J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, that brings up another part of the equation that is sometimes not emphasized from good people on the other side of the aisle. Indeed when my colleague from New York was here in the previous special order, I know the gentleman from Illinois listened with great interest to this, the gentleman from New York talked about a disparity of income from the very wealthy to the very poor. And I just think it is significant to note, indeed you probably have already done this during our time together tonight, but I do not think it can be repeated enough to the American people. In 1948, the average American family of four was paying about 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government. By last year, the average family of four was paying almost one-quarter of its income in taxes to the Federal Government. When you combine that with State, local taxes and the hidden taxes of regulations and fees, it is not a stretch to say that almost every family is paying almost half of its income in taxes. So the disparity comes not so much when a check is given out but what is taken away by Government. Indeed we have this across the middle class ladder.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is good to be here with my colleagues this evening to discuss the matters at hand and what we learned on our summer vacation, among the constituents of our respective districts. I think it is also important, as our good friend from North Carolina pointed out, that sometimes things are misunderstood or mischaracterized. For example, I listened with interest quite often to the gentleman down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue mischaracterize what this body has done in terms of meaningful welfare reform. Oftentimes, the President will appear on radio or television or in front of groups and point a finger of accusation at this institution, saying that this new majority is cutting off benefits to unwed teenage mothers. There is one word that the Chief Executive and indeed some of the folks who are guardians of the old order are leaving out of that characterization. And that word is, it is a four-letter word, but it can be discussed in polite company, c-a-s-h, ``cash.'' We do not advocate taking away benefits. We do not blame little children born into circumstances beyond their control. Indeed, as we have shown in our block grant programs and our efforts to reorganize and transform the welfare state, we are providing for women, infants, and children. But what we are trying to change are the days when someone can look to the Federal Government for what is in essence a subsidy, a cash subsidy for a way of life that abandons responsibility. I listened with great interest to our friend from New York earlier. I believe you were touching on it just a second ago, the characterizations I believe of the economist Dr. Thurow, I believe at MIT, about some worldwide phenomenon of males leaving the household because of economic pressures. Friends, there is no need to try and explain away via academia what is going on here as if it is some phenomenon. There are three words that describe it: abdication of responsibility. Economic pressure notwithstanding, for what is external cannot replace what is internal. If people are willing to abandon their responsibilities, and these are people at every level on the economic ladder, if people are willing to abandon their responsibilities, it creates the problem. So we are not here to demonize one group of people or try to set Americans against each other. What we are simply saying is this: After 30 years of an expansive program whereby some estimates for every dollar we spent on so-called social spending, almost 80 cents are eaten up by the cost of government, is there not a better way to attack the problem? Is there not a better way to have a true safety net that is a trampoline instead of a hammock? I learned a lot in meetings with our constituents in the district. A lot of people were saying, you have got a lot more you have to get done. There is a lot more we want to see done. We sent you to Washington to make a change. Of course those same constituents acknowledge that it is very difficult in 8 to 10 months to transform a policy of highly centralized power that has taken over four decades to concentrate here in Washington. But in addition to that, I get letters from all over the country. Indeed we have people, Mr. Speaker, as you know, who join us via C- SPAN. I got a nice note from a gentleman who is a constituent of our good friend Mark Foley who I believe is celebrating his 41st birthday today. He attached an item that first appeared in this Congressional Record in 1949. Our friend from Florida sent this. It has been commonly called the ten cannots. A theologian from your State of Ohio first brought these up. They were attributed incorrectly first to Abraham Lincoln, but this is what Rev. William J.H. Bedcar said: ``You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of men or the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. And, finally, you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman from Ohio would yield, just simply keep those cards and letters coming because there is a diversity of opinion, there is not unanimity, but we all recognize we have to confront these problems to make a difference not only for the next generation but for the very future of this Nation as we go into the next century.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, the way I can put it in a way that I certainly understand with stunning clarity is in this fashion. If we do not change what is going on and if by the good fortune and act of providence we are able to keep this government running with the equivalent of chewing gum and baling wire in the years to come, my son, who is now 21 months old, over the course of his lifetime as a working adult would pay over $180,000 just to service the debt alone, if things remained the same. Now some good people across the country look to our friend at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and say, wait a minute, did he not come on television and agree that we need to balance the budget? Well, that statement is fairly accurate as far as it goes, but once again, the problem is in the details. The same gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue stood at that lectern 2 years ago and pledged that he would only use numbers from the Congressional Budget Office in making budget forecasts. Well, a funny thing happened in the past couple of years. I guess a young lady by the name of Rosy Scenario took up residence there in the Rose Garden because the President and his budgeteers are listening to Rosy Scenario. You notice he abandoned the CBO numbers and now has come up with a whole new set of numbers, but the funny thing is this: When you look at his 10-year plan and you use the numbers that he now provides, apart from the Congressional Budget Office numbers, they result in deficits annually in excess of $200 billion for each of those 10 years when he purports that he has a glide path. No, that is not a glide path. What we ask is for the President of the United States using the phraseology of our good friend Charles Taylor from North Carolina who said this last week, the President has to be the Commander in Chief, not the campaigner in chief. We all took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Let us all step up to the plate, Democrats and Republicans alike, work out the differences and agree to put this Nation on a glide path to a balanced budget in 7 years and stick to it, because as we have heard from our constituents, even that step, as modest as it is, is an important first step but it is less than what many people desire.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the challenge for us, and to the cynics who will be there, the bromide is this, oh, they want to turn the clock back. That will be the accusation that comes from the guardians of the old order who always look to concentrate power in Washington and also look askance at individual responsibility. We should hasten to point out that indeed we are building a sense of community in part because of the medium of television, the fact that indeed we have a community across America watching us, that is one of the advantages. But there are many different things that change in our society. The one thing that should not is the subject of another letter I received. Folks from my district in Arizona writing and agreeing that we have to return to this document, the Constitution of the United States. This is a remarkable document. An historian characterized this in a book called the Miracle at Philadelphia, that we have this document that is here and all-encompassing and can deal with different times and different changes. So whether it was the rise of television or, as some theorists purport, the creation of centralized air- conditioning that kept government in business year round, there are changes that come to our society. But the danger for us is to ignore this document the Constitution or moreover, as the gentleman from Illinois suggests, to dismiss the notion of community. The school has become a surrogate family and not dealt with the community, I think the gentleman points that out quite correctly.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my good friend from Florida who precedes me here in the well, and, Mr. Speaker, we see yet another example of Medi-Scare. You see, if you do not want to solve a problem, you try to scare the H-E-double-hockey-sticks out of the American people. Scare them into an action; scare them into senseless fear. But the fact remains this: Medicare goes bankrupt in 7 years if we do nothing. To the seniors who age into the program in 7 years, I ask, what do you do when there is no program there? For the seniors who are living under the program now, I ask, what happens when it goes bankrupt? We are willing to work with our friends in the new minority to come up with a plan to save this vital program. We want to enlarge options; we want to have this program viable. But the one thing we do not need is more fear tactics. The one thing we need is constructive consistent work together to solve this vital problem confronting this Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we might entitle this, ``What I Learned on Summer Vacation.'' The fact is, going back home, we reorient ourselves to the great and good common sense of the American people. Did I hear uniformity among the constituents of the Sixth District of Arizona? Of course not. Good people can disagree, but overwhelmingly the people of the Sixth District of Arizona told me, ``Stay the course, stick to your principles, work hard to reform this government.'' Indeed, we have heard today already broad bipartisan consensus, and so in that spirit of bipartisanship, I extend my hand to my friends on this side of the aisle, saying the problems we confront are too great for politics as usual. Let us get about the business of governing America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, from the home office of the Family [[Page H 8491]] Empowerment Coalition, the top 10 unintended consequences of the Markey V-chip mandate: No. 10, bureaucrats will be able to pick the shows your kids watch, but will not read them a bedtime story. No. 9, rating tens of thousands of hours of shows each year is fun, easy, and fat free, but it will not be cheap. No. 8, the viewer is upset that V-chip is not as good as the original show with that Ponch guy. No. 7, Oh, I am sorry, No. 7 has been blocked out by Government censors. No. 6, Angela Lansbury now stars in ``Jaywalking, She Wrote.'' No. 5, provides jobs for unemployed Federal bureaucrats. No. 4, will not work on that old out-of-date TV you bought last week. No. 3, brings back all the intrusive Big Government attitude that we all miss. No. 2, C-SPAN's annual NEA debate blocked out for sexual content. And the No. 1 unintended consequence of the Markey V-chip: blocks Regis, spares Kathie Lee. No on Markey, yes on Coburn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skaggs amendment to strip the provision in this bill which once and for all puts an end to federally funded welfare for lobbyists. Now, it is an indication of just how difficult it is to bring this Federal deficit spending under control when we have to fight off an attempt from the same old crowd, the guardians of the old order who think it is absolutely essential to take our Federal tax dollars and pay people to come in here and lobby us. Aside from the outrageous use of taxpayers' dollars to keep lobbyists on the Federal trough, it is also used by Federal agencies as an escape hatch for the Hatch Act. Let me give you an example. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a [[Page H 8391]] private, nonprofit foundation and organization, received $7.5 million in Government grants and then was asked by the Secretary of the Interior to lobby Congress on behalf of the National Biological Service. This is nonsensical. Shame to those who would continue this type of practice. It has to stop. We can made the sea change now. ``No'' on Skaggs and ``yes'' on the end of welfare for lobbyists.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, this is the report the liberal Democrats do not want the American people to see. They do not want the American people to know the truth about Medicare. This report was signed by three of President Clinton's Cabinet members and shows clearly that unless something is done, Medicare will go bankrupt in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, every American needs to know the truth about Medicare. I urge all Americans to call their Representative at 202-224-3121 and get a copy of this report. The American people also need to know that the Democrats do not want to do anything. Their only strategy is to scare senior citizens and bash any attempt to save Medicare from bankruptcy. What is so very important to Democrats that they would turn Medicare into a partisan issue. This is wrong and only hurts the millions of Americans who depend on Medicare.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for the excellent work he has done in this appropriations bill. As indicated in debate this afternoon, it is a very, very difficult task the gentleman was confronted with. Obviously, there are difficult choices when we have these tight budgetary times. However, I do have serious concerns about funding for native American housing programs. Mr. Chairman, I think it comes as no surprise that many other Members of this body share those concerns, including two of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, first, the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin. I do this without venom or vitriol. This is simply not the right place or the right time to be dealing with this issue. As the gentleman himself pointed out, this subcommittee, ultimately in full committee and in other legislation in that jurisdiction, is the place to deal with this. Certainly, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] made that clear in the previous Congress. I listened with interest to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, chronicle the difficulties in the other body, but I believe a full and open debate as to the merits or demerits of this policy is required under the jurisdiction rather than in this appropriations process. So I simply rise in reluctant opposition. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] if the funding level for Native American assisted housing in this bill represents the final number?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], continually wants to go with budget overruns and time overruns. The fact is this: The best way to preserve Medicare is to stand now to save it, not play the old whining game of the liberals saying, ``We need to spend more and more,'' but find a way to say ``Yes, spend more money, but spend it more effectively.'' My colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], made mention of the fire in my district and the fact that firefighters had to stand and deliver. We have a crisis that is just as imminent as that fire. The fires of Medicare are burning. If we really want to save it, then my friends on this side, the liberals, come with us, let us work to solve the problem, and quit playing the sordid politics of the past.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for yielding to me. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for this colloquy. The gentleman from Oklahoma is quite correct when he talks about basic legal services. Also, we should note a basic legal responsibility. Because of our treaties with sovereign Indian nations and the trust relationship that this Federal Government enjoys with those nations, we have sacred treaty obligations to our native American citizens. This is why I am gratified to join the gentleman from Oklahoma and the distinguished subcommittee chairman to assure native Americans that basic legal services will be available in the days ahead.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, quickly, we are not out to cut Medicare, we are out to save it and improve it. That is the key difference. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scotsdale, AZ, we have the top 10 nicknames for the liberal plan for Medicare, or the lack thereof: No. 10: The X Files Plan. No. 9: The Mediscare Plan. No. 8: The Let-It-Go-Broke Plan. No. 7: The Blank Page Plan. No. 6: The Stick-Your-Head-in-the-Sand Plan. No. 5: The We-Don't-Need-No-Stinking-Plan Plan. No. 4: The Extra Top Secret ``We Don't Even Know it Ourselves'' Plan. No. 3: The Change-the-Subject Plan. No. 2: The ``Bash Conservative Republicans, Ignore the Solution'' Plan. And the No. 1 nickname for the liberal plan on Medicare: The Invisible Plan.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas once again comes to the well of the House playing politics with Medicare. Communicating Medicare? What is wrong with that idea? Standing up in town hall meetings saying: Friends, we have a problem, which three Cabinet-level secretaries, three appointees of the President admit that Medicare will go bankrupt in 7 years if we do nothing. What is wrong with that? And taking time to rationalize and formalize a rational policy on Medicare, where is the crime there? Far better to be engaged with the American public, working to save the program of Medicare, than to march to the well of the House as so many of my liberal friends do trying to scare senior citizens. The fact is, yes, we are trying to communicate the fact that we have to save Medicare. And, yes, we are engaged in trying to save the very program. Do not let the whine producers, W-H-I-N-E, come to the floor again and again and whine and complain. Challenge them to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, my good friend from Texas can be answered with another question: Where is your plan? Have the courage to come forward and accept what the trustees of the Medicare trust fund have told us, what three Cabinet-level officials in President Clinton's own Cabinet have told us, that Medicare goes broke in 7 years if we fail to do anything. Friends, we are not out to scare the American people, unlike my friend from Texas. We are here to make tough decisions, to strengthen and save Medicare. So, yes, we do have to work out the details. We invite our friends to join us. But, once again, instead of joining us and stepping up to the plate and helping us govern, they would rather whine and complain and try to scare the American people. That old formula no longer works. It is time for bold new leadership to save Medicare, and this majority is committed to finding the answer.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by our friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for a number of reasons. But, No. 1, Mr. Chairman, here we go again, taking a question of grave medical concern and turning it into a question of political concern. Is AIDS a terrible disease? Yes. Should people have education on the disease? Yes. But what is reasonable and what is rational and what is appropriate, that is the question we confront today. Why not quite simply, Mr. Chairman, have pamphlets, pamphlets for Federal employees that they may read at their desks in their work stations with numbers to call if they have more questions? Is that not a reasonable and rational way to deal with the problem, or does it presume that Federal employees are illiterate and somehow that is inappropriate? No, it is commonsensical. That is what we have to do here to, yes, get out the information, disseminate that information, but not transform a dread disease into a vehicle for training in the workplace that is altogether inappropriate. Much has been said about the mandate of November 8. Some have called it a revolution. I never tire of saying, ``Call it a revolution if you will, but understand this, it is a revolution built on what is reasonable and what is rational.'' The amendment by my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, is the wrong approach. ``No'' on Hobson, ``yes'' on Packard, common sense and proper education is the proper role in the Federal workplace to deal with this dread disease. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.