Walter Jones

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I enjoyed your comments, and you made the statement that we are really not cutting programs. I want to share this with you. The total government spending over the next 7 years under the Republican plan would continue to grow an average of 3 percent per year. Social Security spending is slated to rise about 5 percent per year, and Medicare growth will average 6.4 percent. So when the liberals keep saying we are cutting, we do not care about the poor, they are so wrong, we do care about the poor and we care about every American's future.

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, the point that I want to make too is that not only are we starting to eliminate the deficit, but what we want to do is to begin to reduce this $5 trillion debt that we are talking about, and then after we are done with that, then we can start reducing further Federal income taxes and really shift control of the State and local levels, so that if Texas wants a sea wall, they can go to their State and local authorities and fund that and have dollars that go a lot farther to solve the problem, and we can contribute to our churches' and charities' nonprofit organizations to take care of the poor and needy and for once be effective doing it.

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman from Arizona would yield for just a moment, because the comments that the gentleman has made, as well as the other gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], I wanted to share this with my colleagues, because as we talk about the debt, roughly $4.9 trillion, $5 trillion, and we talk about the debts of this Nation, I want to share this with my colleagues, that the bipartisan Concord Coalition reports that debt and deficit spending have lowered the income of American families by an average of $15,000 a year. Very quickly, let me repeat that. The bipartisan Concord Coalition reports that debt and deficit spending by this Congress have lowered the income of American families by an average of $15,000 a year. You are absolutely right. That is why the new majority is here and I am proud to be a part with you gentlemen tonight.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California, I think I was in that same meeting, but I would appreciate if the gentleman would reaffirm what I thought I heard from those four economists, one statement they made: Since the Republican majority had been the majority, that the interest rates had dropped by 2 points, and if we should pass a balanced budget, because many of the markets feel that maybe it is more talk than action, but that if we did balance the budget, that it was accepted and we balanced the budget, that the rates could almost within a certain number of months drop to 5 percent. Does the gentleman remember that?

Mr. JONES. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I appreciate him making reference to my father who did serve for 26 years in the U.S. Congress representing the First District of North Carolina. It is very humbling to hear comments from both Democrats and Republicans, the elevator operators as well as those on the police force, how much they thought of him as a fair man and a good man. I really appreciate you mentioning his name. I will tell you that my father and I both discussed my change of party affiliation. I used to be a Democrat, served 10 years in the North Carolina General Assembly. Quite frankly, as you mentioned, my father was a conservative. He said to me, he said, Walter, I do not think that you nor myself, he was speaking, belong in the Democratic Party because they have become so liberal. They are out of touch with the people. I think my friend from Arizona as well as my friends from Texas and yourself have mentioned that this country needs leadership. When a child is born in this country today--and I know I have said it 100 times, and each one of you, but it is so important. A child born in this country today, 1995, the time they take their first breath they owe $187,000 in taxes, $187,000 in taxes. If they live to be 75 years of age and we do not balance the budget, then they will pay $187,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the debt. Our children deserve the American dream, not the American debt. That is why this new Congress, my fellow freshmen, you and the gentlemen from Texas, Arizona, and California and the gentleman from Florida that just had to leave, we know what the American people want. We are here to make those decisions. Yes, I will tell my colleagues, they are tough decisions. But I will also share with my colleagues and those watching that, when I go home every weekend but four in 11 months, and I drive home and drive back, I see the people. The people say to me, Walter, do not stray, stay committed, balance this budget, because where the liberals forget, they try to scare the senior citizens about Medicare. Yet we are promising an increase in Medicare. We are promising choices for our senior citizens. We are giving them the choices that they deserve to have. We are giving them the security that they deserve to have. Yet, the other side keeps trying to scare the senior citizens. I would tell the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], it is not working in my district. The people in my district have enough confidence in me and my fellow colleagues that they trust us to do what is right to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. The other point I would like to make before closing is that when you have a country where the average working family in this country today will spend more on paying taxes than that same average working family will spend on clothing, housing, or food, how can they ever realize the American dream? They cannot. That is why they turned to the Republican party last November, almost 365 days ago, because they said, ``We want a change. We want to believe that this is the greatest country in the world. We think that you, under the new Republican conservative leadership, you will give us the hope that the liberals have taken away from us through taxes and regulations.'' Yes, I am pleased to be with you tonight. I am proud to be part of the new majority that cares about America.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, before I introduce those that are joining me tonight, I am pleased to share with those that might be viewing that tomorrow will be one year since the new Republican Majority was elected. Tonight, I am pleased to have at least five or six of my colleagues, freshmen colleagues from throughout the United States of America. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] the second gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman]. Possibly, before we finish the 1 hour, the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, we all are freshmen that were elected last year to help change America. To build a better America, if you will. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield my time so that the gentleman from Arizona can kind of be the floor leader to keep this dialog for 1 hour going and that we can help to inform the American people that might be watching. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers be given until midnight tonight, November 6, 1995, to file a conference report on the Senate bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Stokes motion. However, I do so with one serious reservation. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill has been controversial. It has been controversial because of significant spending cuts. But has also been controversial because of the riders that were included. Mr. Speaker, I originally voted for these riders when first presented to the House because I believed--and continue to believe--that they represent one of the few approaches available to Congress to halt regulatory abuses by the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore I must oppose the motion to instruct the conferees to drop all of the riders. However, Mr. Speaker, subsequent to those votes new scientific evidence has been brought to my attention which has caused me to alter my position on two of the riders. I have concluded that serious questions exist about the cement kiln method of disposal of high-level hazardous waste, and thus the riders which affect that industry. In addition to scientific evidence, there have been recent televised news reports which detail shockingly high rates of mental and physical birth defects in the vicinity of cement kilns. These kilns have unacceptably high emission [[Page H 11703]] levels of some of the most hazardous substances know. The EPA has noted that cement kilns burning hazardous waste produce dust--a by-product of burning hazardous waste--that contains 70 to 700 times more dioxins than kilns which do not burn hazardous waste. According to the EPA, cement kilns are the second largest source of toxic mercury emissions. Annually over 2,400 newborns and infants will be exposed to, and subsequently poisoned by, mercury emissions from cement kilns. The EPA points out that cement kilns are the third highest source of toxic and cancer-causing emissions right behind medical waste incinerators and municipal waste incinerators. None of the 24 hazardous waste burning cement kilns operates under final permits subject to public review, although EPA is beginning the process at some of the kilns. Most citizens surrounding these plants do not even know that the kilns are burning the same hazardous wastes that commercial hazardous waste that commercial hazardous waste incinerators must manage under very restrictive conditions. So, Mr. Speaker, while I must oppose the motion to instruct the conferees to disregard all of the riders, it is my hope that they will be made thoroughly aware of all of the scientific evidence in this matter--not just that of one side--and that they will drop the two riders pertaining to the cement kiln method of hazardous waste disposal.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to keep track of where Bill Clinton stands on balancing the budget. In 1992, candidate Clinton said he would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget. In his book ``Putting People First,'' candidate Clinton said that the deficit could be cut in half in 4 years. This year President Clinton has said that the budget could be balanced in 10 years, in 9 years, in 8 years, and, now, 7 years. Everyone knows that Bill Clinton has been AWOL on the budget. He says one thing one day, another thing another day. Not even leaders in his own party can predict with any degree of accuracy what Bill Clinton will do or say. Mr. Speaker, the time for excuses and double-talk are over. It is time for the President to show courage and leadership and sign a real balanced budget.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, today is the day we vote to save, protect, and preserve Medicare. Today is the day we show the seniors that we care about them and their future. The Medicare Preservation Act is an honest, realistic, up-front bill, that provides real reform for our current Medicare system. It will ensure that seniors have the right to stay in their present Medicare plan, but will also offer choices to those looking for a change. The Medicare Preservation Act attacks waste, fraud, and abuse in order to provide real accountability for the taxpayers dollars. Yes, Mr. Speaker, today is the day we vote to save Medicare for the next generation. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Medicare Preservation Act.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, there is much talk throughout our Nation about reforming the way Washington, DC operates. The people are upset about the way politicians have been conducting business. One reason that people are upset is because they see political appointees abusing their position using tax dollars to work on reelection campaigns instead of doing the jobs they are paid to do. Mr. Speaker, last week the people of eastern North Carolina got a firsthand example of that abuse. A Clinton political appointee in the Department of Agriculture was assigned to contact one of the newspapers in my district. He not only called to use the agricultural appropriations bill to campaign against Republicans, he also called to campaign against Medicare, student loans, and other issues. What in the world is an Under Secretary of Agriculture doing campaigning about programs that have absolutely nothing to do with his job on taxpayers time? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the Clinton administration talks about the need for reform but at the same time they are using taxpayers' dollars to campaign for reelection. He called to talk about how much the Clinton administration cares about rural North Carolina, but at the same time the Clinton administration is recommending policies that would destroy the economy of rural eastern North Carolina. As Gene Price, the editor of the Goldsboro News-Argus stated in an editorial, and I quote: Bill Clinton is the biggest enemy of the tobacco farmer ever to sit in the White House. Tobacco farmers aren't stupid. The man who has been going for their jugular ever since he has been in Washington now has the gall to send his emissary on a scare-the-hell-out-of- 'em mission telling North Carolina farmers the Republicans are threatening their tobacco program. I further quote Mr. Price: Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress should not be fooled. Certainly the Third District's Walter Jones, Jr. sees the President's campaign for what it is. Mr. Speaker, the Goldsboro News-Argus is right. The President's campaign is exactly that, a political campaign paid for with your tax dollar. Every single Member of Congress from North Carolina, Republican and Democrat alike, voted for the agriculture appropriations bill. It is the Clinton administration, not Congress, that is trying to destroy the tobacco farmers. Mr. Speaker, it is the Clinton administration that is now trying to classify nicotine as a drug. It is the Clinton administration that is trying to put families that have grown tobacco for generations into the same category as Asian poppy growers. Now this same Clinton administration has the gall to have its political appointees call my district to say that he, Bill Clinton, is worried about what the Republicans might do to tobacco. The bad news, Mr. Speaker, is that this kind of hypocrisy only adds to the cynicism about all people in public life. The good news is that the people of eastern North Carolina have long ago figured out the Clinton crowd. The working people of eastern North Carolina who pay their taxes, go to church and play by the rules know that there is very little relationship between what this administration does and says and really what it does and says in reality. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many Clinton political appointees call my district to say otherwise, the people of eastern North Carolina know that an administration that is trying to destroy the tobacco farmer does not care about rural North Carolina. In the future, Mr. Speaker, I would advise the President to have his political appointees confine their campaigning to Hollywood or to San Francisco [[Page H 10471]] or to some other place where the people have not yet figured out that this administration's word means very little. But he is going to have his government employees do his campaigning for him. At least have them do it on their own time. That would be the beginning of real reform.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, through the years, the cost to seniors has increased as the costs of the program has increased--but the Medicare benefit package still reflects 1965-style medicine. And seniors simply are not getting the options that other Americans are receiving. Seniors are now spending, on average, 21 percent of their annual income on health care-related expenses. Our Medicare plan provides health security for today's and tomorrow's seniors. Medicare Plus will allow seniors to choose from several plans. Basically, seniors can stay in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, or they can exercise the right to choose a plan that better serves their needs--everything from eyeglasses to dental care. Each plan must offer as good a benefit package as Medicare currently offers. The proposal attacks waste and fraud through an incentive program for seniors. This plan is necessary. We must do something to equate the system for seniors while ensuring its stability for future generations.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party has boldly led the 104th Congress in the effort to save Medicare. However, these efforts are being challenged by Washington-based special interest groups who are receiving tax dollars. The AFL-CIO has received $1.3 million in Federal grants but has spent $1.4 million attacking Medicare. The AARP has received $24 million and the National Council of Senior Citizens received $71 million. The American taxpayers should not be forced to fund lobbyists who intentionally mislead our elderly. The Medicare Preservation Act will preserve Medicare for future generations, protect the program so that Medicare will stay as the beneficiaries know it to be, and strengthen it to provide coverage options, that empower citizens to choose the health plan that fits their needs. Instead of helping save Medicare, these special interest groups are trying to hold back the progress that must be made.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on something the gentleman is going to touch on in a second. I just want to read a paragraph to him and the gentleman from Washington that is in the Washington Post dated September 15, Friday, and I do not think any one of us could say that the Washington Post is pro-Republican philosophy. So, therefore, I think it is worthy that I should read this to you and those that might be viewing. It says: Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole accused the Democrats and their allies yesterday of conducting a campaign based on distortion and fear to block the cuts in projected Medicare spending that are the core of the Republican effort to balance the budget in the next seven years. They're right; that's precisely what the Democrats are doing--it's pretty much all they're doing--and it's crummy stuff. This is from the Washington Post, September 15, and I read that because of what you just said. I want to share with you and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] that back in my district we are basically a rural district. Many of the senior citizens are so dependent on Medicare, and I can honestly tell you that right now they believe that we are sincere, that we are going to do what has to be done to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Medicare for our senior citizens, and I can tell you even though the other side, and not everybody on the other side, but some, are trying to scare the senior [[Page H 9585]] citizens in my district, it is not working. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, is it not correct that 1996 will be the first year that there will be more money going out of the fund than coming in, and, for an example, what we are talking about is $1 billion more going out of the fund in 1996 than coming in?

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, I join you and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] in your efforts. I think I am a cosponsor of the bill, and I join you in looking at the possibility of downsizing or totally eliminating the Department of Education. I could not agree more, having served in the North Carolina General Assembly for 10 years; I know the States can do a better job of working with the counties, working with the teachers and the parents in the counties and throughout the State, of doing a better job of educating our young people than the Federal Government can.

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield to touch on another subject or item in the Contract With America, and the gentleman or the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] might speak to this, that we had legislation that would strengthen families by giving greater control to parents as it related to education. We also strengthened the child support programs so that the fathers that were not meeting their responsibilities of being a father in a divorce situation, that they would have come up with the money to support that child and also we got tough with child pornography. I believe that these were part of the Contract With America and, generically speaking, some of the areas that we spoke to in our legislation, again, what the American public wanted to see.

Mr. JONES. Am I correct, and please correct me, the gentleman from Ohio as well as the gentleman from Washington, I believe I have seen or read that since the beginning of the Great Society in the mid 1960's, this Nation has spent over $5 trillion on welfare-type programs.

Mr. JONES. Just a couple of other points with the Contract With America. The American people want to see a real true welfare reform bill. They want to see the Congress strengthen our military defenses so that we are adequately prepared to protect this Nation. I want to touch on that just a moment because I am on National Security, and I also have 3 bases that are in my district. For the past few years, the Congress in passing the Department of Defense budget, many times in that Department of Defense budget were allocations for nondefense items. I want to touch on that just a moment. Between 1990 and 1993, the GAO, the General Accounting Office, said that the Department of Defense budget between 1990 and 1993, $10.4 billion in those 3 years went to nondefense spending. As the new Republican majority in our Contract With America, we have established a fire wall, so that no dollars under the Republican leadership that are going to the defenses of this Nation can be used for nondefense items. I think that is extremely important, because quite frankly over the past few years, our defenses have not gotten what they need to protect this Nation. I think that is just one of many items in our Contract With America, to help strengthen our defenses. I just wanted to mention that. [[Page H 9582]]

Mr. JONES. Is it true that the President, President Clinton as a candidate for the presidency campaigned and said he is going to insist that we have welfare reform, he is going to see that welfare reform takes place, and I sincerely believe, I do not know if you would agree or not, that had it not been for the American people electing a Republican majority in the House and the Senate, I doubt we would have welfare reform which today we have on the House and Senate side, we are passing a major welfare reform bill.

Mr. JONES. I want to add to that list. The gentleman is absolutely right. When we can help working families with children, that is the right thing to do. The other side, I certainly do not criticize them, even though I do not agree with them, but certainly in my opinion, they are out of touch with the working man and woman in this country. You listed some of the changes that we want to see as it relates to taxes. I was pleased this past couple of weeks, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], a Republican, one of the young leaders in this House of Representatives, introduced a bill to repeal the inheritance tax. I do not know about your State and your district, but I can tell you that in my district, eastern North Carolina, the people of my district think one of the most unfair taxes, maybe the most unfair tax is the inheritance tax. When a man, a women has worked all their life, paid taxes all their life, to accumulate and hopefully leave something to their child or their children and then the children have to pay taxes on it. I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and the new Republican leadership for being willing to at least get this debate started on repealing the inheritance tax. There are so many good things that we are doing.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I represent the third district in North Carolina, which is the coastal area of the eastern part of the State. During the campaign for Congress, and again as the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Washington said, I used the contract with every civic club I had a chance to speak to. Every time I had a chance to meet with any group or any individual, I talked about the Contract With America. So many times I would hear from working men and women, we cannot afford more taxes. We cannot afford this government to continue to grow on our backs as we are working two jobs, in many cases. This came to me in conversation with an individual: I am working two jobs, my wife is working two jobs, we are doing the best we can, but we see that the harder we work, the further we get behind. The reason for that, and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio talking about the fact of balancing the budget without raising taxes. In this country today, the average working family would spend more on paying taxes than that same average working family would spend on clothing, housing or food. How can they ever realize the American dream when they work more and longer hours, they pay more in taxes? That is not what this country should be about, and again, I think that is another reason why we have the opportunity and the privilege that we have to make the changes in this country that the American people would like to see made.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to something that the gentleman from Washington said about the first day that I think is unique, and really I think said to the American people, we did hear you, we heard you clearly. In addition to what the gentleman from Washington said, that very first day, the first 12 hours, in addition to the reforms that the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] mentioned, we saved the taxpayers $72 million in the very first 12 hours. We did it, as the gentleman from Washington said, by reducing the committee staffs by one-third, saving roughly $67 million. A lot of people did not know this, but in the past, the caucuses that we have within the House of Representatives, those caucuses were being paid for by the taxpayers to the tune of about $5 million. So the first 12 hours of the first day of the new Republican Congress, we saved the taxpayers $72 million in addition to the reforms that Mr. Tate and Mr. Chabot mentioned.

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