J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, and welcome him, as well, as a newcomer.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think, again, the lady from Ohio, as the gentleman from Georgia made a very vital point and very meaningful point today about the whole notion of crime and punishment, because her attacker, her assailant, was able to take advantage of prison programs to get an education, and no one would deny that benefit, but also taking advantage of free weights and building his body so he could go back out and commit other crimes. We are not saying that those who meaningfully choose a route of rehabilitation should be stifled, but those who look at their time incarcerated as free time at a health club or self-improvement to go out and perpetrate criminal acts, clearly that must stop. What this Congress is trying to do, by engaging in debate with our friends from the other side of the aisle, by hammering out these programs, by engaging in a new dialog with the American public, is to deal directly with those problems, because we believe that the law abiding must be taken care of, and must have the proper remedial recourse, just as those who have been convicted of crimes.

Mr. HAYWORTH. The point of the gentleman from Georgia is well taken again, and indeed the experience of his constituent serves as a metaphor. One thing we understand certainly is that in a nation this vast, in a nation that differs from region to region, while we may speak with a united voice within terms of political philosophy, why do not we try to reach consensus with our friends across the Hill? In this Chamber the biggest misguided notion is this concept that one size fits all. Washington can decree what works in Philadelphia will work in Phoenix. What is good until Athens, GA, is also good in Athens, OH. What we find is it is better and truly a form of federalism to let cities, towns, counties, and States deal with problems where they are on the front lines everyday as opposed to a bureaucracy in Washington dictating to those groups what should transpire. We see it very clearly in what we were able to do in terms of putting some meaningful legislation together on the problem of crime, the notion of block granting and giving those items back to the States and those people on the front lines fighting crime, so vital to our situation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is very, very important to take a look beyond the contract, and we will continue to do so, not only on the Resources Committee, but in so many other avenues. Because this does not stop at day 100. Yes, we are stopping here at day 50 to take stock of what has been accomplished, and we will do so during the continuation of this special order. But it is an ongoing process and a national dialog and a new partnership with the people of America, Mr. Speaker, that we hope to foster. Certainly we encourage their input, especially as tomorrow we move to this whole concept of overregulation and we move to a concept of a moratorium on regulations, to stop that and take stock of what has transpired thus far.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the gentleman from Georgia again is right on the money when he talks about these issues of money and taxation, and I think it is very, very interesting to see how the debate has transpired in the wake of the mandate of November 8th. The liberal media talks about anger and hostility and as if there is some sort of latent hostility about the Federal Government. I will let folks in on a little secret. It is not that much of a secret. It is not a visceral dislike for any segment of our society. No, it is simply this notion: Why should people who work hard and play by the rules and try to create jobs be subjected to unreasonable, excessive, overregulation. Certainly we would all agree that there is a valid place for a modicum of regulation within the workplace, a modicum of regulation even in our free market economy, but not to the point where it retards the growth of business, where it holds back our economy. What we need to do is unshackle the chains and let this market move forward with a dynamic, free enterprise system. That is what is so vitally important.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think we learn from the example of the late President Kennedy, and indeed the example of President Reagan, that a tax cut really does reinvigorate the economy. That is what we seek to do. Certainly the gentleman from North Carolina has lived this, being part of a family that has made the transition. I know certainly he champions the actions of President Kennedy and certainly looks back to those actions as a vibrant, market-oriented, new frontier Democrat looked at it 30-some years ago, and we share in that tragedy and our sorrow for the Kennedy family and for this Nation. But certainly you have seen the change and I know that you join us in this idea of tax breaks.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is very important. The gentleman from Georgia makes an extremely valid point, and so there is no mistake, Mr. Speaker, let us try to explain we are not here to demonize, or castigate, or point fingers at anyone in our society. But instead we are taking a look at the simple facts. Indeed, from the time 30 years ago, when President Johnson stood at the podium behind me here and declared war on poverty, by some estimates we have spent in excess of $5 trillion on social spending programs. Let me repeat, $5 trillion, government at all levels involved in social engineering, and, when you consider our national debt and the problem we have there, by recent estimates being $4.8 trillion, our spending has eclipsed the national debt on this problem, and sadly, sadly it seems all that spending has done in many cases is exacerbate the problem. The idea should be simply this, that we should not provide economic incentives for behavior that tears down our society. We should move to strengthen the family, as the gentleman from Georgia mentions, and even beyond welfare reform we have to look at this very simple concept. Some of my friends from the other side talk about budget formulations, and they talk about the dollars that will be lost, the Federal dollars that may be lost in their congressional district, and to me it fails to take into account this very valid and irrefutable fact, the money is not the Federal Government's money to begin with. It is wealth created by hard work in the business community, by people earning their paychecks and then paying their taxes. That is the part of this process that we cannot forget about, and, even as we talk about runaway spending, we must also talk about this excessive burden of taxation and why it is so important to make sure that parents have money to spend on their children. The Family Restoration Act makes sure that parents have additional moneys, a $500 tax break or an increase on deductions per dependent to make sure that families can spend money on members of that family. That is what is so important.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. As we talked about the gentleman's personal experience in making the change in terms of partisan label, coming in with his agenda for change, this new partnership with the American people, I think it is worth noting, just as the gentleman from Wisconsin recited some of those measures in this Contract which he fully supported, and just as the gentleman noted, 60 percent support on average from our friends in the new minority who are coming with us on these programs, there are many measures that have a bipartisan nature. I know my friend from Georgia would like to speak about the balanced budget amendment and talk about that very real accomplishment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and welcome him to this dialogue during this special order. I think it speaks volumes about the fact that we have opened up the windows of this Congress and just as we engage in a dialog here in the well of the United States House of Representatives, so too do we seek that dialog, Mr. Speaker, with the American people. That is the difference. To our friend from Wisconsin, even as he departs, and others who may be viewing these proceedings on television and at home, I think it is important as the gentleman from Georgia points out, the idea is to make services more efficient. According to some estimates, for every dollar in social spending, 80 cents of that dollar goes to the delivery of that program. In other words, the money is not a straight transfer from the pockets of the taxpayers to the kids at school. It goes through so many different middlemen, if you will, and what we are trying to do is reduce the number, reduce the amount of middlemen and make sure that in these programs that have great import to the children of this country, to the seniors of this country, to the hardworking men and women of the 6th District of Arizona and beyond, that we have a practical, efficient way to do so. That not always is it more money and more programs and more centralized bureaucracy here in the Nation's Capital. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, if I might, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, if I might, I think this speaks well, the fundamental difference in debate, I hope there is not an insinuation that by trying to offer block grants to the States, by trying to streamline and rethink delivering services, certainly the gentleman from Wisconsin is not implying those of us in the new majority who are trying to open this process up are trying to take food out of the mouths of children, because I think that is a very, very serious accusation. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I think the gentleman from Georgia, having served in this Congress and the 103d Congress, as has my friend from Wisconsin, can certainly see within this Chamber a very genuine difference not only in terms of philosophy but in terms of form and function in the way the business of this House is conducted. And indeed, during this 1 hour, this special order, having our good friend from Wisconsin feel compelled to come down and state his case in the well I think bodes very well for our democratic Republic and our constitutional form of government because, unlike what had transpired in previous years, we did not move to cut off our friend. We were happy to welcome him. Perhaps it is a departure from special orders in the strictest sense, but we are very happy. I think it is indicative of this new partnership and this new dialog. Will there be points of disagreement? Certainly. But this is indicative of the change in the way we are doing business. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is a valid point. I will yield to the gentleman from North Carolina in just a second. But again to follow up on what our friend from across the aisle has come down to talk about tonight, in dealing with fairy tales, it is no fairy tale, as the gentleman from Georgia points out, there are different instruments of government with different jobs, and I am sure certainly not in the position of pretending to lecture the gentleman from Wisconsin, but the fact is the other body is hard at work given its special set of rules, given its special set of priorities and, of course, as the gentleman from Georgia mentions, there is another gentleman ensconced at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave., our Chief Executive, who has a chance to sing into law the different provisions, and we welcome the involvement of the other body and of the Chief Executive. But what we have been doing is fulfilling the promises we made to the American public and working very hard to do so, and to use a line almost Shakespearean in its resonance, it certainly is not, as some might suggest, much ado about nothing. We are very hard at work. The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HAYWORTH. We welcome you here to engage in the dialog.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I will be happy to hear from our good friend from Wisconsin whom I have seen in the hall and I guess the gentleman from Georgia needs to jog with. My goodness, I need a chance to go out and jog with the gentleman from Wisconsin. We welcome him to the dialog.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. The gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Following up on that, I think the gentleman's experience is indicative of what has transpired nationally, because the gentleman from North Carolina has the great name, Walter Jones. He has worked very, very hard, and he had a gentleman precede him in this body of another persuasion and another party, and I think it is very, very interesting to see the change that has come about with our friends on the other side of the aisle with many folks joining the Republican Party, as was your personal experience. I also know the gentleman from North Carolina, you have been working very hard in terms of keeping our promises and our commitments to the men and women in uniform and certainly the Third District of North Carolina that is very important with a number of military bases. Could you tell us about the actions under the contracts?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am glad to yield to my good friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand here in the well of the Congress of the United States in the People's House and to have my good friend from Ohio chair and to look around and take stock, Mr. Speaker, of what has transpired in these first 50 days of the 104th Congress. History reminds us that the last time the Republicans held the majority of the seats in this Chamber, a President of the other party, President Truman, called that Republican-controlled Congress the ``Do Nothing'' Congress. And yet, as we take a look today in terms of more recent history, that description defies reality with reference to the 104th Congress. As they might say in sports parlance, look it up. We have bothered to check the numbers and it is very interesting to take a look at this new Congress, this 104th Congress, and the flurry of activity that has transpired, simply in terms of numbers. For example, Mr. Speaker, the number of hours in session, heading into day 50 of this new 104th Congress, 236 hours in session, doing the people's business in the people's House. Now we also compiled numbers over the previous 12 years, in the 97th Congress all through the 103d Congress, to really try to assess how the guardians of the old order were involved in business as usual. Here is what we found. The number of hours in session through the first 50 days for the previous 12 years, just a little better than 41. Compare this work of the 104th Congress. The number of votes on the House floor heading into this 50th day, in our new Congress, already 145 votes on this floor, in the People's House, about the people's business. During the previous 12 years, the average number of votes, just a little better than 14. The number of committee sessions in this new republican Congress, heading into this 50th day, 313. The previous average over 12 years, 121. But more than quantity, Mr. Speaker, it is quality of work, work that is being done by this Congress, because people come into this Chamber not to score debating points, not to take a vacation at taxpayers' expense, but to be about the work of this Congress and to honor the commitment of the voters of our respective districts. It has been chronicled before but it bears repeating because it is important to take stock of what has transpired. And, ladies and gentlemen, the days of business as usual and the days of almost suffocating, stultifying one-party rule are over in this body. Free and open debate on a variety of subjects, and a very fundamental change in the way this House does business. Some on the other side, in previous speeches in this well tonight, have decried extremism. Well, this is a revolution, but it is not a radical revolution. Instead, it is a reasonable revolution. The notion that may seem radical to guardians of the old order is what is reasonably expected by the bulk of Americans, this simple notion that Congress people live under the laws that everyone else lives under. The Shays Act incorporated into our House rules in this 104th Congress, and then a notion that this legislative branch should lead by example. We have done so, cutting committee staffs by one-third, calling for an independent audit of this body to understand where the people's money has gone, to make sure that the people's money has been used for the people's business. Working in so many ways with the adoption of new rules to really be involved in the House cleaning, to open the windows of this institution and allow for open debate and a dialog and a new partnership with the American people. So much has transpired, from a balanced budget amendment to a line- item veto to a meaningful crime control package, to eliminate the notion of hug-a-thug, to get away from the concept that we would do things to make us feel good but really not influence what transpires in the cities and counties and towns of America, making a difference. That is what these first 50 days have been about.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Wisconsin, let me yield then to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, quite rightly, the attention of America has been focused on this Chamber during the last 50 days, but it is only fair to ask what has been going on at the White House during the first 50 days of our Contract With America. The President's embattled Commerce Secretary finds himself the subject of yet another Justice Department corruption probe. The President supposedly laid down the law with baseball owners and players--they did not listen to him either--in an unsuccessful bid to end the baseball strike. Then the President sent a Surgeon General nominee to the Hill, misled Congress several times at to the number of abortions this nominee performed, and then attacked the pro-life movement for being concerned. Mr. Speaker, while the Republicans have been busy with our Contract With America, the White House has been trying to legitimize a Cabinet Secretary's alleged corruption, attempted to play umpire in a millionaires' dispute, and failed to do a thorough background check on a Cabinet nominee, while all the while misrepresenting the nominee's record. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are worried about average, everyday American concerns, not worried about millionaires, corrupt politicians, or left- wing political movements. That is why we will move in the next 50 days to enact our Contract With America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Memphis.