J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Ladies and gentlemen, we are consulting on this.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I, rather than requesting----

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for this gentleman to make a unanimous-consent request that we continue to speak until 12 midnight?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia. As always, I am heartened and, yes, frankly troubled by the statements of our good friend from California. For once again, our friend from California points up a disturbing pattern of denial on the part of this administration. As we said on the evening when we debated the whole notion of sending our troops there, this is not for fighting men and women to pull the zebra stripes of the referee in an athletic contest over their camouflage. Our fighting men and women are exactly that. They are not referees, nor are they social workers. And far more disturbing, my colleagues, in addition to the disinformation, the denial, the disavowal of this man's sacrifice, now word comes that the President of the United States would like to extend this mission in Bosnia past the deadline of 1 year, perhaps to silence critics that said this could have been a political move, or perhaps fitting into a pattern of inconsistency that has beset the foreign policy of this administration, a foreign policy typified by the irrationality----

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Speaker pro tempore for taking us through that process which is required because, after all, this House operates by rules, and we attempt to bring some rationality to this process that some would call highly irrational. But as I was saying a moment ago, what I find completely irrational are the flip-flops of this administration as stewards of our foreign policy for once again, remarkable to me upon my election to this institution was hearing the suggestion, far from modest and far from realistic, that this Nation provide the technology for nuclear reactors to be construed in the outlawed Nation of North Korea. I asked the Secretary of Defense at a brunch we held, and I thanked the Secretary for coming by, and essentially he told me: Congressman-elect, you need a better briefing on the subject. It was my good fortune to run into the Honorable Jean Kirkpatrick, our former ambassador to the United Nations, who was far more candid in her assessment when she said: Congressman-elect, you do not need a fuller briefing. You correctly identified the problem. And it is this disturbing trend of this administration that would put Americans in harm's way, that would deal with the most irrational policy around the world that should give all Americans grave concern, for this administration is typified not by what it can accomplish but how it can explain away its problems this time, what verbal contortions and rhetorical gymnastics can be brought to bear to explain away an unfortunate snafu this time? Woe to us if we fail to develop a rational, consistent foreign policy that has paramount interests of the United States of America as its clearly defined goal. No good people can disagree, but I maintain this administration, perhaps with the best of intentions, has made the worst of decisions. I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It is a competition in a free society of conflicting philosophies, and when the day comes when one side continues to deliberately distort the truth, then, as in the eloquent words of Robert J. Samuelson last summer in the Washington Post, quoting now: The purpose is not to debate, it is to destroy. That has no place in the free society. If we cannot honestly debate factual material along philosophical lines and have honest disagreements, then I fear for the very foundations of our republic. When someone will go around the country saying here it is, here is the secret list of parks the Republicans are closing, when there are no secret lists and there are no plans to close the crown jewels of this country, it is inexcusable, and there should be an accounting to the----

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, hearing my dear friend from Texas reminds me of that great country and western song entitled ``That's my story and I'm sticking to it.'' The same tired old bromides based on fear and not on facts still exist within the liberal minority. I daresay what we fail to hear from that microphone is the stunning reality that the bipartisan trustees of the Medicare trust fund told us not 2 weeks ago that if we fail to act, Medicare, as we know it, goes broke in 5 years, quite possibly in 4. The key difference is this, Mr. Speaker: When we get past the name calling and the playground taunts, those of us in the new majority are willing to work to govern, to save, preserve, protect, and improve a program for the next generation, while our dear liberal friends are so willing to abandon reality they are thinking only of the next election. The American people will make the right choice.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to our new colleague from Oregon and our good friend from Washington, the sponsor of this amendment. I listened with interest to the letter offered by the gentleman from the ornithological association. I stand here in the well today representing the people of the Sixth District of Arizona, many of whom feel they are voiceless and powerless against an onslaught that is ofttimes offered in moderate tones, with the occasional playground taunt or the demonization of one personality. In stark contrast to the assertion of my new colleague from Oregon, I would commend to him the words of my good friend, the ranking member from the Committee on Resources on his side of the aisle, who absolutely, tooth and nail, went after a private citizen for the sin of operating a company that provides jobs and, dare I say the word, yes, ``profits.'' But what we have to ask, Mr. Chairman, is this question, What is reasonable? What is fair? Again, despite the letters, despite the playground taunts, despite the venom and vitriol, here are the facts. Take a look at the ownership of the acreage for this critical habitat designation, 2.9 million acres belong to the Federal Government; 706,000 acres belong to the State government; only 48,000 acres are private. Mr. Chairman, it is a fair question to ask, Is it not reasonable to allow a true balance to exist, to let the fragile rural economies and the very downtrodden that side of the aisle purports to champion keep their jobs and their way of life? When, oh when, will we speak up for the disenfranchised who do not have the glitz and glamour of the Hollywood crowd on their side but a simple plea and request: Let us keep our jobs. Let us keep our way of life because we have an interest in the environment, too. We have an interest in seeing this society preserved and, yes, we love the true concept of conservation. Yes, that is an emotional plea backed up by a rational plea. Mr. Chairman, I would implore the Members of this minority to rise up against this amendment. It is unfair, it is unreasonable.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would commend my colleagues from North Carolina and from Oklahoma for drafting and presenting this resolution this evening. Mr. Speaker, what type of person, what type of twisted, sick mind would choose to launch an attack on a house of worship, no matter its denomination, no matter the people who choose to worship there? Tonight, as my colleague from Georgia who preceded me in the well noted, it is time to come together. We often have spirited and contentious debate in this Chamber. Indeed, we champion that right to freely express differences of opinion honestly held. But tonight, Mr. Speaker, the call for all Americans should be, let us unite against those who would seek to deprive us of our most fundamental freedom, the freedom to worship individually or corporately according to the dictates of our own conscience. Questions of motives, indeed veiled references, if you will, to one political philosophy or another really have no place in this debate. Indeed, even as we could attack or isolate one form of communication, we could also point to the growing secularization of America and hostility toward churches and people of faith. Let us come together, Mr. Speaker, tonight, resolute in the knowledge that all these actions taken against any house of worship are blatantly wrong, and this Congress will work to stop it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, there certainly is no deficit of delusion, distortion and desperation from these born-again budgeteers on the liberal side of the aisle, but, Mr. Speaker, I come here today to commend to everyone's attention the article that appears in this morning's Wall Street Journal headlined ``Inside the White House File Scandal'', which I submit for the Record: [From the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, June 13, 1996] Inside the White House File Scandal (By Gary W. Aldrich) I loved my career with the FBI and treasure my years as a special agent. Of the many assignments I was privileged to have over the course of a 26-year career, the highlight was the five years, just prior to my 1995 retirement, I spent assigned to the White House. For more than three decades the FBI, the Secret Service and the White House Counsel's Office had worked as a team to clear the hundreds of new staff members who come with each new administration. This clearance process entailed a lengthy FBI background investigation to document the good character of every White House employee. It was a comprehensive and effective security system, perfected by six presidents to protect national security, the taxpayer and the White House itself.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to focus on the real world, because I represent a slice of the real world, the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. As a private citizen, now that I am a newcomer to Congress, I watched what happened here for the better part of 4 decades. The real debate tonight needs to be put in perspective. Who is really balancing the budget, despite the articulate arguments of the minority within the minority that wants no tax relief for the American people? The majority on that side, the liberal folks, did not want to do a thing, did not want to touch it. The deficit would have been astronomical. Now our President, who tells us the era of big government is over, does a little bit better but he does not really lower these deficits, nor does he provide the kind of commonsense tax relief that the real people of this country deserve. Instead, it is this budget resolution which delivers. Lower deficits, balancing the budget, lower taxes. That is reality, that is the truth. Vote ``yes'' on this plan.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning first to bring greetings to you and those who look in from the Grand Canyon State of Arizona. As proud as Arizonans and indeed all Americans are of the Grand Canyon, rhetorically and in terms of actions within this city of Washington, DC, there is, indeed, a credibility canyon, not a gap but a canyon, an everwidening chasm between the rhetoric of our President and the reality of his actions and inactions. The headlines in this morning's Washington Times indicate how this credibility canyon continues to widen. Lists of files may be incomplete. White House stories face Hill questions. But, Mr. Speaker, there are more than questions which will emanate from this Chamber and in committee. There are questions that the American people have about the stewardship of the Presidency, about the veracity of claims made by this President and, again, the disparity between the rhetoric and the reality. How unfortunate it is, Mr. Speaker, that this administration and, in particular, this President are not defined by the innocent question, what can he do or what can we do together to solve America's problems. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the question that we hear from coast to coast and, indeed, in the Sixth District of Arizona, is this one: How can the President explain it away this time? What verbal gyrations, gymnastics, contortions will be brought to bear to put the best face on obtaining hundreds of FBI files on members of the Republican Party? Our President would have us believe plaintively that it was, ``an honest snafu.'' Well, he is partially right. Snafu is an accurate term. But as for the first word mentioned, the American people have serious questions. It is a tragedy that those in the executive branch fail to understand the missive of Mark Twain, who wrote that history does not repeat itself but it rhymes. Mr. Speaker, I read with interest the comments of Daniel Schorr, the liberal media commentator who to his credit in the wake of what transpired 25 years ago during a Republican administration now says of this administration, what makes these people believe that the FBI is their private domain to do their private bidding in terms of political investigations. Indeed, the challenge exists for journalists in this town. Indeed, one wonders where the next team of Woodward and Bernstein might be found, and one also wonders what the results of an investigation would bring or, given the prevailing advocacy of journalists in this town, would the book written be titled, maybe ``One or Two of the President's Low-Level Functionaries'' instead of the title ``All the President's Men.'' It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to come here from elsewhere, to come here from the heartland of America and to see this dichotomy between rhetoric and reality. Mr. Speaker, this Congress will move to close the credibility canyon.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HAYWORTH. In view of the preceding remarks, do the rules of the House require that speakers tell the truth during the course of their remarks?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Chair. However, I find it a valid point.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut and all those who heard her remarks would be interested in hearing the accurate quote she attributed to the Speaker of the House, not talking about the Medicare Program, but the Health Care Financing Administration. Here is the complete quote: You know, we tell Boris Yeltsin, get rid of centralized command bureaucracies, go to the marketplace. Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It is a centralized command bureaucracy. It is everything we are telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. No, we don't get rid of it in round one, because we don't think it is politically smart, we don't think that is the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think seniors are voluntarily going to leave it, voluntarily. Again, the record demonstrates, that refers to the Health Care Financing Administration, not to Medicare withering on the vine. That is the type of partisanship we should avoid in moving to solve this problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would join my colleague from Minnesota, and I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding. Yes, I would have to take issue with the statements of our friend from Wisconsin, playing off some of the philosophical biases of some of the self-appointed potentates and pundits around the Beltway as if issues are there to be stolen or plagiarized. That is not the issue in this case. What is the issue is something that is seemingly oft repeated in this dynmaic which exists between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch, and that is, unfortunately, and I say this not with any glee nor with venom or vitriol, there simply is an inconsistency between the President's words and the President's deeds. And so again what we are doing in the new majority, with sincere folks from the other side of the aisle, is to step beyond partisanship and give the President the vote of confidence, I think we could almost say, to move forward with the very waivers he so willingly embraced. My friend from Georgia recalls that twice now we have passed welfare reform, mindful of the President's words to end welfare as we know it. We have done it twice and twice we have seen that legislation vetoed.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia and I thank my colleague from Minnesota for joining us this evening and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, those across our great Nation who are looking in this evening. We are confronted by profound problems. The test for us is not posturing for an election in November but moving to solve these problems. So once again, despite the challenges of some deliberate disinformation, we call on our colleagues from the liberal persuasion and the President of the United States at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to join with us to save Medicare, to adequately address these problems, to deal with the crime issue, to deal with genuine welfare reform, and to do it because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And even despite the considerable influence and pervasive atmosphere of this city, which seems to have a fundamental disconnection with the rest of the country, there is another disturbing development. Again our friend from Wisconsin who preceded us asked, almost plaintively, ``Why can't Republicans and Democrats get along?'' I would contend that on many issues there are many folks on the Democratic side who want to find solutions. What is troubling is that there are many in this Chamber who, even in the act of despairing and disparaging partisanship, turn right around and engage in the same type of partisanship. You mentioned earlier, and the example was especially unfortunate and egregious, our good friend and colleague from Connecticut stood up again, mischaracterizing and misquoting one of the prominent Members of this institution with reference to Medicare, attributing a quote to that individual, saying this individual said that Medicare would wither on the vine. And indeed the record reflects that the speaker in question was talking about the Health Care Financing Administration, not the Medicare Program. I would simply repeat the quote: You know, we tell Boris Yeltsin, get rid of centralized command bureaucracies, go to the marketplace. What do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It is a centralized command bureaucracy. It is everything we are telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. No, we do not get rid of it in round one because we do not think it is politically smart. We do not think that is the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it--the Health Care Financing Administration--let me add that emphasis--we believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think seniors are going to leave it, are going to leave it voluntarily. It is most disturbing. And as much as we want to move forward in a bipartisan fashion, when there are those who repeatedly come to this floor and either through misinformation or deliberate disinformation choose to mischaracterize and unfairly characterize the facts in this debate, then it is our duty to point out the inaccuracies of those statements, not for playground taunts or to score debating points as if this were some super sophisticated debating society, no, not at all. Because we are cognizant of the fact that this is the Chamber in which our constitutional Republic must talk out issues and must find solutions.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Even as we lament the inaccuracies and what some, including those of us here on the floor would believe are downright distortions coming from some folks who do not appear really committed to finding a solution to this, in the spirit of true bipartisanship, in the spirit of finding a constructive path to solve this problem, let us state what has happened that has been constructive. First of all, the President today called on us to find a bipartisan solution. I know we would say to the President, Mr. Speaker, we would say welcome to this. Now let us own up to the problem and let us move to solve it. Let us also note for the record that many Members of this Chamber on both sides of the aisle lament the waste, fraud and abuse the system has wrought. So we understand that fact. Now again, not in the spirit of one-upmanship or political advantage but in the spirit of truly trying to solve this problem and save this program for our seniors, I believe we need to point out some honest differences of opinion on this issue. No. 1, gone are the days and indeed we see with the release of this trustees' report that the crisis has grown more acute, that now we are looking at the fund going broke in 5 years, but quite possible in 4. Now again, our colleague from Connecticut stood in the Chamber and said that the new majority was rejecting out of hand a commission. Well, again, a closer check of history would indicate that that was part and parcel of our solution program a year and a half ago. But moreover, again those of us who are new to this town, I think, come in perhaps without the experience of the so-called insiders but with clear enough vision to understand that in Washingtonese, when you are dealing with a program that is sensitive politically, one tactic that is quite often used to pacify the citizenry until the next election is a blue ribbon independent panel. Mr. Speaker, again, I say this not in the spirit of criticism but in the spirit of solving this problem. The problem is far too acute to delay again or to put off or to somehow postpone until we get through the next election. What we are talking about is health care for our senior generations. My folks go on it next year. My 92-year-old grandfather has prospered from his health care and is living an outstanding life now, as indeed many senior citizens are. The very thing we need to do is to move to save this program, and I dare say at the end of another year and a half or another 2 years, after we go through the pomp and circumstance of a commission, we will be no closer to a solution when right now we have the blueprint which exists to make the change. We passed it last year, last October, the Medicare Preservation Act. Now, again, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I would call on the President to join with us. The one thing we cannot afford is any type of convenient Washington way out or gimmick that would again seem to pacify or mollify seniors and try to take care of this program. We do not need to play a shell game with $55 billion moving from the Medicare trust fund to the general fund or vice versa or any type of legislative sleight of hand to try and satisfy this problem. We need to be up front. Many of us in this Chamber had the courage to confront this a year and a half ago. We do not do that to ask for the gold star of good partisanship. We simply recognized that fact and the Medicare Preservation Act is a framework which offers choice, which offers quite candidly what many seniors are comfortable with and that is Medicare status quo which cleans up the waste, fraud, and abuse, which introduces the concept of choice and which moreover actually adds money to the beneficiaries every year, from $4,800 this year to well over $7,000 a few short years from now, and actually increases at what is basically twice the current inflation rate. It is a prudent policy to follow to save this program. It is vital we do so. So it is in that spirit of bipartisanship that we call on the leadership of the minority side, that we call on the President of the United States, that we call on the Members of the other body to move forward to solve this problem. As today's report indicates, this is far too important to put off because of political considerations.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think our colleague from Minnesota makes excellent points, points worth echoing, because I can attest in the Sixth District of Arizona, a district in square mileage which is a little larger than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with vast rural areas, with not a great population density in those 46,000 square miles, we are finding similar problems in the rural areas in the less densely populated areas. We are finding indeed, and it troubles me to even say it in this fashion, but you know how many reputable businesses are built on franchise. I dare say that gangs, part and parcel of our drug problem, seem to be replicating or franchising far faster than any reputable business organization. Now it is coming into rural, sparsely populated Arizona. We have many of the same problems and, indeed, both of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have addressed this point. We have to ask this question as well: One of the undergirding concepts of western law and, indeed, whether it is British or American case law, is the notion of what is reasonable. That is, put in a particular situation, what would a reasonable person do? As our colleague from Georgia points out, it is especially troubling that a judge would move or would opine from the bench that fleeing the police in a certain neighborhood should ever be considered reasonable behavior. It is especially troubling, and indeed causes great concern, as we look to our third branch of government in our separate but coequal branches, as we try to address the problem of crime and the rise of drug use among young people, we must move not for what is radical, despite the playground taunts and the labels that we hear from so many within here on the banks of the Potomac, but what is reasonable. That must define what we do.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting once again to return to the well and see the same rhetorical tactics utilized so desperately by the other side, so desperate in fact that a liberal newspaper in this town, the Washington Post, has talked about it now on two occasions. Members may recall last year the editorial entitled ``Medagogues,'' quoting now, If the Medicare program won't become less generous over time, how do the Democrats propose to finance it and continue the rest of the Federal activities they espouse? That is the question. You listen in vain for a real response. It is irresponsible. Now comes another Post editorial, entitled ``Medagogues Continued,'' quoting again from the Washington Post, The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare tax cut connection because it is useful politically. It allows them to attack and to duck responsibility both at the same time. We think it is wrong. Medicare is going bankrupt. That is what should scare all Americans. We have a solution. They have nothing but complaints.