J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Before my friend from New York begins, my friend from Florida raised a point, he mentioned the balanced budget amendment. Did all three of you join with the majority to vote for the balanced budget amendment?

Mr. HAYWORTH. You and the gentleman from New Jersey, and the gentlewoman from New York had problems with it.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield further, I think my friend from New Jersey would remark upon my restraint during the course of this. I thank the gentleman for the time. The question came, why do not we let this go, why do not we let the next election be the referendum on this, and I would respectfully suggest that again that is a postponement of what was decided in November of 1994, and we affirmed last month in a special election in California. We are certainly in this representative form of Government in this republic to make those decisions, not to go, to use the metaphor that I used in my previous life and have been in another walk of life, to go into a 4-corners offense and delay and delay and delay the work that should be done now.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I would say that is very optimistic thinking by the gentlewoman, and we welcome her to our side.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I watched with interest the befuddled stage business just preceding me in the well of this House, and as my good friend from Florida was flummoxed trying to make an argument for fiscal conservatism, it bears out the point that for the last 40 years, those proponents of tax-and-spend and spend-some-more will do anything to change the subject. Mr. Speaker, the mission is clear: Balance the budget in 7 years using the honest, nonpartisan numbers of the Congressional Budget Office. Sure, the liberals will try to change the subject. Sure, they will try to act as if they are born-again fiscal conservatives, but just as that flummoxed piece of stage crap indicates, it will not wash.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, we certainly all come from very different districts across the width and breadth of this continent.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time briefly for this question, where was he for the first 3 weeks after the public law was signed? Where was the negotiation for those 3 weeks?

Mr. HAYWORTH. To reclaim my time before I yield to my friend from New Jersey, ``History does not repeat itself, it rhymes.'' I am fond of that statement from Mark Twain. Our most recent history provided a continuing resolution. People may disagree as to the emphasis or the subtleties that I do not see appearing in that document. But when we have a situation, the gentleman used the term ``disingenuous'', when there is that situation and that unfortunate suspicion, it is very difficult, because it completely changes the parameters and fails to have common terms of agreement for debate in conflict resolution.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, it is a fair question that I would like to answer. When the Chief Executive vetoes the balanced budget offered by this House and the other body, when the Chief Executive does that, then he puts upon his shoulders, if you will, he foists upon himself and his branch of government the responsibility for offering an alternative.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time to allow my friend from Florida a chance to answer those questions.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for her observation and would yield to my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis] and then I promise, I will yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me yield to the gentlewoman from New York and then the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HAYWORTH. So, again, a majority of the minority here tonight did not support that budget when it was brought to the floor.

Mr. HAYWORTH. So the gentleman from New Jersey did not; the gentlewoman from New York did not, and the gentleman from Florida did.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time briefly. Let me just ask my colleagues, did all three of you vote for the coalition budget when it appeared on this floor?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's heartfelt sentiments. Perhaps I am guilty too, sometimes, of verbosity. I know he had a lot to say there and challenged to do it in a brief period of time. Again, before I yield to my friend from Georgia, let me respectfully suggest to my friend from New Jersey, again, as has been stated by my colleagues, this is not about leverage, this is about the future. It is about a free society, people of goodwill from opposite points of view agreeing to broad parameters, in terms of debate, upon which disagreements may be resolved. What is especially disturbing is that this pattern portends something that is less than the common good, because, in the words of columnist Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post 2 months ago, ``When one side continues to repeatedly distort the facts and the evidence, then the purpose is not to debate, it is to destroy.'' With that, I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for his rejoinder and then we will return to our friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I believe my friend from Georgia wants to ask a question of our friends on the minority.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time to yield 1 moment to my friend from California, and then, of course, I will be happy to hear from my friends from the minority.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, and I will be happy to yield to my friend from Kentucky and my friend from California in just one moment, and I appreciate the measured tones that my friend from New Jersey is employing, but to suggest that it is this new majority that holds this Government hostage is again to ignore the fact that the President, within his constitutional bounds, as the gentleman points out, chose to pick up a veto bill because it was more important to him, for whatever reason, to veto those appropriations than to work with this majority to keep the Government in business. So to a certain degree it may be the chicken or the egg argument, but I feel compelled to protest, in measured tones, the use of that word. Because good people and people of good will should be able to disagree. And with that, let me yield to my friend from Kentucky.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's restrained tones and very sober assessment, and indeed this is refreshing compared to some of the things I have heard in this Chamber and elsewhere. But I think here is the fundamental problem. In all sincerity, I would say to the gentlewoman from New York, it is extremely distressing in a free society when the parameters of debate are agreed to, to have one party--no, I do not mean Republican and Democrat--but I mean one party to the agreement seem to be perhaps either confused or deliberately disingenuous as to the parameters or the terms of debate. That is what I feel is so difficult. Certainly the gentlewoman offered, in a very, I think, understated way, a very appealing argument in some ways. The one that is fundamentally flawed, because it fails to acknowledge the culpability, or let me rephrase that, the responsibility of the executive branch to recognize that yes, there is a new majority, and though there may be disagreements, there is also a responsibility for the Executive to sign appropriation bills to keep people at work. The problem at which we are at loggerheads comes from the fact that we just do not seem to get a consistent answer from the executive branch. Again, as my friend from Georgia pointed out, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. And it is difficult to abandon that, because it is more than an obstruction. It is the very crux of the problem we face. If the Executive will agree in good faith to the parameters, if my friend from Florida and my friend from New York, my friend from New Jersey now embrace the budget offered by the minority within the minority, then fine, let us move forward and have that discussion. But not to be able to get the debate on the table because of the shifts that come almost by the nanosecond in the executive branch is extremely, extremely distressing.