[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8895-H8902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  DEVELOPMENTS AND PROGRESS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 104TH CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, my colleagues tonight join me 
from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to discuss many 
of the developments and progress of the 104th Congress in this first 
session. With me I have tonight the gentleman from Minnesota, Gil 
Gutknecht, the gentleman from New Jersey, Bill Martini, and the 
gentleman from Washington State, Randy Tate, each of whom has been a 
leader in their own right, not only in the freshman class but in their 
own committee.
  Just recently, this past weekend in the Eighth District of New 
Jersey, the gentleman from New Jersey, Bill Martini, who has been at 
the forefront of reform in the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, held a hearing in his district along with five other 
colleagues, including the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Tate, and if 
he can tell us tonight, I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey what 
was the orientation for the hearing he held in his district, what was 
the purpose, and what was accomplished, so we can look to improvements 
and legislation and other reforms as Congress moves to further agenda 
items.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank him for allowing me this opportunity to share with the 
Members the mission this hearing was designated to do.
  First I have a little background about the field hearing itself. The 
field hearing that we in the Eighth Congressional District in New 
Jersey were honored to have and to bring to people in our district was 
a field hearing of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
chaired by our good chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill 
Clinger. This committee had been designated by the Speaker of the House 
to conduct a series of national field hearings on the topic of the 21st 
century Federal Government. Obviously, it is a broad topic, but the 
real purpose of having the hearing was to go out into the field, to get 
out of the Beltway, and to listen to the people as to how they envision 
a 21st century Federal Government.
  We had, and I am pleased to say, several of my colleagues from the 
House here join me on the panel, along with the chairman, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. We had the distinguished gentleman 
from Washington, Randy Tate, who was there, along with several other 
panelists. We also had the benefit of listening to testimony from a 
number of people, including the great Governor of our State, Governor 
Whitman, as well as other officials, bipartisan in nature, I might add, 
as well as people from the private sector, all of whom already have 
embarked on the road that we here in Washington have been embarking on 
in the last 8 months, the road to try to make the respective 
institutions, of which they have jurisdiction over, more efficient and 
still provide 

[[Page H 8896]]
the necessary service and meet the goals that they are intended to 
meet.
  We were pleased to hear from a number of those witnesses in the 
government sector who have been down this road for some time. Our 
Governor for 2 years has been down the road of making the State of New 
Jersey more efficient, more effective, and still meet its goals, and 
some local officials who have also been down this road for some time 
now and are achieving the goals that we are so hopeful that we will 
achieve in the very near future.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the State of 
New Jersey has downsized the number of employees through efficiency and 
through attrition, is that correct?
  Mr. MARTINI. I think the important point is that the purpose of the 
hearing is not just to deal with the items that we here have been 
dealing with for 8 months. Obviously I think most of us know and most 
of the American people understand by now that this Congress is poised 
and ready to turn the corner to what I believe will be bringing fiscal 
responsibility and accountability to the Federal Government. I know 
many of us are excited about the prospect.
  We know there are going to be obstacles to meet that goal in the next 
several months, but that is the goal for now. The real purpose of this 
committee, as well, is to talk about what we do from that point on and 
not to lose sight of the fact that what we accomplish this fall, which 
I am confident and hopeful we will accomplish, is the beginning of a 
process that
 will lead this Federal Government into the 21st century in a way that 
will preserve fiscal accountability and responsibility for not just the 
immediate future, but for generations to come.

  We listened to people who talked about both the immediate obstacles 
they were faced with and their challenge, as well as the bigger 
picture, what to expect in the future, such as some of the things we 
were dealing with here today on the very floor of this House, tools 
like a lockbox, tools with procurement reform, which are not simply 
cutting spending or reducing growth of spending, but more importantly, 
are tools which will assure that future Congresses will be fiscally 
accountable and responsible. We also liked about that.
  Let me, before I allow others here who have some topics to share and 
thoughts to share on the hearing, let me just say that I think we will 
realize how important this 3-month period is, but I think we also 
realize how important it is that as much as we accomplish in the next 3 
months in getting to a budget reconciliation bill that will once and 
for all put us on the path for a fiscally responsible Federal 
Government, the process should not and must not end there. The process 
is one which will require a commitment to stay focused on that 
obligation, to stay fiscally sound, and to find new ways to accomplish 
that goal. That was the purpose of the hearings. We heard many good 
things.
  The final point I would like to make for this moment is that 
overwhelmingly everyone who has been down this road shared with us on 
Saturday that there is certainly this aspect of fear by the people 
involved in the process. Fear is obviously something many people share 
when it comes to any type of a change, and it is something that they 
had to meet, and it certainly began as something that they had to 
manage in order to achieve their goals. After they have achieved their 
goals, if they manage that fear and that potential misunderstanding 
that exists, they were successful in achieving goals.
  I just regret that as we are on the brink of once and for all 
bringing fiscal responsibility and accountability to the Federal 
Government, we are seeing more tactics only to heighten fears rather 
than efforts by all of us to reduce the fears of the adjustments that 
will have to be made, the small adjustments, in comparison to the 
overall goal of achieving fiscal responsibility.
  Those were some of the things I am sure some of my other colleagues, 
particularly the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], who was there 
and who shared with me on the panel, listening to the different 
witnesses, heard, and I am sure he has some things he would like to add 
to this dialog.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Tate] to share some of his visions of what he learned 
at the hearing of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] with 
regard to government reform and oversight.
  Mr. TATE. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for his work in organizing this event 
tonight and his dedication every week to be out here letting the people 
know exactly what we are working on in Congress. That is why I was so 
excited when I had the opportunity to serve on the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. That has really, for me, been the 
hotbed for reforms in the Congress, whether it be the unfunded mandates 
reforms or the line-item-veto.
  We had several hearings in our subcommittee, for example, on welfare 
for lobbyists, and just recently passed and are working on today the 
procurement reform legislation. The biggest issue we are dealing with 
this year is balancing the budget and creating a 21st century 
government.
  All wisdom does not reside in Washington, DC. I am not a rocket 
scientist, that I am pretty positive that is true. In fact, I know it 
is true. That is why I think it is so important for us to get out of 
the Beltway, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, and go out and talk 
to real people. That is what we did on Saturday. We had a chance to 
talk to people and elected officials that are out there in the trenches 
making the kind of changes we are trying to make this year. They 
balance their budgets every year. State Governors do that very year. 
County commissioners do that every year. Local city councils do that 
every year. We got a change to hear some great speakers: The mayor of 
New Jersey, the county executive of Essex County. We talked about 
privatization and tried to determine what area of government can best 
be done in the private sector.
  We also had a long discussion about block grants, and they were 
willing and able and looking forward to the opportunity of making more 
decisions. The best example I can give of that is we are trying to make 
decisions for cities back in our hometown. I live in a city names 
Puyallup. Most of the bureaucrats back here not only cannot pronounce 
it but do not have a clue whether it is, so why the heck are they 
making decisions regarding the people who live in my hometown of 
Puyallup?
  The point is that a government that governs closest to home is a 
government that governs best. The people who testified at the 
particular meeting of the gentleman from New Jersey, the hearing, were 
ready and willing to get started on that. That is what really impressed 
me, that our idea of block grants is something that is popular out 
there. They are willing to do it. They are closer to home. If you live 
in Washington State, it is a heck of a lot easier to drive to the local 
city council, to drive down the freeway of Olympia, where our State 
capital is, than to get in an airplane and fly 3,000 miles and come 
back to lobby and try to talk to your elected officials.
                              {time}  2145

  It makes more sense to have a government closest to home. That is 
what I heard from these people. They are ready and willing to get 
started. I am looking forward to the hearings to come out to Washington 
State, across this country, we are going to have in the coming months.
  I just want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] for 
his great work in setting up speakers from all sides of the issue. It 
was not slanted in one direction. It was very bipartisan and worthwhile 
to come of us.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. We are looking forward to having future 
hearings in Congressman Martini's district and State, because I think 
what he is doing for us here is trying to give the leadership, give the 
vision where should Government be, how can we make it less expensive, 
as was said, more accountable, closer to home.
  I would like to call on the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], 
if I can, for a minute. I think one of his cries has been for us to 
have more common sense in Government, to do the things that those in 
the private sector have done so well and adopt some of those ideas.
  I guess the lock-box that we just passed today, the Deficit Reduction 
Lock-box Act which the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] and the 

[[Page H 8897]]
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] have been working with the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], and of course the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] had a lot to do with its passage.
  Could you tell us what motivated you to be involved with the Deficit 
Reduction Lock-box Act?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was sitting here 
listening. The comments have been excellent, but it is interesting, 
even our speaker tonight is a fellow freshman colleague. As freshmen, I 
think it is exciting.
  I remember just a few years ago one of the Members of the House came 
before the House and put a paper bag over his head and in effect said, 
``I am embarrassed to be a Member of this body.'' But I must tell you I 
am proud to be a Member of this Congress, the 104th Congress, and even 
more proud to be a part of this freshman class.
  I apologize I was not able to make it to the hearing in New Jersey. I 
hear that it was an excellent hearing, that the testimony was 
excellent.
  The other thing that I think that has come back in some of the 
comments we were talking about earlier, that there is so much common 
sense out there among the American people, and sometimes they wonder 
why they cannot see more common sense coming from Washington.
  One of the things I did was, I heard about this article that was in 
Reader's Digest a few months ago, ``The Death of Common Sense.'' I 
bought a whole lot of reprints. If anybody, any of my colleagues are 
watching and would like a copy, if they will get a hold of my office at 
the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515, we will send 
them a copy because in my own district I have had 33 town meetings.
  We had the Regulatory Reform Subcommittee of the full Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight come out to Minnesota, and 
Representative McIntosh and a number of other Members of that 
subcommittee had hearings about regulatory reform. Frankly, I think 
that is something that is crying out. The American people are saying we 
just want some common sense.
  There are so many great examples. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox] could let me
 just have a minute and give a couple of examples that are in this 
short article from Reader's Digest. One of them that our Speaker 
tonight, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], would appreciate says:

       Until recently, Dutch Noteboom, 73, owned a small meat 
     packing plant in Springfield, Oregon. The U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture had one full-time inspector on the premises and 
     one supervisor who visited regularly. This level of attention 
     is somewhat surprising, since Noteboom had only 4 employees. 
     But the rules required it. Every day the inspector sat there, 
     ``often talking on the phone,'' says Noteboom. But they 
     always found time to cite him for a violation: one was for 
     ``loose paint located 20 feet from any animal.''
       ``I was swimming in paperwork,'' said Noteboom. ``You 
     should have seen all the USDA manuals. The regulations drove 
     me out of business.''

  Those kinds of examples are repeated again and again, and what the 
American people I think are demanding from this Government, from this 
Congress, is common sense. If we are going to create a vision of what 
kind of government, what kind of a country we are going to live in in 
the 21st century, I think we have to start with the basic premise that 
we ought to have some common sense. The same common sense that the 
American people have ought to be permeating things here in Washington.
  I think the idea of field hearings like yours, and I would like to 
hear a little more from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] 
about the field hearing in New Jersey. But I just want to say that I am 
happy to participate in these special orders.
  I appreciate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] has done, 
because I think the American people need to know that we are making a 
difference, we are making a contribution, and even more importantly, we 
are listening to the American people.
  Mr. MARTINI. If I may, if the gentleman would yield on that point of 
common sense, I think that was probably first and foremost the message 
that we heard on Saturday. Of all of the messages, I think if you 
boiled it down into one overwhelming message, it was the need to bring 
some common sense into the Federal Government process.
  I think listening to the individual stories that we had the benefit 
of listening to and then listening to the testimony, we realize that 
the impression that I received, and the impression that I have had 
since being a new Member of this great body, has been that really the 
Federal Government has grown in large part over many years without a 
plan, without a design, and without a system. It is more or less a 
haphazard growth of programs.
  If there is a need for something, someone will propose a bill, they 
will implement that bill. No one looks back, and will determine whether 
or not there was another program that maybe could have just been 
modified but instead we have had another new program to try to 
implement that particular need.
  I think one of the reasons we are where we are today is because there 
was not as much thought being given to the growth of the Federal 
Government over many years. I think what we are doing now as a body is 
looking back and saying, what works, what does not work; what works, we 
should keep, improve, strengthen, fund. What is not working, for 
whatever reasons, stop it once and for all, and bring some common sense 
into this process of reviewing the existence of the present government 
so we can plan for the future and come up with a plan and try to adhere 
to that as difficult as that may be. When you serve here, you begin to
 realize how difficult it so often is to stay focused on a particular 
goal. But I think it is very important and that is one of the main 
thrusts of these hearings, is to stress the importance of having a game 
plan, shall we say, for the future. And then as we develop that game 
plan, make sure it is consistent with the overall goals that we set 
forth.

  So the gentleman is right, if I may say, right on point, with what we 
heard on Saturday. That was bringing common sense into the process.
  We talked in terms of not only regulatory reform which certainly was 
a topic brought up, about the need to bring some reasonableness into 
the regulatory process once again. No one certainly in my district and 
in the State of New Jersey is advocating abandoning the principles of 
meeting the goals of things like a good environment and things like 
achieving the necessary goals of the programs, however we set them out 
to be. But the regulatory process is something that many people are 
aware has gotten to the point where it is almost working against 
meeting the goals.
  So I think once again I like to draw the analogy of what we are 
trying to do is bring the pendulum back into a balanced position in the 
regulatory process area. But I know the representative here from 
Washington probably will share with me, we heard about privatization, 
the block grants, pros and cons because there were people who spoke out 
on each of these. Then obviously the need to stay on track in order to 
achieve fiscal responsibility. I see my colleague here I think wants to 
add something to my thoughts.
  Mr. TATE. A couple of quick points as we finish up on this particular 
part of our special order, is the fact that as I was leaving, an older 
gentleman came up to me. He said, ``I just wanted to thank you for the 
breath of fresh air that the freshmen have brought to Congress.'' I 
hear that everywhere I go. Not just meetings in New Jersey but whether 
I am standing in line, flying back and forth back to my home in 
Washington State, whether I am at the Safeway store buying groceries 
late at night, I run into people saying, ``We appreciate you staying 
the course.''
  Why? Because we are bringing common sense back to government as we 
recently said, especially in our committee as we worked on regulatory 
reforms, and we heard it on Saturday as well, is that there is a need 
for government regulation. No one is doubting it. But it has gone too 
far.
  When you talk to small businesspeople, I think it was the NFIB, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, came out with a study. 
They asked what was the biggest threat to you as small businesspeople 
in this questionnaire. 

[[Page H 8898]]
Taxes was up there, they were all concerned about taxes. They were all 
concerned about high cost of health care. Their biggest concern was 
overregulation, regulations they could not understand, let alone 
explain.
  What we are trying to do is make sure new regulations are based on 
science, not on fad, on fact, not on fiction. We are trying to come up 
with a common-sense approach. That is what the people are asking.
  In our State I hear stories all the time about regulations that made 
the difference of whether a business stayed in business or did not. 
That new regulation was the thing that put them out of business. That 
is what we are trying to change.
  The key point about these hearings that we have had, I think, is the 
point that these are the first step. That creating a 21st century 
government is not
 going to happen overnight and that this year we bit the bullet, we 
passed a resolution that will balance the budget, the first time since 
1969. That is itself is huge achievement.

  But these hearings, we are going to have hearings over the next year 
or so. It is the beginning of the process. We are going to learn in 
those great experiments called the States on how they have learned to 
do these things and we are going to continue to learn from them. We are 
going to make mistakes along the way, granted. You make mistakes when 
you are trying to make real changes. But I would rather make mistakes, 
learn and continue to grow instead of continue the status quo which 
means we will not have a balanced budget, which means we will not have 
a 21st century government.
  Mr. MARTINI. If the gentleman will yield on that point about 
mistakes. I think certainly in an effort of this magnitude and size and 
a review of an institution of this nature which has been growing for 
many, many years, obviously the adjustments that need to be made will 
not be perfect in every instance. I think that we heard, and we had 
people who were advocating the status quo on Saturday, an elected 
official and some others, a minority point of view, but it certainly 
was a point of view. Each time we talked of a new mechanism or a new 
idea to accomplish the goal of making governments more effective and 
more efficient and less costly, such as the idea of at least 
considering privatization where appropriate, the idea of block grants 
where appropriate and where we think they can work, each time one of 
these ideas was espoused, unfortunately, there were still some in my 
opinion who still have not realized or have not come to grips with the 
reality.
  As they would oppose each one of those ideas or say things like, and 
you heard them, ``Well, that's a good idea, but it's not going to work 
in this particular area,'' or ``There's going to be problems with 
this,'' et cetera, it only made me think that if we succumb to that 
mentality, it is really succumbing to the status quo, because if we do 
not have the courage to take some risk, minimal, I think, overall 
compared to the goals that we could attain of bringing fiscal 
accountability to the great Government, if we do not take some risk, a 
reasoned risk, of course, we will never get there.
  I think that is one of the reasons past Congresses have never been 
able to get out of this rut of growth without planning, without design, 
and into a pattern of some real thoughtful government with common sense 
as my good colleague here from Minnesota said, and accomplish the 
overriding goal and not look at any one particular thing and let this 
distract you from the real goals at hand and the real accomplishments 
we can achieve.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, I think just 
today the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] was involved with 
other members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of 
which the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] and the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Tate] are members, with the Government procurement 
reform. Perhaps you could enlighten our colleagues about what that 
legislation will do as it relates to government getting products and 
services less expensively acquired than they have in the past. Could 
the gentleman from Minnesota respond to that?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. We 
have sort of lived under this illusion and I just want to comment 
because one of our favorite expressions in this freshman class is
 that ``The status quo doesn't live here anymore.''

  I think we came to Washington to make a difference and I think the 
American people said last November that the status quo was not 
acceptable and they wanted some real changes. One of the bills we 
worked on today and worked through the committee that we all serve on 
is procurement reform. Earlier this spring I was visiting with 
Congressman Duncan Hunter from California about the Department of 
Defense. I think we all believe in a strong national defense.
  I think once we are sworn in, we put on these pins, we do take a 
special responsibility for those young men and women who serve in our 
armed forces. I think we want to make certain that they have the best 
technology, the best training, the best equipment that we possibly can 
give them, particularly if we have to make a vote to send them into 
situations where they can get shot at and killed. So we want a strong 
defense.
  But let me just give one example that he gave me or a couple of 
examples. In the Department of Defense, we buy everything from paper 
clips to F-16 fighter aircraft. To do that, we have people who buy 
those things. We have people who are called buyers. I am told according 
to last count, we had something like 106,000 buyers. That is the bad 
news, but the news gets worse. Those 106,000 buyers have something like 
200,000 managers. We buy about one F-16 fighter aircraft a week. To do 
that we have 1,646 buyers. I met with some electronics guys earlier in 
the session and they showed me this little circuit board. This circuit 
board goes in an M-1 Abrams tank. It helps control the fuel supply in 
an M-1 Abrams tank. They told me this cost them about $2 to make. Yet 
they sell it to the Department of Defense for about $15. Part of the 
reason they do is because they have to deal with a mountain of 
regulations to get through it. So what we passed today and worked its 
way through the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was a 
procurement reform to eliminate some of the paperwork, to make it a 
little bit easier. Long-term hopefully there will be more money 
available to buy the equipment, to buy the technology, to do the things 
we need to get done in government to protect our shores and carry out 
our foreign policy but at a much lower cost. As a matter of fact, the 
estimates are the bill we passed today may save as much as $2 million 
off the cost of an F-16. That is a lot of money. And it applies to 
buying these kinds of things and paper clips and everything else. That 
is what I think the American people want. That is what they have asked 
for. That is what they have demanded. And I think that is what this 
Congress is delivering.
  Mr. TATE. If the gentleman would yield, one of the points that was 
made at our hearing was the public definitely did not want more of the 
same but they definitely did not want less of the same. I think the 
point being made is if we are going to spend less or change things, we 
need to do things better. Not just do the same thing and just be 
cheaper. I think that is what we did today in our procurement reforms 
and I think those are the kind of changes that the American people are 
looking for.
                              {time}  1300

  That was the point I wanted to make.
  Mr. MARTINI. If the gentleman would continue to yield for a moment. 
To follow up on that, I think it is an important point the gentleman 
makes. The sentiment was that we should, obviously, not be looking at 
just this system intending to keep it intact, rather we are looking for 
a new structure. What is good in this system, maintain; and what needs 
to be abandoned, abandon; or what needs to be modified, modified.
  So it is not simply maintaining the current system and just simply 
reducing funding across the board, but maintaining all of the programs 
and the manner in which we deliver services to the American people, but 
rather rethinking how we meet the goals, such as, for instance, 
obviously, block grants. The concept of block grants 

[[Page H 8899]]
would work, in my opinion, in many instances and may not work in some 
instances. The important thing was, listening to the local officials, 
each one of them on the point of having more authority and control were 
in agreement. They each wanted more authority and control over their 
own jurisdictions and to govern their own respective entities. However, 
there was some difference between those who were willing to accept the 
concept of block grants recognizing that block grants will do exactly 
that, it will put more authority, flexibility and responsibility in the 
hands of the local officials and give them the flexibility they want, 
and yet in almost a contradictory way there were one or two elected 
officials who still were protesting block grants. So they cannot have 
it both ways. As an elected official they cannot have all that 
flexibility and----
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would again yield.
  Mr. MARTINI. I would certainly yield.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Just recently in the Congress we took the 
WIC, the Women, Infant and Children program, the food nutrition 
programs, and in our proposal that we had in the House we said to the 
states, because the Governors asked for it, give us the block grants 
and those food programs, and while we spend 15 percent in the Federal 
Government to administer those programs administratively, the States 
can only have 5 percent, but with the other 10 percent they must feed 
more children more meals. So the block grants can work when we put the 
restrictions on the State governments so that we get more services and 
less bureaucracy.
  One of the problems I think the three of us have faced here in 
Congress for the time we have been here in our first term, we have seen 
that what has happened is we have a cottage industry of bureaucrats. We 
pass a law and then bureaucrats make regulations that are expensive, 
that duplicate, that slow up the process. Talk about regulatory reform, 
I have a gentleman back home who has a business who wanted to deal with 
the Government, but we are not business friendly. He had 187 pages, 
much like Mr. Gutknecht was speaking earlier about the defense 
contract, this was a nondefense contract, 187 pages to fill out. He 
would need an engineer, an architect and an attorney. By the time he 
paid for them, he would have no profit left. He said he would rather 
deal with private companies.
  So we have go get down to the basics where we do not have so much 
authority delegated to bureaucrats, and we have more authority and more 
funds going to the States and local governments, so we have more 
services to people and less overburdensome taxes and regulations. That 
is what this Congress has been doing. And your committee and your 
hearing, Congressman Martini is setting the tone for what can happen in 
the States.
  Mr. MARTINI. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Yes.
  Mr. MARTINI. I think it is very important, however, as we are having 
this interchange and this dialogue, that we not give the misimpression 
that the purpose of this committee is simply for the future, and that 
this Congress and the majority body in the Congress is not working 
right now and has been working for eight months and has accomplished so 
much already towards that goal.
  Interestingly enough, we had a list at the hearing of the list of 
programs, in a single space listing, typed, of all of the either 
agencies, departments, programs, et cetera, that in some way already 
had been modified, changed and it is about six pages long or more than 
that. So I think it is important that we make it clear that this 
Congress already has accomplished so much towards this effort of 
getting a more effective, less costly government.
  The point of these committee hearings is, once again, to make sure 
that there is so much more to do
 and that we not just end that process this fall, as, unfortunately, in 
the past maybe has happened.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. As a point of clarification, the gentleman 
is speaking of the balanced budget amendment, line-item veto, a 
prohibition of unfunded mandates and also the regulatory moratorium?
  Mr. MARTINI. If the gentleman would yield once again.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Certainly.
  Mr. MARTINI. Those are all the items, but, obviously, I happen to 
think that right now, as we go into this fall, and I am sure this is 
shared by all of us, there are three very important things, any one of 
which is monumental in its own right: Things like making sure we pass a 
balanced budget reconciliation bill, which I think we are poised to do; 
things like including in that real welfare reform, to make it workfare 
and not welfare; and also things like strengthening and saving our 
Medicare Program.
  Any one of those items in prior Congresses would have been a 
monumental task and would have occupied perhaps a good portion of a 
term of Congress, and I feel very privileged to be in a position to be 
a part of a Congress that this year, in the next 3 months, we are on 
the verge of addressing those three areas, which I know in my district 
the people, at least with respect to welfare reform and fiscal 
responsibility, have, obviously, been calling out for that for some 
time now.
  So I feel privileged to represent those people and being in the 
position where I believe we will accomplish that goal after facing some 
obstacles. And that is the other point we heard so well. There were 
many obstacles that we had to meet in order to achieve our goal, and 
every one of the witnesses who had been down this path already had said 
to us that day, stay focused, persist in your goal, and if we 
accomplish our goal, the people will recognize that. So these are 
people both from the private sector and in other Government entities 
that have been down this path, and I thought it was very refreshing to 
hear from them, and particularly our Governor who has been down this 
path for 2 years.
  There have been naysayers in New Jersey who said the sky will fall 
in, et cetera. What has happened by some of her policies already is a 
breath of fresh air to the State of New Jersey and our economy.
  Mr. TATE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINI. Certainly.
  Mr. TATE. Is the sky still there?
  Mr. MARTINI. The sky is still there, and more than that, our 
businesses are staying there and we have accomplished that, even with a 
tax reduction that was implemented by our Governor and legislature. So 
it can be done. It has to be done, because if we think of the 
alternative, the alternative is more of the same, more growth, more 
taxes, and what we are doing is indebting our children and getting no 
services for the interest we pay on the great debt that we have.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. MARTINI. Certainly would.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Isn't that really the story of America? The naysayers 
and the pessimists and the cynics have never prevailed. In the long 
run, it is the optimists, the believers, the ones who really get out, 
roll up their sleeves and get it done.
  I know there are a lot of pessimists and naysayers here in Washington 
We read about them in some of the media sometimes. But the truth of the 
matter is, the American people believe that it can, and will, and must 
be done. There are people in this town who think it is absolutely 
impossible for this Congress to pass a balanced budget reconciliation 
this fall. They think it is impossible for us to save Medicare. They 
think it is impossible for us to pass a welfare reform that is really 
built on work and personal responsibility and strengthening families.
  They say it cannot be done, but the American people, the interesting 
thing in the town meetings I have had, they know it can be done. They 
believe it can be done. That is what has made this country work. It is 
that spirit that I think is not only going to help us get through this 
particular period in our history, but will help us chart our course in 
the
 21st century.

  What the American people want is to get back to some of those old-
fashioned things, as was mentioned earlier. They want more personal 
responsibility and less Government responsibility. They want more 
personal control and they want less Government control. They want a 
Government that works with them rather than a Government that comes at 
them. I think that has been the theme of this Congress and that is what 
will lead us into the 21st century.

[[Page H 8900]]

  The interesting thing is, and I start my town meetings with the three 
most important words in this Democratic experiment, and they are the 
first three, ``We the people.'' I think as long as we continue to have 
these meetings and this dialog with the American people, I know I get 
my batteries charged every time I have a town meeting because there is 
lots of optimism. There is a lot of can-do attitude out there, and that 
is the attitude out there, and that is the attitude that will give us 
strength. And if we stay at it, I think we cannot fail.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would yield, I think what 
the gentleman just said, Congressman Gutknecht, dovetails with what 
Congressman Martini and Congressman Tate have been doing, and I think 
it is a whole change in culture in Washington. We saw a few weeks ago 
one of our fellow freshman, Congressman Foley, work hard in the 
committee to remove $50 million of waste, fraud, and abuse from a 
program that was really a boondoggle. Citizens Against Government Waste 
identified it. It was definitely not needed and he had it removed in 
committee. He was proud of that fact. By the next day, the $50 million 
was moved to another pork barrel project.
  That is what brought forth, ladies and gentlemen, the Deficit 
Reduction Act, which we cosponsored and helped pass today. That will 
have, for the first time, any savings we can find in committee or on 
this floor for pork barrel projects and those that do not have 
permanent value that help all American people, that will be put in a 
lockbox. Those savings will go to deficit reduction. If we have deficit 
reduction, that means we have less taxes to pay by interest. That will 
help make sure our economy is strong, that we have more jobs, and that 
we have more people working and that we have a stable economy.
  So we think this Deficit Lockbox Act is just one more kind of reform 
that I am sure at Congressman Martini's hearing was probably discussed 
and will probably be emulated other places. But I would ask the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], where does the gentleman think 
we go from here, as far as Government reform and oversight and what the 
gentleman and Congressman Tate did this weekend, and where we can 
expect to go?
  Mr. MARTINI. I thank the gentleman, and I certainly am looking 
forward to attending at least a couple of the other field hearings that 
will be held throughout the country, and I am interested to hear other 
points of view from people elsewhere in the country, and I think that 
is an important part of the process that we have to undertake.
  I think if New Jersey's hearing was any indication, there is a strong 
support out there and commitment for us to do what we are doing, and 
that is to bring fiscal responsibility. And that is how I like to refer 
to it. We can call it balanced budget, but I think what we passed today 
by way of the lockbox legislation and the budget reconciliation bill, 
and the process that we are in now leading up to a final budget 
reconciliation bill vote, all is really
 intended to get us on to a path of fiscal responsibility and 
accountability. So I sense there was overwhelming support for that.

  Now, there is no question, and even amongst the majority and amongst 
all the Members here in this House, there are differences on specific 
funding levels for specific programs or agencies or departments. I 
think that is to be expected. The overriding important goal, in my 
opinion, is that each of us, as Members of this great House, will also 
have to adjust somewhat and accept something that maybe we do not like 
in our own district or in our own State in order to accomplish the 
overwhelming, the important and more essential goal of having a 
national policy of sound fiscal Government. I think that is what will 
enable us in the end to achieve the goal.
  All too often in the past what has happened is Congress people have 
been unwilling to accept something that maybe they would have preferred 
to be done a little differently; and, therefore, the bigger goal, the 
goal that is important to our Nation as a whole, would often be lost in 
that process. I am confident that this year that there is enough of a 
commitment, and it is being driven by the American people, who are 
telling us it is time to bring your fiscal House in order.
  I might add, of all of the entities and institutions out there, if I 
had to assess it, we are probably the last one to undertake this 
process. We heard from a State Governor, we heard from a local county 
official, we heard from several mayors, and we heard from people in the 
private sector. Each one have started this process of looking at their 
institution or their body that they govern and have asked these 
questions and have begun the process of right sizing, is how I like to 
refer to it, their institutions.
  Mr. TATE. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINI. I certainly would.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman hit it right on the nose. When I am home, as 
I said earlier, people are always coming up and saying, stay the 
course, do not give up, keep fighting, stick to the promises that were 
made. As far as ahead as we believe we are as a freshman class, the 
public is even further. They want the changes today. They do not want 
to hear about it even 7 years ago. They want to hear about how we are 
going to balance the budget.
  So the things to keep in mind, and I guess it was Ross Perot that 
coined this phrase, the freshman class is the new third party. We are 
making the kind of changes that people want to see, but we have to 
continue to fight that battle.
  And the gentleman touched on another key point that I think that we 
really need to drive home. If we just did welfare reform this year, it 
would be a monumental year. If we just balanced the budget this year, 
that would be incredibly monumental. If we just provided tax relief for 
working families, there could be nothing more important. If we saved 
Medicare, that is going bankrupt, I can think of nothing more 
important. We are going to do all of those before we leave this place.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The fact is that this is a bipartisan issue. 
Americans want to make sure they have the quality drugs they need, 
while the FDA makes sure we have the quality standards and the purity. 
The fact is that this country, with its great biotechnical and 
pharmaceutical companies that have made the first discoveries here, but 
our patients sometimes are the last to get the receipt of those drugs 
or medical devices. Under our bill, H.R. 1995, it will speed up that 
process. Because right now companies spend about $100 million in 10 
years waiting because of the bureaucratic maze of FDA.
  So with this legislation and the reforms that the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Martini] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] and 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] are working with me, we 
really will be able to speed up the process, get drugs to market 
faster, and not only will we get people living longer and living better 
because of the drugs and the medical devices, we will keep the jobs 
here in America too.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we will save 
billions of dollars for consumers.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this class of 
freshmen has been anti-tax, pro people and pro business. When I say pro 
business I mean pro jobs. I think if we keep that orientation, we will 
make some positive changes.
  When we speak of Medicare reform, there is some legislation that we 
are involved with in making sure we root out the fraud. There is $30 
billion right now in Medicare fraud.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, it is $44 billion, but 
who is counting.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. That is for Medicare and Medicaid together. 
But there are different publications that have different articles about 
what Congress is working on. It is $30 billion in one article, anyhow, 
for Medicare reform, and it deals with the fraud, abuse and waste of 
different people who are impersonating doctors, sending these duplicate 
bills, having a 14-year-old read x-rays for which they are not 
qualified, and the list goes on and on. The legislation that we are 
cosponsoring is going to dispute the process of those prosecutions and 
make sure that the penalties are increased so that we make
 sure the dollars for care are going back to our seniors, that they 

[[Page H 8901]]
get the quality service and they can live longer and live better. We 
are going to save Medicare because we want to make sure our seniors are 
protected, whether it is a mother, grandmother, sister, whoever it is, 
and we are going to make sure that Medicare is saved.
  Mr. Speaker, as freshman we have had 18 hour days and I think that is 
just part of being here in Washington and trying to make a difference.
  Mr. MARTINI. If the gentleman would yield, you are absolutely right 
about the need for FDA reform. It is something that the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight is certainly involved with, and there 
is a hearing tomorrow, by the way.
  Mr. Speaker, before we conclude our remarks for this evening, I would 
like to just comment for a moment on the process that has been taking 
place this week with respect to the politics of this whole issue of 
trying to get a better handle on the government in terms of passing a 
balanced budget. I will use as an example the student loan issue which 
we have been hearing from those who are opposed to our achieving a 
balanced budget alluding to and saying that the budget will reduce, et 
cetera, or drastically change the student loan program.
  Now, the facts speak for themselves as to just how that program has 
been adjusted. There are not drastic cuts in that program, so the facts 
speak for themselves. The point I would like the make, though, is that 
we are seeing the politics on this issue unfortunately scaring another 
segment of the population. I do not think it is reverberating out 
there, but I think for every one of those issues, and it is important 
that the American people understand this, for every one of those issues 
where we talk about a specific item in this entire budget, there is 
another argument to be made, and I thought of it today sitting in my 
office as I was contemplating the debate going on on the student loan 
issue. You know, I said to myself, if we are spending inappropriately, 
because there is very few major changes in that program, now that all 
is said and done, there is very few changes in that program whatsoever, 
but whatever they are, the few that are there are minor adjustments. 
But somebody should also speak for the young grammar school children 
whose futures are ahead of them, and because of our reckless practices 
in the past of not being able to control reasonably the growth of this 
great government, we are indebting the children that are in the first, 
second, third grades who futures are well ahead of them.
  So when you sit here and argue for the student who is in college, 
which frankly is not being dramatically changed in terms of their 
abilities to get loans for school in any meaningful way, you have to 
also think about the impact on others in our communities in our 
society, and I like to think of the younger people who already today 
are being burdened with this overwhelming debt before they even go out 
into the work force and make a living and start to pay taxes. So they 
are already beginning behind the eight ball, and that is also part of 
what this entire process is all about. Somebody has to speak for those 
in society who cannot speak for themselves, and that is what I think we 
are doing with this budget progress.
  Mr. TATE. If the gentleman would yield, that point really hits what 
balancing the budget is all about. I have a daughter and her name is 
Madeleine, and in her lifetime she will spend $187,150 just in taxes, 
just to the Federal Government, just to finance the national debt, if 
we do not balance the budget.
 That is outrageous. If you want to help out college students and make 
sure there are jobs out there, balance the budget. If you want to make 
loans more affordable, balance the budget. That will lower interest 
rates. That will make college more affordable. That is what we are 
really talking about, allowing people to keep more of their own money 
in their own pockets to make their own decisions, to pay for higher 
education, to pay for health care if they need it, to go on vacation if 
they desire it, and I am sure they do; to make those kinds of changes, 
and that is what balancing the budget means to real people. That is 
what we have to keep in perspective. It is not all of the bill numbers 
we throw out, it is working people who live in the ninth district of 
Washington or in New Jersey or Pennsylvania or in Minnesota that sit 
around the kitchen table every month or sometimes every night trying to 
figure out how they are going to spend their money because the 
Government takes more and more of their money away.

  We need to weed out the fraud and abuse, such as $6 for one aspirin, 
$12 for one aspirin for somebody else. That is outrageous. That is 
ripping off the taxpayers. That is wrong. That is what we are trying to 
change. That is why I am so excited to be putting a human face on the 
balanced budget. It means real people are going to keep real money in 
their own pockets to decide how they want to spend it. That is the 
exciting part about it. That is why I am working on this. You mentioned 
those people that do not get to talk to us, those newborn kids that are 
stuck with this huge debt. That is what this is all about. It is about 
the kids.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think this speaks to it all. One of our colleagues 
in the other body recently said, you know, some of the cynics and the 
critics here in Washington are saying that this is a debate about how 
much we are going to spend on children and how much we are going to 
spend on education and how much we are going to spend on nutrition. It 
is not a debate about how much we are going to spend on children, 
nutrition or education. It is a debate about who is going to do the 
spending.
  So as we downsize the Government and as we allow individuals and 
families to make those kinds of decisions, as we give them some of 
their money back to spend, we know they can spend it more efficiently, 
that is really what this debate is about. As we move into the 21st 
century, we want a country that allows more personal freedom, gives 
more personal responsibility, but gives families more control on how 
they are going to spend their money.
  When the average family is giving over half of their annual income to 
government one way or another, it has gotten too big and they do not 
spend it more efficiently. They are more efficient at the local level 
than at the Federal level, but that is the debate we are having and we 
have to win it, not just to win, not as an accounting exercise; that is 
a good point. We have to win it for today's children because otherwise 
we are going to leave them a debt they will never be able to pay off.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Fox] for putting this together.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Let me just add to what the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Martini] just talked about. The fact is, there has been 
a big lie on campus about what is actually going to happen, and there 
is a student loan scare campaign by the other side of the aisle. But 
the facts are very much different as we know them.
  Student loans are going to be increased. The
   Congress' billion dollar budget proposal does not cut a single 
student loan. In fact, under the GOP plan to balance the budget, we 
save student loans. More loans will be available from the 6.6 million 
loans to 7.1 million the following year. The in-school interest subsidy 
program will remain; loan fees are not increased. The GOP funds the 
biggest Pell grant ever to $2,440, its highest level in the history of 
the program. There will maintain a 6-month grace period for the loans. 
The Perkins loans total will be $6 billion and the student aid will not 
be cut. The college work study program will be maintained, the 
supplemental education opportunity grants will be fully funded, and the 
TRIO Program, which benefits minority and disadvantaged students, is 
fully funded at its current level of $463 million.

  So the facts are different than what you have heard. The fact is, we 
will not let students, seniors, those who are families, be left out in 
any program. We are working on making sure that they are more 
accountable, though, that the bureaucracy costs, the duplication costs, 
the overregulation costs and all of the waste, fraud and abuse is 
removed, and direct service to those who need them is what we are 
fighting for. That is important, and that is the key to what we are 
trying to do. I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] 
to sum up about where we go from here again back to his hearings.

[[Page H 8902]]

  Mr. MARTINI. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I thank him 
for his efforts in putting together this evening's exchange and dialog. 
I think it is very helpful, especially after a hearing where we learned 
from our constituents what was on their mind, particularly on this very 
issue.
  I think in sum what I learned was that the process that we are 
undertaking right now is not simply downsizing, but it is really smart-
sizing and right-sizing the Federal Government, because there is more 
to it than just reducing spending. There is also things, like we 
undertook today adoption of the lockbox legislation, like procurement 
reform, all of which lead to just more efficient, more effective, and 
less costly Government. So the undertakings that we are in the process 
of doing really are all geared toward that.
  We have to continue to listen and learn from our constituents, and 
then, of course, lead. I think it is important that we stay on our 
mission of finding a fiscally responsible and accountable Federal 
Government and keep our eye on the ball as we go along.
  Let me just share with you something that happened that I thought was 
a good analogy perhaps to the comparisons of what we are doing. There 
was one gentleman who spoke at our hearing who was somewhat critical of 
the efforts we are taking to become more fiscally responsible, and 
implied that this Congress was only cutting from the bottom and not 
really serious in its effort to find ways to save money throughout the 
Government at all levels of Government.
  This gentleman compared it to a wedding cake. He said that if you had 
a wedding cake, what we are doing is simply taking pieces from the 
bottom of the wedding cake. He said that he would rather, or the 
Democrats he compared it to, if they had their way, they would take it 
from the top to the bottom.
  I think you recall very well what I said then, and I think it is very 
applicable, that some would argue that for 40 years the wedding cake 
was purchased by
 the taxpayers and then eaten by the process that had been set up by 
the majority that ruled this Congress for 40 years, and left nothing 
really for the future of America.

  So it was something that stays in my mind. I think it sums up the 
differences to where we are trying to go. We are concerned about the 
future of America. We want to make sure there is some wedding cake for 
future generations, and that we do not do the irresponsible thing and 
spend beyond our means and leave a great debt for Americans to come.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. That is a very good sentiment. I will say 
this, I am sorry I did not join you on Saturday, because I had a 
conflict. What I would say to that gentleman is you have been in the 
leadership on these issues, important issues, of getting our own house 
in order and leading by example. We have cut out 3 committees and 25 
subcommittees. We released one-third of our committee staff, saving 
over $100 million just in the cost of running Congress. As well, we 
have a gift ban we are now going to move towards passage, lobbying 
reform. We have already cut by one-third our franking privileges on 
mail. We are certainly becoming more accountable with the adoption of 
the Shays Act, making all the laws we pass also apply to the management 
of Congress, whether it be OSHA or Fair Labor Standards or civil 
rights.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] has been at the forefront 
of that, and I am sorry I could not tell your friend from your 
district, the 8th district of New Jersey, just how much you have been 
doing in leading by example, in making sure that this Congress, this 
freshman class, in a bipartisan fashion, both sides of the aisle, works 
to move us to the kind of new America that we think is emerging.
  Mr. TATE. I guess I would have added, to tell that gentleman, 
following on this marriage analogy, the honeymoon is over for the big 
spenders. That is what this Congress has been about. We have changed 
the culture of Washington. We are going to continue to do it. As the 
gentleman you stated, on day one, to me the reform that meant the most 
to me was making sure that Congress lived by the same laws as every 
other American.
                              {time}  2230

  When we live under these laws, we may be a little less likely to want 
to pass all these great ideas, so-to-speak, and bring back common sense 
as the gentleman from Minnesota has clearly stated.
  This has been a great session so far this year. We are going to 
continue to keep fighting. I think the things to keep in mind over the 
next month or two are the fact that we are going to balance the budget, 
we are going to reform welfare, we are going to provide tax relief for 
working families, and we are going go save Medicare, and do those 
things. Promises made, promises kept. We kept our Contract With 
America. Now we are going to keep our contract with our senior citizens 
and keep our contract with those working families, and keep the 
contract with my daughter Madeleine to make sure her future is 
brighter, she is not saddled with this huge debt. And the hearings 
reinforced that. It has been a pleasure working with you two gentlemen, 
and I look forward to getting started tomorrow morning and working on 
the two issues.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The fact is we need your enthusiasm and 
optimism. I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], and the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Tate], we appreciate your leadership on the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight, and look forward to your continued 
driving the engine for this Contract With America and the reforms to 
really right the course for America. I thank you very much for joining 
us tonight.

                          ____________________