[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12328-H12334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CREDIBILITY CANYON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, tonight as the shadows descend from coast 
to coast, it is worth noting that life goes on in these United States, 
despite one cable network offering a countdown akin to a spacecraft 
countdown for the alleged shutdown of Government. Life continues.
  Tonight again we are reminded that we have fateful choices to make, 
that we have significant differences of opinion; that, indeed, in many 
cases, we should rejoice in those differences, and we are certainly 
entitled to different interpretations.
  I thought, Mr. Speaker, that tonight it would be important to offer 
the rest of the story. As one of our commentators so eloquently puts it 
on radio on a daily basis, for example, I have the greatest respect and 
affection for my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop], 
from the other side of the aisle, who was just in here talking about a 
conservative Democrat balanced budget plan. I must say, indeed, that I 
welcome that initiative on the part of the conservatives on the other 
side of the aisle. There remain philosophical differences, but 
unfortunately, my friends who would call themselves conservative on the 
other side of the aisle are in fact a minority within a minority.
  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop], chose to characterize the 
outcome of the vote on his self-described conservative Democrat 
balanced budget plan, saying it was rejected by the majority, full 
disclosure demands and accurate counting of the vote.
  The sad fact is, and I can understand my friend's frustration, the 
sad fact is that a majority of his own party rejected that plan, 
including the minority leader. There reaches a time, Mr. Speaker, where 
we cannot be content with those who would merely talk the talk. The 
people of the United States, in my opinion, have spoken clearly and 
compellingly that they want to see a change in the culture of endless 
taxation and spending, and yet leaders step forward, claiming one thing 
and ofttimes doing another.
  I find it especially ironic that this Nation's Chief Executive, who 
made well known in his youth his opposition to some of the actions 
taken by the President of his party in the late 1960's, in fact, it was 
said of that President in the late 1960's that he suffered from a 
credibility gap, how unfortunate it is that our President tonight 
suffers from an affliction that can only be described as a credibility 
canyon, so wide is the gulf between what Bill Clinton, the candidate, 
said, Mr. Speaker, and what Bill Clinton, the President, is willing to 
deliver.
  In 1992, then candidate Clinton, on national television, said that he 
would commit to balance this Nation's budget within 5 years. As 
President, Bill Clinton, earlier in this session of the 104th Congress, 
worked overtime on the 

[[Page H 12329]]
votes of six Members of the other body who voted for a balanced budget 
amendment in the 103d Congress. He applied Presidential pressure so 
they would change their votes and that a balanced budget amendment to 
our Constitution would fail.
  In 1992, Mr. Speaker, candidate Clinton spoke of a tax cut for the 
middle class. Very early in his term, President Clinton gave us the 
largest tax increase in American history, a tax increase affecting 
virtually every American, for it was not only on income tax, it was not 
only retroactive, taxes increased also on gasoline that every American, 
virtually, buys.
  Then, just a few weeks ago, perhaps suffering from the affliction 
that, Mr. Speaker, you so accurately described in your radio address of 
a few weeks ago, this overwhelming need for our chief executive, 
instead, to act as a campaigner in chief, the President went down to 
Houston. This is the article that appeared on the wires of the Reuters 
news agency, with an account of what transpired in Houston. ``Clinton 
said he knew that a lot of people in the room were `still mad about the 
1993 budget,' and, in his words, `they think I raised their taxes too 
much, it might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too 
much, too.' ''

  Then the following day the President, in a press briefing, tried to 
make light of this assertion, saying that his mother advised him not to 
make speeches after 7 o'clock. I appreciate the President's attempt at 
humor. I guess there might be some effort to laugh, if it were not so 
serious and, fundamentally, if it were not so tragic. Where does the 
President stand?
  People have quoted polls here. The most compelling poll or the most 
compelling polls are those turned in Election Day every 2 years to 
decide who serves in this Congress, every 4 years to decide who serves 
in the oval office. There comes a time, sooner or later, when we are 
called upon in this country to join together and to govern, and as the 
gentleman serving as our Speaker pointed out in his radio address of a 
few weeks ago, this President seems content playing the part of 
campaigner in chief, rather than Commander in Chief. Indeed, as our 
friend in the chair tonight made the point in his radio address, 
``Perhaps we ought to try and work on a constitutional amendment that 
would allow this President to be the campaigner in chief while we go 
look for a genuine chief executive to help us govern.''
  Things are not always as they seem. The cataclysm that many have 
spoken of that supposedly took place today with the alleged shutdown of 
government services has yet to be realized, and yet those apologists 
for more taxes and more spending came to the floor of this House today, 
and so great is their affinity for big government, they voted basically 
to allow the executive branch to raid the trust funds to keep the 
government in business.
  H.R. 2621, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass, to prevent 
disinvestment of trust funds, 177 Members of the liberal minority voted 
no, saying, in essence, ``Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of the Treasury, 
go ahead and raid those trust funds.'' The irony is compelling that 
those who march to the well of this House day after day and claim that 
they are the protectors of Social Security and they are the protectors 
of Medicare, and yet today when they are called upon to vote to protect 
the very trust funds they allegedly pledge an oath of fealty to, 
somehow they just cannot do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am joined on the floor tonight by two of my colleagues 
who are also new to this Chamber. I would first yield to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from the golden corner of South Carolina, Mr. 
Lindsey Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I am intrigued by what the gentleman is saying to the point where I 
came over here to join him. I just want to say this, I know people have 
heard a lot. On a good day, it is very difficult to deal with the 
issues in Congress because they are so huge. We have a $4.9 trillion 
national debt. If any political figure tells you that it will be easy 
to come to a balanced budget, I do not think they are being honest with 
you, because this is hard work, but it has to be done with a certain 
sense of genuineness.
  Let us talk about something you mentioned a few minutes ago about the 
President as a campaigner. I know you value and I know that John values 
our personal integrity when we deal with our constituents. Bill 
Clinton, the campaigner, said that ``I will submit to the Congress a 5-
year balanced budget.'' He said that on ``Larry King Live.'' As a 
candidate, he wanted to balance the budget in 5 years, because he knew 
even in 1992, that was an important issue to the American public. I 
have never seen that document. That document does not exist.
  When he was on television trying to get elected, he said something 
that he thought would sound good that would help him get votes, but he 
did not mean it. I can guarantee you, if you think it is difficult to 
balance the budget in 7 years, it would be very difficult to balance it 
in 5 years. It is going to be difficult, no matter what. But he made a 
statement that ``I am going to balance the budget in 5 years,'' never 
followed through with it, never sat down in a room to try to figure out 
the numbers, to make it a reality. He said it just because he thought 
it would sound good.
  What happened when he got to be President? A couple of things 
happened. In November 1994, not one single Republican incumbent lost. 
There was a sweeping change in this country. I was the first Republican 
elected in my district in 120 years. My Republican freshman class 
consists of 73 very, very good, dedicated people that ran on the same 
issues. We have taken our campaign literature and made overlays. The 
theme of it was ``Bring back responsibility and control of Washington, 
DC's financial matters.'' That election sent a signal to Bill Clinton, 
and the polls were at 80, 82 percent that we want to balance the 
budget.
  In response to that event, 2\1/2\ years after he has been President, 
he finally submits a balanced budget plan that is 10 years. The problem 
with a 10-year balanced budget plan is a couple things. One, it does 
not balance after 10 years. You have $209 billion in deficits. But let 
me just show you how bad this plan was. He submitted it to the House, 
and the Democratic leadership was so embarrassed by it they would not 
even offer it for a vote in the House as a substitute. Bob Dole 
submitted it to the Senate for a vote, and you know how many votes it 
got? Zero. He has never, ever genuinely thought of a way to balance the 
budget in 5 years or 10 years. Now he is saying maybe 9, 8, 7.
  The only way we are going to get Bill Clinton to balance the budget 
is to make him. The only way to balance the budget is to affect 
entitlement spending. You do not have to cut, slow the growth down, 
pass the savings on to future generations, reform Medicare so it will 
be preserved for senior citizens, options that work, that work in the 
private sector. We are doing all those things, but it takes two to 
tango up here. We have a guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that will say 
whatever he needs to say at the moment to get reelected, and that is 
not why we got elected. That behavior is going to stop.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my great friend from South 
Carolina, and I am also pleased to see our very good friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], who joined us as one of the 
newcomers, one of the 73 conservative newcomers to this House.
  Mr. Fox, welcome. I know that certain actions in Washington have been 
both disheartening and enlightening simultaneously for the gentleman.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me and would say that would be certainly an understatement.
  I want to say that we in the freshman class appreciate the 
gentleman's leadership. In fact, he has been a very active Member of 
the 104th Congress in trying to achieve the agenda the American public 
really wants. The balanced budget amendment has been discussed by the 
gentleman many times on this House floor, and as well by the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  The fact is that by balancing the budget, we will help every family, 
those who have kids, those with seniors, because they will have more of 
their dollars back in their pocket and lessen the bureaucracy. What has 
not been discussed, at least tonight on the 

[[Page H 12330]]
floor, and I am glad we have the opportunity to do so, is that we have 
a culture here in Washington of creating a bureaucracy that has 
regulations that overregulate, overspend, and do not contribute one 
item to the preservation of good programs for the country but add to 
the cost of those programs, not in direct services.
  I think it is also important to point out that not only is a balanced 
budget something all America wants, but most of the Contract With 
America had about 100 percent of the Republicans supporting it, but 
over 55 to 60 percent of the Democrats supporting it. It was failed to 
be recognized in earlier speeches by Members on the other side of the 
aisle, but regulatory reform will decrease the cost for businesses that 
duplicate existing state law.
  Unfunded mandates, if we believe that we should have something from 
the Federal Government, that is something we should actually fund here 
from the Federal Government. The congressional accountability law, 
which was passed, was signed by the President, and the line item veto. 
All these things were supported strongly by Americans, even though 
Republicans were the ones that sponsored it and the Republicans were 
the ones that espoused it.

  Frankly, with the balanced budget, and I applaud your leadership on 
this, Congressman Hayworth, I am hopeful the next time the President 
gets a bill from the House and Senate that he will do the right thing 
for the American people, help lower the cost, and make sure that the 
Federal Government is not dictating to people but providing services 
that cannot be provided by the private sector or State and local 
government.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania, 
and as we collectively and, indeed, as a new conservative majority 
within this chamber, move to bridge this credibility canyon, we can 
only do so by stretching out the hand of straight talk and truth.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that point.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would gladly do so for my friend.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Let us talk about the truth. The truth is that two-thirds 
of the Federal budget entails entitlement spending and interest element 
of the national debt.
  People probably do not realize this at home, but this year the 
interest payment on our national debt was almost $300 billion. We spent 
more money paying the interest than we did on the entire Department of 
Defense. If a child is born in America today, 1995, if nothing changes 
up here, during their lifetime they will pay $187,000 in Federal income 
taxes just to pay the interest element of the national debt.
  This is serious stuff. Bill Clinton has never submitted a serious 
budget to balance, to get our future generations out of that problem. 
Let us look at the budget that he did submit that still does not 
balance. In his budget, after 1996, Medicare premiums go up, and over a 
7-year period they go up 89 percent.
  That is something he does not want to tell Americans about. We are 
being honest. What we are trying to do is slow the growth of Medicare. 
We are going to increase spending every year on Medicare two-and-a-half 
times the inflation rate. Every year we will increase spending, but we 
will slow it down from 11 percent to about 6 or 6.5 percent. We are 
being honest with America, he is not being honest with America.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think he makes a very valid and accurate observation. 
Indeed, if we were to move away from the metaphor of the ship of state 
and talk about the House of state, if you will, and make this President 
the custodian-in-chief, what, in essence, is going on is the equivalent 
of taking the dirt, trying to sweep it under the rug; taking all the 
debris and simply stuffing it underneath the couch, or within the 
cushions of the couch, and making things presentable for company coming 
in 1996. That company being the American citizens who go to the voting 
booth. Trying to put the best appearance on things instead of really 
getting down to cleaning up the place.
  Now, I have to say, speaking from personal experience, and as my dear 
wife would bear out, I am not one of the greatest housekeepers on 
earth, but before my wife and family come back here on the rare 
occasions to visit in Washington, I know I better clean that house and 
get it ready. I better clean that apartment and get it ready. I cannot 
shovel the dirt off, I cannot just stuff the trash in amidst the 
cushions. What we have to do is make a fundamental change and a clean 
sweep of the idea of politics as usual.
  More evidence of the credibility canyon. Each time I step into the 
well of this House, I think about those chief executives who have stood 
at this podium on truly historic occasions, both Republicans and 
Democrats. I think of Franklin Roosevelt on December 8, 1941, 
discussing the events of the previous day as a date which would live in 
infamy. I think of President Ronald Reagan coming back to address a 
joint session of Congress after a would-be assassin was unsuccessful in 
the attempt to take the President's life.
  I also recall, as a private citizen, watching on television a newly-
elected President who told us he was a new kind of Democrat; standing 
at that podium and lecturing the minority party at that time that he 
and his administration would only use numbers and only formulate budget 
projections on those figures supplied by the Congressional Budget 
Office, or CBO, for those numbers were the most accurate.
  Yet, I would refer my colleagues to this chart, because through the 
efforts of this Congress, the President appeared not here at the podium 
but in a basically 5-minute live television insert casting about for a 
political solution for a genuine problem of governance, and he said we 
need to balance the budget in 10 years.

  A funny thing happened between the time President Clinton stood at 
that podium and addressed a joint session of Congress and when he 
appeared in that brief television segment earlier in this 104th 
Congress. Somehow the President abandoned the numbers from the 
Congressional Budget Office. But, friends, these are the numbers. Mr. 
Speaker, these are the numbers the President said would be the most 
accurate.
  As my good friend from South Carolina indicated, look what happens. 
Oh, yes, 1996, deficits below $200 billion. The equivalent of trying to 
sweep something under the rug. But then, look, from 1997 through 2005, 
with the exception of 1998, when just barely the numbers are under $200 
billion, in essence we have $200 billion deficits for another decade.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a second?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to my good friend from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We have another distinguished Member of Congress about to 
join us here, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], who is a medical 
doctor. I want him to comment in a second about Medicare.
  But when we look at those numbers, we see in the year 2005 we have a 
$209 billion deficit. That is why no one in the Senate voted for it. 
But here is the important point about Medicare. He is using Medicare 
over and over again to justify his unwillingness to get serious about 
balancing the budget. Even in his 10-year budget that does not balance, 
Medicare premiums go up.
  People need to understand, no matter what happens in this Congress, 
whether the President's plan is adopted, whether our plan is adopted, 
whether we do nothing, that part B of Medicare, which pays senior 
citizens' doctor bills, 31 percent of it comes from senior citizen 
premiums, the other 69.5 percent comes from the Treasury, no matter 
what we do, the premium part is going to go up. The question is how 
much it goes up.
  There is a $7 difference between our plan that balances in 7 years 
and the President's plan. That $7 per senior citizen will allow us to 
balance the budget and save $44 billion. But, more importantly, what we 
are doing is creating options to Medicare that will given senior 
citizens the same rights we have in Congress to choose medical plans 
that are more efficient, cheaper and more user friendly.
  That is the key to Medicare reform, slowing the growth down and 
giving people options so that not only can we balance the budget, but 
we can take care of our senior citizens. Because if we do not slow the 
growth of Medicare 

[[Page H 12331]]
down, part A, the hospital part, is going to be broke in the year 2002. 
If the President wants to help senior citizens, help us save the trust 
fund part A.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman points up another aspect of 
the gulf that can only be described as the credibility canyon. How can 
this President claim to be a champion of Medicare when he is willing to 
cynically try to hold down the part B premium for the year 1996 only to 
have it rise again exponentially?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The election year.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to my good friend from 
the great State of Iowa, one of three freshman Members of the 
institution on this side of the aisle who is a physician.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleagues' 
statements tonight about Medicare. I think it is very, very important 
that we get the facts out to our senior citizens. I think the Clinton 
mediscare campaign has reached a new low.
  President Clinton says he is willing to shut down the Government to 
keep seniors from having to pay higher Medicare part B premiums. Why, 
then, I ask my colleagues, is he planning a 10.2-percent increase in 
part B premiums in 1997, right after the next Presidential election?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the gentleman from Iowa 
to repeat those numbers so that the Speaker and indeed the American 
people, who join us this evening, can hear this again. Would the 
gentleman please repeat what he just said?
  Mr. GANSKE. Let me repeat these numbers.
  President Clinton is planning a 10.2-percent increase in part B 
premiums in 1997. Is it not convenient that that is right after the 
next election?
  Let me give Members some other facts, and these are facts. The 
Medicare part B premiums have increased 29 out of the last 30 years, 
since the beginning of Medicare. A fact: Medicare premiums have gone up 
every year since President Clinton was elected, a total increase since 
President Clinton was elected of $14.30. Fact: Under our Medicare 
Preservation Act, in the year 2002, the Medicare part B premium would 
be $87. Under the President's budget, the premiums would be $83.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So it is a $4 difference.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is talking about shutting 
down the Government for a difference of $4 a month.
  But I think this is a point that is very, very important for our 
senior citizens to understand, because they are thinking, well, look, 
today I am paying $46.10 a month for my premiums. Gee, that is quite a 
bit of an increase to go up that high. But what we also have to make 
sure that our senior citizens know is that that part B premium is 
deducted from their Social Security. Their Social Security is scheduled 
to increase over the next 7 years also.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, If I could just interrupt the gentleman a 
moment, because I want to make sure I understand this point and, 
indeed, so the Speaker and others joining us tonight can understand.
  When there is this rise, which is proportional, the proportion stays 
constant. What the gentleman is saying is cost-of-living adjustments 
will help seniors absorb that cost.
  Mr. GANSKE. Exactly. If I were a senior citizen, and I were only 
seeing the figures, gee, it is $46 now and it is going to be 80-some 
dollars in the year 2002, that would worry me also. But what senior 
citizens also have to keep in mind is that there will be annual cost-
of-living increases for their Social Security during that period of 
time.

                              {time}  2115

  So in essence, the difference between what we are proposing and what 
the President, projected, is proposing is a small difference. And we 
are talking about shutting down the Government for that.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Two points we need to bring out at this juncture, 
because again some people may have missed the entire reason we enjoined 
this Medicare reform topic to begin with. Contrary to the very 
interesting fictions and political theater emanating from the other 
side, this has nothing to do with the issue of tax cuts.
  The reason we were prompted to take action, as a new conservative, 
responsible majority here to help govern is the conclusion of the 
Medicare trustees in a report issued April 3 of this year. The Medicare 
trustees, a bipartisan group, including three of President Clinton's 
own Cabinet officers, Secretaries Rubin, Reich, and Shalala, signed off 
on this language, ``the present financing schedule for the program is 
sufficient to ensure the payment of benefits only over the next 7 
years.'' So a 7-year window to make reforms.
  But here is the other topic and the other key thing that we must 
bring out at this juncture, because, again, in the confusion that has 
resulted on this other side, some folks have gone out and put on 
television ads that can only be described as fiction.
  The fact is, we have repeated it, mentioned it once tonight, but it 
bears repeating, the average expenditure per Medicare beneficiary will 
increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. That is an 
increase. That is not a cut.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
think this is a fair statement of what the American public is going to 
have to come to grips with and really see what we want in this country. 
Medicare, trust fund A, is funded by wage withholding from your 
children and your grandchildren. If it continues to grow at the rate 
that it is growing at 11 percent a year, we are going to have to do one 
of two things. Triple payroll taxes in the next 10 years on your 
children or grandchildren, and I think most senior citizens find that 
to be unacceptable. The other option is to increase spending on 
Medicare every year but at a slower rate. The President's plan saves 89 
billion from slowed growth, but it does not affect part B. It does not 
have an institutional reform.
  What we do is we slow the growth down to about 6 percent, increasing 
spending every year, and create options for traditional Medicare that 
will allow senior citizens to be well taken care of and save money for 
future generations, because you cannot balance the budget until you 
reform entitlements. It is physically impossible. If you took away the 
entire discretionary budget, you could not get there.
  Under President Clinton's plan, he increases Medicare premiums every 
year. It is going to happen. But under our plan, it happens in a 
managed way with options that may save senior citizens money with a 
view of balancing the budget. There is a rhyme, a reason to what we are 
doing. We are serious; he is not. He wants to get reelected. I want to 
change America.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress last November, I 
was a physician, practicing in Des Moines, IA. I took care of lots of 
Medicare patients. My wife is a family physician who takes care of many 
senior citizens. I have parents who are on Medicare. And I can tell you 
that the reason we are doing this is to make sure that our senior 
citizens, my parents, my past patients, continue to receive good 
quality medical care. If we allow the system to continue the way that 
it is now, we are facing, according to the trustees' report, breakdown 
in 6 years. We cannot bury our heads in the sand.

  The Health Care Financing Administration for the last 10 years has 
realized this and has increasingly tightened the bureaucratic 
tourniquet.
  Well, folks, the tourniquet can help stop the hemorrhage for awhile. 
But the tighter that that tourniquet is applied, the day comes when you 
have strangulation. And what we are attempting to do with our Medicare 
plan is to create options for senior citizens that will provide good 
quality care, that will give them choices that they have not had 
before, where we still increase the amount of money that we are 
spending at two times the inflation rate, the same thing that President 
Clinton just a couple years ago said he was for.
  So I think that, you know, there has been an awful lot of hot air 
blown on this issue. It is time that we get these facts out to our 
senior citizens.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, the credibility canyon only widened in the past 
couple of days when the President, listening to his polster and his 
political 

[[Page H 12332]]
consultant, decided to reinvent himself in the image of the saviour of 
Medicare, when in essence, as we heard the cold hard facts from the 
physician, facts borne out, not out of fear mongering but out of 
compassion that this gentleman who has worked on the front lines of the 
medical industry, we know that the President's arguments are 
essentially fictional.
  I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, my good friend, 
author of the Shays act. What seemed to be revolutionary here in this 
country, that Congress people should live under the same laws as every 
other American, our good friend from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that this law would 
not have passed if it had not been for the gigantic support of all the 
new Members of Congress. I was listening to what you had to say and 
felt compelled to come here because as someone who worked on Medicare 
and Medicaid on the Committee on the Budget, I know that we are saving 
the program. I know we are helping to slow the growth of spending. I 
also know that we have no new copayment or an increase in the 
copayment, no new deductible or increase to a deductible. The premium 
stays at 31.5 percent. I know you all have mentioned that, but the key 
point is to know the Government still is paying 68.5 percent. President 
Clinton has decided that he wants it to drop down in the election year 
to 25 percent and actually have people pay less premiums next year in 
the election year. Then they go up just as ours go up as the cost of 
the program continues. But the interesting point is, his 25 percent of 
the higher increase in cost ultimately means that the difference 
between our two programs is only $4.70 each month. I make this point 
that I know has been made a number of times but I want to emphasize it, 
we are going to spend 73 percent more in the next 7 years than we did 
in the last 7 years. We are going to spend $674 billion of new money in 
Medicare. And on a per-person basis, we are going to spend, as you have 
pointed out, I want to emphasize it again, $4,800 to $6,700 per 
beneficiary. Only in this country and in this city when you spend more 
money do people call it a cut.
  The amazing thing is, you mentioned the polls, the President is 
listening to the polls. I had people say, are you not concerned about 
the polls? If President Lincoln had listened to the polls, we would not 
be one nation under God, indivisible. We would be two nations.
  There is a point where we just have to be willing to take on the 
special interests, who are willing to distort the information, and talk 
to the American people, tell them the truth. You tell them the truth 
and they will have you do the right thing. But polls are being pushed 
aside and a lot of Members, particularly on this side of the aisle, are 
willing to take on those special interests to save Medicare and also 
make sure that our children are not going to have to pay these 
horrendous debts.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. I notice we have a new Member 
here.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I was going to say, such an honor to have with us the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who spent a good bit of time using special 
orders to help, I believe, shape the new majority.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am unaccustomed to 
speaking from this podium. You immediately want to begin uttering 
liberal platitudes when you stand here. But the fact is, I have been 
watching the distinguished gentlemen talking about Medicare for the 
last little while. I want to congratulate you for what you are doing to 
make the American public better informed about these issues.
  It is kind of tragic, sad, and almost pathetic that the Democratic 
Party, that can take some justifiable pride in having created Medicare 
some years ago, have now resorted to mediscare as the way of 
proceeding, as though making older people fearful is a substitute for 
having no policy. And it is really, I think, a true tragedy because 
that is really what you have happening here.
  You have a party that has nothing to say on the subject and, in fact, 
is doing things that are very harmful to older people. The vote on the 
floor today, where the question was whether or not we would divest the 
pension funds of older people in this country in order to keep spending 
debt money in the United States, the Democratic Party voted 
overwhelmingly to go ahead and spend the money. That is not their money 
to spend. This is money that has been contributed by people to provide 
for their own retirement. And the Democrats said, go ahead and divest 
it, throw it away. That also comes on the heels of a plan that has been 
promoted primarily by Secretary Rubin which is aimed at taking the 
pension funds that have been contributed to companies across the 
country and invest those in very scary public housing projects.
  Now, these are things that are happening out there that are really an 
assault upon senior citizens and meantime you have a party that then 
comes forward and conducts a mediscare campaign aimed at trying to make 
older people fearful about what might happen in Washington to their 
Medicare cuts.
  We are trying to make that system solvent. We are trying to get rid 
of the gimmicks. Trying to get rid of excuses and make certain that we 
have a solvent system for people to depend upon for the future, and all 
we get is scare tactics. It is pathetic.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, once again, mention was made of this vote. 
And somehow it may be missed by some folks in the media, but we need to 
again point this out. When the gentleman from Pennsylvania says that 
the new minority overwhelmingly voted to raid the trust fund, here are 
the numbers: 177 Members of the minority party voted to basically say 
to the executive branch, to the Secretary of the Treasury and others in 
the executive branch, sure, go ahead, take the trust funds. Spend them 
to keep the Government in business. Only 18 Members, only 18 Members of 
the new minority were confident to help us.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how scary that vote 
really was. I was in a meeting today and heard the Secretary of the 
Treasury say that as of tomorrow he intends to begin divesting the 
trust fund, primarily the retirement trust fund of Federal workers. And 
so this was not simply some meaningless vote. This was in fact a real 
signal to the Secretary of the Treasury to go ahead and begin to take 
the money contributed by Federal employees for their retirement and 
spend it for all things that the Federal Government is doing.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for that observation.
  I welcome to this special order the distinguished Speaker of the 
House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. GINGRICH. I want to thank my friend from Arizona for having this 
discussion of where we are at. I was watching on C-SPAN, and I thought 
I would come over and report firsthand, having been in a meeting with 
the President last night and having tried to understand exactly what 
the administration's real objections are. I think that if you take the 
Congressional Budget Office scoring of the President's budget over the 
next 7 years, you can begin to understand what the real difference is.
  Over the next 7 years, President Clinton would spend $625 billion 
more in noninterest outlays. His budget, his Government would spent 
$625 billion more than our balanced budget act that we will be voting 
on this week. Because he would be spending a lot more, his interest 
outlays over the next 7 years would be $252 billion higher. That is, we 
would be in a situation where we as taxpayers would be paying $252 
billion more in taxes in order to help finance $625 billion more in 
spending under the Clinton administration program.
  Our taxes would be at least 133 billion higher. And as you pointed 
out, and this is, frankly, this is the chart that got me to come over 
here. I do not think I have done a special order this year. I was 
watching you with this chart and the title has caught exactly what 
America is living through. We have a President who always has an 
explanation for what he wished he had done. He told Larry King he would 
balance the budget in 5 years when he was a candidate. He told all of 
us he wanted to reform welfare. Change welfare as we know it. That was 
his campaign slogan. He said we could balance the budget in 5 years, 
then 10, then 9, then 8, then 7. Then he said, well, really not 7, 
certainly not 7 the way we understood 

[[Page H 12333]]
it, not 7 if you have to actually keep score. But he would do it in 7, 
if he did not have to keep score. Here are the numbers.
  As you point out, the Congressional Budget Office took his numbers, 
and this is the Congressional Budget Office, you remember, are the 
people the President stood right up there and told us in his first 
State of the Union we should use. I think you have already gone through 
this once.

                              {time}  2130

  But I just wanted to drive home for people who are listening when the 
President says he has set up a balanced budget, it is factually not 
true. The facts are under the President's budget the deficits would be 
as follows:
  In 1996 $158 billion, $180 billion in 1997, 146--this is the CBO 
scoring--$146 billion in 1998, slightly different numbers than you have 
because of the way this is done in this particular version.
  But the net effect is in the last year, after all the President's 
work, after all the President's work, after all of his promises, and as 
you see right down here, 2002, which is the seventh year when we get a 
balance, in this seventh year the President runs a $209 billion 
deficit. It is almost $1,000 for every American, deficit, $1,000 more 
debt for our children, for every child in the country.
  Now I say that because what the real fight is about this week is that 
President Clinton wants to continue to spend more money, to borrow more 
from our children, to have more bureaucrats in Washington, to have more 
power over our lives, and I just conclude with this, and I appreciate 
so much your letting me come over and yielding to me:
  The continuing resolution that we sent down yesterday which would 
have kept the Government open; we would have none of these problems 
today if the President signed it. That continuing resolution was our 
downpayment on a balanced budget. It said we know we cannot get there 
all at once, but at least we can start doing the right thing by our 
children. It was for 18 days.
  To show you the difference between the House and Senate Republicans 
and the Clinton administration, in 18 days we saved $3 billion compared 
to what President Clinton wanted to spend, and after all this malarkey 
about Medicare I said to him last night, ``If we take it out, would you 
sign it?''
  He said, ``No, you don't let us spend enough.''
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the Speaker repeat that again what the President 
told you?
  Mr. GINGRICH. Clinton administration said; Chairman Panetta said, and 
directly the President concurred; no, they would not sign the 
continuing resolution if they took out Medicare. That was only the 
public-relations political argument. The fact was we do not let them 
spend enough money in the next 18 days. We actually say to them for 18 
days you are missing $3 billion you wanted to spend. We save for our 
children $3 billion, and they just could not stand the idea that our 
children might have that $3 billion when they wanted their bureaucrats 
to have it.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I just want to 
add here one point, too:
  Not only does he want to spend more, but now he wants to go to a 
source. Listen to what he wants to do to make sure that he cannot spend 
more because we are putting pressure on him.
  What Bob Walker said is true. For all those that are listening out 
there today, the President is intending to go for the Social Security 
trust fund, money for your retirement, money for my retirement, borrow 
money out of that fund to feed his spending habits, and that is what he 
is going to do, and we are trying to stop him. Please do not let him do 
that.
  If we were in private business, and we borrowed money from our 
pension plans to run our businesses, we would go to jail. That needs to 
stop.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to our friend from California.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Hayworth. I have 
had about 16 to 1 calls in the last few days saying hang in there, let 
us make this right for my kids and their kids, but a couple of people 
have been fooled by this comment that we are going to raise premiums on 
Medicare and cut Medicare. Would you please address that, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. GINGRICH. If my friend would yield to me for just 1 minute, again 
I do not know what to say to my colleagues when the President of the 
United States and his senior staff deliberately, knowingly, mislead the 
American people.
  I just watched--I did the ``NewsHour'' tonight, and immediately after 
I was interviewed by Jim Lehrer, they had the head of the Budget Office 
down there, Dr. Rivlin, a very knowledgeable woman who talked about 
severe cuts in Medicare.
  Now I just want all of my colleagues to understand the numbers for a 
second, and I challenge any, any, liberal Democrat, to explain how this 
can be called a cut. This year we spend $4,800 per senior citizen on 
Medicare. At the end of our 7-year program to save the Medicare trust 
fund we spend $6,700 per senior citizen on Medicare. Now remember there 
are more retirees because more people retire each year, people live 
longer, so the actual increase in Medicare spending is 45 percent more 
spending on Medicare over the next 7 years, which is twice the 
inflation rate.
  Now, if you are going to spend $4,800 this year, and it is going to 
go to $6,700 at the end of our 7-year plan, that is a $1,900 per senior 
citizen per year increase. For the life of me I do not understand how 
somebody can get up, an official of the U.S. Government, look into the 
TV camera and use the term ``severe cut'' when referring to a $1,900 
per senior citizen increase.
  Mr. BAKER of California. But then you do that by raising premiums 
then; is that right?
  Mr. GINGRICH. No, but in fact do not raise premiums, which is the 
other great baloney, and again my good friend from Connecticut was 
showing me some numbers that are so spectacular and so different from 
what the President has been saying and what the President's staff has 
been saying that I really think he should share them with the House 
because these really help us understand what a total campaign of 
misinformation this has been.
  Mr. SHAYS. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I just would point out 
that the premium that we pay now is $46.10, and the President has 
decided that he is going to lower the premium to $43.70 per month, and 
then, after the election, it goes up to $48, to $53, to $59, to $67, to 
$74, to $82, and the 7th year the President's premiums go to $82, and 
ours are at $87, a difference of $4.80, and if I could just say, when 
we get to this issue of what is a cut, the administration says we are 
cutting the earned income tax credit; that is going from $19 billion to 
$27 billion. They say we are cutting the School Lunch Program, but that 
is going up from $6.3 billion to $7.8 billion. They say we are cutting 
the student loan, and that is going from $24 billion to $36 billion, a 
50-percent increase in student loans. They say we are cutting Medicare 
and Medicaid. It has gone from $89 billion to $124 billion. They say we 
are cutting Medicare, and it is going from $178 billion to $273 
billion.
  In every instance there is a significant increase.
  Mr. BAKER of California. It was just mentioned to increase spending, 
and I am embarrassed to say this as a conservative Republican, but over 
the next 7 years, as we balance this budget, we are going to increase 
spending by $3 trillion and add to the national debt a trillion. Is 
that true?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield to me, I want 
to point out to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] we have been 
accused on this floor though of increasing spending in one area. I have 
heard it in the well on several occasions. They have been saying we are 
increasing spending in defense, despite the fact that we are actually 
going to spend less on defense next year than we spent this year, so 
that when you spend less next year than you spend this year, well, I 
thought it was a cut, but they are saying it is an increase. But yet we 
are spending over what we spent this year; they are saying that is a 
cut.
  It seems to me that we probably have some really weird economics and 
mathematics for that matter that is taking place at this moment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I was just going to say, if the gentleman would yield, 
the only possible mathematical operations at work are akin to something 
Orwellian.

[[Page H 12334]]

  We recall the noted British author, George Orwell, in his book 
``1984'': Ignorance is strength, all the different observations in 
Orwellian Newspeak, and in the new mathematics, within this Beltway, 
and especially on this side of the Chamber, an increase is a cut and a 
cut is an increase. It adds up to this new international symbol that 
really deserves a place in our policy Pantheon, the international 
symbol for Stop Whining.

  I defer first, if I could, to the physician, our good friend, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Thank you. I think that for our listeners we need to, and 
the citizens, we just need to reinforce what people talk about and how 
people in Washington call cuts, what they call cuts.
  If somebody would earn $20,000 as their salary this year, but next 
year they would earn $22,000, most people would say that is an 
increase. However in Washington it is very possible that that would be 
called a cut because it is less than a hypothetical projected increased 
to $23,000.
  That is what we have to explain to our citizens when we are back in 
our districts because they hear the word ``cut,'' they hear the word 
``cut,'' and really what we are talking about in the Medicare area is 
we are talking about a slowing hypothetical rate of growth to twice the 
rate of inflation, almost more than anything else that we are doing in 
our budget, because our priority is to continue to provide quality 
health care, and that is the reason why in this area we are spending 
more at a faster rate than just about any other part of our budget.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I would recognize 
now our good friend from California.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Thank you, Mr. Hayworth. It is very 
important, and I was rather shocked to see the President close down the 
Government. This work stoppage has occurred in 1984, 1987, 1990. Always 
the employees have been paid, but for the President of the United 
States to shut down the Government and declare that 800,000 of our 
loyal, hard-working Federal employees are nonessential sends a really 
strange message to the taxpayers who are paying for all this 
government.
  Do you have any thoughts on that?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I do, and I defer first to our good friend from South 
Carolina for his observation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Let us put it in perspective. The reason he is giving and 
preaching is that he wants to take care of American senior citizens, 
and in the process of saying that he intends very soon to go into your 
Social Security trust fund and borrow the money out of that fund to 
fund his spending habits. If we did that in the private sector, you 
would go to jail. He is trying to tell you that I am saving you from a 
premium increase when his own budget after the election year has a 10-
percent premium increase in over a 7-year period. There is $4 
difference between what our plan does and what his plan does.
  He is trying to sell you a bill of goods. Beware of Bill Clinton, 
senior citizens.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] 
who puts it very succinctly, and again it bears repeating what 
transpired on this floor today, H.R. 2621. The overwhelming majority of 
the liberal guardians of the old order said to the President and to his 
Secretary of Treasury in effect, ``Go ahead, raid the Social Security 
trust fund even as you stand before the American public and claim to be 
the defender of America's seniors because, after all, we're bound to 
find some sympathetic ears in the media and because it will be so 
greatly repeated, it will inspire confusion. So go ahead and do that.''
  How crass, how shameful, how political. Friends, we were sent to 
Washington to change business as usual, no more excuses, no more 
gimmicks.
  And to those who write and say, ``Gee, why don't you just go and send 
in a clean CR?'' let me make this observation. The difference comes in 
philosophy, not in procedure. Just as we are constrained to speak in 
legislative style here in the House, just as we observe convention with 
the rules of the House, so too do we make use of legislative tools at 
our disposal to implement the changes needed.
  I defer to my friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Anybody who hears the term ``clean CR'' ought to 
understand that a clean continuing resolution is a dirty deal for 
future generations.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would just love to weigh in, if I could. I know we are 
running out of time, but the bottom line is my heart goes out to the 
Federal employees about whether there is a shutdown, but this is far 
bigger than Federal employees. This is an issue of whether, once and 
for all, we are going to get our financial house in order, and balance 
our budget, save our trust funds and change and transform this social 
and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society.

                              {time}  2145

  That is what this battle is about.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut, and indeed, I 
thank all of my colleagues.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, we would simply make this point. Even as our 
chief executive or campaigner in chief prepares to leave this Nation, 
as we understand he is planning to do, to go to Japan, again Mr. 
Speaker, we extend the President of the United States a hand to say, 
``Enough posturing. Let's join together and govern.'' That is the 
central issue.
  Even as our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, made the point, 
it is worth noting this. We are not playing a game.
  Mr. BAKER of California. One last comment and the most important 
thing to remember tonight; that is, regardless of when, whether it is 
tonight, tomorrow night, or the next night, we are not going to pass 
anything that exceeds the budget line that will balance us by 2002. We 
are going to pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1996, and we are going to 
do it this week or next week, and we are not going to exceed that 
balanced budget line.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. For it is our mission to balance the budget and change 
the philosophy of taxing and spending, and interesting interpretations 
that have to be called fictional offered by the cynical guardians of 
the old order.

                          ____________________