steps, as we are with the budget. And so, Madam Speaker, when we see pigs beginning to fly, I do not think we should criticize them for not staying up too long or taking too long to get the job done. These are important news items. It is all about more freedom, more independence, and getting more bang for our buck.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. It is not just in terms of the number of lives and people waiting for new drugs and chemicals and new procedures, new technologies. I must say that is an issue that is relatively near and dear to our heart back in the State of Minnesota. Obviously, the largest employer in my district is the Mayo Foundation. We are very keen in making certain we have the latest technologies, latest developments for patients who come to visit Mayo Clinic. As a matter of fact, I like to share the story; it is told that shortly before he retired, one of the Mayo brothers gave a speech. He said, ``The plain truth is the average American becomes seriously ill 11 times during their lifetime. They recover 10 times. The reason they recover as many times as they do is because we know as much as we know. When we know more, they will recover more times.'' The problem we have in the United States, as it relates to new technologies, new drugs, new procedures, it takes so long from the time they have been developed until they are on the market and the result of which is not only are we losing the benefit of some of those new technologies, in many cases they are very cost-effective as well, but we are also losing some of the jobs that go with producing those new devices and those new technologies. The medical advice business is more and more being exported to Europe and Japan where they can get approval much faster. They do not have to go through as many hoops, and, as a result, the manufacturers are saying, ``I am not going to fool with the FDA. We can get approval much faster in Sweden, Germany, France and Great Britain, and so forth.'' So we are not only losing the advantage of having those technologies and drugs available to the American consumer, we are also losing all of that economic growth and development, the jobs that go along with that very important biotechnical industry. So that is another thing we are losing, and as we talk about the rules and regulations, and we have had so many examples, it is not just FDA. I will give you one more example about the FDA. The last food additive that was approved by the FDA was in 1990, 5 years ago. When you talk to the food processors in the Midwest or anywhere, they tell us that you know, it is next to impossible because you have to almost prove or disprove the negative. I mean it is next to impossible. In fact, just a few years ago, we had a scare, you may remembers about Alar in apples, and everybody thought, well, we should not eat the apples because some of the apples have had, you know, a very minute amount of Alar applied to them. Well, only late did we find that the average consumer would have to consume 28,000 pounds of apples a day for 70 years to have something like a 1-in-a-million chance of additional cancer in their particular body. The point, I guess, of all of this is we can never make things that are completely 100 or 1,000 or whatever, 1-in-a-million percent safe. And so I think we have to have some reasonable regulation, and it is going to be placed upon us to change some of those things. And, you know, it is like the Alar example, there are lots of examples. Just because we can measure in parts per billion does not necessarily mean that a drug or a chemical is completely unsafe for the American consumer. At some point I think we are going to have to deal with that. I think American consumers are ready for that.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I remember on that very first night, I was just thinking about it as we were standing here, one of the people I quoted, another person that I have a tremendous amount of respect for, is Vaclav Havel, the first free elected President of Czechoslovakia. I will never forget he came to Minnesota a number of years ago and he said something incredibly profound. Actually he was quoting Thomas Jefferson. He said, ``Words are plentiful but deeds are precious.'' I think the important thing about the 104th Congress whether we are talking about the Legislative Branch appropriations, a lot of the other reforms you are talking about, as a matter of fact, I think sometimes people say, ``Well, what have you done for us lately?'' We are trying every day to press for these reforms, whether it is campaign finance reform, ethics reform, lobbying reform. I think those items are still on the agenda and obviously we would like to work together with our friends on the other side of the aisle and the President if possible on some of those things, but if they are not willing to work with us, I think we are willing to take those bulls by the horns as well and do it ourselves. But the important thing is I think we are leading by example, particularly with this legislative branch appropriation and I think the American people need to know that. I think they need to know that we are working to keep those promises that many of us made back in the campaigns last year that we do want to downsize the Federal Government, we want government to do what they have to do and that is to live within its means, that is why we fought for term limits, that is why we fought for all these other reforms. [[Page H 6155]] Tomorrow I think is a very important day and marks one more milestone in this historic reform-minded 104th Congress.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, my grandmother used to say it was wrong to tell our children that they should do as I say, not as I do. I think it is important, as the gentleman has indicated, that we lead by example. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased and terrified on my very first day in this body to stand in this very place and be the freshman lead sponsor on the adoption of the rules for the Congressional Accountability Act, which essentially said that Congress is going to have to start to play by the same rules as everybody else. That, I think, was the first step in saying that we are going to lead by example in the 104th Congress. The bill that probably has more to do with actual Members of Congress than any other bill we will deal with this year, the legislative appropriations bill that will be on the floor tomorrow, really begins to make a very important start, and more importantly, an important statement about what we are going to do. Let me quote one other person who it may seem unusual for someone on our side of the aisle to quote, but one of my favorite quotations is from a gentleman by the name of Jesse Jackson. Several years ago Jesse Jackson said ``If you want to change the world, you have got to first change your neighborhood.'' [[Page H 6154]] I think if we are going to downsize the Federal Government, we have to start with our own House appropriations bill, and I am very pleased with the bill that the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and others have put together. I think it reflects what the American people voted for back in November 1994. I think it reflects what the American people want. I think it reflects what the American people expect. Let me just talk about some of those things you have already mentioned and I don't want to be redundant but I think it bears repeating, that this legislative branch appropriations bill is going to spend $155 million less in fiscal year 1996 than we are spending in fiscal year 1995. I think that people need to put that in perspective. If if fact we did that throughout the entire Federal budget, if we reduced the Federal budget in every category as much as we are reducing our own budget, it would mean that we would cut over $130 billion from the Federal deficit next year. I think that is important. I think the American people need to know that. Among some of the things that they have included in this bill, and again I congratulate the committee and the staff and all the Members who have been working so hard, and frankly I think maybe, Jon, you and I can take some credit as Members of the freshmen class in the 104th Congress, we have been applying pressure from day one to make certain that these kinds of changes were made. But let me just read a few of the changes that are included in this important bill. First of all we eliminate the funding for the Office of Technology Assessment. Second, we eliminate the Joint Committee on Printing, because there is an awful lot of duplication. We will still be able to get our documents printed. It is just eliminating some of the waste and duplication here in the House. We eliminate one House parking lot. I think long term we are looking at a plan perhaps of privatizing all the House parking lots and making it pay its own way. We eliminate complimentary Historical Society calendars. We eliminate the complimentary volumes of the United States Code for Members. We eliminate constituent copies of the Congressional Record. In other words, people who want this information are going to have to help pay for it. We privatize the Flag Office. Many constituents write in and they want flags that have been flown over the Capitol. We are still going to make that available but we are not going to do it as a Government-run operation. We are going to privatize. We are going to privatize the House Folding Room which has been a sore spot I think particularly with many of the reformers for a number of years. We are also going to reform, we are going to go right where it hurts, we are going to privatize the House barber shop and the House beauty shop. More important probably than anything else, we are going to begin to consolidate all of these various Members' allowances into a single account. Again let me just restate. I think this is what the American people wanted back in November when they sent such a clear message that they wanted to downsize the Federal Government. I think they want the Congress to live by example. I think they have seen over the years the number of abuses that Members of Congress have piled upon themselves in terms of perks and advantages that we enjoy, and I think this is a giant step in the right direction in returning some of the credibility to the U.S. House of Representatives and making us much more accountable and making us live within the means that we can afford. Again, finally, let me just restate something else. If we downsize the rest of Federal spending as much as we are downsizing legislative appropriations in this bill that we will hear tomorrow, we will be saving the taxpayers over $130 billion. I think that is a giant step forward.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I wanted to restate something else about that. It is not just the jobs and all the other things, but in many cases, the use of some of these new technologies, new drugs, pharmaceuticals and so forth, are very cost-effective, even though the cost of that drug, even at today's prices, because of all the regulations and, to a certain degree, because of the litigation that goes on, we are paying probably for more than we should pay for those drugs, it is still more cost- effective than a hospital stay or the alternative that people might have to confront. So it is not just that. There are a lot of factors here. I do not think we want to leave the impression with the American people we want no regulations. All we want is reasonable regulations, and we cannot prove something is safe to 1 in 1 million or 1 in a billion. At some point we have to understand that there are some risks. Every morning when we get up in the morning, we take a certain amount of risk. When we get in our car, we take a certain amount of risk. Some of us fly home almost every weekend. We take a certain amount of risk. I wanted to also share a story of some things I have learned here recently, for example, about the Department of Defense. I believe these numbers are correct, and this is all about all of regulations that, in part, we create, but, more importantly, are created by the various other Federal agencies. But I am told we have working for the Department of Defense 106,000 people, now, you almost have to be sitting down to hear this, 106,000 people whose principle job it is to be buyers. In other words, they buy things for the Department of Defense, everything from toilet paper to F-16 fighters. In fact, F-16 fighters are a good example. I think we have something like 1,646 people to buy one F-16 fighter. Now, we pretty much know what one looks like. We know what it is supposed to do. I understand there are certain specs. We have got to make certain the contractors are meeting those specs. But it is hard for me to believe we need 1,646 people to buy one F-16 a week. Now, 106,000 buyers seems a bit exorbitant, at least it did to me. What bothered me even more, as a matter of fact, I think the story is bad but it gets worse, I am told they have over 200,000 [[Page H 6157]] managers to manage the 106,000 buyers. Largely, it is because we have this convoluted set of rules and regulations and regulations piled on top of regulations. As a matter of fact, I have to tell this story. This morning I gave a talk to a group of electronics folks who were in town. One of them gave me this little circuit board. This circuit board, I guess, goes into an M-1 tank, and it helps to monitor the fuel supply in an M-1 tank. It is a very simple, and I am not an expert on circuit boards but I know just about enough to be dangerous, but this is a very simple circuit board. In fact, the gentleman told me it costs about $3. But because of all the Federal regulations and all the hoops they have to go through, when they sell this circuit board, I think General Dynamics, they sell it for $15. He said the biggest reason is we have to deal with all the various rules and regulations of the Federal Government, the procurement process and everything that goes with it, and they have to certify, and now, this has a life cycle of about 20 years, but they have to certify at the end of 20 years that this will have no detrimental impact on the environment. Now, this is going into a machine whose principal mission it is to destroy the environment, a tank; I mean, what it does is break things and destroy things, and yet this circuit board has to prove beyond any doubt that it will do no environmental damage, and, you know, again, I want to say that we want regulation. We need regulation, and there certainly is a role for the Federal Government to play, and I know that left to its own devices, the free markets will not take good care of our environment. I understand that.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would say absolutely it is just indicative; I think it does tie together with this whole legislative branch appropriations. I think we are showing that if we operate our House more efficiently and show how it can be done, if we begin to reduce the needless regulations that the Federal Government has created over the years, and I sometimes do not like this term, if we begin to run the Government more like a business, maybe a better way to say it is we ought to say use more business principles and common sense in achieving some of the things the American people want us to do, I think, and I am an incurable optimist, I believe you can balance the budget. I believe you can make the Federal Government live within its means. I believe you can have reasonable regulations. I think you can have a strong economy. I do not think these are mutually exclusive. It is just that it takes a little bit of common sense. I think that is what the American people want. That is what we promised, and, as I say, I think that is what we are delivering every day for the American people here in the 104th Congress, and it has been a privilege for me to be a part of it, and it has been a privilege for me to have been working with people like you, and I think we are making a difference, and this legislative branch appropriation is important tomorrow because it sends the right kind of signal. It is going to demonstrate to the American people we can run the Congress on a much smaller budget. If we can do it in the House of Representatives, it can be done in Federal agencies all over. We can reduce the bureaucracy in the Department of Defense. We can have a strong national defense. We do not have to spent 70 percent more than we have to when we buy circuit boards, whether we are buying toilet paper, toilet seats. You know, the examples go on. Many times, though, those things happen because of all the regulations that we have piled onto the bureaucracy, and it is not just on the Federal Government. We are piling those kinds of regulations on the private sector as well. So if we unleash some of those powers, use business principles, use common sense, I think we can balance the budget. We can have a clean environment. We can have safe drinking water. We can have new drugs and pharmaceuticals. We can have a growing industry in all kinds of fields. We can have all those things the American people want. We do not have to sacrifice. We just have to have some common sense.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would only say in closing, I thank the gentleman for giving this opportunity to speak for a few moments here on the House floor, and some of our Members who may be watching back in their offices, that downsizing the Federal Government is a very difficult task, and I think as freshmen we are beginning to learn how difficult that can be, as the various groups come in and say, ``Well, but do not cut this program, do not cut this program.'' We can reduce the size of Government. We can reduce many of the things that the Government does without hurting people, and unfortunately sometimes the debate we hear is if you reduce this, it means people are going to get hurt. One of the examples you used, and I just want to come back to it very briefly, you talked about in the private sector if something is not working and it is too expensive, it is downsized or eliminated. Unfortunately, what happens so often in the Federal Government, they do not downsize anything, do not eliminate anything, but come out with a new program and fund the old program at even larger scale. As a matter of fact, I think that is one of the reasons we have something like 160 different job training programs which are subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government, and we have been told by private consultants that most of those job training programs really do not work. But the answer is never to eliminate any. It is to come out with more programs and prop up the ones that are not working, and I think we have to have the courage as we go forward to do what we are doing with the legislative branch appropriations, and that is to make real cuts, to make some of those tough decisions, and to force the use of technology and other ways to get more efficiency so that we can get more bang for the buck because again I think that is what the American people want, that is what they expect, and hopefully this is just one more example of our promises made and promises kept.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would just go back to a couple of points you made as well. Not only I think has this Congress been reform-minded, we have also been about opening up the process to the public, reminding Members of exactly who pays the bills and who we work for. Despite some of the cuts, I want to point out that in this legislative branch appropriation, one point that I missed and I do want to come back to that, that we fully fund projects to bring Congress into the information age, including Office 2000 Network and the National Digital Library. We want to encourage all agencies to move towards electronic formatting of documents. We want to make it easier for people to get information about what is happening here in the People's House. I know the Speaker has set that as the standard from day one and I think that is something we are going to continue to work for. Despite some of the budget cuts that we are going to sustain here in the legislative branch appropriations bill, we are not going to close the process to the American people. One of the other reforms that we passed on the very first day, we said we are going to open all the meetings, so the meetings that we are having now are open to the public. One other thing we have found now as we have been through these markups, and I know the gentleman has been in some, I was in one most of the day and will be in one most of tomorrow. We do not have proxy voting anymore. Members actually have to be in those committees and we have to actually cast our own votes. I think many folks would come in from other parts of the country, would come to Washington, they would see some of these committee meetings where almost no one was actually there to listen to the testimony or to participate in the process in terms of marking up these bills and actually voting on amendments, where the committee chairman would sit with a handful of proxies and literally vote half of the members of that particular committee or subcommittee. I think we all knew that that was wrong, and it took the 104th Congress to begin to end that. Despite the cuts that we are making, we are going to continue to press to make this much more open, much more user-friendly and much more available to the average American so that they know what is happening with their government here in the People's House. I wanted to mention that. I also want to get back, you began to talk a little about being more businesslike and doing some things as relates to regulatory reform. There is no question that one of the things that we need in this country is regulatory reform and if I might just continue on the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for just a little bit, talk about one of the committees that I serve on and why I believe it is important that we continue to press for regulatory reform. I happen to serve on the McIntosh subcommittee that deals with regulatory reform. It has got a name much longer than that but the short title around here is the Regulatory Reform Subcommittee. Let me just share some of the things that we have learned in testimony in that committee so far. One think tank told us that they believe that the cost of unnecessary Federal regulations to the average consumer in the United States per household works out to about $4,000 per household. It totals about $400 billion a year, according to that one particular think tank. Federal spending to run regulatory agencies in 1994 was $144 billion. We have approximately 130,000 Federal employees, some might call them bureaucrats, but 130,000 people whose principal job it is to write, interpret or enforce new rules. What we hear from many small business people that have come in to testify, and we have had field hearings around the country, is that they really cannot bear the cost of all of these new Federal regulations. Let me give a few examples. When we talk about the FDA. It is estimated that on average it will cost a drug manufacturer, a pharmaceutical company over $350 million and 10 years of time to come out, to get approval for FDA of one new drug. Sometimes we wonder why our drug prices are so high. I certainly would not be one that would defend some of the high drug prices, but certainly the amount of regulation and redtape that the pharmaceutical companies have to go through to get one new drug approved is almost staggering. In fact, one estimate said that 25 cents of every dollar spent by consumers on new drugs falls within the FDA empire. This is the largest consumer protection agency in the world and sometimes we have to ask ourselves, how much protection can we afford?

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, the new Republican majority has decided to set an example for everyone else to follow. Today we are bringing to the floor our own funding bill, the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1996. It may come as a shock to the American people, but, this year we are cutting our own budget by $155 million. Yes, $155 million. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican majority can make. We have worked hard to eliminate unnecessary programs, privatize programs, and to streamline this huge bureaucracy that we call our home away from home. We are going to make Congress work better with less money. In fact, if every other program in the Federal Government were being proportionately reduced, we would save more than $130 billion during the next fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican majority makes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend the 173d U.S. Airborne Brigade. This important military group will be hosting its 30th anniversary reunion in Rochester, MN later this week. It is my understanding that approximately 1,500 of these brave veterans will be in attendance. The 173d Airborne Brigade fought in southeast Asia from May 5, 1965, to September 26, 1970, and consisted of the following groups: 1st Battalion, 503d Infantry. 2d Battalion, 503d Infantry. 3d Battalion, 503 Infantry. 3d Battalion, 503d Infantry (from Oct. 26, 1967, to Sept. 26, 1970). 4th Battalion, 503d Infantry. 173d Support Battalion. Company C, 75th Infantry (Feb. 1, 1969, to Sept. 26, 1970). Special Troops Battalion, 173d Airborne Brigade. Troop E, 17th Cavalry. 173d Engineer Company. 46th Public Information Detachment (from Mar. 23, 1967, to Sept. 26, 1970). 51st Chemical Detachment (from Feb. 15, 1968, to Sept. 26, 1970). 24th Military History Detachment. 172d Military Intelligence Detachment (from Feb. 15, 1968, to Sept. 26, 1970). 534th Signal Company (from Dec. 20, 1968, to Sept. 26, 1970). 45th Postal Unit. Company N, 75th Infantry (from Feb. 1, 1969, to Sept. 26, 1970). 39th Infantry Platoon. 75th Infantry Detachment (from Feb. 1, 1969, to Sept. 26, 1970). Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 173d Airborne Brigade. 1st Battalion, 50th Infantry (from Apr. 5, 1968 to Oct. 6, 1969). 54th Infantry Detachment (from Feb. 22, 1968, to Apr. 11, 1969). Company D, 16th Armor (from May 4, 1965, to Sept. 24, 1970). Tuy Hoa Provisional Tank Company (from May 5, 1969, to Oct. 21, 1969). The 173d Airborne Brigade was a combat-experienced unit, composed of courageous soldiers who always displayed an enthusiastic anti-Communist spirit. During its 5 years of fighting in the Republic of Vietnam, the 173d Airborne Brigade was instrumental in the fight against communism, yet at the same time participated in the humanitarian restoration of the country. In recognition of their service, the 173rd Airborne Brigade and its attached and assigned units were awarded the U.S. Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Palm for their outstanding service. These unit citations were awarded to the 173rd Airborne Brigade by authority of U.S. Department of the Army General Order (D.A.G.O.) 51 of 1971. Unfortunately, one of the foreign attachments to the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the First Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR Group), was inadvertently left off the D.A.G.O. 51 of 1971. The 1 RAR (Group) consisted of the following groups: First Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment. 161 Field Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery. 105 Field Battery, Royal Australian Artillery. 3 Field Troop, Royal Australian Engineers. 4/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse (1 APC Troop). 1st Australian Logistic Support Company. 161 Recce Flight (Independant). 709 (Ind) Sig Troop, Royal Australian Signals. After many years and multiple attempts to correct this oversight, the 1 RAR (Group) finally received the recognition they so rightly deserved by receiving the U.S. Meritorious Unit Commendation. I must say, however, their fight is not over. While receiving the unit citation, the 1 RAR (Group) was not included on the D.A.G.O. 51 of 1971. Therefore, I intend to work with the U.S. Department of Defense [DOD] and the Embassy of Australia in Washington, DC to amend the D.A.G.O. 51 of 1971 to include the 1 RAR (Group).

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule. Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on Judiciary; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; Committee on Small Business; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Committee on Veterans Affairs; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year this House passed a responsible bill that provided emergency funds for those who were affected by disasters throughout the country. Just like ordinary Americans we cut spending elsewhere to offset these new expenses. But the President says we cannot provide relief to those in need. So to those living in California who were devastated by earthquakes and fires, I am sorry, the President says your plight is not important enough to him. To those in Oklahoma City, still reeling from your loss, I am sorry, this time the President does not feel your pain. The responsible rescissions bill that the President vetoed yesterday would have provided disaster relief to more than 40 States throughout this country. How do you spell, ``Relief.'' Well, unfortunately for needy Americans, if your this President of the United States, you spell it V- E-T-O.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Representative Fox, and I want to congratulate Representative Brownback. He has been really the spirit behind a group that meets every Thursday morning at 7:30 in the morning, and I have been privileged to join him virtually every Thursday at that time. We do not seem to always get things done, so I suggested this morning we start meetings at 6:30 in the morning. It may be only Sam and I that will be at those meetings, but I want to thank you and congratulate you for sort of rekindling this whole notion of new federalism. You know, if you look at what has happened in the private sector over the last number of years, the major corporations have understood that large, centralized bureaucracies cannot compete in the world marketplace, and, you know, earlier this year Speaker Gingrich said to us--really he posed the question--can America compete in an increasingly competitive world marketplace going into the 21st century with a 19th century bureaucracy, and I think we all know the answer to that question, and the answer is ``no,'' and so I think it has been cast upon us to try and come up with some solutions, and look at things differently, and find out if we cannot maybe reshape government, reform government, reorganize government, downsize government, reduce the dependency on centralized bureaucracy, ship more of the decisionmaking back to the States, back to the local units and ultimately back to individuals, because I think the American people understand that they can spend money more efficiently than the Federal Government. The decisions made at the local level are much better decisions and are much more responsive to what people really need and want in those local communities. I would like to talk for a few moments this evening just about the Department of Energy, and the Department of Energy, like all of the other departments, I am certain, has a certain constituency out there, and people can say it does a number of good things, and it does some things well, and I am certain that there are people who believe it ought to be retained, but let me just talk a little bit tonight, if I could, about the--an act that the Congress passed in 1982. It was entitled the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and essentially made the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for developing permanent waste disposal facilities for nuclear waste sites. So, in 1982, the Congress went on record that we wanted to do something at the Federal level. The Federal Government would take responsibility for nuclear waste, and they would develop a permanent storage site for this nuclear waste. Well, I think it is time we get a little report card and find out exactly how well the Department of Energy has been doing. To date, the American nuclear utilities' customers have paid well over $10 billion into a Government-operated nuclear waste fund. Let me say that again: America's electric consumers have paid over $10 billion in fees to the nuclear waste fund. We have spent from that fund in excess of $4 billion. The Department of Energy is still in a state--still on the site of determining where exactly that should be. They have spent most of the money on a facility or potential facility in Yucca Mountain, NV, but we have spent over $4 billion studying that facility, and here is the incredible fact: We are nearly 15 years away from coming up with a permanent site. In other words, we have spent 13 years and $4 billion, and according to the latest study that I have seen, we are probably at least 15 years away from having an operational permanent waste repository, and I should remind the people who are gathered here on the House floor and people who may be watching in other places that we won World War II in less than 4 years, we were able to put a man on the moon in less than 8 years, and yet we have already invested over $4 billion and spent 13 years, and we are still 15 years away from a permanent waste repository site, which makes it even more interesting to me that I was told by someone from the nuclear industry that they believe they can build a facility complete for less than $150 million, and I am not talking about billion dollars. I mean that is just one example, and probably there are other examples that we can repeat again and again here on the House floor. But the point really is this: All of these departments, I think, were started for the best of intentions. I think that many of them employ people who were very sincere and believed that what they are doing is important, but the bottom line is that the bureaucratization of many of these Federal bureaucracies here in Washington really has not done a very good job of solving some of the fundamental problems that they were supposed to solve, and so, as happened in corporate America, I think the time has come to downsize the Federal bureaucracy to eliminate some of the bureaucracies that are here in Washington. I congratulate Representative Chrysler on what he brought up today in leading the charge with the Department of Commerce. We hope they will be coming out soon with the reorganization of the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and ultimately I am actively involved in working with a task force that is looking at how we can ultimately eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and again I want to repeat something that Representative Brownback said. [[Page H5467]] This is not some mean-spirited accounting exercise. We are not trying to do this because we want to hurt school children or hurt electric utility customers or destroy our ability to compete internationally in energy or education or any other field. We are doing it because we honestly believe that the only way to really change the way we do business is to take a serious look and find out if there are not better ways that these programs and these issues can be tackled without these huge bureaucracies here in Washington. I think that is what the American people want, and I think they have seen it happen in the private sector. We have seen a downsizing in the private sector, and I think it is long overdue here in the Federal Government as well. So I congratulate you, Representative Fox, and, as I indicated, Representative Brownback has been doing an excellent job in articulating the basic message that I think our founding fathers had, and that is that the best government is the least government. There are obviously legitimate functions for the Federal Government, but I think it is our task as Members of this Congress to turn over every rock, to ask the tough questions and to try and find more efficient ways to solving problems. I think that is what the American people want, that is what they expect, and frankly I hope that is what we are going to deliver before this 104th Congress is gaveled into history. So I appreciate a few moments to share tonight some of the issues that I am concerned about, particularly back in Minnesota as it relates to nuclear waste policy, how much money has been wasted, in my opinion, over the last 13 years, and we have got to somehow bring closure to this basic issue because I think American electric consumers have been paying for it long enough. I think they expect some real solutions. Again I thank Representative Fox for asking for this special order tonight and thank him for allowing me to participate a few moments.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of this motion this morning on H.R. 450. I think that I should respond just briefly to some of the comments made a few moments ago by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I would remind him and other Members that this bill passed out of the House by almost a two-to-one margin, after 10 hours of open debate. There were lots of amendments offered. Some of those amendments were accepted. And I think to say that this is purely a political ploy, I think is a disservice to this entire House, because I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the other members who worked so hard on this, particularly the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs did an excellent job under open rules, allowing everyone to participate. and I think to say that this was not fair is really a disservice to all of us. I think the message that should be going out from this Congress is that the status quo does not live here anymore. In fact, I am happy to be a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the McIntosh subcommittee because one of the most troubling things that I heard coming to the Congress this year was that in the past this Congress has not lived up to its oversight responsibilities. I think this is one way of saying that we are not going to permit the agencies out there to just go off on their own and pass these rules ad infinitum. We have had a number of field hearings. We have had a number of town meetings, I have. And at virtually every one of the town meetings I have had I have heard about the needless regulation that is coming out of Washington. We had a hearing and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] joined [[Page H5101]] us in Indianapolis about a month ago. And it was interesting because at that meeting we heard from the publisher of the largest newspaper in the State of Indiana and we heard from the president of the University of Indiana. And they were both saying, please do something about this regulatory burden that we have to live under. I made the comment then and I would share it today that I think we finally have reached the critical mass because we have both the media and academia saying uncle. At all of our town meetings we hear from small business people and particularly farmers who are saying, we need a time out. And that is what really this bill is all about. Let me just finally say that I think the message we are trying to send from this House today to our colleagues at the other end of the building, that you have dropped the ball and we are going to give you a chance to recovery your fumble.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]. I want to close with a few quotes, some of them from this book, which, as I say, I read during the district work period, and I found it very insightful and instructive. I know that some of the Members around here will read this, and there are some things in it that are brutally honest, particularly by Washington standards, about the culture of Washington and some of the things that have happened, and part of the reason we have some of the problems in Washington we do have. But let me just read one of the quotes that he opens chapter 3 with, and it is from Thomas Jefferson. He said: I, however, place the economy among the first and most important Republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared, and to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. I think Jefferson said it so well, and then Tim Penny goes on and begins his chapter with these sentences, and I think it really got to me. He said: This republic is entering its 219th year, and remains the most admired and copied form of government in the world. For 192 of 219 of those years, this government shared something that no longer exists, an ethic of frugality. I think that is what we are really trying to put back in this government, an ethic of frugality. If you few look at the back of the book, on the back page there is a quotation I paraphrase only slightly, from former Senator Paul Tsongas, from the State of Massachusetts, and I love this. He says, ``When the inevitable consequences of massive debt are visited upon our children, they will ask us why and how it was allowed to happen. There will be no good reason to the why.'' But I think the Members in this body will know how. The Chinese philosopher, Lao Tsu, said, ``The journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step''. [[Page H5180]] Tomorrow, as my colleague said, we have an opportunity, in fact I think we have an obligation to take the first giant step toward balancing this massive Federal budget and bringing this debt into line. I think we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our fellow citizens, but most importantly I think we owe it to our children and grandchildren. I think it is time for a little common sense here in Washington. I think it is time for us to begin the process of living up to our obligation, and I think it is time for us to balance the budget. I think the American people are way out in front of us, I think they expect no less, and I think tomorrow we will make good on that pledge and we will begin that process.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. So much of what we have seen in the development of the bureaucratic welfare state and all the Federal programs, I think they all started with good intentions, the problem is they are all built on the basic premise the Federal Government knows best. I think what we are really seeing is the dabate between those people who believe the Federal Government is too big, spends too much, is too bureaucratic, has too many rules, and those who believe the status quo has to be defended. What we have said from the very beginnning, and I think the American people said last November the status quo should not live there anymore, it is time for some real changed and to shake up Washington, and to that end, that is what we are going. I want to just remind Members of some campaign promises a few years ago. One was to end welfare as we know it. The second was to balance the budget within 5 years. And the third was to provide a tax cut for the middle class. You know, it has been amazing to me the harsh tone of some of the rhetoric around here over the last several weeks, because in many respects what we are really trying to do is to help President Clinton keep some of those campaign promises, because that is essentially what we are trying to do. And, frankly, we would expect a little more cooperation from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than we have had, because when you look at our program, it basically is to end welfare as we know it, to balance the budget. I personally would like to do it in 5 years. I am willing to live with 7. I plan to vote for the Neumann budget. I think it can be done, and to provide tax cuts for the middle class. We want to keep the economy going. We want to provide more hope, growth and opportunity in the private sector. Those are the things we really want. I yield maybe for some last comments to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], and then we will finish up and give the other folks a chance at this.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Let me respond. Let me just say again, we did not make this up. We did not write the report. And we read today in the paper this quote: ``Today Medicaid and Medicare are going up at 3 times the rate of inflation.'' That is absolutely true. We propose to let it go up at 2 times the rate of inflation. That is not Medicare or Medicaid cut. So, when you hear all of this about cuts, let me caution you that this is not what is going on. I did not say that. We did not say that. Although we are saying that that is what President Clinton said just last year. And so all of this scare-mongering that is going on over the Medicare issue, we believe, and I think you would agree, that this system can be reformed, we can control costs if we put the right incentives. It is happening in the private sector today. That is what this debate is about, and I think what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is saying, is some people are saying it cannot be reformed, it must be allowed to continue to grow at exponential rates and that ultimately it will just go bankrupt, and then we will figure out how to do something different. But if we make the changes this year, we can avoid bankruptcy. We can protect, we can preserve, in fact, we believe you can improve the Medicare system, provide better care to the senior citizens, keep the system solvent and really have a system we can all be proud of. It is happening today in the private sector, and those who say it cannot happen in Medicaid and Medicare I think are arguing against the facts that are happening every day out in the private sector. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, and I think the gentleman over here said at the end of 7 years the program goes bankrupt, then we will not pay any benefits at all if we do not make any changes. I think that is the issue we are talking about, and all of this is built on assumptions. If you assume there can be no changes in all of this, this assumes there can be no changes in the way the Medicare system is managed.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I was going to share one of the stories I tell a lot of folks. When I graduated, most people do not remember who the speaker was at their commencement address when they graduated from college, I do not remember his name, but I remember who it was and what he talked about that day. It was the director of the United States Census, and I graduated from college, I was 22 years old, graduated in 1973. I was born in 1951. And he said something interesting talking about demographics, and I think it is very important, I think the American people need to understand this. I was born in 1951, and he told us that day at our graduation that there were more kids born in 1951 than any other single year. He said, ``You are the peak of the baby boomers, and that is going to be important as you go through your life, whether people are selling insurance or encyclopedias or automobiles,'' and you can see that reflected in the advertising. But I think we need to think about this as well. Those baby boomers are going to start retiring at about the year 2011 or 2012, and I think the American people need to be reminded that if we have a problem now with Medicare, if Medicare is on the verge of bankruptcy now, and will be insolvent by the year 2002, imagine, the people we are dealing with here are people who were born essentially during World War II, and the birth rate during World War II was incredibly low. Imagine what is going to happen to us when the baby boomers start to retire in the year 2010 and 2011, and that is why it is critical in my opinion we have real Medicare reform and begin the process this year. I think if we do we can guarantee Medicare will be there for baby boomers and beyond. If we do not, I think it is pretty certain it will not be. I think there is growing concern among people my age that the sins of our fathers are now being visited upon us and will ultimately be visited upon our children.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thanksgiving.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I went through a sales training program many years ago. I did not sell insurance, but it was actually designed for insurance salesmen, and I never forget the story they used to use, some of the salesmen used to use where they would bring with them a marble, it was a marble, a Ping-Pong ball, a baseball, and a bowling ball and they would tell potential customers, you know, if you buy your insurance now it will be like carrying around this marble. You can put it in your pocket and you will barely know it is there. But if you wait another 10 years and buy that insurance, it is going to be like carrying that ping-pong ball, and if you wait 10 years after that it is going to be more like carrying that baseball, and it gets real difficult to carry it around in your pocket. But if you wait until you are about ready for retirement, its going to be like carrying around that bowling ball. That is what we are talking in the Federal budget. The sooner we get started in solving the problem, the less pain in terms of solution. If we wait another 5 years, I think everybody knows, the American people know if we wait another 5 years, whether we are talking about Medicare or impending bankruptcy or whether we are talking about the growing national debt, if we wait another 5 years the problem is going to be just that much more difficult to solve, and so rather than having to carry around a ping-pong ball in your pockets we are going to have a bowling ball, and the weight of that ball is going to be hung around the necks of our children.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The interesting thing to me, and you alluded to it, I was home this weekend and talked to some constituents and tried to explain essentially what the outline of the budget plan was going to be, and the people that I talked to said, you mean that is all there is. As a matter of fact, a few of them said we expected real cuts. We expected you to really cut programs and what you are talking about does not sound like the kind of cuts that we were expecting. As a matter of fact, I think my own sense is that the American people, at least out there in the great Midwest, are fully prepared for more, to shoulder more of the responsibility in terms of some of these reductions in spending than I think this budget is proposing. As a budget resolution as a bit too timid.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The private sector is a great example, and I have had the same story told to me around the district where people found themselves under competitive pressure. They have found a way to increase productivity or do something to reduce their costs. It has happened in big business and small business. I have one particularly fairly large business in my district that was facing very competitive measures and in a difficult situation, and they went in and it was not easy but they found ways to produce their products at a much lower cost today than they had 3 or 4 years ago. Incidentally, that same company has found ways to cut their health care costs. Now that has meant that, you know, perhaps there are fewer visits to the doctor, it may means some other things, it may mean managed care in some respects. I am not sure what all they have done, but the point is necessity is the mother of invention. That is the way the free enterprise system worked. The problem in Washington is the solution to every problem seems to be more money, and the only way we can get control of the problem is with more money. But the truth of the matter is I think the American people are saying if we are talking about this program or that or another program that enough is enough; you have enough tax revenue, you are going to have to figure out how to make this thing work. And I think if we work together I think we can.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, we assumed in the State of Minnesota a couple years ago that health care costs were going to continue to go up at double-digit inflation rates. Without any significant reform in the Federal level we have demonstrated that that was not necessarily the case. That is the issue. The system can be reformed. Medicare, in my opinion, is the worst of all worlds. What you have is a fee-for-service system that cranks down fees. We have cost controls in a fee-for- service system. That is a prescription for disaster. That is why you see the Medicare system going up as fast as it is going without any changes. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].