J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I believe the analogy is apt, and I believe there is a new development which we should share with the American people, reported first by our good friend from Texas, Bill Archer, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who has his finger on the pulse of economic activity in this country, a gentleman who wants to bring about meaningful reform to our system of taxation that currently absolutely penalizes people who succeed, and this is the development. I am sad to say this is really the message that can only be borne with a certain amount of trepidation and fear, and it is this: Those self-same trustees on a bipartisan basis now report to us, though the White House has yet to formally release this report, they now tell us that the hospital fund for Medicare is in debt in excess of $4 trillion. So, in essence, what has happened, to draw on the history of ancient Rome, we have a lot of folks pulling out their fiddles to play while the program is going up in flames, all because of the cynical manipulation and electioneering that some of this Chamber would do to try and succeed in the next election instead of trying to truly save the program for the next generation. And, indeed, to the credit of those media outlets, ofttimes referred to by this gentleman in the well and others as the liberal media, even The Washington Post, even The Washington Post, on its editorial page, referred to the shameful scare tactics of the left as Mediscare, Medigoguery. It is unconscionable. Again, I suppose it comes down to this fundamental difference, and perhaps this is where philosophy comes back in, because it is a philosophical division that is borne of the practical application of political power, or the absence thereof on the left, and it is this: Today we are confronted by a minority in this body, in the wake of the historic shift in attitudes, that is so jealous of the power it once wielded, that so yearns for that political power that it will say anything, claim anything, scare anyone in its pursuit of power, and yet try to conceal the fact that now Medicare is already operating at a deficit to the tune of $4 plus billion this year.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And, indeed, to revise the numbers in the wake of negotiations with the Senate, indeed it has been our goal to raise Medicare spending per beneficiary beyond $4,700 this year to upwards of $7,300 in the revised plan, working in concert with the new majority in the Senate. So we have even added more. But what we have tried to do is restrain the rate of growth in the program to more than twice the current inflation rate, which we think is being prudent because it adds again as much as the current rate of inflation even while offering free market solutions. And, again, as the gentleman from California points out, we are constantly met by what seems to be the sloganeering and a perverse catechism, if you will, or a chant and mantra that these are cuts, these are cuts; they are coming for seniors. And, again, nothing could be further from the truth. But there is another development, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would share the sentiment of the gentleman from Georgia and make one amendment to that in terms of oft times when we get into the style of debating here on the floor, we refer to each other as a gentleman. I dare say this rapist does not qualify as a gentleman. He qualifies as a convict, as a sexual predator, and one who should not be back out on the streets to assault that family again, or any other family. Well, not only do we need truth in sentencing, we need truth in government. Good people can disagree from time to time on philosophical approaches. But as a newcomer to this body, and I am so glad to have friends like the gentleman from California, who has spent some time here, who has come here rallying around the cry of strong national defense and a true notion of fiscal conservatism and a commitment to protect this Nation's borders, but I would like to ask my friend from California, in the wake of his time in this Chamber, has he ever seen a time when the debate has ranged so far from honest philosophical disagreements to epithets and name calling and playground taunts, and to be charitable and, quite frankly, to adhere to the rules of the House and basic decorum, a departure from fact, as we have seen in the wake of the frustration of this new liberal minority in response to the positive agenda of our new majority?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from California. I would share his sentiments. But, as with many occurrences in the last few days, the last few months, the last 3 years, it is not an April Fool's joke, it is the absolute truth. I would like to pause at this juncture to salute my colleague from the great State of Arizona, the dean of our delegation, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Bob Stump, who is one of the workhorses here on Capitol Hill. ``Stumper'' is not a show horse. He is the dean of the Arizona delegation, who came to this institution under the other party's label, but who as a clear, common sense conservative, has been unwavering in his support of our Nation's defense, unwavering in his commitment to improving the lot of the Nation's veterans, and who stands here not, not to try and heap scorn or abuse on the office of the Presidency, but to make very clear that while it is not the job of Congress to pass judgment in a legal proceeding, a civil proceeding in a court of law, it is important for the Congress of the United States to speak out when a law that is intended for active duty personnel is co-opted, is twisted, is turned, for the convenience of a civilian Commander in Chief, by the gentlemen in the so-called legal profession whose job it is to search out technicalities.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me finish this one sentence. It is worth reminding folks: ``Mr. Clinton maneuvered to avoid military service in 1969 during the Vietnam War.'' I will end the statement there and include the entire article at this point in the Record. [From the Washington Times, May 22, 1996] Clinton Dodges Suit, Says He's in Military critics fume at commander in chief (By Brian Blomquist) President Clinton has provoked a furor by asserting in legal papers that as commander in chief he is in the military and a sexual-harassment lawsuit against him must be postponed until his active duty is completed. The chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee is gathering signatures from other congressmen to send a letter to Mr. Clinton criticizing his latest defense in the lawsuit brought by former Arkansas employee Paula Corbin Jones. In papers filed a week ago, Mr. Clinton seeks to defer the lawsuit under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act of 1940, which grants automatic delays in lawsuits against military personnel until their active duty is over. Mr. Clinton maneuvered to avoid military service in 1969, during the Vietnam War. A petition filed May 15 says, ``President Clinton here thus seeks relief similar to that which he may be entitled as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and which is routinely available to service members under his command.'' The petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Clinton attorney Robert S. Bennett. Mr. Bennett said the criticism is misleading because the 1940 legislation is a minor element of Mr. Clinton's claim that he should be immune from civil suits while in office. ``If you read [Mr. Clinton's 24-page petition] through the first time, you would miss'' any reference to the law, he said. The petition cities the law as an example of when a public official--say, a servicemen on active duty who is being sued by his wife--can argue that the legal action must be delayed, Mr. Bennett said. ``The president is on duty 24 hours a day, and you could literally tie up a president in lawsuits all the time,'' he said. Mr. Bennett acknowledged Mr. Clinton's petition does argue that if the 1940 law is applicable to a sergeant, it should be applicable to the commander in chief. But ``we're not pushing that argument,'' he said. Mrs. Jones is suing Mr. Clinton for sexual harassment, contending she was approached by an Arkansas state trooper in 1991 during a trade show at a hotel and asked to go to Mr. Clinton's suite. She says she went and engaged in small talk with Mr. Clinton, who was then Arkansas governor, before he exposed his genitals and asked her to perform a sex act. The Supreme Court could decide as early as next month, or as late as September, whether to accept the case, Mr. Bennett said. The claim on behalf of the president ignited immediate fury from veterans and their advocates. ``You are not a person in military service, nor have you ever been,'' House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Stump, Arizona Republican, wrote in a letter he is sending to Mr. Clinton. ``Bill Clinton was not prepared to carry the sword for his country, but has no hesitancy in using its shield if he can get away with it,'' said J. Thomas Burch Jr., chairman of the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition. Mr. Stump and Rep. Robert K. Dornan, California Republican, called Mr. Clinton's legal tactic ``a slap in the face to the millions of men and women'' who have served. Their letter was circulated to members of Congress last night. Mr. Dornan is chairman of the House National Security Committee's military personnel subcommittee. The two congressmen urge Mr. Clinton to ``take the honorable course'' and withdraw the military-service argument. ``By pursuing it, you dishonor all of America's veterans who did so proudly serve,'' their letter said. Federal law defines a person in military service as any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force or Coast Guard, or any officer of the Public Health Service detailed by proper authority for duty with the Army or Navy. The law does not explicitly include the commander in chief. Article II of the Constitution gives the president authority over the military as commander in chief. But the president is a civilian, not a military officer, which wartime Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt recognized, according to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. In 1950, the Surrogate Court of Dutchess County, N.Y., was asked to rule on a claim by Roosevelt's survivors, who sought tax benefits on the grounds that he died in the military. The court rejected the claim, stating unquestionably that the president is a civilian. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, if my friend from California would yield, I will include in the Record a story that appeared in this morning's Washington Times by Brian Blomquist, and to set this in perspective, Mr. Speaker, for those who joined us in the Chamber tonight and for those who join us nationwide and worldwide via C-SPAN, let me read and quote directly from the article that appeared in this morning's Washington Times on the front page by Brian Blomquist. President Clinton has provoked a furor by asserting in legal papers that as Commander-in-Chief, he is in the military and a sexual harassment lawsuit against him must be postponed until his active duty is completed. The chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs is gathering signatures from other Congressmen to send a letter to Mr. Clinton criticizing his latest defense in the lawsuit brought by former Arkansas employee Paula Corbin Jones. In papers filed a week ago, Mr. Clinton seeks to defer the lawsuit under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act of 1940 which grants automatic delays in law suits against military personnel until their active duty is over.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It is really the game of ``Mother, may I?'' Or perhaps translated, ``Uncle Sam, may I?'' ``Washington bureaucrats, may I?'' ``May we make those changes?'' Well, a legitimate debate can continue on the role of the Federal Government, but when we have adopted policies that continue to concentrate power and authority in Washington, in the hands of bureaucrats instead of in the hands of duly elected officials, then we have serious problems. So it is really the wrong question for States to have to ask ``Mother, may I?'' or ``Uncle Sam, may I?'' In fact, the change should be that those States should be free and empowered to do the right thing in their own way. And we are joined by our good friend from California, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is correct. I will yield some time to drive up the price.

Mr. HAYWORTH. As my friend from Georgia points out, ofttimes in Washington-speak we hear of the safety net for those in society who truly are unfortunate, for those who through circumstances beyond their own control, with physical challenges, with economic traumas that exist, who truly need a safety net. But the sad fact is, by failing to end welfare as we know it, this President again has ensured that the safety net becomes a hammock for the very people who should be at work. Indeed, as the gentleman from Georgia is well aware, again in this election season, last Saturday the President of the United States chose to talk about real welfare reform that is being instituted in the great State of Wisconsin under Gov. Tommy Thompson. But the interesting thing is that President Clinton, while granting a couple of waivers to Wisconsin for revolutionary changes in that system, when Wisconsin wants to make further changes, he endorses the general concept but he has yet to come across with the real waivers. I champion our colleagues on this side of the aisle from Wisconsin who earlier today challenged the President of the United States to extend those waivers needed to take the next rational step in real welfare reform in Wisconsin. But of course, as my friend from Georgia knows, it was the plan of this new majority to go one better than all of that, to allow States not to apply for some waiver from those who would be seemingly omniscient or omnipotent here on the banks of the Potomac, here within the Washington bureaucracy, but instead be free to solve the problems themselves. I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It is not unfair at all. In fact, it is the beginning of true compassion.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Of course not.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, if the gentleman will yield, I could not help but notice the frequent citation of alleged poll numbers, and just the inherent retail action not of sound economic policy but retail politics at work here. Again, and I know the gentleman preceded me by a term here in Washington, but I cannot help but be struck by the false symbolism and the legislating for a therapeutic effect, a symbolic effect that in essence, as we have seen time and again, as we see in reports from the Progressive Policy Institute, as we read in the comments of the President's own Chairman of Economic Advisers, ultimately will kill jobs. It is an incredible irony. Small wonder then that I refer to this alleged minimum wage increase as the job killer act of 1996. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I think my friend from Georgia again is absolutely correct, for it is the fundamental irony that there is a supposition or a presumption emanating largely from the liberal side of this Chamber which would purport that those with entry-level jobs in the work force, the youngsters of whom you spoke earlier from your hometown of Savannah, Georgia, or people, young people living in the east valley around Mesa or Scottsdale, Arizona, or throughout the Sixth District of Arizona, that somehow once they take a job they are destined to be trapped at the very lowest rung of the economic ladder. Yet what we have found time and again, if people show up on time, if they work hard, if they do a good job, that is simply the entry level. They climb the rungs of the economic ladder. To somehow dismiss that, and always rely on the worst-case scenario or supposition that people are chained inexorably and always to the lowest rung of the economic ladder, betrays either the arrogance of which the gentleman spoke, the arrogance of the alleged competence of big government and a bureaucracy, or a fundamental misunderstanding of business, that productivity and hard work and old-fashioned gumption, a phrase my friend from Georgia may use from time to time, old-fashioned gumption will be rewarded with an increase based on an increase based on an increase in productivity. Let me yield to my friend again.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the gentleman, and first of all an observation, I am glad the gentleman's first job was at the International House of Pancakes. Had it been at the Waffle House, you might be in line for a job with the administration, considering the fact that they waffled on so much of this. But when so much attention is paid to California, electoral vote-rich California, let us put it in perspective so the campaigner-in-chief can understand full well, for the benefit of our friend at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue; could the gentleman find the figure on how many jobs? I know almost 9,000 jobs in my home State of Arizona, but since it takes the mention of the big C. California, to get the attention of my other friends busy electioneering, tell us how many jobs would be lost in the State of California, if you have that information?

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, I was recruited as right tackle, I ended up as left out. I want to be accurate with respect to my athletic career.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for offering us an object lesson this evening in the politics of symbolism and in the Washington shuffle, for my friend, the gentleman from California, has many gifts, among them an eloquence and a trust always in the role of government. But there are a few questions worth asking. For example, Mr. Speaker, if this were such a good idea, if the inflation tables that my friend, the gentleman from California, just brought forth as some sign of economic erosion, if that were so true, why then, 18 short months ago, when the roles in this Chamber were reversed, why then did not the gentleman from California, or under the old order, the Speaker of the House, or under the old order, the former majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri, now the minority leader, why, with the liberals in control of this Chamber and firmly ensconced at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, why did they not then offer an increase in the minimum wage? Why this new-found outrage? Why this Washington shuffle? It is a question worth asking, because once again, Mr. Speaker, as I stand in this well, I am absolutely confounded, not by the so-called gender gap that many of the media mavens and self-appointed potentates inside this Beltway would tell us about, but about the very genuine credibility canyon, a huge gulf that separates the rhetoric from the reality of the left, because there is a clear difference between the words uttered tonight and the tone of the action demanded tonight from that which this same administration proffered less than 2 years ago. In fact, Mr. Speaker, let us see what the President said, in his own words. Time Magazine, February 6, 1995, even in the wake of the historic shift in this Chamber, President Clinton: ``It,'' referring to raising the minimum wage, the President's own words, ``It is the wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners,'' These are the words of the President of the United States, who has, once again, waffled and changed his mind. Indeed, the chairman of the President's own Council of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote this. It appears in his 1992 textbook on economics: Only about 10 percent of people in poverty work at jobs that pay at or near the minimum wage. Thus, the minimum wage is not a good way of trying to deal with the problems of poverty. That is what Professor Stiglitz said. Chairman Stiglitz has gone the other way. Empirical data that exists of families in poverty: Out of every four families in poverty, only one-quarter, one out of every four families in poverty, would be eligible for an increase in the minimum wage. Families in poverty ineligible for an increase in the minimum wage, three out of every four, or 75 percent. We must understand, further, that indeed a minimum-wage increase should be retitled ``The Job-Killer Act of 1996.''

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas starts again the endless litany of bromides and class warfare. The fact is we can create jobs in this economy if we free those who create jobs to have more. What we do when we try to take the Government and say, ``You will do this or you will do that, Mr. Employer,'' is we shackle the very job opportunities that my friend from Texas purports to give honest working men and women. It comes down to this basic premise, and it is one of fairness: Do we empower all in this country to achieve all they can achieve; or would we have Government, through capricious action, tell those who create jobs, ``No, you are not entitled to create any more jobs; no, we are going to say to you we are going to penalize you for trying to create job opportunities, and instead it will be the Government who decides who giveth and, of course, the Government who, obviously, taketh away,'' with historic tax increases from this liberal side of the aisle and their liberal friends at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, listening again to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, I think back again to the Washington Post editorial that talked about Mediscare. Here they go again. Mr. Chairman, the fact is this: that spending per patient will increase from $5,200 to $7,000 under our plan. That is no cut. There is no increase in deductibles, copayments, or premiums. And the gentlewoman neglected to admit that the Medicare trust fund is $4 billion in arrears. That is unconscionable. That is why we must have this budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that again she misquotes people, not only an interesting use of numbers, but with reference to withering on the vine. The full record indicates, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut knows, the Speaker was referring to the Health Care Financing Administration and some of the problems with socialized medicine that existed in the former Soviet Union. That quote has been culled incorrectly. The gentlewoman from Connecticut knows this, as she also knows the fact that we are increasing expenditures per beneficiary. There is no dispute with that, nor is there a dispute, Mr. Chairman, with this cold, hard fact of reality: The Medicare trust fund is already $4 billion in arrears. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, at long last, have they no sense of decency left? Let us save Medicare for seniors, quit worrying about the next election, enact this budget, and save the program.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Connecticut, and I listened with interest to my colleague from Utah. I share the lament of one of his constituents, who, if I understand my friend correctly, said the argument seemed to be escaping the American people, by and large. We get caught up in too many arcane terms with reference to the budget. So we will attempt to both respond to my colleague from Utah and to his constituent; and, indeed, Mr. Chairman, to the American people. I think there is simply this fundamental difference. It may be a matter of degrees on the liberal side of the aisle, but essentially what our friends in the coalition are saying is this: ``We can change the way we spend money, but let us maintain control here in Washington, and let us maintain control,'' they say, ``with the vast Federal bureaucracy.'' Indeed, they use the same mechanisms of the past. Even in trying to have numbers meet in the middle, they have a philosophy which is more of the same: more taxing, more spending. The budget offered by my friends who call themselves Blue Dog would raise taxes $211 billion. The budget offered by the coalition would raise spending $74 billion. And of great concern to the seniors in the Sixth District of Arizona and nationwide, the coalition budget would give seniors $51 billion less over 6 years. The remedy is the same. It is regretable. Our colleagues who call themselves the Blue Dogs seek more of the green stuff from home. They want more of our money in taxes; they want more spending; and they want control here in Washington. Our budget saves our children's future, empowers people to be self- reliant, and shifts the money, power, and influence out of the hands of the Washington bureaucrats and back home to Main Street, to local government, to solve problems. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to reject the budget of the Blue Dogs and stay with the new vision for the future.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, again today we have a graphic example of two differing philosophies: one philosophy which places its trust in an ever- expanding, ever more powerful Federal bureaucracy, a philosophy that somehow confuses the notion of compassion and commitment. On the other hand, our new majority offers a budget that offers true compassion, for it faces up to the fact that if we do nothing to change our ways, and if by some miracle, the legislative equivalent of chewing gum and baling wire, this Republic endures and somehow averts the fiscal crisis that awaits it, children born today will pay in excess of $185,000 in interest on the national debt. Nothing could be more immoral. Nothing could be more egregious. So as we move to solve the problems, let us have the courage to acknowledge that in contrast to the budget offered here, all answers do not emanate from Washington, DC. All answers do not confuse compassion and commitment. The most compassionate thing we can do for this generation of seniors, for generations yet unborn, is to adopt a sensible, rational budget that at long last has Washington live within its limits and the American people truly compassionately live within their means.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to continue the dialog on balancing the Federal budget. As my colleagues know, the national debt now exceeds $5.1 trillion. Children born today will pay over $185,000 in interest on the debt alone if we do not rein in the Federal Government's excessive spending. Later this week, the House of Representatives will consider the 1997 budget resolution, which will put us on the path to balancing the budget. However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution is only an outline for balancing the budget. There are many different ways to accomplish this important goal. In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I offer to my colleagues a plan which one of my constituents, Arthur Walters from Payson, AZ, conceived to pay off the national debt. The Walters Plan to Balance the National Budget focuses on cutting spending and replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. I hope my colleagues will give this plan the full consideration it deserves. The Walters Plan to Balance the National Budget (By Arthur M. Walters) This plan addresses the key points of this difficult problem. 1. Congress spends more than the Treasury collects. 2. The Federal Government cannot accurately forecast revenue. It is always low. 3. The government prepares its ``wish list budget'' and then tries to predict where the funds will come from to pay for it. It is always optimist to say the least. The revenue never materializes. As the budget year progresses, the Treasury borrows money to pay its bills because the funds are not there when needed. 4. The IRS is incapable of administering the hodge podge Tax Code. It was carefully written so no one can understand it. This allows an army of tax experts to negotiate the tax obligations of everyone. It imposes a large expense on every tax payer just to figure this tax. 5. The author believes every single person should take personal responsibility for Federal spending. No one should escape. For those who have escaped so far, there will be great cries of injustice. Everyone has his own story of why he should be exempt. This must stop. This plan won't work if it does not stop. 6. There is no formula for budget cutting that can be agreed upon. The military, Social Security, defense contractors, welfare, etc., all have a bottomless need for money, as do thousands of government departments. A fresh, firm plan based on equality is needed. The public will accept fairness. To date, there never has been fairness in the Tax Code.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague from Texas brings to mind his first comment with reference to the majority leader in the other body. I think that the President should follow Senator Dole's example and he too should resign so we could have a good campaign. My good friend from Texas in his litany, in which he got a little bit tripped up, still follows this simple philosophy: If the Federal Government takes more of the everyday American's paycheck, it is good. If the Washington bureaucrats have more and more and more of your money, Mr. Speaker, it is good. To our friends on the other side, that is justice. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In the midst of all the arcane arguments offered by the liberal side, remember one thing. We have to save this country for today's seniors and for generations yet unborn, and we do not do so by engaging in playground taunts and failing to own up to the serious problems we confront as a nation. Pass the Kasich budget. Reject the old-style order.