J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. In the interest of full disclosure, I certainly will allow my friend the gentleman from Georgia's evaluation to remain a part of the Record. Let me make this point. You have heard a lot of talk about these plans paying for some tax cut. It is important to note this, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, who worked long and hard as part of the Committee on the Budget, will attest to this fact: The historic tax cuts that benefit every American, not just a select few, were paid for, if you will, through the hard work of the Committee on the Budget long before this Medicare debate was enjoined. We did this long before, so there is no ``if'' then to this procedure. There is not a situation where the new majority is trying to fish out of thin air, or certainly not off the backs of America's seniors, to pay for a tax cut. That is just blatant fiction.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I believe there is one other important distinction we need to bring up that has been bandied about in the realm of political theater. Perhaps the gentleman touched on this previously, before my arrival, but again I do not believe we can repeat this too often.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And if the gentleman would yield, I think it is important to note again for purposes of full disclosure, and again to bring some element of bipartisanship to this debate. Now I understand that Members of the new minority are taking their own fledgling steps toward coming up with a plan, and I welcome what in essence, according to one newspaper account, amounts to a, quote unquote, deathbed conversion after months of railing and ranting when we were willing to abandon politics as usual and say no. It is always better for a professional politician to try and explain away problems. No, we rather not confront this, the fact that we have come from different walks of life to serve here as citizen legislators and say to the American public this is an issue too important to play politics as usual, and so I think even though we had months and months of reticence, to put it diplomatically, from our friends from the new minority, now even they are understanding that the American people are not going to be satisfied with people sitting on the sidelines moaning, complaining, about very serious policy questions. So to their credit in fairness I am glad to see that many Members of the minority now say that they want to come up with a plan. However, it is important to remember this. Is it a fledgling step for political appearances that amounts to putting a Band-Aid across a very serious wound? The fact is we have to take on this problem and solve it, and it is not time for a Band-Aid solution to get us through 2 years to an election. No, when we take the oath of office here, we are here to act first as legislators, not ignoring the political dimension, but to act.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is very true. We are going to keep the program intact, but the idea is we are going to move toward a better Medicare that offers policy choices like the medical savings account, like managed care through HMO's, and again, as the gentleman from Michigan mentioned so eloquently, if a senior has this program, Medicare as it exists today, and wants to keep that program, that that senior need do nothing. It will remain the same for that senior.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That money is yours if you choose a medical savings account, and the notion is this. And I think we have to be very particular to restate, and restate and amplify, what is going on here. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] touched on something that cannot be repeated enough. For those in this policy debate who talk about a cut for seniors, the most charitable thing I can say to those who speak of a cut is that they are not very good students of mathematics because the average spending per beneficiary will increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. I defy anyone to show me how that is a cut. It is an increase, but yet we have seen very interesting formulations and numbers that have emanated from here in Washington, DC.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, this is something very important because you asked me what on the minds of the people of the State of Arizona, and I can tell you that although Arizona is the youngest of the 48 contiguous States, Arizonans are very concerned about what transpires here in Washington, indeed what is the proper role of the [[Page H 9655]] Federal Government, and, when you get right down to it, this date in history, September 28, 1787, the Congress of the Confederation resolved to submit the Constitution to the respective States for the ratification which gives us this system of government which we use now, and there is a legitimate public debate as to what is the proper role of the Federal Government, and so what we are doing now in this new Congress, what some would call a revolution, is we are sitting down and examining what is transpiring, not as detractors would say, to turn the clock back, but to say what is the reasonable role of the Federal Government. So what I am hearing from seniors, from young married folks, from those who are new to the process, is this notion: Let us rethink the proper role of the Federal Government, and, as my friend from Pennsylvania spoke a moment ago, let us look for the practical role of the Federal Government as we approach the next century. With reference to Medicare, one of the basic notions in this Nation is one of choice, economically, to have a variety of different options, and, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] knows because another Congressman who ofttimes sits in the Speaker's chair here, this Medicare task force I think summed it up quite well. What we have with Medicare in its current state is basically 1964 Blue Cross codified into law. The question becomes, Do we maintain that? Or we should maintain that for those folks satisfied with the 1964 health insurance policy, but should we also offer the seniors innovative plans that maximize choice and give them the chance to have a greater role in health care?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. You and I disagree and indeed, I will graciously give the time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points need to be made and let me clear it up without having hearings. A misconception seemed to be put forth here a second ago. I am certainly not suggesting, nor do I think anyone in this new majority is suggesting that seniors be compelled to leave the doctors under whose care they find themselves now to somehow sacrifice that physician-patient relationship. Nothing could be further from our intent. Moreover, with reference to $270 billion and somehow a tax cut for the rich, the gentlewoman from Texas certainly realizes that the Budget Committee, under the stewardship of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], worked very hard to make sure that those tax cuts were fully provided for in the budget plan and the road map and the glide path to a 7-year balanced budget. Moreover, even if the budget were balanced today, we would still have this threat of the Medicare Trust Fund.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentlewoman would yield, and again, I certainly respect, and I think the American public, Mr. Speaker, joining us tonight hear a constructive debate, albeit different, and dare we say in some ways partisan. But that is the nature of what goes on here. I think it is very important to respond to several of the points that were raised. When we talk about improving a program, I think the philosophy could not be clearer in what I am hearing from the gentlewoman from Texas. Is it not more important to offer choices to Americans regardless of their age than to say, here is a one-size-fits- all program, basically 1964 Blue Cross Blue Shield codified into law in 1965. Is there not a way to expand choices and improve the program while maintaining for those seniors who want to remain on this program, Medicare as we know it, maintaining that program?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Certainly.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me for a moment. I think the gentlewoman raises a compelling point, and it is this: If the trustees' report tells us that we have a 7-year window, then are we not compelled to act? In other words, is it not prudent, because both of us come from an environment where we were successful professionals in other endeavors; we are not professional politicians, we came here to serve our districts and we have differing philosophies. But is it not prudent to move now to solve the problem rather than taking our chances 2, 3, 4, 5 years down the road and simply hoping that we can correct it ourselves? In other words, we went back to 1970 when of course this Chamber was controlled by her party, regardless of who sat in the White House. We went back to 1994, more recently, when this Chamber again was controlled by a different party and nobody moved to solve the problem. In other words, is it prudent to wait this out?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time so graciously. Certainly the gentlewoman raises many questions tonight and I thank her for raising them. First and foremost, I think it is important for us to understand as the gentlewoman has been doing in our district in Texas, as I have been doing in Arizona; in effect we have been holding our own hearings. But she raises a point that I think is of some interest. Of far more interest to me tonight is the chart purporting to talk about increase of out-of-pocket expenses. Could we explain the formula, the methodology, or the rationale that leads us to make this claim that the prices would rise so drastically. Because I can tell you it is certainly not my intent, nor did we come to the Congress with the notion of trying to bankrupt our seniors. Quite the contrary, we want to save this program. So I am just curious where these numbers come from, how they were arrived at, how we arrived at these numbers. [[Page H 9361]]

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Simple point. If the gentlewoman can explain to me how an increase over seven years in benefits per beneficiary of $2,000 can be a cut, going from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in 2002, where is the mathematical rationale to show me that that is the draconian cut that the gentlewoman has talked about so often this evening?

Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentlewoman asked a question. Would she yield for an answer?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentlewoman from North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, makes a very valid point. As I look here tonight for this special order, I see my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona, two of my colleagues from Oklahoma, and a colleague from Indiana. I think nationwide we have been getting outstanding input from members of our various districts, citizens and constituents in our district. I think the unique aspect of this is something that the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] referred to. In stark contrast to that very cynical statement that laws are like sausages, no one should watch closely while either are being made, we are going in totally a different direction with this. Indeed, because we are representatives serving here in the Congress, we are going home. We are not only talking to seniors in the district, but pulling together folks from various walks of life for our task force meetings, and the thing that I think is important to stress is that this discussion is open to everyone, regardless of their partisan affiliation or political dispensation, regardless of their age. Every citizen in this country should be involved in this vital debate, for while it now affects seniors, and I think particularly of my granddad who resides in the State of North Carolina, 91 years of age, and my parents who reside in the district represented by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] who will soon be aging into that program, I think some 3 years away from Medicare, this is a program that vitally affects our seniors, but also has great implications for our future as a Nation in term of offering choice; indeed, in terms of bringing elements of the free market back into medical coverage, and transforming and saving and improving Medicare for future generations. I think the gentlewoman from North Carolina is to be commended for setting aside this time to take a look at what has transpired in the past, and again to say to the American people, Mr. Speaker, those joining us tonight via television, those who have written us, faxed us, phoned us, the debate continues on.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I know with great clarity my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, put together a town hall that was really quite a sight and very gratifying. I know that the input continues.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Science, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, once again I listen with great interest to my friend from Texas, and so many folks on this side of the aisle, who once again are engaged in an active policy not of saving Medicare, but of Medi-scare. Mr. Speaker, there is one lesson I learned since coming to this Congress. It is a sad lesson, but I have to tell it in all sincerity to the American people. So often what we see happen on this floor has absolutely nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when the guardians of the old order, so jealous of the majority that they once used to possess, will do absolutely anything to scare America's seniors. Here is the fact: Even if the budget were balanced today, we would still have problems with Medicare. It is the role of every American, Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike, to step forward to save the program. Once again, friends on this side of the aisle, join with us. Join with us and save this program.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am holding in my left hand appropriately the Clinton Democrats' budget plan. Let us just take a look. As my colleagues know, there is nothing in here about balancing the budget, and there is nothing in here about saving Medicare either. Cutting taxes? Well, no, there is nothing in here about cutting taxes either. It kind of makes my wonder if my liberal friends got the message from the American people last September. Please see the American people want a budget written for them, not for the liberal social engineers in the west wing of the White House. They want a budget that our new majority is ready to approve, a balanced budget, a plan to save Medicare and tax cuts for the middle class along with genuine welfare reform. Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. This fall we can enact the agenda of the American people or we can follow the tired old remedies of the liberal do-nothing Democrats. I hope all of my colleagues in this Chamber will do the right thing, reject this plan and adopt a true rational budget plan for the American people.