[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H997-H999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ONGOING BUDGET DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jones). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, after the last hour we would like to talk 
a little bit about what is happening with the budget. The gentleman 
from Arizona is going to join me for a while and I believe one of my 
freshman colleagues from Idaho is going to join us in a little bit.
  I know that the gentleman from Arizona, I do not believe he had a 
chance to join us in Baltimore over the weekend, but I think we should 
maybe take a few minutes to talk about, because I know the press has 
talked a lot about what has happened in the budget negotiations of 
recent and that somehow, I know that within the course of just a couple 
of weeks, in referring to the freshmen, we have been described as being 
mean spirited, and then last week we were being described as being 
dispirited. I think the only thing I can honestly say is, we are still 
spirited as freshmen, are we not?
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend for yielding. Yes, I was unable to be 
at the freshman advance--note, Mr. Speaker, we do not use the word 
``retreat'' in any way, shape, or form--with the freshman advance, and 
I was interested to read the comments in one East Coast newspaper, 
``Humbled Freshmen Regroup,'' or words to that effect.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota shares the same sense of 
honor and awe that comes with serving in this House. Indeed, as old man 
eloquent John Quincy Adams said upon his election, after serving as 
President, upon his election to the House of Representatives, there is 
no higher honor than service in the people's House.
  Mr. Speaker, and to my friend from Minnesota, I think what confounds 
the fourth estate is that though we are honored and awed to serve here, 
we understand that we were sent here to change business as usual, and 
the spirit remains and the almost, you could see it coming a mile off, 
from my days in the media, we were bound to get a story at the halfway 
point that, gee, some folks have grown, that is, they have accepted the 
ways of Washington; some people have matured, that is, they have been 
willing to accept compromises in certain ways, and that somehow 
reasonableness, the Washington definition, higher spending, higher 
taxes, more big Government, and an abandonment of campaign promises, 
that type of reasonableness had infected our ranks.
  Well, Mr. Speaker and to my colleague from Minnesota--I am sure he 
will join me on this--we do not for a minute accept the Washington 
definition of what is reasonable. Our mission is to serve our 
constituents and the American public who have the ultimate wisdom, who 
understand what is reasonable, who know what it is like to sit around a 
kitchen table and try to make ends meet, who know what it is to try and 
pay the tax man, who understand the notion not only of trying to pay 
the tax man and trying to take care of their many obligations but also 
who look for unlimited economic growth, who try time and again to deal 
with the impediments that this Government has placed upon them in 
trying to start a business, in trying to create jobs, people who are 
willing to see this economy grow if only the shackles are taken off and 
truly a free market is embraced.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. This sort of goes back to the discussion we were 
having in the last hour. While they continue to try and belittle 
Reaganomics, the facts are stubborn things. The economy grew at an 
unbelievable rate during the 1980's, in part because there was a 
commitment to lower taxes, to less regulation, and to smaller 
Government.
  It was not complete, but we have the opportunity now to complete that 
revolution and really free up the free enterprise system, to free up 
the American people, because the Government does not create jobs, the 
Government does not create wealth. Businesses do. People do. We have 
got to allow them to have more control over their futures. That is what 
this is about.
  I think it is important that we have this discussion, because I think 
there is a view out there perhaps that now we have been tempered now 
after a year, and that our basic goals and our basic mission and our 
basic visions of what ought to happen in Washington have 

[[Page H998]]
changed. I do not think that is the case at all.
  I think we still understand who it is that controls the wealth, who 
it is that creates the jobs, who it is that can do the best job in 
helping to shape America's future. It certainly is not bureaucrats here 
in Washington. It obviously is people out in communities like Phoenix 
and like Rochester, MN, and all across the fruited plain.
  It is people out there who Ronald Reagan believed in that are going 
to make the difference, that are going to make this a better country. 
It is not 5 trillion dollars' worth of debt. We look at the welfare 
issue. Maybe we can talk a little bit about that.
  Unfortunately, sometimes when we talk about restructuring and 
reforming and in fact starting over with a blank sheet of paper, 
hopefully with the States having far more control in determining what 
kind of a system they are going to have to help people who truly need 
help. And I think there is a genuine commitment on all of our parts 
that when people genuinely need help, we should help them, but we 
should also find the most efficient way, and that the definition that 
we have used in the past of helping people simply has not worked.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Again recalling the words of President Reagan, and I 
think this rings so true today, ``The size of the Federal budget is not 
an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.''
  Indeed what we have seen for the past half century is a usurpation, 
if you will, of charitable concerns by the Federal Government. None of 
us here are willing to abandon the notion of a safety net for those 
less fortunate, for those who may face physical challenges, for those 
who may face mental challenges, for those who literally have no way to 
take advantage of the freedom that they have to better themselves.

                              {time}  1415

  But what so tragically has happened, with ofttimes the best of 
intentions, is that we have turned the safety net into a hammock, and 
that we have made it more lucrative for some to stay away from work and 
that we have, in the words of one official from a charitable 
organization with whom I visited in the 6th District of Arizona, he 
said to me, ``You know, J.D., the Federal Government basically stepped 
into my line of work about 30 years ago, and they have taken over the 
bulk of it.''
  Now, we have a fundamental debate going on. But to those who would 
claim it is mean-spirited, it is extreme to look at restraining the 
rate of growth of Government, to those who would claim it is selfish or 
somehow ignoble, or less than honorable to allow the American people to 
hang onto more of their hard-earned money, to those who would accept 
the misguided notion that it is the Government that controls the 
wealth, that it is the Government that should be the catalyst for every 
program from soup to nuts, from cradle to grave, that it is the 
Government with whom the power resides, they are ignoring one basic 
fact of our remarkable constitutional republic. Our Founders who 
composed this document believed this, and I believe though good people 
can disagree, we should understand this, in this Nation it is the 
people who are sovereign, and it is the people who confer power upon 
the Government. This Government belongs to the people, and again, to 
quote President Reagan, Government is the people's business, and every 
man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax 
paid.
  There is nothing dishonorable and there is nothing selfish and there 
is nothing mean-spirited about the average American family which now 
spends more on taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined 
hanging onto more of their income. There is nothing ignoble about 
letting a small business owner be free of the shackles of capital gains 
taxation which would limit growth and economic expansion. There is 
nothing ignoble about empowering the people. Good people can disagree, 
to be sure.
  But we must work, as we have this historic debate, to listen to the 
people, to understand their concerns, and to deal with these concerns 
in what some would call a new way, but what I would maintain is the way 
that that has improved this Nation since its foundation, not 
reinventing Government, but remembering those principles embodied in 
our Constitution, recognizing there is room for dissent and debate, but 
moving to do the people's business, because we are stewards of their 
money, and the Government has taken from them, not that the Government 
gives to everyone else.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think one of the most frustrating, and there are 
many frustrating parts about the debate we have been having in 
Washington about restructuring the way Government works and what 
functions should be done at the Federal level, downsizing Federal 
Government. One of the most frustrating things is facts do not mean 
anything anymore, at least according to some people.
  If you look at the facts, there is overwhelming amounts of evidence 
to suggest the Great Society has failed. In fact, even President 
Clinton in some respects when he gave his State of the Union Address 
the other night said the era of Big Government is over. I think he said 
that several times during his speech. But yet, the next day it was like 
some of the Members of this body did not hear that or do not agree with 
that or do not share that particular view.

  But I think we have to look at the facts. Facts are stubborn things. 
If you look at the facts about what has happened to the welfare state 
over the last 30 or 40 years, we have spent $5 trillion, and if you 
want to see the evidence of what we have gotten for $5 trillion, you do 
not have to go very far from this building, because Washington, DC is 
perhaps the greatest social welfare experiment of any city.
  In fact, if you go around Washington, D.C., you will see the product 
that we have produced. We have created debt. We have created 
dependency. We have created despair. If you look at the housing 
projects, for example, here in Washington, DC, 80 percent of the 
violent crime in the city of Washington is committed within two blocks 
of a Federal housing project. Some people believe the answer is more 
and bigger Federal housing programs. We believe it ought to be 
decentralized.
  We also understand there are some people who need some help. Maybe 
they need a voucher. We certainly do not need a large Department of 
Housing and Urban Development based here in Washington, DC, that has 
created what is has created, and that is throughout the entire social 
welfare system. It has been an abysmal failure.
  The facts demonstrate that, and yet so many of our colleagues want to 
ignore the facts.
  Now, is our answer perfect? No, absolutely not. But it cannot be any 
worse than the system that has been created over the last 30 or 40 
years. That is the important point.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Minnesota. Yes, it was with 
great interest and, indeed, somewhat of surprise, although I expected 
in part the rhetoric that came from the President the other night when 
he said the days of Big Government are over, and now the challenge 
becomes, Mr. Speaker, for this President to join with this new majority 
and to really live up to that notion.
  I ran into a reporter who will remain nameless, from one of the major 
television networks. ``How is it going, Congressman?'' ``Great.'' ``Did 
you see the headlines in the paper? It says President embracing GOP 
agenda.'' This reporter said, ``You managed to make victory look like 
defeat.'' I said, ``No, sir, with all due respect, you have. There is 
great reason to be optimistic. The President has now at least turned 
the page and changed the terms of debate and has taken a look at fiscal 
responsibility. Yes, there are many details to be worked out. Let us 
rejoice in that realization.''
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think that is the good message. We talked about the 
incurable optimist President Ronald Reagan was.
  If you talk about the freshman class, you will see incurable 
optimists. While we have stubbed our toes and made a few mistakes and 
have not accomplished all we wanted to accomplish, the bottom line, the 
truth of the matter is the entire fulcrum of this debate has moved, and 
even the President now 

[[Page H999]]
is acknowledging the era of Big Government is over and big Washington 
solutions to all of our problems are not the answers.
  And now we may not win on every point now, but it is not really a 
matter of whether we win or the President wins, the Republicans versus 
Democrats. The real issue is whether the American people win. This is 
not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between 
those who believe that the Government is the answer to most of our 
problems and those who believe that government is a big part of a lot 
of our problems; those who believe that Big Government solutions are 
the way to solve problems and those who believe we ought to 
decentralize and let individuals have more responsibility and authority 
in their lives, and we start with that basic premise, we the people. 
The three most important words are ``We the people.''

  What has happened over the last several months has obviously given us 
a better education about how this place works, but it has not changed 
our optimism. It has not changed our view. We may have to change our 
tactics somewhat. We are not going to keep this Napoleonic, all lined 
up in a straight line and let people stand behind trees and fight a 
guerilla war; we are not going to change the goals, not going to change 
principles, not going to change what we came here for. As long as the 
people keep sending us back, we are going to fight for the fundamental 
principles President Reagan talked about, that we fought for in the 
last election. We are not going to give up. The freshman class is not 
going to change.

                          ____________________