[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6153-H6158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           CONGRESS MUST LEAD BY EXAMPLE IN DEFICIT REDUCTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jones). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we address the House tonight on 
some important issues, many of which are coming up tomorrow. The fact 
is, in the legislative branch of the Government, if we are going to 
lead by example, we need to reduce our own expenditures.
  We have already seen in this 104th Congress, Mr. Speaker, there have 
been tax reductions. We have had spending reductions of $190 billion. 
We have had a deficit reduction of $90 billion. We have had regulatory 
relief to try to eliminate the unnecessary regulations on businesses 
and individuals, so they have a chance to succeed in life and be able 
to create jobs. Now we are talking about downsizing Government.
  We talked about eliminating some Federal agencies and reducing 
others, privatizing still others and consolidating their functions, 
making sure that we have more direct services for people but less 
bureaucrats we are supporting. That is what the people of the United 
States want.
  We see historically tomorrow a very important day in the life of this 
104th Congress in the House, because House Republicans will continue to 
keep their promise to the American people by making Congress smaller, 
more efficient, more accountable, and less costly.
  In H.R. 1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill will bring 
to an end 40 years of largesse in the bloated congressional 
bureaucracy. By ending business as usual, the GOP bill slashes wasteful 
congressional spending and ensures that Congress will show its fair 
share of deficit reduction on the road to a balanced budget.
  With me tonight is the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gil Gutknecht. 
He will be working with me in discussing with the American people a 
number of issues where we can see the downsizing. For instance, 
Congress must lead by example in its quest to balance the budget by the 
year 2002. H.R. 1854 will cut congressional spending by $155 million 
below the fiscal 1995 levels, and we think that is a step in the right 
direction.
  Once the Senate considers its changes, Mr. Speaker, the total savings 
just within the Congress could be $200 million. I would like the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] to in fact outline for those 
Members of the House who are present and listening tonight and others 
who are joining with us the kinds of changes we are fundamentally 
making in the way the House runs itself.
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] to outline 
for us some of those points which are radically different than any 
prior 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.
                              {time}  2015

  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht]. I think the fact is
 that you have displayed repeatedly on the House floor and in committee 
your resolve as well as the Speaker's that we move forward in making 
those kinds of fundamental changes.

  As we look to this budget for this year, and we look to 
reconciliation and the appropriations process, we have to keep asking 
ourselves, because our constituents will be asking us as well, is this 
a legitimate function for government? Could the private sector better 
handle it? If it should be government, could it be done with less 
money? And if it should be government, should be it the Federal 
Government? Could it be better handled by the State government or local 
governments which are closest to the people?
  Extending if I may beyond what you have said already on some of the 
savings, the Printing Office would be reduced as far as what their 
actual budget items would be. The Office of Technology Assessment. The 
Architect of the Capitol would be reduced by $9.9 million. I think part 
and parcel of reducing the legislative expense of running this House 
and of running the Senate which could, like you said, be sizable 
figures, part of what the freshman class has been doing, and you may 
want to expand on this, Congressman, after I reflect on it, that is, we 
have talked already and have obviously acted to reduce by at least one-
third to 50 percent our amount of money for franking, that is the mail 
that is paid for by citizens to receive information which is supposed 
to be factual data but reducing that budget by a great extent which 
makes it better for challengers and more fair to the process. We have 
reduced already the pensions which I would like to see reduced further. 
We have a bill to ban gifts from lobbyists, which is certainly 
appropriate and in line with our reforms. We are also looking to 
eliminate the frequent flier miles, as no one should personally benefit 
from the fact they have to fly home or fly back or go to a committee 
meeting, those personal flier miles should not go to the Congressman, 
they should go back to the Federal Government in savings for travel.
  We also should be looking to election and lobbying reform. I think 
people want to see reform of political action committees and their 
involvement and influence in elections. This is just one more dimension 
as I see it in making sure we in fact reform the House, reform its 
operations, and reform the procedure by which Congressmen run their 
offices and run the Government to the extent that legislative branch 
impacts on the total Federal arena.
  I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] to reflect further if you have comments on these reform 
procedures beyond the downsizing of the House itself.
  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. I appreciate the gentleman's quote from 
important individuals around the world who recognize the importance of 
the actions as opposed to just the words that we speak here on the 
House floor. Frankly we have been meeting in more days and more hours 
and more votes than any prior Congress in recent memory, and our work 
is obviously not completed. While we have done much to set the stage by 
reducing by one-third of House committee staff, eliminating 3 
committees, 25 subcommittees, on the opening day $93 million alone in 
savings, we are now looking to downsizing the Federal Government so 
that we have more for direct services and less in bureaucracy and 
paying for bureaucrats.
  One of my pieces of legislation that the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Gutknecht] is working with me on and many of the freshmen, that 
is, to have a sunset review of Federal agencies within an every 7-year 
cycle. This worked very successfully in Pennsylvania where each agency, 
bureau and department would have to justify their existence on a 
regular basis and to the extent they are not really fulfilling their 
original objectives or is duplicating another level of government 
service, it gets eliminated. The employees would move on to other 
agencies or into the private sector.
  The fact is we need to downsize the Government which has to a great 
extent created a cottage industry of just more regulations, and more 
bureaucrats to in fact carry them out. We have legitimate services for 
which government is important but not just to have more regulations 
that cost individuals and cost businesses.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] has been working closely 
with me in our Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Some of the 
accomplishments we have already had is to make sure we have legislation 
when there is regulation? And correspondingly, what benefit will they 
get out of this new regulation? In fact, we have passed in this House 
this year a moratorium on new regulations until the inventory that we 
already have on the books and whether or not enforcing them is in the 
pubic interest.
  We have also had a Paperwork Reduction Act, now trying to reduce our 
paperwork by at least 10 percent. The Government has not been really 
user-friendly. What we need to do is make sure that like as a business, 
we justify every dollar we spend,
 every service we are trying to perform and if the private sector can 
do it better, then the private sector ought to be left to doing it 
because the Government usually is slower, more costly, creates more 
barriers and does not reward initiative.

  I know the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is a leader in 
his State in this movement. The gentleman might want to reflect on 
regulations and where we have come thus far in the 104th Congress and 
where you see us going from this point.
  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, the fact is we 
just had a hearing in my district on FDA reform. Most of the new 
miracle, lifesaving, life-extending drugs that are created in the 
country, in fact in the world are created here in the United States.
  Many of our experts in the biotech and pharmaceutical companies have 
informed us that in fact we may be the last recipients, our 
constituents, of these miracle lifesaving and life-extending drugs 
because of all the delays in approvals.
                              {time}  2030

  And people who are waiting for the drugs say, ``Well, if my insurance 
company will not approve it because the [[Page H 6156]] FDA has not, in 
fact, sanctioned it, then we cannot get it.'' We had witnesses who had 
ALS, epilepsy, cancer, or AIDS, all waiting for drugs that, frankly, 
have gone through appropriate protocols, have had the clinical trials, 
which most countries might approve.
  We are just saying in new legislation we are trying to get passed is, 
``please speed up the process of approving or disapproving the drugs.'' 
We want them to be pure. We do not want overregulation. That is what 
you are getting at. When we overregulate, we delay the time period by 
which our constituents might be able to extend lives or the quality of 
their years.
  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. One of the things I wanted to say is the 
fact that on all of these items we are dealing with, whether we are 
dealing with reform or dealing with items of reduction of our spending 
or tax cut adoption, or whether we are talking about deficit reduction 
in this House, the 104th Congress, I am very heartened to tell you and 
those who are listening, in fact, reforms have been bipartisan, that it 
has largely been the majority of both sides of the aisle. I think that 
tells us a lot about the fact that our agenda has been pro-people, pro-
active, pro-jobs, pro-business, because the American business cannot 
depend on having all of these regulations. If we have to over regulate 
ourselves, as you just said, our jobs are going overseas. We have to 
make sure regulations are reasonable, not overly expensive, overly 
intricate. They have to be related to safety and not related to a 
bureaucratic maze.
  I have just seen in my own district, where a gentleman wanted to deal 
with the Federal Government, but there were 187 pagers of forms, a 
small contract, $25,000. He would have had to hire a architect, an 
engineer, attorney, to get through the maze of those documents. He said 
to me, ``Well, you know the Federal Government is not user-friendly.''
  And, you know, the fact is if the Federal Government was a business, 
it would be out of business. So we have to make sure we continue our 
bipartisan situation where we are looking at the focus of the country 
and saying what can we do to make sure the Government is really 
delivering the services the people want, that they cannot already take 
care of
 themselves, that the private sector is not taking care of.

  FDA reform, I believe, is one of the major areas, not only in your 
district, but my district as well. Some 12,000 jobs are dependent just 
on pharmaceutical and biotech areas where they helped to make people 
live longer, live better, and actually provide employment for a great 
number of high-tech jobs.
  So I believe that in this Congress you are going to find some reform 
legislation adopted which will make the system work better.
  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. The point you make is well taken. The fact 
is that this U.S. Congress and this House and Senate will have to take 
those kinds of examples you just showed us with regard to what one 
circuit board for $3, that we need to reexamine every single 
department. What we are talking about with sunset review might 
eliminate some useless jobs, some duplicating jobs, some positions that 
are really redundant.
  We certainly need to make sure our defense is combat-ready and that 
our people have the technology and training that goes with having a job 
with the military, and we have the finest units in the world. There is 
no question about it.
  But to have us spend $12 extra for overregulation, environmental 
conditions that really not applicable, shows to me that the sunset 
review legislation would certainly be an idea whose time has come.
  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. What you stated is very much on point. The 
fact is what we need to do is have a new orientation. Your positive 
aspect I certainly applaud, and I think the enthusiasm is infectious.
  Beyond that, what is even more important is the commonsense ideas, 
good business ideas. We can take a look at industry and say what have 
they done well. Frankly, business people have to balance the bottom 
line every day. If something is not working, is not profitable, they 
eliminate it. In the government, if it is not profitable we just send 
it onto the taxpayers, more taxes, more regulation, more waste, and, 
the American people are tired of that. They want less waste, more 
accountability, less taxes, less wasteful spending, more direct service 
they need which the private sector cannot take care of themselves.
  I am very happy tomorrow, you will you and I will be leading the 
charge, along with our colleagues here in the House, to make sure the 
kinds of changes fundamental to the running of the House, to 
downsizing, privatizing and consolidating will be the hallmark for the 
future on how we look to each Federal agency.
  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.

                              {time}  2045

  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. FOX of Pennsylvania. I say to the gentleman from Minnesota, 
``Thank you, Congressman. I want to take this opportunity to thank you 
for participating in this colloquy and dialogue with the American 
people on how [[Page H 6158]] to make sure the Federal Government, 
through the Congress, can be more accountable to the people and to make 
sure we stay openminded to hear new ideas from our constituents whether 
it be by town meetings, by letter, or by phone call. We certainly will 
be responsive as our colleagues have been in the past.''
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence in giving us this 
opportunity to speak out on some important issues of the day.


                          ____________________