[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5486-H5493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   WHY WE MUST RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, today 
we have been discussing the minimum wage, and the reason that we have 
been discussing the minimum wage is that since the last time the 
minimum wage was increased in 1989, it has fallen 45 cents of real 
value. Employers that were paying the minimum wage in 1989 are now 
paying 45 cents less in real value than they were paying back then.
  The fact of the matter is that the minimum wage is 27 percent lower 
than it was in 1979. That means that those families, those individuals 
that go to work every day at the minimum wage, are poorer now than they 
were in 1989 and in 1979. Those families, those individuals, need a 
raise. To argue that putting these people back to where they were in 
1979, in 1989, is going to somehow put people out of work or destroy 
jobs is ludicrous. In fact, what has happened is that employers have 
been benefiting now for more than a decade of the decline in the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have to increase that minimum wage is 
because we are trying to continue to encourage people to choose work 
over welfare, but work should pay, work should pay a livable wage, and 
we have an obligation to see to it. The minimum wage is a basic tenet 
of this country of recognition of the dignity of work, of recognition 
of the dignity of those individuals who go to work every day and try to 
earn a living for themselves and for their families. I would hope that 
we would raise that minimum wage for those individuals.
  But we must also understand that when we raise the minimum wage, we 
reduce the burden on the American taxpayer who is having to subsidize 
those very same low-wage jobs where employers refuse to pay the minimum 
wage or above the minimum wage.

                              {time}  2115

  Because when in fact we keep the minimum wage as it is today, we 
increase the subsidies to these same workers because they are eligible 
for food stamps; because if you work full time at the minimum wage, you 
are not above the poverty level, and if you have children or a spouse, 
you are clearly not above the poverty level, so the Federal Government 
digs into its pocket, into the taxpayers' pocket, and puts money on the 
table for AFDC, puts money on the table for food stamps, puts more 
money on the table for housing allowances, more money on the table for 
the earned income tax credit. Why? Because many employers choose not to 
pay the minimum wage, even when they can afford to do so.
  But the Republicans now will offer an amendment tomorrow that is even 
more insidious. It will take those employers who are paying the minimum 
wage today and exempt them from paying it in the future. It will have 
the potential of uncovering up to 10 million Americans who are 
currently eligible for the minimum wage today from not receiving it in 
the future: Women who work in sweatshops making garments for American 
citizens, the clothes on your back; the people who work in the fields 
of this country to put food on your table; the people who wait on you 
when you sit down to a table in a restaurant, who spend the whole day 
working on their feet and tending to our needs and our demands and our 
desires. They would be uncovered. They would have the benefits of the 
minimum wage reduced or repealed to them.

  It is argued very often that this is going to destroy employment in 
those industries like the retail industry; that somehow retailers who 
do not want to pay the minimum wage, saying they cannot afford paying 
the minimum wage, would lay many workers off.
  It is rather interesting that those people who make their living by 
making investments in various segments of our economy, Salomon 
Brothers, one of the largest investment banking companies in this 
country, says that they believe that many retailers, especially 
discounters, would benefit from an increased minimum wage due to the 
enhanced purchasing power that it would create for many low-income 
consumers.
  Then they go on to recommend that if you are going to make an 
investment in stocks right now, they would recommend the Fred Myer 
Corp., the Food Lion Corp., the Home Depot Corp., Sears, Roebuck, & 
Co., and Wal-Mart. They would recommend some of the very same companies 
that are now fighting the minimum wage, because they say that these 
companies in fact receive an economic benefit, because Salomon Brothers 
recognize, as Henry Ford did, if you did not pay a decent wage to the 
workers of America, they could not buy the products they are making. 
That is why he paid them $5 a day.
  Other manufactures and industrialists criticized him roundly, but be 
recognized that if you expect people to buy your products at Wal-Mart, 
if you expect people to buy your products at Sears, if you expect them 
to dine out at Denny's if you expect them to participate in the 
American economy, they have to earn a livable wage. These people are 
entitled to it. They are entitled to it.
  But what we see is after months, after months of beseeching the 
gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, and the Republicans to bring the 
minimum-wage bill to the floor, they have finally agreed to do it, 
because 80 percent of the people in this country support the minimum 
wage. Then they want to put an amendment in order to take it away from 
up to 10 million Americans. It is not fair and it is not right. It 
ought to be rejected.

[[Page H5487]]



                    THE FACTS ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] for offering us an object lesson this evening 
in the politics of symbolism and in the Washington shuffle, for my 
friend, the gentleman from California, has many gifts, among them an 
eloquence and a trust always in the role of government.
  But there are a few questions worth asking. For example, Mr. Speaker, 
if this were such a good idea, if the inflation tables that my friend, 
the gentleman from California, just brought forth as some sign of 
economic erosion, if that were so true, why then, 18 short months ago, 
when the roles in this Chamber were reversed, why then did not the 
gentleman from California, or under the old order, the Speaker of the 
House, or under the old order, the former majority leader, the 
gentleman from Missouri, now the minority leader, why, with the 
liberals in control of this Chamber and firmly ensconced at the other 
end of Pennsylvania Avenue, why did they not then offer an increase in 
the minimum wage? Why this new-found outrage? Why this Washington 
shuffle?
  It is a question worth asking, because once again, Mr. Speaker, as I 
stand in this well, I am absolutely confounded, not by the so-called 
gender gap that many of the media mavens and self-appointed potentates 
inside this Beltway would tell us about, but about the very genuine 
credibility canyon, a huge gulf that separates the rhetoric from the 
reality of the left, because there is a clear difference between the 
words uttered tonight and the tone of the action demanded tonight from 
that which this same administration proffered less than 2 years ago.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, let us see what the President said, in his own 
words. Time Magazine, February 6, 1995, even in the wake of the 
historic shift in this Chamber, President Clinton: ``It,'' referring to 
raising the minimum wage, the President's own words, ``It is the wrong 
way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners,'' These are the words of 
the President of the United States, who has, once again, waffled and 
changed his mind.
  Indeed, the chairman of the President's own Council of Economic 
Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote this. It appears in his 1992 textbook 
on economics:

       Only about 10 percent of people in poverty work at jobs 
     that pay at or near the minimum wage. Thus, the minimum wage 
     is not a good way of trying to deal with the problems of 
     poverty.

That is what Professor Stiglitz said. Chairman Stiglitz has gone the 
other way.
  Empirical data that exists of families in poverty: Out of every four 
families in poverty, only one-quarter, one out of every four families 
in poverty, would be eligible for an increase in the minimum wage. 
Families in poverty ineligible for an increase in the minimum wage, 
three out of every four, or 75 percent. We must understand, further, 
that indeed a minimum-wage increase should be retitled ``The Job-Killer 
Act of 1996.''
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to realize 
that as the Democrats focus on minimum wage, they are completely 
ignoring the job cycle. I am going to read some statistics on that. But 
it is real interesting to me to listen to some of the comments that 
have been made from the other side of the aisle tonight that are just 
totally off-the-wall. One speaker from North Carolina said that we need 
to increase the minimum wage to $5.25 an hour in order that people can 
pay for shelter, food, and transportation. That is $10,000 a year.
  I do not know what it is like in Arizona, where you live, but I know 
in Georgia you cannot do it on $10,000 a year. The complete 
representation that there are people making minimum wage and they are 
the sole breadwinner of the family is totally off base. The statistics 
are as follows: 66 percent of the people making minimum wage are part 
time. Thirty-nine percent are teenagers. Only 2 percent are over 30 
years old, but those who start working today for a minimum wage on a 
national average will be making $6.05 an hour a year from now.
  But that minimum wage is the opportunity wage. It is the salary that 
you start with when you are unskilled and you move your way up the 
ladder. I started working for $1.60 an hour at the International House 
of Pancakes when I was a student. I started making a minimum wage later 
on at $2.50 an hour working construction. But in both cases, I was the 
raw product. I needed the training.
  I asked some teenagers, inner city teenagers in Georgia recently who 
were up here, I said, I know all of you guys are going to be looking 
for jobs this summer. Let me ask you a question. You are probably going 
to work on a construction crew, maybe in a yard maintenance crew, maybe 
in a restaurant. Let us talk about a restaurant. How many of you know 
how to work a buffing machine? None. How many of you know how to work a 
cash register? None. How many of you know how to replace a bag of milk 
into a milk cap for a restaurant? None. None of you know that. You 
don't have much experience. They said, no, I guess we don't.
  I said, I think you have a lot of experience. Here is where your 
experience is: You know how to say, ``Yes, sir,'' and ``No, ma'am.'' 
You know how to show up on time. You know how to work hard and stay a 
little bit later, and put in that extra effort, and maybe when you 
finish your job, go over and help the other person finish his job. that 
is your experience, and that is what the employer is looking for.

  He will teach you to you how to run the cash register and the buffing 
machine, but he is going to hire a heck of a lot more of you if he can 
get you for $4.25 and hour versus $5.15 an hour. Here were some high 
school students who understood that simple economic principle, that 
they wanted the job. Hey, the salary sounds great, but if you do not 
make it, it is like yourself, you are an athlete, you had an 
opportunity to play pro football.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. No, I was recruited as right tackle, I ended up as left 
out. I want to be accurate with respect to my athletic career.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It was the team's loss, I am sure. But I know in your 
situation if you had made pro football, you would have made $200,000 or 
$300,000 a year. That was a great salary, but you did not get the job. 
It is just like these students, the $5.15 an hour is great, but if the 
job does not exist anymore, it does not matter.
  Here are some statistics that have been put out by the Employment 
Policies Institute, which is a nonpartisan institute. In your home 
State of Arizona, increasing the minimum wage is estimated to cost 
8,900 jobs that will be gone. In my State of Georgia, 18,000 jobs are 
at risk; Kentucky, 12,000; California, 63,000; Montana, 2,800; Ohio, 
28,000; Texas, 60,000. This is economic data. This says these are the 
numbers of jobs that will be lost.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the gentleman, and 
first of all an observation, I am glad the gentleman's first job was at 
the International House of Pancakes. Had it been at the Waffle House, 
you might be in line for a job with the administration, considering the 
fact that they waffled on so much of this.
  But when so much attention is paid to California, electoral vote-rich 
California, let us put it in perspective so the campaigner-in-chief can 
understand full well, for the benefit of our friend at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue; could the gentleman find the figure on how many 
jobs? I know almost 9,000 jobs in my home State of Arizona, but since 
it takes the mention of the big C. California, to get the attention of 
my other friends busy electioneering, tell us how many jobs would be 
lost in the State of California, if you have that information?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker. Again, I am going to say it again, because 
this is not from the Republican Study Committee, this is from the 
Employment Policies institute, which is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, the 
increase in the minimum wage in California will cost 63,100 jobs, 
63,100 less jobs in the State of California by increasing the minimum 
wage.

[[Page H5488]]

  You know what is so interesting, as I hear the champions of 
increasing the minimum wage talk, under the pretense of compassion for 
the minimum wage worker, what is the bottom line thing?

                              {time}  2130

  There is an undercurrent here. You know what it is? it is arrogance. 
You know what it is really saying? ``You do not have the capability to 
get a raise yourself. You need me in Congress to increase your salary 
because you are too incompetent. We know you are going to be trapped at 
the minimum wage forever because you do not have the ability to move 
yourself up the economic free enterprise ladder.''
  That is what the theme is that we are hearing from the Democrats. 
They are basically saying this entire section of the population is not 
passing through the minimum entry wage but that they are stuck there 
permanently, and there is a high degree of arrogance in this debate 
that never even gets mentioned.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I think my friend from Georgia 
again is absolutely correct, for it is the fundamental irony that there 
is a supposition or a presumption emanating largely from the liberal 
side of this Chamber which would purport that those with entry-level 
jobs in the work force, the youngsters of whom you spoke earlier from 
your hometown of Savannah, Georgia, or people, young people living in 
the east valley around Mesa or Scottsdale, Arizona, or throughout the 
Sixth District of Arizona, that somehow once they take a job they are 
destined to be trapped at the very lowest rung of the economic ladder.
  Yet what we have found time and again, if people show up on time, if 
they work hard, if they do a good job, that is simply the entry level. 
They climb the rungs of the economic ladder. To somehow dismiss that, 
and always rely on the worst-case scenario or supposition that people 
are chained inexorably and always to the lowest rung of the economic 
ladder, betrays either the arrogance of which the gentleman spoke, the 
arrogance of the alleged competence of big government and a 
bureaucracy, or a fundamental misunderstanding of business, that 
productivity and hard work and old-fashioned gumption, a phrase my 
friend from Georgia may use from time to time, old-fashioned gumption 
will be rewarded with an increase based on an increase based on an 
increase in productivity.
  Let me yield to my friend again.
  Mr. KINGSTON. When I was earning the minimum wage and my fellow 
workers were earning the minimum wage, we never, never once thought 
about writing our Congressman to get a raise. What we thought about 
doing was working a little bit harder, staying a little bit longer, 
getting the job done a little bit faster, and there through the 
capitalist system, we got paid.

  It is too bad that our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to 
hate capitalism and seem to hate and have a true contemptuousness for 
free enterprise. But let me tell you, now some of them are very shrewd, 
and here is why.
  One other component that is missing from this debate is the fact that 
many States, such as Hawaii, such as New Jersey, have a State minimum 
wage already that is higher than the existing Federal minimum wage. The 
Federal minimum wage is $4.15 an hour. Hawaii's minimum wage, State 
minimum wage, is $5.25, and New Jersey's is $5.05.
  What is happening, when businesses are looking to move a plant to 
Hawaii or to New Jersey, they say, ``Well, that entry level salary is a 
little bit high, I think I can do better moving to another State,'' and 
then New Jersey is losing them. So what happens is we have got these 
States saying, ``Yes, we need to increase the minimum wage because we 
are at a competitive economic disadvantage because of our own State's 
policies.'' We are not hearing that in here, so this is not altruistic. 
We need to get the cards face up on the table about that.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, if the gentleman will yield, I could not help 
but notice the frequent citation of alleged poll numbers, and just the 
inherent retail action not of sound economic policy but retail politics 
at work here.
  Again, and I know the gentleman preceded me by a term here in 
Washington, but I cannot help but be struck by the false symbolism and 
the legislating for a therapeutic effect, a symbolic effect that in 
essence, as we have seen time and again, as we see in reports from the 
Progressive Policy Institute, as we read in the comments of the 
President's own Chairman of Economic Advisers, ultimately will kill 
jobs.
  It is an incredible irony. Small wonder then that I refer to this 
alleged minimum wage increase as the job killer act of 1996.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. KINGSTON. In fact, I think the gentleman from California said 
this will actually help the middle class from having higher taxes. It 
is kind of like ``Hello, is anybody home in there?'' Because I do not 
follow that. If I go into a fast-food restaurant today and they cannot 
squeeze out any more jobs, then my french fries and hamburgers and 
Coca-Colas are going to go up, along with the goods and services I get 
from everywhere else, from health care to groceries. The middle class, 
one more time, will get stuck with this.

  I want to kind of bridge this. As we are talking about the middle 
class, maybe we should talk about welfare reform, since we have a lot 
of news in there today. We have two different approaches on welfare 
reform, from the conservative point of view and from the liberal point 
of view.
  We have a President who promised to apparently extend welfare as we 
know it, and President Clinton currently has vetoed two welfare reform 
bills, and to date I think has now endorsed a bill that allows welfare 
benefits for felons. So as I said, the President seems to want to 
extend welfare as we know it.
  I hear over and over again from middle class people that they are 
tired of the giveaway programs when they are out working 40, 45, 50, 55 
hours a week and more, busting their tails, and then they have got 
able-bodied people who refuse to work because of the generous welfare 
benefits.
  The President vetoed a bill that required able-bodied recipients to 
work 20 hours a week. As I go to the civic clubs in Georgia, I say, 
``How many of you worked 20 hours a week and provided for your 
families?'' Not one hand goes up. And I think I will ask the gentleman 
from Arizona, can you make it at 20 hours a week in Arizona?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Of course not.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Certainly not. And do you think it is unfair to ask 
able-bodied welfare recipients to work 20 hours a week?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. It is not unfair at all. In fact, it is the beginning 
of true compassion.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And that is what I am hearing from the middle class. 
They are saying if somebody is desperate, let us help them out. We are 
Americans. We are compassionate. But if they are just lazy and they are 
refusing to work, why should I put in my overtime to pay him to sit on 
the porch?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. As my friend from Georgia points out, ofttimes in 
Washington-speak we hear of the safety net for those in society who 
truly are unfortunate, for those who through circumstances beyond their 
own control, with physical challenges, with economic traumas that 
exist, who truly need a safety net. But the sad fact is, by failing to 
end welfare as we know it, this President again has ensured that the 
safety net becomes a hammock for the very people who should be at work.

  Indeed, as the gentleman from Georgia is well aware, again in this 
election season, last Saturday the President of the United States chose 
to talk about real welfare reform that is being instituted in the great 
State of Wisconsin under Gov. Tommy Thompson. But the interesting thing 
is that President Clinton, while granting a couple of waivers to 
Wisconsin for revolutionary changes in that system, when Wisconsin 
wants to make further changes, he endorses the general concept but he 
has yet to come across with the real waivers. I champion our colleagues 
on this side of the aisle from Wisconsin who earlier today challenged 
the President of the United States to extend those waivers needed to 
take the next rational step in real welfare reform in Wisconsin.
  But of course, as my friend from Georgia knows, it was the plan of 
this new majority to go one better than all of that, to allow States 
not to apply for some waiver from those who would be

[[Page H5489]]

seemingly omniscient or omnipotent here on the banks of the Potomac, 
here within the Washington bureaucracy, but instead be free to solve 
the problems themselves.
  I yield to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I hate to interrupt you when you are on your 10-dollar-
word roll here.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. That is correct. I will yield some time to drive up the 
price.
  Mr. KINGSTON. What they want is a Medicaid and Medicare waiver and a 
welfare waiver is when a State says, ``We want to take the poverty 
resolution program back in our own hands without having Washington 
mandate it,'' I want to make sure that people understand that that is 
what we are talking about.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The Governor from Wisconsin says, ``We have a new plan. 
We want the waivers from Washington so we can implement it.''
  Mr. HAYWORTH. It is really the game of ``Mother, may I?'' Or perhaps 
translated, ``Uncle Sam, may I?'' ``Washington bureaucrats, may I?'' 
``May we make those changes?''
  Well, a legitimate debate can continue on the role of the Federal 
Government, but when we have adopted policies that continue to 
concentrate power and authority in Washington, in the hands of 
bureaucrats instead of in the hands of duly elected officials, then we 
have serious problems. So it is really the wrong question for States to 
have to ask ``Mother, may I?'' or ``Uncle Sam, may I?''

  In fact, the change should be that those States should be free and 
empowered to do the right thing in their own way. And we are joined by 
our good friend from California, Mr. Hunter.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his very articulate 
demonstration or description of what Federal Government should not do, 
and that is to impose on the American people at every level of life. 
What I think is ironic is the fact that there are a few things that the 
Federal Government should do that it is not doing, and one of those 
things is the defense bill that we have just put on the House floor.
  I can recall, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement in the Committee on National Security, asking the services 
to come into my office along with my Democrat counterpart, the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. Ike and I 
sat there and asked the services, under the Clinton administration's 
budget, whether or not they had enough basic ammunition, enough bullets 
to fight the two-war scenario that they have to fight if America is 
going to be secure; that is, perhaps to be engaged in a war in the 
Middle East, like the one against Saddam Hussein, but to have enough 
ammunition and enough supplies to take on, for example, the North 
Koreans, if they should take advantage of a war in the Middle East to 
come down the Korean Peninsula.
  So we asked the people who are in charge of the ammunition supply if 
under the Clinton administration's budget they had enough basic ammo, 
enough bullets to fight what we are going to require them to fight. And 
the Marines, the Marines always being candid, said, ``No, frankly not, 
Congressman.'' So we asked them for a list of what they needed, and 
they came up with an inadequacy, a requirement of 96 million M-16 
bullets that they were short under President Clinton's defense budget 
for the job that we will call on them in time of conflict to do.
  So here is an administration that is getting into every aspect of 
people's lives, but the one aspect that the Constitution charges them 
to be concerned about and to carry out, which is to defend the country, 
they are not doing. I was absolutely amazed when we got this list of 
everything from basic M-16 rounds.
  In fact, the gentleman, my friend from Arizona and my friend from 
Georgia, may have seen me carrying around an empty ammo pouch, a U.S. 
Marine ammo pouch to symbolize the M-16 bullets. They are short 
howitzer rounds and down to that basic M-16 bullet.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield a little bit?
  Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Being an expert on defense, one of the things we hear 
quite often is Americans under U.N. command. Last year, as I recall, we 
passed a bill that said Americans would not serve under U.N. command or 
wear U.N. uniforms. Was that vetoed?
  Mr. HUNTER. That bill was vetoed.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thought it was vetoed. So here we have a President 
who has vetoed Congress, which on a bipartisan basis said no more 
Americans serving under U.N. command.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. HUNTER. That is right. The President vetoed the bill. One of the 
articulated reasons was that he did not like that inhibition on what he 
thought were his Commander-in-Chief powers.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask you another question, if I may. Now, in 
terms of globe trotting and playing police officer of the world, what 
about the War Powers Act? Have you strengthened that in your bill, or 
weakened it, because I share the concern. We are in Somalia without a 
mission. We are in Haiti, the mission is still undefined. We are in 
Bosnia. We have a mission for each month of the year.
  So what is happening in your bill on the War Powers Act, which says 
that the President cannot commit American troops overseas for more than 
90 days without congressional permission?
  Mr. HUNTER. Actually there is not a substantial revision of the 
President's powers, because most of the President's powers come under 
the Constitution. The President is the Commander-in-chief of the Armed 
Services.
  So if you are worried about the Marines having enough ammo, you can 
go to Congress and you can get enough ammunition. That is what the 
Marines did. If you are worried about the safety record of the planes 
that have been crashing recently, you can come in and ask for the 
safety upgrades, which the Clinton administration had not wanted to 
fund, but we did under the Republican leadership.
  But if you want to have a Commander-in-Chief who is not going to lead 
your young Marines and soldiers out from a new adventure every 3 or 4 
weeks, you are going to have to change one thing, and that is the 
Commander-in-Chief. So the only answer for the American people for that 
one is to get a new Commander-in-Chief.
  But on that point, it is true that if you ask the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, he told us that the young Marines today have a higher 
personnel tempo; that is they have to leave their families more often 
and go out to some part of the world under this President's foreign 
policy, that at any time since World War II. You have more people 
leaving home, being deployed for long periods of time, than at any time 
since World War II.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Now, you mentioned the Commander-in-Chief. Is the 
Commander-in-Chief a member of the military?

  Mr. HUNTER. Well, funny you should bring that up. I saw something 
that I thought was an April Fool's thing. Today there was an article in 
the paper that said that the President was asking for protection under 
the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act from being sued civilly. I thought 
that was one of those things that they were bringing out a kind of an 
April Fool's thing, kind of a satire. But I understand it is true, that 
he is actually saying that he as Commander-in-Chief qualifies for the 
Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, since he is in the military, because 
he is the head of the Armed Services, and therefore this lawsuit in 
Arkansas cannot touch him. I was amazed.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Which lawsuit is that? There are several.
  Mr. HUNTER. The lawsuit, I understand it is, what, a sexual 
harassment lawsuit by a young lady in Arkansas. But to me that is not 
what is the jarring point of this. To me what is the jarring point of 
this is that the President would invoke the Soldiers and Sailors Relief 
Act when he is not a soldier or a sailor, and in fact when he at one 
point made that statement that he loathed America's military.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, if my friend from California would yield, I 
will include in the Record a story that appeared in this morning's 
Washington Times by Brian Blomquist, and to set this in perspective, 
Mr. Speaker, for those who joined us in the Chamber tonight and for 
those who join us nationwide and worldwide via C-SPAN, let me

[[Page H5490]]

read and quote directly from the article that appeared in this 
morning's Washington Times on the front page by Brian Blomquist.

       President Clinton has provoked a furor by asserting in 
     legal papers that as Commander-in-Chief, he is in the 
     military and a sexual harassment lawsuit against him must be 
     postponed until his active duty is completed.
       The chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs is 
     gathering signatures from other Congressmen to send a letter 
     to Mr. Clinton criticizing his latest defense in the lawsuit 
     brought by former Arkansas employee Paula Corbin Jones.
       In papers filed a week ago, Mr. Clinton seeks to defer the 
     lawsuit under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act of 1940 
     which grants automatic delays in law suits against military 
     personnel until their active duty is over.

  Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me finish this one sentence. It is worth reminding 
folks: ``Mr. Clinton maneuvered to avoid military service in 1969 
during the Vietnam War.''
  I will end the statement there and include the entire article at this 
point in the Record.

               [From the Washington Times, May 22, 1996]

               Clinton Dodges Suit, Says He's in Military


                   critics fume at commander in chief

                          (By Brian Blomquist)

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

   Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate him yielding. 
This is one of those things where even though the gentleman who is in 
the White House is of another party, you hope when you read a story 
like that, that it is not true, that he has not tried to do this, 
because the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act was passed for one reason, 
and that was because GI's, like Audie Murphy, were going over to 
foreign theaters and were expected to go because we were on the verge, 
we were getting into World War II, and we knew people would be leaving 
for 1, 2, 3, 4 years at a time. Some of them might never come back.
  The last thing that you wanted for a veteran who was overseas 
fighting in Europe or later on in Asia or in other places was to have a 
lawsuit filed against him in American courts while he was off fighting 
in the jungle someplace, and since he was unaware of it, have that 
lawsuit basically turn into a judgment for lack of response from the 
soldier or sailor who did not even know it was being filed, and have 
that judgment end up taking away his farm or his house or something 
else.
  It was meant to give relief to America's fighting men who were 
overseas fighting for their country, and women, I might add. So people 
like the women who were ferrying planes for Jackie Cochran's WASPS in 
World War II, the women who took planes back and forth to Great 
Britain, had the same type of relief.
  So for a sitting President of the United States, who is surrounded by 
lawyers, who never stepped a foot overseas during the conflict in which 
he said he loathed the military, for him to cloak himself in an act 
that was designed to keep basic American soldiers from losing their 
farm while they were off fighting and were not available to answer a 
court summons, is absolutely a misuse of this act.
  Here is a President who has got wall-to-wall lawyers. My gosh, I am 
sure the American Trial Lawyers will lend him a couple, since he saved 
their back on a number of occasions. I just hope, there are some times 
you say ``I do not care if he is Democrat or Republican. I just hope he 
did not do that.'' I hope this is a farce, that this is not true, that 
somebody pulled an April Fool's joke on this reporter.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from California. I would share his 
sentiments. But, as with many occurrences in the last few days, the 
last few months, the last 3 years, it is not an April Fool's joke, it 
is the absolute truth.
  I would like to pause at this juncture to salute my colleague from 
the great State of Arizona, the dean of our delegation, the chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Bob Stump, who is one of the 
workhorses here on Capitol Hill. ``Stumper'' is not a show horse. He is 
the dean of the Arizona delegation, who came to this institution under 
the other party's label, but who as a clear, common sense conservative, 
has been unwavering in his support of our Nation's defense, unwavering 
in his commitment to improving the lot of the Nation's veterans, and 
who stands here not, not to try and heap scorn or abuse on the office 
of the Presidency, but to make very clear that while it is not the job 
of Congress to pass judgment in a legal proceeding, a civil proceeding 
in a court of law, it is important for the Congress of the United 
States to speak out when a law that is intended for active duty 
personnel is co-opted, is twisted, is turned, for the convenience of a 
civilian Commander in Chief, by the gentlemen in the so-called legal 
profession whose job it is to search out technicalities.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield just briefly, there is no one 
more qualified to raise this question, because the great Bob Stump that 
you just

[[Page H5491]]

spoke of, who is a dear friend and one of the finest people in this 
House, and is pure gold with respect to national security and veterans 
issues, Bob Stump left his family at the age of 17 in World War II and 
joined the United States Navy, probably the youngest sitting Member in 
this body or the other body to have joined the military.

  That is what this law was for. The Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act 
was for the Bob Stumps of the world, so when they went off for 2 years 
or more, they would not lose their farm because of a lawsuit that they 
did not even know about which came to a judgment while they were gone. 
He is the kind of guy that this law was passed for, right where we are 
standing in this body, in those very dramatic years just before Pearl 
Harbor.
  So it is appropriate that the dean of the Arizona delegation, Bob 
Stump, and I might add another very fine person and a very fine Member 
of this body and a very excellent pilot also, a former Member of the 
United States Air Force, Robert Dornan, the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on National Security, who is 
joining Mr. Stump in this challenge to the way the President has 
misapplied a basic act that was meant to protect people who went off to 
serve their country.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I wanted to kind of go 
over to another topic. While we are on the legal profession and 
revising things, if we may, I want to talk about our criminal justice 
reform efforts, to keep the streets of America safe. It gets back to 
the same thing of twisting the laws and using it as a vehicle, rather 
than using it for is intended purpose of justice.
  But about 2 years ago, I had a call from a family telling me that a 
man who raped their daughter was about to get out of prison. Here were 
the circumstances. Their daughter actually is a grown woman. She was 
giving her 3-year-old a bath one day, the doorbell rings, and she does 
not answer it. The next thing you know, the back door gets kicked in 
and a man comes in, and here is a woman with a 3-year-old bathing the 
3-year-old. And the rapist says, ``You cooperate with me and the kid 
doesn't get hurt.''
  Needless to say, she cooperated. But, fortunately, they found out who 
the man was and they arrested him and so forth, and he was sent to jail 
for 10 years. Well, as it turns out, 3 years later, he is getting out. 
The family was calling me because they had been put on notice he was 
about to get out of prison.
  One of the things that we had done to make our streets safe is to 
require truth in sentencing, so that thug rapists like this gentleman, 
and, frankly, I think 10 years is a light sentence, but if he served 
the sentence for 10 years, he serves 10 years. Our Republican bill 
gives States money for new prison construction as long as they have 
truth-in-sentencing laws, which I think is one of the keys to have our 
streets of America safe. Because I am very concerned about the American 
middle class, and particularly the women who are home alone many hours, 
or who are out by themselves, and are subject to these attacks of rape. 
I believe that we need to continue those efforts as a party.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would share the sentiment of the gentleman from 
Georgia and make one amendment to that in terms of oft times when we 
get into the style of debating here on the floor, we refer to each 
other as a gentleman. I dare say this rapist does not qualify as a 
gentleman. He qualifies as a convict, as a sexual predator, and one who 
should not be back out on the streets to assault that family again, or 
any other family.

  Well, not only do we need truth in sentencing, we need truth in 
government. Good people can disagree from time to time on philosophical 
approaches. But as a newcomer to this body, and I am so glad to have 
friends like the gentleman from California, who has spent some time 
here, who has come here rallying around the cry of strong national 
defense and a true notion of fiscal conservatism and a commitment to 
protect this Nation's borders, but I would like to ask my friend from 
California, in the wake of his time in this Chamber, has he ever seen a 
time when the debate has ranged so far from honest philosophical 
disagreements to epithets and name calling and playground taunts, and 
to be charitable and, quite frankly, to adhere to the rules of the 
House and basic decorum, a departure from fact, as we have seen in the 
wake of the frustration of this new liberal minority in response to the 
positive agenda of our new majority?
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for placing the question so well. I 
will tell you what I think has been the biggest faux pas, the biggest 
mistake, the biggest blunder that liberals have made on the floor this 
year and have made in speeches throughout the country, and this goes 
all the way from the White House right down to the people that run the 
political operations at the grassroots, and that is the liberals have 
constantly said and they have constantly misstated the fact with 
respect to what Republicans are trying to do, to rescue the Medicare 
problems that we have in this country and the Medicare program from 
bankruptcy.
  What I guess bothers me the most is the idea that you had an American 
President whose own cabinet members helped to bring about a report of 
the Medicare Trust Fund that said Medicare is going broke. We have got 
to do something about it. So Republicans came in with a plan that 
increased Medicare spending some 40 percent over the next number of 
years, but increased it from about $4,700 to about $6,200, increased it 
substantially, yet cut out waste, cut out fraud, cut out abuse, and 
offered a range of options to our senior citizens.
  In an issue that was that sensitive and that important to the 
American people, and particularly our moms and dads and our 
grandmothers and grandfathers, the decision was made at the White House 
just not to tell the truth, to tell a lie. So when we increases 
Medicare spending 40 percent, the gentleman at the White House, Bill 
Clinton, right down to the grassroots level of liberal leaders in this 
country, would say, almost in unison, almost chant, ``This is a cut, 
this is a cut, this is a cut.'' And we would get up and say ``Wait a 
minute. We are increasing Medicare spending. We are increasing Medicare 
spending. Is that a cut?'' They said, ``We do not care where you are 
going, that is a cut.''

                              {time}  2200

  And they scared literally millions of senior citizens.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And, indeed, to revise the numbers in the wake of 
negotiations with the Senate, indeed it has been our goal to raise 
Medicare spending per beneficiary beyond $4,700 this year to upwards of 
$7,300 in the revised plan, working in concert with the new majority in 
the Senate. So we have even added more.
  But what we have tried to do is restrain the rate of growth in the 
program to more than twice the current inflation rate, which we think 
is being prudent because it adds again as much as the current rate of 
inflation even while offering free market solutions.
  And, again, as the gentleman from California points out, we are 
constantly met by what seems to be the sloganeering and a perverse 
catechism, if you will, or a chant and mantra that these are cuts, 
these are cuts; they are coming for seniors. And, again, nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  But there is another development, and I would be happy to yield to my 
friend from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. You know what this is like? This is like the Democratic 
leadership yelling fire in a theater that is crowded with senior 
citizens, making them stampede toward the door. It is absolutely 
unconscionable.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I believe the analogy is apt, and I believe there is a 
new development which we should share with the American people, 
reported first by our good friend from Texas, Bill Archer, chairman of 
the House Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who has his finger 
on the pulse of economic activity in this country, a gentleman who 
wants to bring about meaningful reform to our system of taxation that 
currently absolutely penalizes people who succeed, and this is the 
development.
  I am sad to say this is really the message that can only be borne 
with a certain amount of trepidation and fear, and it is this: Those 
self-same trustees on a bipartisan basis now report to us, though the 
White House has yet to formally release this report, they now tell us 
that the hospital fund for Medicare is in debt in excess of $4 
trillion.

[[Page H5492]]

  So, in essence, what has happened, to draw on the history of ancient 
Rome, we have a lot of folks pulling out their fiddles to play while 
the program is going up in flames, all because of the cynical 
manipulation and electioneering that some of this Chamber would do to 
try and succeed in the next election instead of trying to truly save 
the program for the next generation.
  And, indeed, to the credit of those media outlets, ofttimes referred 
to by this gentleman in the well and others as the liberal media, even 
The Washington Post, even The Washington Post, on its editorial page, 
referred to the shameful scare tactics of the left as Mediscare, 
Medigoguery. It is unconscionable.
  Again, I suppose it comes down to this fundamental difference, and 
perhaps this is where philosophy comes back in, because it is a 
philosophical division that is borne of the practical application of 
political power, or the absence thereof on the left, and it is this: 
Today we are confronted by a minority in this body, in the wake of the 
historic shift in attitudes, that is so jealous of the power it once 
wielded, that so yearns for that political power that it will say 
anything, claim anything, scare anyone in its pursuit of power, and yet 
try to conceal the fact that now Medicare is already operating at a 
deficit to the tune of $4 plus billion this year.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Glad to yield to my good friend from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. My mom and dad are on Medicare, and probably your 
parents are, if you are fortunate enough to still have your parents. 
The fact is it is a 1964 Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. I would like my 
parents to have all the options available in 1996. If they want to have 
a medical savings account, if they want to have a managed care plan, if 
they want traditional Medicare, if they want a physician service 
network, I want them to have that option and I want that health care to 
be there for them tomorrow.
  Our plan increases their benefit from $5,000 to $7,000. And we need 
to move in a direction where they do have a choice, they do have 
options, but the program is protected and it is there not just for 
their generation but for other generations that follow.
  Mr HAYWORTH. I think the point is very well taken.
  My friend from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield, I want to bring up one 
other subject for just a minute, if the gentleman will indulge me.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Gladly.
  Mr. HUNTER. We had a number of Armed Services hearings this year, or 
national security hearings in the Committee on National Security, and 
we had the Joint Chiefs before us, and we had the Secretary of Defense, 
Mr. Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, before us. I asked all 
of them a question to lead off the hearing, and I tried to keep fairly 
consistent and put it to them early on in each hearing, and I asked Mr. 
Perry, Dr. Perry, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, this question: 
Do we have the ability in the United States to stop a single incoming 
ballistic missile coming into one of our cities? And the answer that is 
on the record for everybody to read is, no, we do not have the ability 
to stop a single incoming ballistic missile.
  Now, I think it is kind of significant that he would say that this 
year, because after the gulf war, when we had so many of our soldiers 
who were injured by the Scud missiles that Saddam Hussein launched at 
us, people in this Chamber and people in the Senate went into a frenzy, 
and we immediately passed a resolution that said we shall have a 
defense against a limited ballistic missile attack against the United 
States by 1996.
  We said that right after the gulf war in 1992. Well, it is now 1996 
and we have nothing to defend the American people against incoming 
ballistic missiles.
  Now, it is true that the Russian empire, the Soviet empire has been 
broken up, and Belarus and Kazakhstan and the Ukraine and Russia are 
not separate states, but the Russians still maintain a very strong 
strategic system. They have ICBM's, SS-18's, they have SLBM's which are 
their missiles launched from submarines, and, of course, they have 
their bomber aircraft. But many other nations are now developing 
missiles.
  We live in an age of missiles. The Chinese are developing long-rang 
missiles. Some of them are targeted at American cities. We raised a 
fuss over China intimidating Taiwan just before their elections. 
Remember, the Chinese started shooting missiles over Taiwan to scare 
them. One of the Chinese diplomats said to one of our diplomats, we 
hope the United States does not decide to back Taiwan too strongly. We 
think that they will prize Los Angeles more than they will Taiwan.
  Now, that was a direct threat of a missile attack. And perhaps a 
missile attack would never come from china, but the fact that they were 
using the threat of a missile attack that we know we cannot defend 
against as a means of pushing their foreign policy and keeping us from 
protecting our friends is a very dark day in American diplomatic 
history.

  The North Koreans now are building what is known as a Taepo Dong II 
missile. We have seen pictures of it. Our intelligence people know 
about it. It has between a 4,000- and 6,000-kilometer range, and a 
kilometer is about a thousand meters. That means that that weapon 
system, with a light load, a biological weapons load or a chemical load 
will be able to reach Hawaii and Alaska, which, the last time I looked, 
were part of the United States.
  We are not doing anything under this President to build a defense 
against incoming ballistic missiles. So on the defense bill last year, 
and the gentleman in the well from Arizona, who is a great supporter of 
national security, and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], both 
supported very strongly the Republican position that said to the 
President build and deploy by the year 2003, it is about 7 years, and 
it will take about that long if we start right now, a defense against a 
limited attack of nuclear weapons, of ICBMs. Ballistic missiles.
  Well, the President vetoed the defense bill and he vetoed it for two 
stated reasons. One was the reason Mr. Kingston spoke of; that he 
wanted to reserve the right to turn American troops over to the United 
Nations in time of conflict when he wanted to do that; and, second, he 
vetoed it because he did not want to build a defense against ballistic 
missiles.
  So we have repackaged that directive that we think is very, very 
important. And I think this is just as important. It is as important 
that we recognize that we live in an age of missiles, as when Billy 
Mitchell taught us in the 1920's by sinking those battleships with 
aircraft, that we lived then in an age of air power. There was a major 
constituency in Washington, DC, with its head in the sand that said, we 
do not ever want to believe that we have moved out of the age of naval 
power. We do not want to accept that we live in the age of air power.
  They wanted to court-martial Billy Mitchell, and we did court-martial 
him, I believe, in 1925.
  Mr. KINGSTON. He had one vote for him.
  Mr. HUNTER. He did have one vote and that was Douglas MacArthur. And, 
incidentally, I was trying to tell that story today, and our good 
friend Charles Bass looked up and said, ``I know. He is my uncle.'' So 
we do have among us the great nephew of Billy Mitchell, Charlie Bass.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And what Billy Mitchell was trying to accomplish was to 
show that America was not prepared.
  Mr. HUNTER. Precisely.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And he did it at the risk of his own military career. 
And I think history will show that he had his heart in the right spot.
  But I find it appalling, as somebody who is on the east coast near a 
Trident submarine base. The gentleman is telling me that a ballistic 
missile can be dropped in Saint Marys, GA, and we cannot do anything 
about it? I want to hear him say that again.
  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is asking the question that many Americans 
have asked or believe they have answered for themselves and believe 
that we can defend against an incoming ballistic missile attack.
  I have had a focus group where my constituents said, yes, we think we 
are defended. Why would not our Government defend us against ballistic 
missiles? And we had to tell them no, you are not defended.

[[Page H5493]]

  So the answer is no. And Mr. Perry was very honest. The Secretary of 
Defense is honest when you ask him a direct question. He said no we 
cannot stop a single incoming ballistic missile coming into an American 
city.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I just think this is a vital point to bring up, and I 
thank the gentleman from California in bringing it up.
  In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of Defense for 
being equally candid to tell us that today we are vulnerable to a 
missile attack from anyone anywhere in the world, a rogue nation, a 
leader gone mad, one of the folks or one of the nations which we would 
feel would be our conventional adversary, if you will. We are 
unprepared.
  I would simply remark that Mark Twain said it first and said it best. 
``History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.'' And here we have a 
parallel in our history where we need to be warned not to scare people 
but to alert people to a threat to our common defense, and one that we 
have the technology to solve if we but bring the willpower to solve it.
  And the executive branch, quite frankly, this administration, as 
custodian of our foreign policy and as custodian of our defense policy 
has been lackluster at best. Indeed, I recall a breakfast sponsored by 
my good friend from California during our transition, before I ever 
took the oath of office in this House, when I asked Dr. Perry what was 
the rationale for this Government even thinking of supplying nuclear 
reactors to the outlaw nation of North Korea. And the secretary replied 
to me, oh, you need a better briefing on that.
  No briefing necessary to know that it is not in the interest of the 
United States of America to supply any nuclear reactor to an outlaw 
nation like North Korea. It defies common sense, it defies logic and it 
is part of the ill-advised circumstance foisted upon the American 
people who, unfortunately heretofore, have been unaware of the danger 
in which we find ourselves if we fail to provide for the common 
defense.
  My friend from California is absolutely right, and before the 
American people, Mr. Speaker, jump to a conclusion that we are talking 
about some sort of boondoggle in the billions upon billions of dollars, 
I would yield again to my friend from California to talk about some 
interesting estimates that we have received in reference to building a 
system that is leaner and keener with new technologies. What are the 
estimates we have now?

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is absolutely right. We can build a missile 
defense system for less than 1 percent of the annual defense budget. I 
might add, the annual defense budget has been reduced by $100 billion 
under what it was when Ronald Reagan faced down the Soviet Union in the 
1980s. But for roughly $5 billion, that is the estimate of Dr. Perry, 
Mr. Clinton's Secretary of Defense, we can build this defensive system; 
$5 billion is less than our Aegis destroyer program. It is less than 
our submarine program. It is less than our bomber program. It is less 
than our F-22 program. And it is the only thing that will stop incoming 
ballistic missiles. We need that system.
  The Defend America Act that the gentleman is cosponsoring, that Mr. 
Kingston is cosponsoring and that Mr. Spence, the chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Livingston, chairman of 
Appropriations, and our Speaker Newt Gingrich are sponsoring, will be 
on the floor shortly. Every single Member of this Congress, especially 
those who all signed on to the Defend America Act after Desert Storm, 
after the Scud attacks, should sign onto this bill and vote for it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, we should point out, as the gentleman from 
California is well aware with his knowledge of international policy, of 
foreign defense spending, that this President has committed to help 
Israel construct a defense mechanism, to put in place a defense 
mechanism against ICBM attack which begs the question, with all due 
respect to the nation of Israel, if it is important for that nation, is 
it not also important for the country which the President took the oath 
of office to support, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United 
States, should not this country also have that missile defense?
  Mr. HUNTER. The difference between the gentleman who is standing in 
the well and a member of the Knesset is that he can say, the gentleman 
from Israel can say, my President is defending me against missile 
attacks, and you have to tell your constituents, my President is not 
defending me against missile attacks.

                          ____________________