Walter Jones

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, my district consists of approximately 18,000 farms. Most of these farms engage in the production of cucumbers, sweet potatoes, tobacco, and peanuts, very labor-intensive work. Roughly 80 percent of the produce in my district is harvested by seasonal migrant workers. Throughout our Nation, as in North Carolina, seasonal workers have helped labor-intensive farm commodities to become the fastest growing sector of the U.S. agricultural world. However, farmers in the South are having a very difficult time finding people to do farm work. If it was not for the migrant workers, our farmers would not be able to harvest their crops. We need to guarantee our farmers an ample supply of legal workers. The Pombo- Chambliss amendment creates a workable solution to this important issue. It admits temporary workers by creating a 3-year pilot program with an annual cap on the number of workers admitted. Congress is trying to control illegal immigration, not destroy the work force of the American farmer. Please support the Pombo amendment.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 Presidential campaign games are in full swing. While the Republicans continue to work toward a balanced budget to fulfill last year's promise, the President wants Congress to spend an additional $8 billion on a host of Federal programs. Most of these programs are to appease his liberal constituents in order to shore up his tax-and-spend liberal base. The President has requested $2 million for the Ounce of Prevention Council. This 2-year-old program has not administered one single grant during its existence. Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to keep the Government running and to work with the President to produce a balanced budget, but we will not continue to decorate the national budget like a Christmas tree with the President's pet projects. We will not borrow money from our children's future for this kind of wasteful spending.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, the President has again issued an ultimatum that we, as Republicans, must allow an additional $8 billion to be spent on a host of Federal programs which many of these programs are nothing but pork barrel type projects. This spending is to satisfy the liberal groups that he needs for the upcoming election. Especially, the supporters of the National Endowment of the Arts. I appreciate art as much as the next person. But, Mr. Speaker, it simply makes no sense to continue to tax working people's incomes to pay for works of art which insults and demean the values they hold dear. It especially makes no sense to lay off Federal employees--with children to feed and bills to pay--so that the Government can continue to spend the taxpayer money on art which insults the religious values of the people who are being forced to pay for this so-called art. We must stop this misuse of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, wages are down and taxes are up. The middle class is slowly being squeezed by liberal economic policies put in place by the Clinton administration. Now we hear that the White House has requested an additional $8 billion for corporate welfare and social engineering programs. This is basically a Clinton reelection pork package. What really rattles me about this request is that the Clinton administration wants $10 million more for the National Endowment for the Arts. This is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of seeing their hard- earned tax dollars wasted on projects that go out of their way to offend traditional values. It is outrageous that Bill Clinton would ask for an additional $10 million for this program in order to please the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, despite large increases in Federal spending, test scores for students in the United States continue to fall. In fact, according to a recent study, United States students scored far below Japanese and British students in all subjects for which there were comparisons. In some subjects, Japanese students came very close to doubling scores of United States students. So, what is the President's answer to this problem? More spending and more programs. This is not the answer. Last week, Chairman Goodling held a press conference to discuss his committee's finding that there are 760 Federal education programs scattered throughout 39 separate departments, agencies, and commissions. This web of Federal programs costs over $120 billion per year to educate citizens on everything from the disposal of boat sewage to citizenship. Each of these programs has its own application process, and each requires large amounts of staff time to administer--on the Federal, State, and local levels. Money spent on redundant programs is money not spent on our children. This must change.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to support the House Committee on Agriculture peanut program. The reforms within this bill are extensive. The peanut program will become a no net cost to the taxpayer, a $434 million saving. Specifically, the support price has been cut 10 percent, reducing the farmers' income by 20 percent, or $200 million annually. Even after these and other reforms, urban lawmakers want to further reduce the price or completely do away with the program. My fellow Members, further reductions to the price support level or elimination of the program altogether will cause the economic ruin of America's 15,000 peanut farm families and the thousands of rural communities they support. Furthermore, American consumers will not benefit from lower prices if the program is eliminated. In fact, American consumers already enjoy the lowest peanut prices in the world. Vote for reform. Vote ``no'' on the Shays-Lowey amendment.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to a great American, a great Army officer, and a greater soldier. Last month Lt. Col. David Schock completed over 24 years of dedicated service to our country. As a soldier, leader and finally as a trusted member of the Army's Office of Congressional Liaison, House Division, he has provided dedicated and distinguished service. Today as we honor his retirement, we reflect on the outstanding career which David started in 1972 when he enlisted in the Army. Less than 2 years later, David successfully completed Officer Candidate School and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the infantry. David went on to complete the Rotary Wing Aviator Course and became proficient in the AH1 Cobra, CH47 Chinook, UH1 Huey, and OH58 Scout. Over the course of the past 24 years, he served in a variety of exceptionally challenging troop and staff assignments in the United States, Hawaii, and Alaska. His positions of leadership include Aviation Section Commander, Aviation Platoon Leader, Aviation Company Commander, and Squadron Executive. As a staff officer he saw duty in many tough and challenging assignments to include Brigade and Battalion Personnel Officer and Battalion Intelligence Officer, validating the confidence the Army placed in his demonstrated abilities. After serving in the field with many aviation units, David Schock demonstrated his superb organizational skills while serving as the Aviation Branch Assignments Officers and as the Combat Arms Division Coordinator for the U.S. Army Military Personnel Command. His selection as a headquarters, Department of the Army Staff Officer further demonstrated the high regard in which David is held by the leadership of the Army. This led to his final assignment as a Congressional Liaison Officer for the Secretary of the Army, first in programs working personnel issued and lastly in the House Liaison Division. During David Schock's tour in Army Legislative Liaison, he guided the Army's relationship with a wide variety of Committees and individual Members of Congress. His ability to remain calm and focused during a period of tremendous change was demonstrated continually in his dealings with both Members of Congress, Professional Staff and Personal Staff. Through David Schock's involvement with the Speaker of the House and his Staff and the House National Security and International Relations Committees, he ensured that the very best service was provided to the Congress and that the Army and its programs were professionally represented. David Schock's career reflects a commitment to our Nation, characterized by dedicated selfless service, love for the Army and a commitment to excellence. Lieutenant Colonel David Schock's performance, almost a quarter of a century of service, personifies the traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its Army Officers. On behalf of the Congress of the United States and the people of this great Nation, I offer our heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for a soldier who served his country so admirably.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I was home the last couple of weeks, and I represent eastern North Carolina, the Third District. I am a freshman, and I campaigned with a promise to the people of my district and the people of America that I would work with my colleagues to balance the budget. I had to come to the floor when I hear some of these scare tactics of not meeting our obligations as a government and letting this Government default. That is such an outrageous statement, and the people in my district do not believe that. I am a little bit tired, from Medicare to default, that we are going to let the Government default, we are not going to take care of our senior citizens. I want to make just a couple of comments. My father served in the U.S. Congress for 26 years. He was a Member of the other side, a Democrat, and many times we would talk about in the late 1980's why the Congress did not balance the budget. And several times he would make the statement to me, ``Well, Walter, you know, we could have chaos if we do. Programs would be cut. People would feel threatened.'' I would say to my father, ``Father, I don't understand if we don't balance the budget, we also are going to have economic chaos,'' and that is what this debate is all about. When we know the General Accounting Office, the GAO, says that in 17 years without a balanced budget, working people will pay 80 cents out of a dollar. People are not going to stand for that. We have got to deal with these problems now, and putting our heads in the sand is not going to solve these problems. We have got to deal with the problems now. I just could not sit in the office and hear this debate go any further. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. JONES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with amazement as the President calls upon Republicans to pass a clean increase in the debt ceiling. Well, let me just say right now, there is nothing clean about stealing another trillion dollars from our children. Mr. Speaker, Republicans already passed a responsible increase in the debt limit. It was part of the Balanced Budget Act. The President choose to veto it. We put it very clearly to the President: We are not going to let our Nation default on its debt, but we will not give the President a blank check to spend more money. That is exactly what the President is asking for: a blank check, so he can spend not our money, but our children's money. Mr. Speaker, default is not an option and Republicans will not let the President's irresponsibility let that happen. We will give him the chance to sign yet another increase in the debt ceiling. But we won't do it without at least providing a downpayment on a balanced budget.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of the original conference report, I would like to express my strong support for this new and improved version of the 1996 Department of Defense conference report. This legislation, as my colleagues well know, is critical both to the functions of the Department, as well as to the men and women in uniform, who diligently serve this Nation. As has been stated time and again, this conference report provides a 2.4-percent pay raise, increases family housing, improves health care for military dependents, and funds overdue COLA equity for military retirees. While the original conference report garnered the support of both the House and Senate, the President vetoed the measure. Chairman Spence has brought back to this House a conference report that adequately deals with the President's concerns, while carefully balancing the priorities of this Congress. I believe this effort to build a consensus between congressional leadership and the administration is sound and once again merits the support of the House.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of the most important debate in decades--do we balance the budget or do we allow the out of control spending to continue. If we do not balance the budget now, it will never happen. We have worked for months on developing a plan that would protect future generations and the country's fiscal solvency. Our balanced budget offers the American people a dividend. Just a month ago, President Clinton agreed to work with us to achieve a balanced budget using CBO numbers. However, once again the President has back peddled playing politics as usual. He is more concerned with power and spending taxpayer money than he is about our children's future. We have offered a reasonable, responsible balanced budget which benefits the American people. President Clinton, it is time for to put the political games aside and start working on behalf of the American people.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments about my father. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the national defense authorization conference report. This bill acts upon the promise this House made to our military and the American people with our Contract With America. It begins addressing the growing shortfalls in our national defense, it improves the quality of life for our military personnel while sustaining core military readiness. It contains enough of the central provisions and benefits, such as a full pay raise, improving housing allowances, and essential medical benefits. It highlights the importance of the military reserves and provides for their increased participation. For our military, there are just as many threats and needs in the world today as ever before. With this bill, we are meeting the needs of our military while balancing the budget. We need to support the rule.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, last fall the electorate called for the role of the Government to change and the size of the Government to be reduced. With downsizing and budget cutting, we in Government will need to do more for less. We must look for cost-effective entrepreneurial approaches to providing services to our country. Reinventing Government includes programs related to national security. Not all national security programs need to be Government owned and staffed. Some activities essential to national security can be provided by provided by the private sector, functioning in a commercial environment, but readily available to the Government when needed for national security. There is no debate whether ships and seafarers are needed to carry U.S. military cargo and supplies to the areas of conflict. The issue is whether some of the sealift can be provided by the private sector at a substantially reduced cost to the Government, compared to the alternative of a full-time Government fleet fully paid for by the Government. Both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration recognized the need for abundant sealift capacity, especially with the reduction of forces overseas and the experiences of the Persian Gulf war. Both administrations proposed the use of U.S.-owned and U.S.- crewed commercial vessels to provide supplemental sustainment lift of military cargo and supplies. Dedicated Government-owned ships would continue to be used for immediate surge lift. The continuous carriage of cargo, called sustainment lift, would be transported on commercial vessels. At the same time, both administrations recognized the need to reinvent the existing maritime program, reduce its costs, and deregulate its operations. They would replace the old subsidy program based on a cost differential between foreign and Government and the private industry to provide modern and efficient ships with U.S.- citizen crews when needed for war and national emergencies. Flat-fee contracts would be approximately one-half the cost of the old programs. The new maritime program would cost the Government $100 million per year for 52 ships. The private sector would be providing to the Government 52 ships worth $5 billion paid for by the private sector. In addition to buying the vessel with private funds, the U.S. shipowner saves the Government the related inermodal transportation assets that would cost billions to duplicate. Also, rather than hiring a full-time Government crew, the Government would have use of well-trained and loyal merchant mariners when needed. Some critics propose eliminating all support for our vital maritime industry. They fail to see how shortsighted it would be to kill a program primarily financed by the private sector which would eventually be replaced by a much more costly Government program. Legislation reported out of the National Security Committee (H.R. 1350) and the Senate Commerce Committee (S. 1189) provides for a core fleet of approximately 50 vessels for $100 million per year. Since 1936, the old program has cost between $200 to $400 million a year. When the Government reinvents the way it does business, it looks at the need for the program, the cost of the program, and the efficiency of the program. There is no question that there is a need for sealift. As far as the costs are concerned, the new program costs are cut in half, and, by using the private sector for sustainment sealift, the Government saves billions of dollars which otherwise would be needed to buy and maintain a Government fleet. While I believe that there is much to be done to make our domestic commercial fleet more competitive with its foreign rivals, it is important that we recognize the role of that domestic fleet as part of our national defense capability. I am one who supports initiatives to reduce the size and cost of Government. We must be aware of false economies, however, it would be foolish to try to save $100 million this year, only to spend billions when the Government must step in to assure its national security.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. This obviously is a very special privilege for me, one that I doubt very few sons in the history of the Congress have. I am honored and humbled, quite frankly, to be on the floor at this time to say thank you to the U.S. House for remembering my father in such a special and very permanent way. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] was right about my father. He loved the Congress, he loved the people in the Congress, and was a man that has served, that did serve, I should say, for 26 years. I certainly must tell my colleagues that not only am I and my family honored by them remembering my father, but also the constituents that elected my father to 13 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. My father appreciated the work of this wonderful and great institution and the men and women that made this institution and are today making this institution so great. My father also appreciated the staff that worked with him as chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and also the staff in his office, both in the district and also in Washington, as well as the members of the staff that work around the House and the Capitol and the women that operate the elevators. He was a man that appreciated his fellow man and a person that never forgot his roots, and that is why I think my father for so many years, even when his health because of age was beginning to fail him and he had to campaign, quite frankly, in a wheelchair back in the district, and many times candidates much younger would oppose my father. Yet my father would get better than 70 percent of the vote each and every time, and the reason for that was because my father never forgot the people back home that gave him the privilege and the honor to represent them. So I say to my colleagues again that this is an honor for me to be on this floor to thank my colleagues of the U.S. House of Representatives, that they thought so much of my father that they would want to remember him in this very special way. If I may close, because I see one of my father's many friends, and before I close let me say that it has been a very humbling experience to have men and women from both sides of the aisle to tell me how much they respected and thought of my father, and the two words that they used that made me feel so proud of my father was that he was a gentleman and that he was fair. That to me, they are two of the best words that can be said about a person, that he is a gentleman and that he is a fair person. I see my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], who among many that came down to my father's funeral, and I think the second or third month that I was here, maybe in February or March, that Gene came up to me, and he handed me this index card, and he said, ``Walter, I think it is only appropriate that you have this,'' and I would like to close with this, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Gene handed me this, and he said, ``It is a note that I took at your father's funeral,'' and he said, ``I wrote it down right after the minister used this quote from Everett Hale,'' and the quote is, and I think this fits my father and many of us that served in the U.S. House of Representatives; it says: ``I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do, and, with the help of God, I will do it.'' Mr. Speaker, I close with that because I think they are very powerful words, and again I know I am being repetitious, but this is a very emotional time for me. I can only say in very simple, simple words, ``Thank you so very much.''

Mr. JONES. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, Republicans passed a balanced budget with specific plans that reflect the priorities of the American people. However, the President has said we did not increase spending as much as he would like. So we asked him to tell us exactly how much more he wants to spend and where exactly he is going to get the money from: Higher taxes or other cuts. So far he has refused to tell us. Once the President comes forward with his priorities and how much more he wants to spend, I am confident negotiations will move quickly toward a balanced budget.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, last night was a great victory for the American people. For once, the Washington establishment put our children's future ahead of its own. We are firmly on a course to turn the Government away from the disgraceful spending spree it has been on for a generation. What was so important about last night's agreement was that the President made a solid, binding commitment to use honest scoring, while we balance the budget. I will quote from the continuing resolution: ``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, * * *'' This binding agreement is not only a victory for those of us on this side of the aisle--we stuck to our priorities and we will have a balanced budget. This is also a victory for all Americans. And most important the next generation.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, the national debt is over $4.9 trillion. Yesterday Bill Clinton distanced himself from balancing the budget. Is that not sad? We have an almost $5 trillion debt and the President of the United States does not want to address the problem. Last night Congress acted in good faith to reopen the parts of Government that are shut down. Many Democrats joined with Republicans to say that we want to end the budget crisis and balance the budget. The President says he will veto our efforts. Bill Clinton would rather make excuses and play word games with the American people. All the while our national debt piles up and our families suffer the burden of our debt. Mr. Speaker, the President should end the games and help us balance the budget.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to ask the gentleman, what is so extreme about saving Medicare, balancing the budget, reforming welfare, giving tax breaks to families with children? What is so extreme? We keep hearing the word ``extreme'' today, used on us, that we are trying to do extreme things. If we are extreme, then they are saying that the American people are extreme. The President keeps saying ``extreme.'' I do not see anything extreme in what we are doing. We are doing exactly what the American people have asked us to do.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I got the same type of phone calls today. I just want to go back to this extremism that is coming from the President and the liberals. If you want to talk about extremism, I have a daughter that is 13 also, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot]. If you project out, if nothing is done to balance our budget to get this spending under control, in the year 2030 my daughter, midway through her life and through her career, will have hanging over her head not-- you know, today we have approximately a $5 trillion debt. That is the debt. But in the year 2030, let us look at this extreme number, the deficit spending for one year, just one year, will be $4 trillion. That is mind-boggling. We cannot continue, we cannot go on and survive as a Nation with that kind of spending.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, the Government has not balanced its books since 1969. Since then, we have had 26 years of excuses, 26 years of Washington gimmicks, and 26 years of righteous indignation about balancing the budget. Well, the blame game is over. Congress has reached the end of the excuses. Our balance budget lays aside the gimmicks and the shell games. We can no longer ignore the impact of deficit spending on our children. It would be nothing less than moral irresponsibility to look our children in the eye and say to them, that they should continue to shoulder our burdens because we do not have the guts to do what is right. Mr. Speaker, the President has two clear choices. He can choose a balanced budget and secure a brighter future for all Americans, or he can choose a dark future for our families and our children.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. That is a personal problem.

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, this has been a great hour and I really have enjoyed and appreciate everybody that has joined us. I know we are getting down to the last 2 or 3 minutes, but to share with those that are watching tonight, that all the good that can come from the balanced budget, always remember that if we balance the budget, that we can create 6.1 million new jobs in the next 10 years. We are not just talking about, as I mentioned earlier, a child born this year, we are talking about the good that can come to this country in the way of new jobs and new opportunities for our people. I thank each and every one. I know we are not quite through, but thank you for joining me and I have enjoyed being with you.