J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am happy to yield to our friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I so happy my good friend from New Jersey brought his children to the floor of this body, because I think it demonstrates, it demonstrates so clearly why we have to work out these problems. Because you see, as desirable in one sense as a continuing resolution might be to some, to the country, to the financial markets, that is just a continuation of the same old tax-and-spend mantra. In fact, the child that my colleague from New Jersey had in his arms, his son, if we do nothing to change the course of action that we are on, that little boy will pay over $185,000 in taxes just on the national debt. So it is precisely for those children and the children of Federal workers and all children in America and, indeed, all generations, that we work now to put aside partisan differences and balance our Federal budget. Our children, our country, deserve no less.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to hear my good friend from Texas get up and rant and rail against this fact. This is not a parliamentary inquiry, but this is a point of fact: If anyone in the minority, if anyone in America can show us how going from $4,800 this year per beneficiary for Medicare to $7,100 in the year 2002 is a cut, come collect the check. Because the fact is the figures do not lie. Simple math tells the truth. And simple justice compels us to say to my good friend from Texas, and indeed to the American people that we should join hands and balance this budget because our children and the American people deserve no less. Sure you can try to change the subject, but it does not change the agenda for America's future. It is time to make a difference, put this partisanship aside and build a constructive future as we confront the next century.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield for a second, would the gentleman please tell us what the acronym stands for and why it is so important?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time, I thank my friend from California for making that point. I thank my friend from Maryland for making a very key distinction between those who are bosses of big labor and those who labor for a living. The miners in the Sixth District of Arizona, who want to hand on to more of their paychecks, who understand the overburdensome taxation their families face, and who came out in record numbers in 1994 to say that we want a change. So I salute the gentleman from Maryland for again exposing this. I challenge the mass media to follow suit with their own reality checks, their own truth watches. I know perhaps if there is a footnote the gentleman would like to add, I just looked to the well and I know that your exploits on the gridiron among the members of this class are exceeded only by our good friend who returned to his native Oklahoma to run for this body, but before that distinguished himself in the National Football League, and indeed entered that Hall of Fame, the best hands in the freshman class and one of the brightest minds, I would yield now to our good friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, that is exactly the point, for this Congress should do no less than working families do every week or every month around the kitchen table, trying to come to grips with their own family budget, to make adjustments, to fight in part the battle of taxation that is too high, so that they know how best to allocate their resources governed by this simple fact: They do not spend more than they take in or they are faced with one of the worse 4-letter words ever to come up, D-E-B-T, debt. To quantify it, I do not believe this ad tells the truth. If you are going to say the rich, indeed with the family tax credit that my colleague from Indiana points out, it is a very expensive definition of rich, if we are to trust the ad of big labor, for it affects over 80 percent of American families across the economic strata. And that is the impact of the ad. While we are in the neighborhood, and I know my friend from Indiana has a point, but just one other thing to say to respond to my colleague from California's musings about this particular advertisement and others like it: I have challenged my former colleagues in broadcasting, and indeed I did this at one of the local stations in Phoenix going to what in effect was a meeting of their editorial board, I said, friends, the reality checks, the truth watches that you do during the election season, why not continue now? Why not check the veracity of these ads? Again, Mr. Speaker, I would call on broadcasters who are licensed in the public interest, local news divisions, network news divisions, do your own reality checks, do your own truth watches on these repugnant, patently false advertisements, for this is an ongoing campaign.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think Robert J. Samuelson said it best in The Washington Post in a commentary of a few weeks ago when he said, when one side continuously distorts the facts and refuses to debate the policy, then the purpose is not to debate, it is to destroy. Mr. Speaker, here to help destroy and shatter some of the myths that have been propagated, again it is our good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for restoring our sense of direction with his very illustrious examples, and I look to the other side of the aisle, where in this special order we are joined by our colleagues, but I think symbolically of the fact that we want to reach out to the other side of the aisle; that we hope to work together to confront this next century, and I would simply yield to my good friend from Nebraska, the gentleman who sits on the Committee on Ways and Means, where tax policy is formulated, our good friend Mr. Christensen.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from South Carolina for the points he makes and reclaiming my time, I just think it is important to understand one historical perspective to really stand in relief. It is worth noting that in 1992 candidate Clinton talked about tax relief for the middle class; and then, upon taking the oath of office, President Clinton gave us the largest tax increase in American history. And there has followed, from that broken promise, a string of broken promises, not only with taxation but with balancing this budget. And with that in mind, I would yield to our good friend from Wisconsin, who has done yeoman's work, gotten in there, rolled up his sleeves, taken out a sharpened pencil and taken a true look at what is at stake for the American family and the American Nation with the budget. I yield time now to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank our good friend from Wisconsin who once again demonstrates why he has been the workhorse of the budget process and is deserving every accolade that this new Congress can provide. I am holding here a certain financial document. It is a check. I heard my friend from Nebraska and my good friend from South Carolina lament the fact that the President of the United States was making allegations about Medicare that is part of the cacophony, the mantra of the mediscare campaign of the discredited American liberals who cannot seem to face facts. So, how ironic it would be if this President, who has worked very hard with his own special interests to raise scads of money for what will be a very difficult reelection campaign, again, Mr. Speaker, the challenge goes out to everyone, including the President of the United States, if they can show us a cut in Medicare spending that goes from $4,800 this year now to $7,100 per beneficiary in the year 2002, if there is some way to do that, then the Republican National Committee, Haley Barbour, the national chairman, is prepared to pay up with $1 million.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And freedom of choice is one of the fascinating things about Medicare-Plus. And just as the benefits per beneficiary increase, so do the opportunities and options for seniors under Medicare-Plus. Speaking of opportunities and options, as I reclaim the time, let me also turn to our good friend from Kansas who has a couple of housekeeping items which we need to allow him to take care of, but also may have some observations. Let me yield time to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, how on Earth can that statement even be made? For why would a balanced budget work against America's families? Are we not putting money back in the pockets of working families by balancing the budget on a 30-year mortgage? Are we not realizing real cash that stays in the wallets and pockets of working families? By lowering interest rates with a balanced budget, are we not really helping to fulfill the American dream? I am just curious that the gentleman from Maryland understands the rationale for this statement and if it is grounded within any type of intellectual fact.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank several of my colleagues for joining me in the House Chamber. As we discuss the pending events, we listen with great interest and, indeed, great agreement with our colleague, the delegate from the District of Columbia, and we realize also that the people have sent us here to Washington to change a culture, to change a pervasive practice which has permeated this Chamber and, indeed, our national governance for half a century. In fairness, we should note that the Members of both parties have been involved in this, and it is this endless notion of tax-and-spend and tax-and-spend and tax yet higher and spend yet more. It is worth noting that one of our founders, Benjamin Franklin, said that there were only two certainties in this life: death and taxes. I dare say, if Mr. Franklin were with us in this Chamber as we prepare to confront this next century, he might amend his statement to say that higher taxes could lead to the death of the American Nation if we do not change what has gone on before. The facts are these: In 1948, the average American family of four surrendered 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government. By 1994, that same average family of four surrendered almost one- quarter of its income, 24 percent, in taxes to the Federal Government. It has been noted by Members of both parties that change is hard. Change is difficult. But as the newcomers to this Congress who join me this afternoon along with one of our distinguished Members of the sophomore class will bear out, change is necessary if we are to make a difference, if we are to prepare this last best hope of mankind to adequately confront the next century. The people of the Sixth District of Arizona said it pretty simply in November of 1994. indeed, I think it was said across the country. The realization is this: The people of America work hard for the money they earn, and there is nothing selfish and there is nothing ignoble about Americans hanging on to more of their hard-earned money so that they may decide how best to save, spend, and invest for their families, so that they may make critical choices so vital to their children's future and so that they as seniors can hold on to more of their money again to make choices that are best for them. As I look around the Chamber, it is a formidable lineup. One of the gentlemen seated here, who we will hear from shortly, indeed, an NFL Hall of Famer, one of the gentlemen to my left, uncharacteristically, a resident of California, indeed, I call him an honorary Arizonan, for his mother was born in the Sixth District of Arizona, near the Inspiration Mine, I know he will have words of inspiration for us; our friend from Nebraska, one of three newcomers on the House Committee on Ways and Means. It is worth noting the last Republican freshman to hold one of those spots was in 1966, a gentleman who went on to become President of these United States, one George Bush; our good friend from Indiana is here, who has worked so hard on trying to get a handle on regulations; our good friend from Kentucky from the sophomore class, who speaks so eloquently and is really a redshirt freshman, if you will, for he came by way of a special election. Mr. Speaker, now it is my honor to turn to the one-time Princeton linebacker, who is proud of his Tigers in their accomplishments this year on the gridiron, who went on to law school at Wake Forest, and he helped to tutor those teams and improve the record of those Demon Deacons, my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I will withstand the temptation to talk about football because I did that most of my professional life. Instead I would simply offer the following observations: It is my sincere and solid hope that President Clinton did not take the pen Lyndon Johnson used to sign the Tonkin Gulf resolution with him to Paris to sign the treaty. Of course last week President Clinton took LBJ's Medicare pen to discover it was out of ink, and about a month ago President Clinton, amidst great fanfare, signed a public law, a budget agreement agreeing to get to a balanced budget in 7 years using honest numbers, but I suppose the President believes he used disappearing ink in signing that agreement. Mr. Speaker, the President should take out a sharpened pencil and, with his budgeteers, work toward an honest balanced budget within 7 years. That is our mission. The American people will settle for no less.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Kansas and I would invite him to join us here in this historic Chamber to discuss issues of historic import as we are transforming this government, not by reinventing it, but by remembering what works; remembering that document from which all of this flows, that remarkable document called the Constitution, and remembering this fundamental premise: That when people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, the fruits of their honest labor, and save, spend, and invest it according to the dictates of their conscience and their priority, there is nothing selfish about that. I am sure what prompted my friend to come to the floor was the evaluation of our colleague from Nebraska, who has spent countless hours on the Ways and Means Committee drafting tax reform and reduction policy, who informed us earlier that less than 2 percent of this vast array of money we are talking about, less than 2 percent in the grand scheme of things is used for tax cuts.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I know the gentleman from Kansas will inform us all.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas, because he makes an incredibly valid point that really should be the foundation of our labors in the days to come. As the controversy continues to surround this new direction in which we are heading, returning to those values which made us great, it is worth noting that in the spirit of the season, the greatest gift we can give to our children, we can give to our grandparents, we can give to our parents, and we can give to generations yet unborn, is a stable environment in which this constitutional Republic can flourish, and individual initiative can be rewarded. So, that is the challenge and that is the great gift and the great opportunity that we trust our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in giving the American people this season of the year.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the time, I thank the gentleman for the question. I think they would find a government that has become a hybrid, and I do not mean that in a good sense. I know the gentleman has great background in agriculture. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say a mutant, constitutionally mutated from this document here, which is our cornerstone, read and reshaped and stretched ofttimes beyond recognition from its original intent to fit the explosive growth of an evermore centralized bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that spends even more. So, we have stretched it out. It is our mission, and that is why I am so glad to have our colleague from Kansas to join in restoring constitutional government, recognizing the legislative branch has every bit the role of self-examination and introspection that the judicial branch is afforded through the notion of judicial review, that the executive branch uses, that we together, with those other two branches, can restore constitutional government. That is exactly the challenge to use this timeless document as we confront the next century.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time, and the purposes to which we must reaffirm ourselves, to which we must devote our attentions, for just as we take an oath, as we took an oath in this Chamber collectively, just as the newest Member, the gentleman from Illinois did today, taking an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, it is more than lip service. Mr. Speaker, good people may disagree and we champion those disagreements and we want to have open, honest debate on different priorities, but I think the gentleman from Kansas really hit the nail on the head when he discussed the Jeffersonian ideal, the ideal of the one whom our friends on the other side of the aisle claim as their ideological benefactor, one of their Founders. When Jefferson called for limited and effective government, that is the distinction, not that Government should be reduced beyond recognition so that the people are not empowered, that Government has a rightful role in society, but it is a limited and effective Federal Government which makes the difference and to which the gentleman from Kansas has devoted his energies, indeed as part of this new majority. I thank him for all the efforts he has made in so many different ways to realize that dream for our children, for our parents, for our grandparents, and, indeed, for the American Nation. Again, it is worth noting and we again issue the challenge. To those who disagree with us, Mr. Speaker, to those who offer the endless mantra of disinformation about so-called Draconian cuts with reference to the Medicare Plus Program, again, Mr. Speaker, we ask them, show us the mathematical operation that takes an increase from $4,800 of spending per Medicare beneficiary this year and over 6 years time increases it to $7,100 per beneficiary, show us where that is a cut, and $1 million will be paid to them. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would not this. I cited Benjamin Franklin earlier. Will Rogers offered an update in the mid-20th century before his untimely death: ``The only thing certain is death and taxes, but death does not get worse every time Congress meets.''

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult in a half-minute to sum up all the arguments. Suffice it to say, clearly and unequivocally, we stand in support of our American troops. It is for that reason that we do not ask those troops to put on referee stripes to go and try to mediate a peace that is not a reality. We call in American fighting men and women to defend this country and our legitimate national interests. There are no legitimate national interests at stake in Bosnia. Mark Twain said it best, Mr. Speaker: History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to remember the life and the contributions of a great American. Gen. Max Thurman had his final battle with leukemia end 1 week ago. His remains were laid to rest earlier today at Arlington National Cemetery. During almost four decades of military service, Max Thurman found his duty offered him diverse challenges, from Vietnam, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, ultimately to commander of our forces during Operation Just Cause in Panama, an operation for which he delayed his retirement from military service. His devotion to duty was so intense that he earned several nicknames during the course of his military career. Indeed, one of those nicknames, I suppose, speaks volumes to those who served under his command, for they came to call him Maxatollah. But that devotion to duty, that intensity, that ability that Max Thurman brought to the U.S. Army served that fighting force well in a massive transition from a conscripted army to a volunteer force. Max Thurman faced a challenge not only on the field of battle but among those who would make their livings trying to influence Americans on Madison Avenue, for it was Max Thurman who worked just as tirelessly in his recruiting command to fashion a message to young Americans, to reshape and rethink and rearticulate a call to duty. It was Max Thurman who worked with those from the civilian world to encapsulate a phrase that spoke not only to the promise of youth, not only to the promise of this great country, but to the promise of service in the U.S. Army, for it was Max Thurman who helped to coin the phrase ``Be all that you can be.'' Indeed, his reputation won him a certain celebrity. The story goes that once upon a time, in the airport, I believe, in Chicago, a lady approached him and simply said, ``General, are you the `Be all you can be' man?'' And Max said, yes, he was that man. But he was far more. Those privileged to serve with him, both on the field of battle and in other commands, talk of his reputation, of his intensity, of his dedication to service, of that commanding voice but, yes, also that distinctive walk that would reverberate in the Marshall Corridor in the Pentagon, as if this were a man born to command. [[Page H 14214]] My personal recollections are different, for I did not know the Maxatollah, not in that sense. My father grew up with Max in the southern town of High Point, NC, and Max Thurman preceded me to North Carolina State University where he earned his degree in chemical engineering. The Max Thurman I knew was a kind, decent and yes, dare I say gentle man, one always willing to stop and answer questions in a kindly fashion. Yes, we heard his command voice in Panama, in Operation Just Cause, and yes, we mourn his passing and pass along our condolences to his brother, Lt. Gen. Roy Thurman, now retired, and to all those who served with him. But it is safe to say that Max Thurman lived up to the slogan ``Be all that you can be'' because he was all he possibly could have been.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is without venom or vitriol that I rise today to respectfully suggest that the major story in Washington yesterday took place not here, but at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the President of the United States again opted for showmanship over statesmanship, wielding Lyndon Johnson's pen from 1965, the pen LBJ used to sign the Medicare Act even as the current President was vetoing the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. And, in doing so, again the President opted for fear over facts, when he talked about nonexistent cuts in the Medicare budget. That simply was not true. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that the President of the United States and his Cabinet-level officials get out a sharpened pencil, instead of LBJ's pen, and go to work formulating a plan to get us to a balanced budget in 7 years, because a sharpened pencil is what American families use around the kitchen table to decide how they are going to spend money. And, oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, one unintended act of symbolism: When the President reached for LBJ's pen, there was no ink in the well. There are no ideas coming from the White House, nor from the minority.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my dear friend from Illinois and his instant revisionist history, because the fact remains that the current Chief Executive, aided by the former majority, the liberals who once dominated this Chamber, gave us the largest tax increase in American history. Indeed, this same President, along with the liberal minority, in fact, proposes to raise Medicare premiums for seniors coming up following the next election. That is the bottom line. That is the truth. Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear: The American people get kind of tired of this political one-upmanship. They want us to come to grips with realistic policy alternatives to balance this budget in 7 years, using the honest numbers of the nonpartisan Budget Office. Once again the challenge is clear: Do we play the games of politics of the past, or instant revisionist history, or do we put our shoulder to the wheel and collectively govern, both the legislative branch working with the executive branch. Once again we reach out our hand saying help us govern. Let us get a balanced budget.