J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend the gentleman from Georgia. In this Chamber where it is oft decried, the level of verbosity that often emanates within this Chamber, you have not seen words, Mr. Speaker, until you take a look at the Tax Code. The gentleman from Georgia talked about it. By wording, the Tax Code as it exists today consists of 555 million words, 555 million words in the last 10 years. In the wake of tax reform of a decade ago there have been 4,000 changes, resulting in the verbiage piling up. Mr. Speaker, if you think you are paying by the word, that is certainly the case. Because in the wake of our last tax increase, the largest tax increase in American history, the President of the United States, who talks about tax breaks for the middle-class, offered a tax increase so regressive that with the retroactivity attached to it, people who had passed away still owed more from beyond the grave due to retroactivity. It is the height of absurdity when the American family in 1948, an average family of four, surrendered about 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government, to where last year the average American family of four surrendered virtually one quarter of its income in taxes to the Federal government. That affects everyone. Mr. Speaker, we need to make a change. We have taken a look at priorities and we see that clearly, in the wake of these expenditures, Washington's priorities have totally gotten out of whack.

Mr. HAYWORTH. My friend from Georgia offers the attribution. And if he would continue to yield, we would know that the President has had to be persuaded by Members of his own party to offer a phantom budget that would come into balance in 7 years, and using a personal analogy that I am sure my friend from Georgia can appreciate, since he is a physical fitness buff, the budget that the gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue now advocates to try and bring our budget into balance would be akin to me saying I need to go on a diet. I think we can all acknowledge that fact. I think I am going to lose 50 pounds over the next 2 months, but I am going to lose 2 of those pounds in several weeks' time, and I will save the 48 remaining pounds for the final 2 days of the diet. It just does not work. Theoretically, you can write down numbers on a sheet of paper, but what this new majority has offered is a clear, commonsense plan to bring this budget into balance in 7 years, which this President vetoed; a clear, commonsense plan to reform welfare as we know it, which this President vetoed; and now yielding to my friend from Georgia, I would gladly listen to his points.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Georgia. I am heartened by the fact that other colleagues from the majority join us tonight to talk about a variety of topics. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct. There could not be a greater difference in Government than the difference that exists between the 103d Congress, held captive by the proponents of big Government and more and more centralized planning and more and more taxation and more and more spending, and those of us now in the majority in the 104th Congress, unafraid to offer America, Mr. Speaker, a clear, commonsense approach to Government, an approach which really beckons and harkens back to our founders, an approach typified in the first act this Congress passed, which simply said this: Members of Congress should live under the same laws every other American lives under. Indeed, as my friend from Georgia pointed out, with a litany of progress on a variety of issues, there is one inescapable fact that we confront at this juncture in the second session of the 104th Congress, and that is the criticism, the carping, the complaining, of liberals, both in this city and nationwide, of the powerful special interests who have as their mission in life the maintenance of the welfare state, the maintenance and enhancement and growth of centralized planning; those disciples of big Government who now would criticize the new commerce in this new majority and paint our agenda, indeed, our contract for America, as somehow being extreme. Mr. Speaker, it is time to point to this simple fact: The only thing extreme about the agenda of the new majority is the fact that it makes extremely good sense. I take, for example, the comments of my friend from Georgia, who talked about the fact that in the wake of the 1992 election the incoming President, as one of his first acts, chose to proposed and this Chamber approved by one vote the largest tax increase in American history. Emboldened by that victory, our friend at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue worked in secret to devise a plan of government, that is to say, socialized medicine. The American people said ``Enough,'' and in November 1994 gave this new Congress a mandate. Mr. Speaker, I can vouch as one who watched with interest my colleague from Georgia and my other colleagues here who served in the 103d Congress and served valiantly to point out the absurdity of the extremism of those who always endorse the liberal welfare state, I saw with my eyes their valiant efforts. But more importantly, through the votes of the good people of the United States of America with a new majority, we have moved to do simple things, ironically, the same things that a candidate for the Presidency, who was ultimately elected in 1992, talked about. My friend from Georgia remembers this well. Remember the campaign rhetoric: I will balance the budget in 5 years?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, first of all, I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Maryland. We serve together on the Committee on Resources. It is no secret that we may not agree on every single jot and tittle with reference to policy. Yet at the same time I am heartened by the fact that the gentleman from Maryland, as well as my friend from Michigan and my friend from Georgia, all recognize this central theme, that it is not centralization of power or a one-size-fits-all philosophy that oft times is outdated with reference to new technologies that develop, but, instead, the realization that there must be a spirit of conciliation, a spirit of cooperation and the notion that is really quite common sensical when you think about it, the acknowledgment that Phoenix is not the same as Philadelphia, that Monroe, LA, may not be the same as Grand Rapids, MI, that Savannah, GA, may not be the same as St. Louis, MO. There are different issues that confront us all. So in that spirit, even while there may be some disagreements on how we get to a cleaner environment, how we recapture for the American people the true spirit of conservation, let us start with that premise, and also what the gentleman from Michigan talked about, and that is the sense of balance that must be there, preservation of the environment, a true spirit of conservation, and at the same time a preservation, if you will, of the fragile rural economies this Nation has; for example, in the Sixth District of Arizona. So it is a challenge. It is not easy to face up to many of these questions, although common sense will rule the day, I believe, and we will ultimately come to some agreements. But let us also categorically reject even amidst the gridlock that my friend from Maryland talked about this need on the part of some within this body and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to try and demonize those who will take another approach, indeed along the same lines of the school lunch debate, really the school lunch scare, and with reference to the mediscare debate. I have yet to see starving children in the streets or the elderly thrown in the streets. And by the same token, I do not believe the vast majority of Americans are turning on their taps and drinking sludge. So let us articulate up front that, while there may be some slight differences in approaches, the bottom line remains true for members of the new majority. We want to find constructive, common sense solutions that preserve the environment, that preserve the economy and do exactly what the gentleman from Maryland talks about, offers an environment to generations yet unborn that is clean and that may be used, not only for emotional well-being, but for economic well-being for that is the challenge we face in the last decade of the 20th century. So I am heartened by my friend's remarks and look forward to working with him, even acknowledging some differences along the way. I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Illinois, through overstatement and exaggeration, once again indulges in pure fantasy. The fact is that the rights of every American are best protected when we uphold this document, the Constitution of the United States. The fact is that the most publicized murder of this decade, indeed of this half century, involved a knife. The fact is that in other democracies where there is gun control, violence with guns has not been eliminated. Look at the recent tragedy in Scotland. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this question: Who do you trust? Do you trust law-abiding American citizens, or do you trust a bloated bureaucracy, willing to strip Americans of their rights and privileges? That is the question confronting this Congress. Who do you trust? Washington, or the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, here we go again. As the American people look to this Congress to find innovative solutions, the guardians of the old order, those who tell us that big government is always the best answer, those who would confuse the process of education with the Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Education, seek to strike fear in the heart of every American. We do not need to be involved in name calling. In fact, we need to get past partisanship. That is why, Madam Speaker, I noted with interest the comment of the junior Senator from the State of Nebraska in talking about the proposed budget of the President of the United States. ``The budget, this budget, is the same smoke and mirrors. It is ridiculous. They are just not serious.'' Madam Speaker, the fact is we will always have differences, but let us work together constructively, end the fear mongering, and solve problems for America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, $8 billion. Inside the Beltway here, in this land of bureaucracy in the District of Columbia, $8 billion may not seem like a lot of money, but, Mr. Speaker, to the people of the Sixth District of Arizona, and I would say to people nationwide, $8 billion is a whole lot of money, especially when those $8 billion, Mr. Speaker, are going to come out of the pockets of the American people. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have to have limited and effective government. Yet, the gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue has the same old answer to the question. He talks about the days of big government being over. Yet, he wants to fund $8 billion of additional ineffective Washington programs. Mr. Speaker, when I return to the Sixth District of Arizona, no one runs up to me and says ``Please, Congressman, take more and more of my money for ineffective government programs.'' They say the time has come to rein in spending and have a limited and effective government.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to the Casa Malpais National Historic Landmark in Springerville, AZ. The Casa Malpais National Historic Landmark is a 14.5 acre archaeological site located near the towns of Springerville and Eager in northeastern Arizona. The site was occupied around A.D. 1250 by one of the largest and most sophisticated Mogollon communities in the United States. Casa Malpais is an extraordinary rich archaeological site. Stairways, a Great Kiva complex, a fortification wall, a prehistoric trail, catacombs, sacred chambers, and rock panels are just some of the features of this large masonry pueblo. Due to its size, condition, and complexity, the site offers an unparalleled opportunity to study ancient society in the Southwest and, as such, is of national significance. My legislation would establish the Casa Malpais National Historic Landmark as an affiliated unit of the National Park Service. Affiliated status would authorize the resources and protection necessary to preserve this treasure. As a member of the family of affiliated national landmarks, the public would also have greater exposure to the Casa Malpais site. The communities in the area support this legislation. Local officials have taken steps to ensure that all research and development of the site is conducted in consultation with affiliated local native American tribes. I ask my colleagues to support this measure. It will enhance the landmark's attributes for the enjoyment and education of local communities, the State of Arizona, and the Nation. By supporting this measure, we can help open this unique window of history through which we can study and learn about our rich heritage.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York State said it all when she quoted her mother: Actions speak louder than words. Now unfortunately as the calendar gives way to spring and ultimately to November, our campaigner in chief seems to be willing yet again to shut down the Federal Government in a bald-faced political tactic. Mr. Speaker, he is trying to bully this Chamber into spending $8 billion in additional taxpayers' dollars in a cynical attempt to be reelected. Mr. Speaker, the American people know full well that actions speak louder than words. Once again I reach out, Mr. Speaker, to our friends on the other side, ask them to join together and to help us govern, not to electioneer, not to have politics as usual but to get about the business of governing this great Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is interesting, as my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, noted, the juxtaposition that has gone on here. In previous days when we have debated this issue, statements from the other side have been that this was an effort to restrict free speech. Mr. Chairman, free speech is not free when you and I are paying for it, when the taxpayers of this country repeatedly are called upon to let folks come up here and lobby, and take that money and lobby for more and more money. The fact is, this is a very simple requirement, simply calling for disclosure; not itemization not red tape nothing of the sort. The fact is we know this lobbying has gone on. We know taxpayers' dollars have gone for this, and this must stop, or at the very least, as this amendment says, it should be accounted for and simply disclosed. My colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, said it eloquently. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let us let the sunshine in and have disclosure of these funds.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the delegate from the District of Columbia. While we may have some philosophical differences that should be debated on this floor and while we may have problems from time to time, when I returned to the Sixth District of Arizona, one message was given to me overwhelmingly by liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. They said, Congressman, focus on results and what works. Therefore, our mission is clear. To do, in the words of President Clinton, what he said he wanted to do, to end welfare as we know it, to find a way to cut into the bureaucracy so $32 billion is not spent on the bureaucracy of education but instead put on the front-lines helping children learn and ultimately to allow the American people to hang onto more of their hard-earned money to decide how to spend that on their children instead of sending it here to Washington bureaucrats. Those three broadly defined goals deal with results. Let us work together to see those results brought to fruition.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the conference report just adopted.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for pointing out and making it very personal. Indeed, I would echo the comments of our good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], who preceded me here in the well, Mr. Speaker. Lest there is some misinterpretation of this, let me again state what should be obvious: There is nothing ignoble or selfish or somehow lacking civic-mindedness for people wanting to hang onto more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington. Mr. Speaker, you know something is wrong when the average American family spends more on taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there must be a change.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, returning from recess, and Mr. Speaker, I assure you and others who might be tuned in tonight that it might have been recess, but it certainly was not play period; instead, it was a chance to traverse the width and breadth of the Sixth District of Arizona, some 46,000 square miles in our sixth largest State, I was struck repeatedly in town hall meetings by the concern Arizonans share in the notion of tax reform. Indeed, tax is the three-letter-word that has too often become a four-letter-word because of the circumstances surrounding the tax burden, because of the seemingly, and in reality, confiscatory policies that confront law-abiding Americans. To offer some perspective, I would point to a study conducted by the Small Business Survival Group that looked back in time to 1913, to the introduction of the amendment which led to Federal income tax, the 16th amendment. In conducting this study, the people of the Small Business Survival Group took a look at what our tax rates would be if that original act had not been changed through the years. Mr. Speaker, the results are nothing short of mind-boggling. For example, if the rates introduced in 1913 were still in effect today, adjusting for 1996 dollars, the average American, every American, would be exempt from paying tax on his or her first $59,000 of income. Even more shocking, the tax rate would be at 1 percent up to $298,000 of income. It is shocking, but true. Mr. Speaker, even more compelling is this realization that in the span of time from the adoption of the 16th amendment to our Constitution allowing for the Federal income tax, in that period of time, even adjusting for inflation, this Federal Government has grown in excess of 13,000 percent.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania, and again just to reemphasize, the notion of tax relief for all Americans is something that is not selfish. It is just simply this realization: that that single mother with three children receiving or able to hang onto $1,500 of her money with a $500 per child tax credit, she knows how best to spend that money, not the Washington bureaucrats. She understands, and she should be free to save, spend and invest for her family. So my colleague from Georgia, though he might take me to task on some historical interpretations, is absolutely correct when he talks about the vital need for tax reform across the spectrum of age and across this Nation, benefiting middle-class Americans and all working Americans.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And our colleague from Georgia again brings us a troubling aspect to this entire endeavor, and perhaps we will have to wait for another time to share that with our friends.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I again would just like our friend from Georgia to articulate this, make sure that I understand, and, Mr. Speaker, those may be joining us this evening coast to coast and beyond understand what we are talking about. Is this $500 per child tax credit helping almost 90 percent of our population earning under $75,000? That is something that we absolutely have to herald and have to remind the American people of, and, further, I think it is just vital to understand that our current policy and indeed as I have heard some people put it, working families are those earning under $75,000 a year. Indeed, 2 years ago, in the first State of the Union Message, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I were personally in attendance here for having been newly elected to the Congress; President Clinton called working families those families making under $75,000 a year, which begs the question: Should families making in excess of that somehow be punished? Should there be an arbitrary line where we designate Americans as working but those Americans, ofttimes two-income families who work hard, who cross that magic $75,000 line, is it being implied that are not working families, that they are not worth of tax relief? Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, it is obvious, relief must come because we are penalizing people who are succeeding.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Having been somewhat chastened for my interpretation of history and mindful of my good friend's admonishment, let me also point out something else. It applies not only to the UPS truck driver but to literally the millions of single mothers here. Imagine, a single mother with three children, $1,500 in her pocket. What would that mean? I think it would mean a lot.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for another real-life example of what could be called one of the one million and one absurdities of our current Tax Code. Let me offer another, mindful of one of our Founding Fathers, Mr. Franklin, or Dr. Franklin I suppose we should say, with his capabilities, as he was often referred to, who talked about only two certains in this life: death and taxes. And it is worth noting that we as Americans are taxed in death obscenely by this government. Estate taxes are so confiscatory and so patently unfair that they are akin to allowing one's estate to be plundered, not allowing those benefits to go to children and rightful heirs, but instead making everyone's uncle, Uncle Sam, the chief beneficiary. That is wrong. That must change. I am pleased that some of our colleagues in the freshman class and others in the new majority, working with some like-minded folks on the other side of the aisle, are willing to move now for significant reforms that allow estate taxes to be lowered, so not only in this passage of life so important to marriage and building a family, but then as the family continues when one's earthly life ends, families are cared for. That is vitally important, too, and it is part and parcel of the fact that we must reform essentially our Tax Code, our tax laws, to allow Americans to save, spend, and invest more of their own money, instead of forcing Americans to dig into their wallets and send more and more and more money to this Federal Government. Indeed, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we should note what Mr. Jefferson called for, what his ideal was at the outset of this Nation. Mr. Jefferson called for a limited but effective government, and part and parcel of that is allowing the American worker to realize his dream, to hold onto more of his money, and send less of it here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the good sense of bipartisanship, as we have so many friends here on the other side.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again recalling the words of President Reagan, and I think this rings so true today, ``The size of the Federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.'' Indeed what we have seen for the past half century is a usurpation, if you will, of charitable concerns by the Federal Government. None of us here are willing to abandon the notion of a safety net for those less fortunate, for those who may face physical challenges, for those who may face mental challenges, for those who literally have no way to take advantage of the freedom that they have to better themselves. But what so tragically has happened, with ofttimes the best of intentions, is that we have turned the safety net into a hammock, and that we have made it more lucrative for some to stay away from work and that we have, in the words of one official from a charitable organization with whom I visited in the 6th District of Arizona, he said to me, ``You know, J.D., the Federal Government basically stepped into my line of work about 30 years ago, and they have taken over the bulk of it.'' Now, we have a fundamental debate going on. But to those who would claim it is mean-spirited, it is extreme to look at restraining the rate of growth of Government, to those who would claim it is selfish or somehow ignoble, or less than honorable to allow the American people to hang onto more of their hard-earned money, to those who would accept the misguided notion that it is the Government that controls the wealth, that it is the Government that should be the catalyst for every program from soup to nuts, from cradle to grave, that it is the Government with whom the power resides, they are ignoring one basic fact of our remarkable constitutional republic. Our Founders who composed this document believed this, and I believe though good people can disagree, we should understand this, in this Nation it is the people who are sovereign, and it is the people who confer power upon the Government. This Government belongs to the people, and again, to quote President Reagan, Government is the people's business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid. There is nothing dishonorable and there is nothing selfish and there is nothing mean-spirited about the average American family which now spends more on taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined hanging onto more of their income. There is nothing ignoble about letting a small business owner be free of the shackles of capital gains taxation which would limit growth and economic expansion. There is nothing ignoble about empowering the people. Good people can disagree, to be sure. But we must work, as we have this historic debate, to listen to the people, to understand their concerns, and to deal with these concerns in what some would call a new way, but what I would maintain is the way that that has improved this Nation since its foundation, not reinventing Government, but remembering those principles embodied in our Constitution, recognizing there is room for dissent and debate, but moving to do the people's business, because we are stewards of their money, and the Government has taken from them, not that the Government gives to everyone else.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to make a point. We heard the gentlewoman from Colorado make the statement, we should pay our bills. I could not agree more with that, but the question becomes this: Are we willing to rob future generations to pay the seemingly endless bills of today? That is the bottom line on this issue.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from North Carolina. I listened with great interest. I am sure the gentleman from Florida did as well to hear our friend from New Jersey kind of rhetorically gloss over the actions taken by the Treasury Secretary. Quoting my friend from New Jersey now: Secretary Rubin has been ``doing some things'' to keep this Government in business. Mr. Speaker, what the Secretary has been doing is raiding the pension funds. What the Secretary has done, and this is the fundamental part of this debate, are we so in love with government that we fail to live up to our responsibility? For, as my friend from North Carolina points out, the ultimate economic disaster, what unleashes chaos on the world markets is runaway spending of the type we have seen for the past 4 decades. The real question is not doing some things, like raiding the pension funds and using that as really the epitome of the examples of what has gone on here for the last 40 years. The key is to change things now. How? With positive economic initiatives for the future that deal with growth, growth that emphasizes the freedom of the marketplace; that is the essence of the debate, not to be in love with government, but to love every generation, our seniors and generations yet unborn, to end business as usual, end this runaway spending, restore true fiscal integrity.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am so grateful to my friend from New York for yielding. There goes the time right there, so your noble experiment has failed.