Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Three point one, 4.5. In other words, we are going to be spending about 30 percent more than the President recommended?

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, there is an article that is working its way around the Capitol entitled, ``Whatever Happened to Common Sense.'' I think that is really what we are talking about with this bill today. I want to share with my colleagues two examples of people who have been in my office in the last two weeks. One of them was a cardiologist from my district. He was in town for a convention. They were talking about some of the technologies that are available today in Europe, Japan and even in Israel that are not available in the United States because of the bureaucratic tangle that they have to go through to get FDA approval. A second gentleman runs a little three-person business, and it is not in my district, but he has a partner in my district that by his own count, last year, they had to fill out 6,243 pages of bureaucratic paperwork. Whatever happened to common sense? That is what is before us today. I think the American people are tired of $50 solutions to $5 problems. We need H.R. 1022, and we need it now.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Federal regulations are strangling the life out of businesses in this country. This year alone, $600 billion in taxpayer funds will be spent on regulations. This year alone, the Clinton administration is pursuing 4,300 new regulations. The American people do not want their tax dollars to pay for antiquated and often conflicting regulations for businesses. They want a smaller, more efficient Government, one which will work for them and not against them. If businesses are to continue creating jobs, the current bureaucratic maze of redtape and regulation must be brought under control. Companies are being bled dry by overbearing regulations and they are forced to cut jobs in order to pay for them, and because many of the regulations clash with each other, they are faced with a dilemma. Do they break one law to follow another? This is an impossible choice that hard-working Americans should not have to make. Mr. Speaker, we must bring reason into the regulation process. It is just plain common sense. We need regulation reform and we need it today.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this fundamentally is a debate, as I said in committee, between those who believe that the regulatory glass is half empty, and those who believe, on our side, that the glass is already filled to overflowing. We have heard examples on both sides. We have heard these anecdotes about the holes in the bucket and so forth. The real question I think the American people are asking is do we really need 130,000 bureaucrats creating more rules. I think most Americans would agree that we do not. We had someone from OSHA in to speak to the committee earlier in the session. I asked what they thought their role was, and what Americans wanted from the regulatory process. Her answer was very simple. She said she thought what America wanted was more efficient and effective regulation. I said ``I'm sorry, but I think, speaking on behalf of middle America, what America really wants is more reasonable regulation.'' I really do not think this amendment is necessary. I think what America wants is more reasonable regulation. We do not need 460,000 pages of new rules. We do not need 100 million words.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waxman amendment. I do so for a couple of reasons. side that the amendment is not needed. We know the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] is sincere in his concern about human health. I also want to make the point, I think to a certain degree, however, we labor under an illusion, and part of the background for this amendment is that somehow government regulation can create a risk-proof society, and that somehow, with more government regulation, we can completely prevent people from getting cancer, from people getting sick, from people not having a certain risk as it relates to their health. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and I used this example in committee, and I would share it with the body now, last year I was invited to the Governor's mansion of the State of Minnesota. I was 1 of 17 Members who ate pineapple. As a result, I got sick. In fact, we never really did determine what the bacteria was, but I would share with the Members that that pineapple had been inspected by the USDA, it had been processed all the way under USDA regulations. I guess what I said then and I would say now is that I got sick under government regulations, and I got well, despite government regulations. The truth of the matter is we cannot create a completely risk-proof society. We see over there about 64,000 pages of government regulations. Bad things still happen. There is no amount of government control or regulations that is going to completely stop that. I really do not believe that this amendment is needed. I rise in opposition to it. I would encourage a ``no'' vote.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many times we have watched NCAA basketball games or other basketball games on TV. We will see, when one team has a run and they have scored about 11 points in a row and the other team seems to be against the ropes. And we will hear the announcer oftentimes say, it is time to get a TO. They better take a TO. And we all know what that means. Let us take a time out. Let us, if one is the coach or if one is a supporter of that team, they know what that means. The other team has a run going. You are against the ropes and you need some time to just think about it, to regroup, to go back to the huddle and see of you cannot restructure this thing. I think what small business and even some big businesses around the country are saying, please, let us at least have a TO. Let us take time out so that we have time to recapture our thoughts and perhaps see if there is not some sensible way to deal with this. What American business is not saying is, we want no regulations from the Federal Government. I think what they are saying is, we want reasonable regulations. That is what this is about. This is a time out.

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 have done this. It goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have done this; Unfunded mandates legislation--we have done this; Line-item veto--we have done this; A new crime package to stop violent criminals--we have done this; National security restoration to protect our freedoms--we are doing this now; Welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; Family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; Tax cuts for families to lift Government's burden from middle-income Americans; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; Government regulatory reform; Commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits; And congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon] so much. I am so excited and proud to be part of this discussion tonight, because I think I speak on behalf of an awful lot of the freshman class this year, that Ronald Reagan was such a leader and such a symbol and such an inspiration to all of us. In fact, I must tell you in our own family one of our most cherished possessions is an autographed picture that we have of Ronald Reagan, and it is prominently displayed. My wife, Mary, really is one of Ronald Reagan's biggest fans. I am just so happy to be here to talk a little bit about some of the things that I remember most about President Reagan, both before he became President, and listening to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] earlier tell the story about the national defense. I will never forget, I was just thinking about getting into politics in a serious way in 1979. Former Congressman Vin Weber hosted an event up in Minnesota. One of the people who was invited to speak was a gentleman by the name of John Lehman. This was before President Reagan became President. I will never forget what he talked about. He literally laid out the Reagan defense doctrine that day. It became really the cornerstone, I think, of the Reagan foreign policy. What he said was that it was time that we look the Soviets in the eye, eyeball to eyeball, and say simply this: If it is an arms race that you want, it is an arms race you will get. It is an arms race you cannot win, and it is an arms race which ultimately will bankrupt your economy. That was, in a sense, I believe, the cornerstone of the Reagan foreign policy and the cornerstone of the Reagan defense buildup. I think now that we have seen, and many would have never guessed that we would see the day when, as we did a few years ago on Christmas Day, when the red flag came down for the last time over the Kremlin, that we would see the death of communism in our lifetime. However, it is largely because President Reagan had the vision and the foresight to enunciate that policy and to stick by it, even when some of his own advisors had encouraged him to abandon, for example, SDI, or what some would call Star Wars. Another memory that I have of President Reagan, I remember, again before I entered the political arena and ran for the legislature, in 1980, in January, I was in Nuone, MN. Some of you were probably here for the inaugural. I will never forget that inaugural address. I pulled the car off by the side of the road and listened on the radio to the inaugural address. I will never forget how he closed that inaugural address. I think we ought to remind ourselves of it often, because I think it typified President Reagan, his beliefs, his values, and I think he spoke so clearly to the American people when he told the story of the young man from Wisconsin who had written on his diary during World War I, that he was going to work and he was going to fight and he was going to serve as if the entire outcome of the long and bloody battle depended upon him and him alone. Then President Reagan closed, and I think this is a direct quote, I had this committed to memory, I may not have it exactly right, but I believe the words were these. He said: Our problems do not require that kind of sacrifice. They do, however, require our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves, to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; that together, with God's help, we can resolve the problems which confront us now. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans. I've got to tell you, those words burned in my ears and they burned in my consciousness. I think it is one of the reasons that I ultimately ran for the State legislature, and by the grace of God, ultimately ran for the United States Congress, and I am so proud to be here today. One of my favorite expressions from Ronald Reagan, and I use it often, if you talk to my staff, and we used it in the campaign, we use it around the office a lot, I believe originally came from Benjamin Franklin. President Reagan used it often. He said ``Facts are stubborn things. You know, we can ignore the facts, we can deny the facts, but ultimately facts are facts.'' As he pursued his agenda, as he pursued the things that he wanted to do for this country, he stuck by the facts. I think, Mr. Speaker, many people called him the great communicator. He was a great communicator, but he was a great communicator principally because he stuck to the facts and he talked in simple terms that the American people can understand. As a matter of fact, another story that I always like to remind people of with President Reagan was when he went to Reykjavik and he negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev. I remember the stumbling block was SDI. Again, the press was fond of using the term Star Wars. Essentially, we could have a large reduction in nuclear arms if only President Reagan were willing to give up on this misguided notion that he called Star Wars. Ultimately, the meeting broke down and they were not able to solve many of the big issues. I will never forget, the national press was saying, essentially, This old man was unwilling to give up on this crazy idea, Star Wars, and as a result, we didn't get that peace treaty, the press was having a field day, and they were trying to make light of all of what had happened, trying to make President Reagan look bad. The next night he came back and he spoke to the American people. He spoke in very simple terms. He said that the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, was America's insurance policy against Soviet cheating. The interesting thing was, the next day all the polls were taken, the overnight polls, and about 85 percent of the American people understood exactly what the President meant and they agreed with him. Than all of the ballyhoo stopped. Facts are stubborn things. One of the real tragedies, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] about what is happening today, many people are trying to rewrite the facts. They are trying to rewrite the myths about what really happened in the eighties. The eighties was a very special time. I don't want to be redundant. I suspect some of the issues have been covered earlier. However, when we look at what really happened with the economy during the eighties, we continue to hear that it was the decade of greed, and during the eighties the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The facts do not simply bear that out. The truth of the matter is that real per capita income during the eighties went up by 15.7 percent, and average family income increased by more than $15,000. In fact, if you look at the poverty rate, it dropped from 13.7 to 12.1 percent. The budget deficit, believe it or not, was only $152.5 billion during his last year. Now we are looking at $200 billion plus budget deficits, on to the end of this decade, and we are saying that it was because of the Reagan buildup. rich didn't pay their fair share during the decade of greed, but the average tax payment for the lowest 50 percent of earners fell by 26 percent between 1981 and 1988, and we removed 6 million low-income families from the tax rolls during the eighties. The other myth is that social spending was slashed. We talk about all the Reagan cuts of social spending. Unfortunately, I would say, over 45 percent of the $1.9 trillion in new expenditures during that period went to social spending. We hear the myth of charitable giving, that Americans were greedier in the eighties, but the truth of the matter is that charitable giving rose $48.7 billion during the eighties, a 55-percent increase. Mr. Speaker, it was a very special time. President Reagan was a very special President. In fact, one of my last memories I would like to share with you tonight, my wife and I talk about this often, was when he finally left office. I talked about when he was sworn in, but when he left the office for the last time, out here on the steps of the Capitol, he turned around and saluted. I remember saying to my wife at that time, I said ``Mary, you know, he was a long time coming. He will be a long time gone.'' Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to close my remarks here with a quote, and I would like to submit for the Congressional Record a column which was written by Jeff Bell, because he said more in a few words about Ronald Reagan and he said it better than I can say it. I would like to submit for the record this column. However, I would like to close, if I could, with the last paragraph, because I think it says so much about President Reagan: ``Unfashionable, misunderstood, or held in contempt by political elites of all stripes, never respected by the press, patronized privately, even by his own aides, Mr. Reagan soldiered on with his populist vision and unexpected moves, essentially alone at the top, for eight years of the most pivotal years in world history. This was more than enough.'' Thank you, Mr. Speaker; thank you, I would say to the gentleman from New York; and thank you, President Reagan. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 27, 1989] Man of the Decade? Man of the Century! (By Jeffrey Bell) As European communism collapses, it would seem logical that credit would be given to the man who led the winning side during the decisive period. This shows no sign of happening. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt died just before the end of the great struggles they won. Ronald Reagan has lived to see not just ideological victory over communism, but what increasingly appears to be a vindication of his seemingly most outlandish hopes for a democratic world. Yet few people give Mr. Reagan himself much credit. Perhaps this shouldn't be so surprising. In one way, the treatment of his presidency in the year since it ended is a continuation of the pattern of Mr. Reagan's entire political career, which led his opponents (and a solid majority of his allies) to underestimate him and his ability every step of the way. The dynamic of underestimation is helped along by the foibles of his wife, in particular the taste for luxury embodied by the Reagans' recent multi-million dollar trip to Japan, engineered by Mrs. Reagan and her long-time friend, Charles Z. Wick. Harmful as this sort of thing to Mr. Reagan's post-presidential image, in the long run it will be relatively unimportant to the story of Mr. Reagan's presidency. winner of the cold war Clare Boothe Luce once remarked that any great presidency can be summed up in a sentence or so. Lincoln: He destroyed slavery and saved the Union, thus preserving and enhancing democracy's example to the world. Reagan: By making democracy vigorous again--ideologically, economically, militarily--he won the Cold War and ended the century-long era in which socialism appealed to popular opinion. How did Mr. Reagan manage to do these things in his eight years? Did he in fact do them at all, or did a combination of circumstances cause these things to take shape during his watch? Both of the above are true. Historic opportunities presented themselves to Mr. Reagan--and he took advantage of every single one of them. The result was a global revolution. Mr. Reagan cut the top personal tax rate in this country from 70% to 28%. He ended inflation and achieved a seven- year-long expansion that created 20 million new jobs. He asserted traditional values, unapolo- getically. He revived patriotic sentiment and remade the Supreme Court. In the Webster abortion decision, his appointees delivered a crucial defeat to judicial elitism. In foreign policy, Mr. Reagan was frustrated in Lebanon and Nicaragua, but ultimately nowhere else. He rolled back communism in Grenada. His Strategic Defense Initiative set technological limits on Soviet hopes for strategic dominance. In Afghanistan, Angola and Cambodia, the Reagan Doctrine served notice that Soviet advances were no longer irreversible. In Mr. Reagan's first term, the Brezhnev-Andropov Soviet regime showed a tendency to push matters in the direction of global confrontation, particularly in its boastful reaction to the Korean Airliner shootdown of 1983. In the face of this frightening Soviet attitude, Mr. Reagan showed no inclination to compromise on anything--SDI, the defense buildup, the deployment of Pershing-IIs in Western Europe or the Reagan Doctrine. But when Mikhail Gorbachev succeeded to the Soviet leadership in March 1985. Mr. Reagan quickly discerned-- before it was evident to almost anyone else--the possibility of a profound change. His repeated assertion of this possibility won him much ridicule through most of his second term, from his natural allies most of all. Particularly after Reykjavik. Mr. Reagan ran into much criticism in this country and in Europe for his indulgent attitude toward the Soviet leader. But Mr. Gorbachev, perhaps surprisingly, turned out to be the sort of leader highly susceptible to praise and approval from his antagonists. His growing willingness to unleash the human forces in his empire will undoubtedly win him a major place in history, whatever happens to him personally from now on. But that same history will evaluate Mr. Reagan's handling of Mr. Gorbachev as one of the masterpieces of 20th-century diplomacy. Mr. Reagan's greatest foreign-policy failure was the Iran- Contra scandal, in particular his attempt to trade arms for hostages. When Mr. Reagan tried to retrieve the situation, with the Kuwaiti tanker reflagging of 1967, initially just about everyone saw his efforts as absurd. The press did. The allies did. The Democrats did. His fellow conservatives did. Even the Navy Department did. But Mr. Reagan, who genially ignored his critics when he was determined on a course of action, once again was right. The operation was chaotic and seemed to have little rationale, but its target succumbed. In agreeing in 1988 to a cease-fire in the eight-year-old war against Iraq, the Ayatoliah Khomeini likened the action to drinking a cup of poison--a cup necessitated by Mr. Reagan's move into the Gulf. This must be the closest thing in recent politics to an international concession speech. This tribute from Mr. Reagan's most implacable and resourceful enemy was a cut above anything said on behalf of the policy at home. But that was always the way in the Reagan years. A radical or unexpected Reagan initiative would be greeted with reactions ranging from disbelief to ridicule. It was open season during the execution of the policy, which, as is so often the case with radical or counter- intuitive policies, invariably ran into many hitches. Then, upon the success of the policy, there fell a dead silence as to Mr. Reagan's earlier role in it. Mr. Reagan liked to joke about how the word ``Reaganomics'' suddenly disappeared as the magnitude of the 1982-89 expansion became clear. Mr. Reagan was full of jokes and stories, and never seemed to take anything said about him personally, but he was deadly serious about his goals. He loved to talk politics and issues almost all his adult life, but never sought office until he was 55. He steadily developed and forwarded his agenda, with many setbacks, until he was 69. Then he became the oldest man ever to take office as president, and (despite a fearful wound) served until he was nearly 78, as the most consistently effective president since Lincoln. Still, Mr. Reagan the political leader has been underestimated even by many who recognize his achievements. They note his lack of interest in the details of policy, and the role of talented aides in forcing through a number of his programs. Yet how odd that Mr. Reagan's success continued through a succession of four White House chiefs of staff and six national security advisers who differed widely from each other in knowledge, style and policy. Perhaps even more revealing is that in some of his most distinctive policies--tax rate reduction, abortion, SDI, the Reagan Doctrine, the Kuwaiti reflagging, the decision to address human-rights activists during the Moscow summit, to name a few--Mr. Reagan acted against the expressed opinions of nearly all his close advisers. Historians may conclude that Mr. Reagan's lack of interest in administrative details masked a laser-like ability to separate the important from the transitory, and to focus on the important. the world his oyster Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that the one area where virtually everybody thought him deficient--foreign policy--may prove to be his most lasting success. In a moment of bemusement a couple of years ago, the Washington Post remarked in an editorial that when Mr. Reagan ventured aboard, he found not just the nation but the world was his oyster. intimately related. It was partly, of course, that domestic revitalization fed into renewed American assertiveness on the world scene. But it was also that, unlike nearly everyone else in U.S. politics in the 1980s, Mr. Reagan thought foreigners aspired to a fully democratic life just as much as Americans did. His Wilsonian-FDR global populism, the element of his ideology least shared by U.S. elites of both the right and left, is what ties together the ``hawkish'' Reagan of the first term and the ``naive'' Reagan of the second, and made the two work toward the same end: the globalization of democratic values. Unfashionable, misunderstood or held in contempt by political elites of all stripes, never respected by the press, patronized privately by most of his own aides, Mr. Reagan soldiered on with his populist vision and unexpected moves, essentially alone at the top. For eight of the most pivotal years of world history, this was more than enough.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, the Chinese philosopher Lao Tsu said that, ``the journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step.'' Last week this House took a giant step toward fiscal sanity by passing the balanced budget amendment. Later this week, the House will begin debate on giving the President the line-item veto. This is, to be sure, a powerful tool in the hands of our Chief Executive. Some will argue the potential for abuse. But, my colleagues, 43 Governors have similar authority. The real value of the line-item veto rests in the knowledge that the Executive has the power and will use it if he sees wasteful spending. Rather than see the line-item veto as a weapon, perhaps we should see it as a tourniquet, a tourniquet that will help us stop the hemorrhaging of red ink. With the national debt ballooning at over $10,000 a second, it is time we attack this issue on every front. It is time to give the President the line-item veto.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that President Clinton will likely urge tonight that we raise the minimum wage as we debate unfunded mandate reform in the House. This proposal is another unfunded mandate that will kill jobs and hurt productivity. Does he believe that bigger government, better mandates, and more spending is what the American people really want? Perhaps that is why he is opposed to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, Republicans disagree. We want to cut spending. We want to cut taxes. We will curtail unfunded Federal mandates. And we will change the way this Congress does business. Tonight the President will reveal his plans for the next 2 years. Sadly, those plans will continue the same old tradition of big government and big spending. He may talk about the minimum wage, but that kind of talk, will lead to minimum progress.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, last week, I returned to my district to attend a very sad funeral. Little Kelsey O'Niel was more than a neighbor girl; she was like a member of the family. She was the embodiment of the term ``cute as a bugs ear.'' She died suddenly last Sunday night as the result of an acute asthma attack. Not even an act of Congress can bring Kelsey back. But, we can bring some equity to the division of research dollars that the Federal Government provides. Diseases that take our children must be a much higher priority. We can also loosen the regulations that the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and other agencies impose on new treatments and technologies. If we can prevent even a few future such sad events, then our efforts will be more than worth it. Kelsey I will never forget you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, change is here, and change is good. After 40 years of one party's rule, last week, the new majority took the first critical steps to changing the House of Representatives. More change is on the way. In the next month, we will vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We have heard gripes from some Members of the new minority about what is wrong with the balanced budget. We have heard excuses. We have heard complaints. But after 40 years of Democrat leadership, we never had a true commitment to a balanced budget amendment. And we have not had a balanced budget in about 30 years. Mr. Speaker, the American people want a new direction from the Congress. They want fiscal reponsibility; they do not want to pay higher taxes but they do want less Federal spending. Mr. Speaker, change is here and change is good. That is why we must pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before this Congress is adjourned.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Munci, IN [Mr. McIntosh]. (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, do we not?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, when Vaclav Havel came and spoke to the American people, he quoted Thomas Jefferson when he said that ``Words are plentiful, but deeds are precious.'' The American people want action, not protracted debate. Mr. Speaker, we must seize this historic day. Let us not let the American people down. The U.S. Congress must comply with the laws of the land. I strongly encourage my fellow colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on H.R. 1.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, my grandma used to say that it is wrong to teach our kids to do as I say and not as I do. As parents of three teenagers, my wife and I believe that we need to set a good example for our children. It is my fervent belief that this philosophy should apply to the U.S. Congress as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in recent years the actions of our Government have been, in essence, to do as I say and not as I do. On behalf of the freshmen who promised their constituents consideration on the first day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership for this opportunity. The failure of the previous Congress to pass the legislation is unfortunate. We have, in effect, been saying to the American people, ``You must comply with the rules and regulations we pass, but we don't.'' Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act will put an end to this hypocrisy and put our House in order. Today the new Congress is telling the American people that we have heard their demand for change and that on the first day we meant what we said in that we will begin to play by the same rules as those who we were elected to serve. I understand that some Members are opposed to the closed rule, but the bottom line is that H.R. 1 is virtually identical to a bill, H.R. 4822, which passed this House on August 10, 1994, on a 427 to 4 vote. That bill has been thoroughly debated in committee. subcommittee and here on the House Floor. To my 13 new Democratic freshman colleagues I say, ``I apologize to you for denying you the opportunity for review of this legislation in committee, but the time has come now to act responsibly. As you know, we have pledged to the American people to change the way we do business in this House.'' The Republican freshman Members have demanded change from this leadership, and we have demanded that a vote occur today on congressional accountability. We feel this legislation is vitally important and should be passed today in order to reestablish this as the people's House. We must now take the initiative and pass this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mesa, AZ [Mr. Salmon]. (Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the land of Lincoln, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller]. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cincinnati, OH, [Mr. Chabot]. (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Palm Beach, FL [Mr. Foley]. (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides?