J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I welcome my good friend from Illinois, and I appreciate, almost, the technique of Cicero in not assessing blame or bestowing credit. Mr. Speaker and my colleague from Illinois, a couple of points. First of all, as we know, history does not occur in a vacuum. Many factors entered into this temporary valley in deficit reduction. Indeed, if we looked at the projections for the President under the former majority, we also noted an exponential rise in deficits following a few years. It is this point. To achieve the goal that is laudatory in the abstract, this President decided to levy the largest tax increase in American history on the people of this country. Again, good people can disagree, and the gentleman does correctly point out, I think, an opportunity for improvement in the plan offered by the new majority. And, indeed, that is why I was pleased to join with 70 mostly newcomers in voting for a budget plan offered by my friend from Wisconsin that would have balanced this budget in 5 years and paid off the debt in 30, because I believe we owe future generations that much. The point is, and this perhaps is a difference of philosophy that may exist among us here, I do not believe we solve anything, I do not believe we are more and more responsible by adding more burden to the hard working people of America; indeed, the same people that this President said he wanted to offer tax relief as a candidate in 1992. I yield to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Florida and Illinois for being involved. I yield 1 minute to my friend from California in response.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That about HCFA, not about Medicare. That is about the Health Care Financing Administration.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if there is no other agreement this evening, I welcome the gentleman's very constructive statement and sentiment of gratitude. But let me say in candor to my friend from Florida, Mr. Speaker, that it is distressing to use partial quotes that are, in fact, the product of historical revisionism to try and score debating points. Here is the exact quote from the Speaker of the House, as misquoted by my friends in the minority. Quote, ``You know, we tell Boris Yeltsin, `Get rid of centralized command bureaucracies. Go to the marketplace.' OK. 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. Now, we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think it is politically smart. We don't think that's 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. End quote. It refers, Mr. Speaker, to the Health Care Financing Administration, and not the program known as Medicare. And to my friend from Florida, and, yes, I am a bit passionate about this. If free people are to debate, if free people are going to reach resolution of problems, this points out what I was saying earlier this evening. We have to agree on broad parameters to define the debate; not partial quotes; not trying to imply that those in the majority would take away these programs; not trying to imply as has been the case as has been called by liberal publications medigoguery to scare seniors, to claim we want to have our children drink unclean water, to get rid of school lunches. We all know that to be false. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Florida to check his facts.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And, indeed, to retract what has been used here as a mantra from the minority.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I want to make a point now that the passion has left the voice but the sentiment remains. I have the very greatest respect for my friend from Florida. Good people can disagree. Again, I simply make this appeal: Let us debate on facts and accurate data and let us have difference of opinion in this Chamber. But I have to say, again quoting Robert J. Samuelson, when one side continually distorts the facts, the purpose is not to debate, it is then to destroy.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse fully the remarks made in a bipartisan fashion by the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from Indiana. I, too, yearn for a return to civility, which is why I listened with great interest when my friend, the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, chose to attack me personally. Mr. Speaker, I think it must be forgiven when a web of fiction is so intricately weaved and pronounced here on the floor of this House that quite often it is my natural reaction to chuckle. If a smile or a chuckle at the absurdity is inappropriate, well, then I suppose I am guilty of having a sense of humor, but a sense of humor born of the fact that we have to laugh to keep from crying. Because once again, Members of the minority get up with a straight face and they ignore reality. The President of the United States vetoed veterans appropriations that were genuine increases in spending, $400 million over last year, fact. And the fact is that this new majority, working in concert with responsible Members of the minority, will pass this overwhelmingly. I dare say that was the one remark given by the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations that I can agree with. This legislation will pass overwhelmingly because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, good people can disagree. Good people can disagree about a great many subjects. But when repeated fiction is stated on the floor of this House, it is sad. Once again, the ranking member has chosen to personally attack this Member of the Congress. I just simply want to say that it is shameful that these people would rather engage in shenanigans than to confront the problems we have today. Once again, I reach out my hand to the minority side and indeed to the gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Let us reason together and solve America's problems.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania, and I would join him in the remarks of respect and affection for our colleague, Bob Walker. Mr. Speaker, through C-SPAN, millions of Americans have been able to see the expertise and the grace and the exemplary conduct with which Robert Walker has comported himself on this floor. While it was his brother, Wally, who grew to a taller height and started, both at the University of Virginia and the National Basketball Association, and still labors in the front office of the Seattle Supersonics, I think it is safe to say that Bob Walker has always stood tall, both for the people of Pennsylvania Dutch country, and more importantly, for the entire citizenry of the United States. With that, I would yield back to my colleague from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Fox].

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and to have our colleague, the gentleman from California, and another great gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] here during the course of this special order with my good friend, the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia, in the well. It is worth noting for the record, though, there have been those who have tried to change the terms of the offer, just as they have tried to change the terms of the debate. Indeed as my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] pointed out, this liberal lexicon is not limited only to the other side of the aisle in this Chamber. As my good friends know, Mr. Speaker, that liberal lexicon exists on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, with a President who I am sure means well but who has the most inventive approach to history that I have ever seen. For example, this afternoon the President of the United States went out to a press conference and said that there was one group in this institution that was causing all the problems, these infamous 73 freshman in the House of Representatives. I know my colleagues here take great umbrage at that, because indeed they are part of the new majority. It is not only 73 percent of the freshman class, nor the 236 or maybe 237 Members now of our new majority, but if the President would check the Record he would find, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday when his budget was brought to this floor no one, no Republican, no Democrat, not even the independent in this Congress cast a vote in favor of that budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would ask my friend to yield, because that is the important caveat. You see, again the President, who talked about a balanced budget as a campaigner in 1992, said we could balance it in 5 years, and who more recently has said 7, 8, 9, 10 years, the President of the United States has yet to send to this Congress a budget that will balance in 7 years. So I think, quite forthrightly and responsibly, Democrats, independents, and Republicans rejected that budget yesterday. Of course, 2 days prior to today there was another resolution on the floor of this House simply restating the parameters and the guidelines for the balanced budget agreement, the same words the President signed into law 30 days ago agreeing to balance the budget in 7 years, using the honest, nonpartisan numbers of the Congressional Budget Office. On that occasion, 2 days ago, not only did this majority vote for that resolution, but so did three out of every four Democrats, and the lone independent in this Congress, the self-described Socialist, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. Mr. Speaker, I would make this appeal to the President of the United States. Mr. President, thanks for the credit, but in reality, if you fancy yourself a student of history and a self-described policy wonk, take a close look at the real numbers, because you see Republicans, Democrats, and independents united on this floor, and get real numbers into this budget negotiation process. Then you can join with us, Mr. President, and say that you truly have made history.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would concur in that. I thank our friend from Georgia for organizing this special order, and I would simply say again to the President of the United States, you can try to attack us, but ultimately, the President should work with us, because the future of this Nation, nothing less than the future of this Nation, the future of our children and the future of all Americans is at stake. With that, I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia, and I think he absolutely again addresses this situation in the most accurate manner possible. Because again, when we are talking about our children, there is nothing ignoble or selfish about letting hard-working Americans hang on to more of the money that they earn, because as our colleague from California points out, this money is not the Government's; the Government does not create the wealth. Working people create the wealth by the fruit of their own labors. As our colleague from Georgia points out, yes, Americans will spend that money, but it is also true, Mr. Speaker, that those Americans will save that money and invest that money in their children's future. I thought my colleague from Georgia who stands in the well here in this special hour said it quite well during the course of the debate. This is all about children, and how dangerous and how immoral for us to saddle unborn generations with a debt that my young son faces. John Michael Hayworth, now 2 years old, over $185,000, almost $187,000 in interest on the debt the will have to pay if we do not make a change for the better.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the gentleman from Georgia please repeat those numbers?

Mr. HAYWORTH. The $4 trillion in additional spending is what this President would like to do, and that is the reason he is against a balanced budget?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply like to point out that this is more evidence that this House is about the work of the American people. It is this House that has passed appropriations bills that this President has vetoed. He has put Americans out of work. It is his decision; the mantle of leadership rests uneasily on his shoulders. We are here in the Congress of the United States to lend a helping hand to inject a dose of honesty and reality into these proceedings, and that is why even now, as our friends in the Committee on Rules labor, they are doing so for the highest of purposes: to restore the ideal of limited and effective Government and to achieve the balanced budget which we all have said we want to achieve, for our children deserve no less.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the gentleman, and I thank the Speaker.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to our friend, the minority whip, who used the phrase ``partisan gamesmanship.'' I think that accurately describes the diatribe which he launched here from this well just a few moments ago; this mindless mantra, always dealing with fiction rather than fact, and now separating out the newest Members of the House, those who made a new majority and who, Mr. Speaker, if we are extreme, are only extreme in terms of making extremely good sense. The gentleman noted the spiritual significance of the days coming now. At the risk of being politically incorrect, I would offer this scriptural admonition, for He whose birth we will celebrate in a few days said, ``It is more blessed to give than to receive.'' So let us give our children the chance for a meaningful future. Let us give this entire Nation a chance to survive and prosper into the next century and beyond. Let us also give our veterans, those who have served with distinction, the benefits they deserve. No, the gamesmanship and the interesting interpretations of what transpires in this body are best left to the fiction writers. The American people will understand the fiction inherent in the comments of the gentleman from Michigan. Members of Congress will recognize their responsibility to pass this rule, and to pass this legislation, and to ensure that our veterans are provided for, and indeed, this entire Nation is provided for.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and I thank many of our colleagues for joining us here on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and indeed would offer in the spirit of bipartisanship, congratulations to the Toledo Rockets for their great victory. I am sure I am speaking for my colleagues from the great State of Nevada. She was more than happy to supply the Tee-shirt and she is equally proud of the Wolf Pack of Nevada, Reno, even though they came up on the short end of the score. Mr. Speaker, again, on that bipartisan remark, let me address the remarks of my colleague from Ohio and other remarks in this Chamber earlier today with reference to what is transpiring here in Washington, DC, and indeed throughout the country. There has been a plea from the other side of the aisle, a request to go back to business as usual. Indeed, this morning, my dear friend from New Jersey, who is also here on the floor, basically said that in his opinion, what is transpiring now is not the way a majority should govern in the United States. Let me simply offer these thoughts. It is precisely because of business as usual and the constant drumbeat of taxing and spending and spending a little more and making special accommodations and spending more and more and more and more that we never come to grips with the central issue we must confront. And that is we are committing fiscal suicide upon this Nation and upon future generations if we fail to stand now and respond to the clarion call of the American people who say enough is enough. Balance the Federal budget now. Put into place the framework today is that in 7-years time we can have a balanced budget and start to eliminate this national debt that will suffocate generations to come. There is nothing moral about taking the money from generations still to come simply because they do not have a vote. Good people may disagree, and my good friend from Massachusetts is here on the floor, and I am sure he will get a chance to speak here in a few moments. Good people may disagree on how money may best be spent. But for the executive branch of this Government to walk away from a public commitment and, moreover, a public law, signed 30 days ago by the Chief Executive, committing this Nation, committing this Government as terms of the previous continuing resolution to use the framework of a commitment to a balanced budget in 7 years using the honest numbers of the Congressional Budget Office, but for the President to walk away from that statement, to walk away from that public law is absolutely patently wrong. Now, others may try to massage the wording, and there may be countervailing philosophies, but the undergirding part of that public law was a commitment to work for a balanced budget within 7 years using the honest, nonpartisan numbers of the Congressional Budget Office. Are there differences in philosophy? Of course, but there should be no difference on that board bedrock of principle. Mr. Speaker, I freely acknowledge that good people can disagree and, indeed, we are here to debate those differences. But surely, certainly the bounds of common decency suggest, that, even though good people may disagree, there should be a basic framework upon which to work out the disagreement. Now this White House and this administration and regrettably some others in this Chamber want to walk away from that basic agreement. Much is made of the holidays. Much is made of the hardship that many Americans face. But again, Mr. Speaker, the greatest Christmas present that we can give the American people is to make sure that we have a Nation fiscally sane and sound, morally responsible for generations to come, saving the health care system for our grandparents, ensuring fiscal responsibility and no to business as usual, trying to find a way to always tax and spend and spend some more.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, once again I listened with great interest to my friend from New Jersey set down his parameters for what a majority party should do and offer us an interesting definition of strength. I respectfully beg to differ. The most stirring example of strength is to keep your promise to the American people. The most stirring example of responsibility is to save this country and this Government from fiscal disaster for generations yet unborn. The most stirring example of true responsibility is to provide for our seniors by making sure that their health care is still here in 7 years, to make plans for the next generation and not just the next election. The sad fact is that the liberals on this side of the aisle and the liberals at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue do not seem to understand that basic premise of strength. Once again, the new majority says to our friends on the other side, join with us and govern, but let us play by the rules.