Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I have listened and I assume most of the Members have listened today to the debate. I have found it particularly interesting, and I would like to share some of my time with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] tonight. I would like to also share with the Members and those who may be watching at home from, and I hope this is not an ethical violation because I get no residuals from this book, but this is a book that I read during the district work period that was written by my predecessor, Tim Penny. I commend it to all of the Members, and other people who are interested in the budget debate that is going on, because I think it is very instructive. He has an awful lot to say. I would like to share some of those things with the body tonight. First of all, Mr. Speaker, after listening to some of the debate earlier today, I just wanted to talk a little bit, too, about one of the things we have heard so much about in the last 2 or 3 days, and that is the tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm not particularly good in math, and I do not serve on the Committee on Ways and Means. I did serve on the Committee on Ways and Means when I was in the State legislature back in Minnesota, so I have a little bit of understanding. However, based on what I do understand about the tax cuts that we passed earlier this year, about 75 percent, about three-quarters of the benefits of the family tax credit, will go to families earning $75,000 a year or less. Perhaps in some places of this great National people earning $75,000 are considered rich, but I do not think in most places families earning $75,000 and less are necessarily considered rich. Another part of that tax cut proposal that I think is important that will ultimately lead to economic growth is the cut in the capital gains tax rate. Representing an awful lot of farmers and small businesses in my district, I think I do understand something about capital gains taxes. As a matter of fact, one of the things I really understand is that 44 percent of the people who get stuck with a capital gains tax are rich for one day during their life, the day they sell their farm or sell their business. I do not think, back where I come from in Minnesota, when a farmer who has worked hard all of his life and sells his farm, does he really consider himself rich? Obviously, in economic terms, in real dollar terms, many people would say that when you sell a farm for half a million dollars or whatever the particular price of that farm, you would say that they are rich, but these are people who have worked hard, who have lived poor all of their lives, who have made their payments, who have paid their taxes, and all of a sudden, because on one particular day they sell an asset, they get stuck with a capital gains tax. I think if people will think about that in those kinds of terms, I think they will look at this whole thing and say ``Wait a second, we are not talking about tax cuts for the rich.'' Second, I wanted to talk a little bit about Medicare tonight, because I think there has also been a good deal of misunderstanding and disinformation spread about what we are doing with Medicare. It has been alluded to earlier today, but I would call attention to the Members and folks around the country to an article that appeared, I believe, in today's Investors' Business Daily. In that, there is a quotation that just literally jumps off the page. It says: Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at 3 times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at 2 times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that this is not what is going on. We are going to have to increase Medicare and Medicaid at a reduced rate of growth. Now, I did not say that, Newt Gingrich did not say that. That came from Bill Clinton. I think that is what we are doing. We are not talking about cutting Medicare, we are talking about reducing the rate of growth. Mr. Speaker, I also served back in Minnesota on the Health and Human Services Committee in the State legislature. I remember just 2 years ago when we were talking about health care and how much health care costs were going up, everyone predicted that we were going to see double-digit increases in the cost of health care for the next 5 or 6 years. In the private sector, and I visited during the district work period with a number of health care providers, with representatives of some of the biggest insurance companies and HMO's in the State of Minnesota, they assured me that what is happening in the private sector, because of some of the changes and reforms that are going on with more managed care and preferred provider networks, we are seeing health care costs virtually at or below the inflation rate. We are seeing health care costs going up at less than 3 percent in the State of Minnesota. Using the mathematics that we have heard about today and the last several days, we could assume that some of the health care providers in the State of Minnesota could be saying ``Compared to what we thought health care was going to go up, we are seeing a 7 to 8 percent cut, because we thought health care costs were going to go up by 10 percent, but because of market-based reforms that are happening without the Clinton health care reform plan, without a whole lot of Government going down by about one-third or less of what they were expected to be.'' So using the arithmetic and some of the rhetoric we have heard today, I think we could say that we have seen dramatic cuts in health care in Minnesota. Somehow, providers, hospitals and others, are adjusting to this new system. My sense is that if we allow some real reform in health care, in the Medicare system, that we can easily live within the guidelines that have been proposed by the House Committee on the Budget. I just want to say that by just assuming that this is going to go up by 10\1/2\ percent per year, if we assumed it was going to go up 16 percent per year, then obviously you could say that this is a 12- percent cut, or some other number. However, the truth of the matter is that we know that health care costs can be controlled by the private sector, because it is happening. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], who has some remarks perhaps to share with us.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, during the district work period and subsequently, many of us have had town meetings and conversations with the good people we were elected to serve. One message that has come through loud and clear is that the American people want Congress to work together to solve the great problems facing this great Nation. They know that the Medicare trust fund is going bankrupt. They understand that the burgeoning debt will destroy our children's economic future. As Churchill reminded us, the American people did not cross the oceans, ford the streams, traverse the mountains, and deal with the droughts and pestilence because they are made of sugar candy. The American people are tough. They are ready for real solutions, but they will not accept simply lining up every day and yapping like a bunch of toy poodles while the debt balloons and Medicare goes bankrupt. The American people want real action. The American people are ready.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer that actions have consequences. By the same token, doing nothing can have consequences as well. If Congress does nothing about Medicare or the budget, I doubt America could survive the consequences. The actions of Congress over the past generation have resulted in an enormous national debt. Servicing this debt consumes a large chunk of the over-all budget. If Congress does nothing about the disastrous trend of deficit spending, in 10 years we will be unable to meet other obligations while servicing the debt. Likewise, if Congress does nothing to protect Medicare, it too will become insolvent in just 7 years. Let me be clear, this information is coming from President Clinton's own people and is not a Republican gimmick. Mr. Speaker, the consequences for doing nothing are too great. We here in Congress have the ability and the responsibility to do something about these two problems. The debt poses a threat to future generations and a collapse of Medicare would hurt older Americans. Now is not the time for inaction or the arrogant avoidance of responsibility that has permeated Washington.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 655. As a new member of the Committee on Science, it has been interesting to listen to some of this debate today, but I must say that I have become more and more as a fuel. It has been said that what the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve. I am convinced that long-term hydrogen power will happen, but I think it will happen faster if we give it this kind of a boost. The numbers that we are talking about in terms of the appropriation are relatively modest. As the chairman of the committee just alluded to, we focus on basic research rather than applied research. I have also come to the conclusion now, as a new member of this committee, that basic research is an important function of the Federal Government. In fact, a few years ago I had the opportunity to meet the gentleman from the 3M Company who developed the Post-It note. He said something I thought very important and very interesting. He said, ``If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.'' There is a lot of research that goes on in this country that can be funded in the private sector. On the other hand, there is a lot that cannot and would not happen if we did not give it some kind of a boost at the Federal level. I have said, too, to some of my colleagues that a number of years ago we had a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin by the name of Proxmire. He was fond of giving out these Golden Fleece Awards. I think sometimes he probably did more harm than good with those Golden Fleece Awards, because many times he focused on basic research programs that the Federal Government was underwriting. I would remind him and my colleagues that some of the research that is done is very hard to justify at that particular point in time. I do not think that this one of those programs. I think this is one that will be easy to justify, and I think that our children, our grandchildren, and future generations of Americans will be happy and glad that we were willing to make some sacrifice to see that this program was funded in 1995. I support the bill; I think it is as strong as it needs to be; I do not think we need any amendments; and I hope we can send it to the Senate and ultimately perhaps to conference with the version that we have in front of us today.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think our time is about up, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say a few words. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Zeliff and Mr. Bass, and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, for joining me today. I would just say that I could have been on a plane on my way home right now, but I think this issue is so important, and I think it is a microcosm of all of the problems we have with Federal spending today. The old way that Washington did business was to just sweep all of this under the rug and pretend that it did not exist. Last November, I think the American people sent a whole new group of people here to Washington who would change the way Washington does business. I am proud to be a part of that change. And, it would be much easier to ignore this problem, to sweep it under the rug, but I think the American people and the Federal employees deserve better, because as I said earlier, we have mortgaged the future, and our children are going to have a very difficult time making the payments with that. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield for the last word to the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Absolutely.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], because, as the gentleman said, this is not a particularly popular issue. We are really talking about some facts and figures that a lot of people do not want to hear and numbers and a program that has been swept under the rug for so long. In fact, when I went into the first meeting and was briefed on what was happening with the Federal pension plan, having served on the State pension commission back in Minnesota, I was alarmed. And then when I went into the committee room I was angry. I will tell you why. Because, first of all, I was alarmed to see how big the problem was and how the Congress in the past has just swept all of this under the rug. And I was angered because it was clear to me when we went into that committee room that this issue was going to be a partisan issue. I think that is unfair to the taxpayers, and I think it is unfair to the Federal employees. The way we dealt with pension policy back in Minnesota was with a bipartisan from the house and senate, a bipartisan pension commission. I hope that one day perhaps we can look at that for here at the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, some kind of a bipartisan group that can meet together and work out long-term strategies and put these programs on a long-term fiscal solvency basis. Because I think what we have been doing or what has been done in the past is wrong.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I want to point out just a couple of things before I yield to the chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee about this chart. I assume that those numbers are in constant dollars, and if we see an inflation significantly worse in terms of total numbers than they are, and I think that is one of the real scary facts. If this is in constant dollars, how bad can things get if the inflation rate begins to pick up again into the future? And again, just to stress, this is not about punishing Federal employees. The mistakes have been made, but I think the Representative from Arizona made such a good point about ERISA. You know we have very strict regulations on privately run pension plans, and my sense is that whether there would be indictments I do not know, but there certainly should be an investigation if Congress had been covered by the ERISA laws over the last number of years in making these promises without funding them. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], and I think the gentleman from New Hampshire had a question that he wanted to pose. I ask the gentleman from Arizona if he would stay there for a minute and have a little discussion.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I wonder if we can talk for a minute about this graph because I was never particularly good in math. But you can see the geometric progression here. If we do not get control of this program soon, it is going to get just completely out of control. That is one of the things that concerns me. We can again come to this whole issue with clean hands as freshmen Members of the Congress. But I say to you previous Congresses just made promises which are going to be next to impossible for us to keep in the future. I want to correct the record because I think there is a misplaced decimal point in this particular chart. At the bottom it should be 53.3. There should be a decimal behind the first 3. It should be 53.3, not 533. Now, while that does change the nature of the numbers, it does not change the nature of the problem. I yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the subjects of my special order this evening. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania.) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, those comments are noted, and we appreciate the cooperation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight may have until midnight tonight to file a report on H.R. 1345.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a little time this afternoon about some issues. I am going to be sharing time later with some of my freshman colleagues but I would like to indulge my colleagues for just a moment on some personal business to say a special congratulations. congratulations to rochester mayo and rochester lourdes high school girls' basketball teams Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate two outstanding high school girls' basketball teams from my home city of Rochester, MN. Last Saturday, the teams from Rochester Mayo and Rochester Lourdes won the Minnesota State basketball titles for class double-A and class A schools, respectively. Never before in Minnesota's history have two teams from the same city won State titles in the same year. Coach Bob Brooks of Rochester Mayo and Coach Myron Glass of Rochester Lourdes deserve the highest recognition for their service and leadership. Someone once said, ``Sports do not build character, they reveal it.'' This is certainly true of the girls of Rochester Mayo and Lourdes, who represented their schools and their city with distinction at the State tournament. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and my colleagues here today will share my heartfelt congratulations to these two great examples of American young women in pursuit of excellence. I include for the Record the name of the team players, as follows: Rochester Mayo High School Kelly Miller, Coco Miller, Laura Paukert, Kelly Hall, Vicky Ringenberg, Jessi Kruger, Nancy Spelsberg, Kjersten Kramer, Elissa Cookman, and Erin Fawcett. Karen Mueller, Liz Perry, Jennifer Siewert, Beth Volden, Cara Weisbrod, Manager Brooke Halsey, Manager Brenna Paulson, Assistant Coach Les Cookman, and Coach Bob Brooks. Rochester Lourdes High School Marie Wiater, Missy Sheehan, Rachel Horgen, Katie Shea, Courtney Benda, Laura Rogness, Bridget Garry, Johanne Letendre, Marnie Bowen, and Evelyn Molloy. Danielle Bird, Katie Griffin, Denise Kruse, Kelly Schwanke, Lisa Graf, Manager Chantal Beaulieu, Manager Brita Johnson, Manager Sara Sherman, Manager Vanessa Woodcock, Assistant Coach Mike Fautsch, and Coach Myron Glass.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, this has been a very historic day. For many years the Congress has wrestled with whether or not they would have an open vote under rules in which amendments could be offered to the whole issue of term limits. I come to the Congress from the State of Minnesota, and having served 12 years in the Minnesota legislature, I became a late adapter to the whole notion of term limits. On the front of the House Chamber in the Minnesota House of Representatives, there is a sign in gold leaf. It says ``Vox Populorum est vox Dei.'' In Latin I guess that translates to the voice of the people is the voice of God. Before I was in the legislature, I was in sales, and went to a number of sales training programs. One of the most important words in terms of changing human behavior is the word ``attitude.'' Before you can change people's behavior, you have to change their attitude. I think one of the most important arguments in favor of term limits is changing the word attitude or changing people's attitudes. I think if people go to the Congress or if they go to the State legislature, if they go to the presidency, whatever the public office may be, if they know they are only going to serve for a limited amount of time, I think they go into that office with a much different attitude than if they see that as a lifelong career. I think the American people are way out in front of us on this. I think in the final analysis they will prevail. In fact, the late Senator Everett Dirksen perhaps said it best when he said ``The more I feel the heat, the more I see the light.'' I think more and more Members of Congress now are beginning to feel the heat from the American people, and they are beginning to see the light. South Carolina [Mr. Graham], in the outcome tonight? To be sure, I am. I thought we were going to do much better. As a matter of fact I am an incurable optimist, and I thought if we could ever get this item up for a vote, the pressure of the American people alone would cause us to vote for it. This is only round one in what will probably be a 15-round fight. I am reminded again when I think of the people of the immortal poem of Carl Sandburg. He wrote the poem ``The People, Yes.'' He said ``The people will live on. The learning and blundering people will live on. They will be tricked and sold, and again sold, and return to the nourishing earth for root holds. The people, so amazing in their resiliency, you can't laugh off their capacity to take it.'' Well, the people have been tricked and the people have been sold, and the people will be tricked and sold again, but sooner or later, the people will prevail. The people of this country will stand loudly and strongly on the next election and they will say ``We want people to go to Washington who will vote for term limits.'' I believe and I predict that if we don't pass term limits yet in this session of the Congress, they will be passed in the 105th Congress, because I believe the Speaker was correct. It was not a hollow threat. I think he was only stating fact, that sooner or later the will of the people will prevail. As Sandburg said, ``The People, Yes.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a poem that I read earlier today, because we are hearing an awful lot about children in this discussion, and I think in some respects the children are being used in this debate as pawns in a much larger play. But I would like to read a poem from Bill Bennett's ``Book of Virtues.'' It is entitled ``The Bridge Builder.'' I read it earlier today, and would like to read it again. ``An old man, going a lone highway, Came, at the 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, when we talk about welfare reform, when we talk about reforming the way business has been done in Washington, when we talk about balancing the budget, what we are really talking about is saving the American dream for future generations. This is not some mean- spirited accounting exercise. It is serious business. Because right now when we talk about the children, what we are doing to the children, the truth of the matter is, and I think everyone here knows this, we are saddling our kids with a debt that they will not be able to pay off. The President's own advisors last year said if the Congress does not do middle age they will be confronted with a tax rate of 82 percent just to finance the debt and social programs. Since Congress did nothing last year, the President came forward this year and slipped under our desk a note that said we are now talking about 84 percent. So when we talk about what we are doing to the children, I think we also have to look at what we are doing to the children of the next generation when they become of age. It is just simply wrong. In 1994 as we were told earlier, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. I think it is time that we as a Congress take a look around and count the casualties. Fortunately, or unfortunately for us, we do not have to go very far from this Capitol to see many of the casualties. As a matter of fact, if you walk about 10 blocks in any direction from the U.S. Capitol, you will see those casualties. You will see the hopelessness. You will see the despair. You will see the ingrained poverty which we have created. I want to read a quote, and I think it is so good and it says so much. By intervening directly in depriving society of its responsibility, the social assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. It was not me who said that, it was not Newt Gingrich who said that; it was Pope John Paul II, and he was absolutely right. The social welfare system created by Federal bureaucracies simply does not work. The tragedy of our welfare system in part is that it is costing too much money, and we are burdening our kids with a debt they will never be able to pay off. But the real tragedy of their inalienable rights to use their God- given talents. We are with the perverse incentives of the welfare system today creating a system that creates dependency. We have perverse incentives within the system. Children raised in families who receive welfare are three times more likely to be on welfare when they become adults. This system just simply is broke, and tinkering around the edges is not going to solve it. Mr. Speaker, the American people are way out in front of us on this issue. They demand welfare reform. They want it this year. Thankfully, I think we are going to give it to them finally.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read this morning a poem from Bill Bennett's book of virtues. It is entitled ``The Bridge Builder.'' The Bridge Builder (By Will Allen Dromgoole) This poem speaks of each generation's responsibilities to its successors. An old man, going a lone highway, Came, at the 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; 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, balancing the budget is not some mean-spirited accounting exercise. It is about preserving the American dream for future generations.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], I am not a member of the committee and I want to make--I am really glad that I came down here tonight because this is the most honest and healthy debate I have heard so far about this bill, because what I read in the newspaper and what I have heard on the news and what I have heard from some of the special interest groups does not match what we are seeing on these charts and what I have heard tonight. Let me ask anybody here, and Mr. Chairman or Mr. Weldon or Mr. Graham, if you want to respond to this, we are actually going to be spending 4.5 percent more in each of the years and the President only recommended what percentage increase?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. On that point, I want to say and it has been said tonight, it is very important. People do resist change and there is no institution that resists change more than a monopolistic bureaucracy, and what you are really trying to do is decentralize this program and that is what we have to do. It has to be consumer driven. not heartless people. They want their kids to get nutritious meals as well. I think this is a good plan. I think it is a first step. I think once we get more of these facts out here--as I say, if I did not know that we were spending 30 percent more than the President requested, if I did not know that as a Member of Congress until tonight, I will guarantee you that an awful lot of American people did not know that but they are going to know it sooner or later. Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best. ``Give the American people the truth and the Republic will be saved.'' All we really have to do is get the facts out about this program. I think the American people will see the wisdom of it. I think it is a good plan. We ought to pass it. I hope colleagues will join us in this because if the American people get the facts about this, they will buy into this idea.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. It is interesting, because when we first came here, we are all freshmen, we were not part of accumulating this huge national debt, and I think we all made the pledge to our voters last year that we want to do something about that, and we need some change around Washington. We came here to change the way Washington does business and yet what we have heard from many leaders on the other side, including the person down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is that they want to fiercely defend the status quo, and I think the American people do want change. In fact, it was less than a month ago that the President stood right up there and he said in his speech that we were not giving the American people enough change and now he had heard the message from the November elections. I did not know until tonight though that we are actually going to be spending 30 percent more than the President requested. As somebody said when we first got here, people around here sometimes give the word ``hypocrisy'' a bad name. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, one of my favorite Presidents was Ronald Reagan, and two of my favorite expressions that he used, and some Members will remember in some of the debates, he would use the phrase, ``Well, there you go again.'' He used that expression when people would attempt to distort the facts. We have heard it again tonight. ``Well, there you go again.'' One of my other favorite expressions from President Reagan was one that I use often around my office, and, that is, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' I almost wish we could bring those charts because I think facts are stubborn things, and I think the more the American people get a chance to see the real facts about what we are talking about relative to welfare reform and reform of our nutrition programs, the more that they will see that the facts are on our side and that this is not a plan designed to cut the nutrition program. As a matter of fact, some of my more conservative constituents back in the district are saying, ``Why are you allowing these programs to grow the way you are? We'd like to see you freeze these programs.'' We are being accused by some of our Democratic colleagues of being mean-spirited and we are hurting children. But I was reminded of a quote the other day from Ralph Waldo Emerson. He said, ``There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority in its facts.'' As we show the facts and as the American people get to know the facts, I think they will recognize that when we are talking about meanness and particularly as it relates to our children, I think the meanest thing we can do to our kids is leave them a debt which they will not be able to pay off. That is exactly what we are doing, ladies and gentleman. Last year the President's own budget officers backed up by the General Accounting Office said that unless we make some changes, by the time today's kids reach our age, they may be confronted with an 82- percent tax rate. In fact, we are stealing from their future. I think the American people are way out in front of us. I think they expect some real cuts. As a matter of fact, all of my town meetings have centered around cut spending first. Frankly, I think some of my constituents are upset because we have taken so many things off the table. As I said earlier, I think they want real cuts in welfare, they want real cuts in some of these programs, and in fact as you look at the charts, whether you are looking at welfare, the Nutrition Program, the WIC Program, all of the other programs, we are actually seeing significant increases. We have only been here about 9 weeks but it is interesting to me to learn the vocabulary of Washington. Here an increase can be called a cut. But we look at the numbers, and the numbers speak for themselves. If we look at the Family Nutrition Block Grant Program. According to the current programs, we would be spending in fiscal year 1996 $3.585 billion this year. Fiscal year 1996. Under the Republican plan, we are going to spend for the Family Nutrition Block Grant Programs $3.684 billion. That is not a cut. The American people know that is not a cut, and I think the American people want cuts. I want to close, Mr. Speaker, if I could with a quote, and I will not tell who said this because I think it is such an important message, but I would like to share this with the body: The government has extremely limited resources to address the many and urgent needs of our people. We are very keen that this real situation should be communicated to the people as a whole. All of us, especially the leadership of political organizations in civil society, must rid ourselves of the wrong notion that government has a big bag full of money. The government does not have such riches. The speaker went on to say: It is important that we rid ourselves of the culture of entitlement which leads to the expectation that the government must promptly deliver whatever it is that we demand and results in some people refusing to meet their obligations. That was not Newt Gingrich who said that, it was not even Thomas Jefferson who said that. That was said less than a month ago by Nelson Mandela, addressing some people in the Democratic Parliament in Cape Town, South Africa. Let me just repeat that last sentence because I think it is so important and I think that is what this debate is all about. Are we willing to finally ride ourselves of this entitlement attitude that we have? He said: It is important that we ride ourselves of the culture of entitlement which leads to the expectation that the government must promptly deliver whatever it is we demand and result in some people refusing to meet their obligations. Mr. Speaker, this exercise that we are going through, whether we are talking about the nutrition programs or welfare reform, is really about changing the attitude not only of Washington but of the American people. We cannot go on under this principle that people are not responsible for themselves. Our welfare reform is really about reinforcing some of those principles, some of those values, if you will, that we know work. We need to reemphasize work, we need to reemphasize personal responsibility. That is what this exercise is about. The facts, the numbers are on our side. Frankly I think, Mr. Speaker, the American people are on our side.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the Congressional budget. We kept our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept our promise; unfunded mandates legislation--we kept our promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise; Government regulatory reform--we kept our promise; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits--we kept our promise; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle-income families; Senior without Government penalty; and Congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.