J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would repeat that, because I think it is the central part of our debate. I think it is very important. If the gentleman would repeat the terms that we have changed here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I have to salute the gentleman from South Carolina, because even on this All Hallows Eve, he again demonstrates that facts will overcome fear. And how sad it is that our liberal friends, so bereft of ideas, so divorced from a reasonable discussion on different philosophies of policy, only turn time and again to fear mongering and scare tactics. I think the fact that our friend from South Carolina has brought forth these items of information in a reasonable, rational way, really befits the entire revolution that is going on here. Because it is revolution, as we know, built not on anything more than what is reasonable and rational and long overdue for the hard-working men and women of this country who are paying the bills. Government does not supply this; taxpayers supply this.

Mr. HAYWORTH. As the gentleman from Georgia knows, because he hears it from his constituents, I will point out what I hear time and again from the people of the Sixth District of Arizona. From people who are working hard to set up their own businesses; people who are working hard in the private sector to create more jobs; people who are working hard to put food on the table and build a future for their families. They are absolutely enthused that with this new Congress, we see the end of business as usual in Washington. Oh, the protestations from the other side are sometimes cacophonous, that is, loud. But, that central truth remains very prevalent. When we consider the fact that in 1948, the average American family of four sent 3 percent of its income in the form of taxes to Uncle Sam. Then to have that accelerate for an average family of four in 1994 to almost one-quarter of that family's income, almost 25 percent, 24 percent, is absolutely unconscionable. What I am hearing from the people of the Sixth District is this simple fact: They work hard for the money they earn. They are patriotic Americans. They believe in this country. They are not upset about doing their fair share, but that is exactly the point. What is their fair share? I think as the gentleman knows, again, a lot of disinformation bandied about by our friends on the other side, and indeed some in the fourth estate who seem to be almost in complicity with them, repeating what can only be described as falsehoods. The gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue characterizes our welfare reform package as, quote, ``Cutting off benefits to teenage mothers.'' Well, there is one 4-letter word that the President forgets, and it is not a bad word. It is an important word. C-A-S-H, cash benefits, for mothers under the age of 18. We have not moved to eliminate the Women, Infants and Children's program. We have not moved to eliminate those things that truly provide a safety net. But what we have sought to do is to end what appears to be an endless subsidization of illegitimacy in this country. Not to demonize any young lady, not to demonize any particular group, but simply to say, as my friend from Minnesota points out, over $5 trillion on the war on poverty. That eclipses our national debt. Clearly it has not worked and there is another route to take is that is what we are doing.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I really appreciate the fact that he treats me with such respect when we come to these things.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, I simply wanted to say in defense of the gentleman from South Carolina, knowing his district well, and the golden corner from Pickens and Oconee County, on down through Aiken and down to North Augusta, I know that he, beneath that calm, cool exterior, has a rather tenacious trait and is one who stands up for the working people of his district. Indeed, I think that is the point we want to make tonight, that we are foursquare behind the working people.

Mr. HAYWORTH. This is no brag, just facts. This is a major story in American history. The fact is that a class of 73 coming in to change and help symbolize and really do more than symbolize a historic shift in the balance of power simply rested upon the power of ideas. And it is a tribute to the gentleman from Michigan, who, as you very gratefully and very articulately detailed, worked his way up. Let us also pause here, despite his last name, his benefactor is not the Chrysler Corp. Am I right about that?

Mr. HAYWORTH. First of all, we have to tip our caps rhetorically, at least, to you gentlemen who preceded us. There were too few of you to have a majority. As our friend from Michigan supplied, we all wore pins for a good deal of time during the transition that called us the majority makers. As the late Walter Brennan used to say on the western show, this is no brag, just fact. I will spare the vocal intonations.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, as many other colleagues of mine who come to this well have noted, today is in fact Halloween. In listening to the Clinton liberals here on the other side talk over the past several months, I have come to the conclusion that they have really been trying to celebrate Halloween all year long. Madam Speaker, it really makes for perverse verse. Because when we talk about Medicare, the liberals howl about Mediscare; and when we speak of Medicaid, the liberals moan of Medifraid; and when we pass the Balanced Budget Act, the liberals scream, ``Give us your tax dollars, Jack;'' and when we discuss welfare reform, the liberals bitterly cry, ``Oh, please keep the norm.'' Madam Speaker, the liberals have tried their fear tactics, and they have cried wolf once too often. The American people want us to balance the budget, reform welfare, and preserve and protect Medicare and Medicaid. Madam Speaker, let us get serious. Friends, join us and let us give the American people what they really want.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Understand that we are profoundly changing the way this Government operates, not to hurt anyone, but to empower the American citizenry to help confront the next century. That is what we are doing through reconciliation. That is what we are doing in our 7-year goal to balance the budget. That is what we are doing by reducing the rate of growth, finding real savings, but not radical cuts. It is not what is radical, it is what is rational and reasonable, and it is what the new majority is doing.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Michigan makes a very valid point here. The point we should make is that those 14 percent will not be compelled by some capricious action or the big hand of government upon their shoulder to be forced into any program. Quite the contrary, what makes this such a unique program is summed up in its name MedicarePlus. It provides choice. The gentleman from Georgia alluded just moments ago, health maintenance organization. But really undergirding it all is this notion that I think is very important and we cannot mention it enough. If you like traditional Medicare, if you want to keep the System you have now, you can absolutely keep the current System. But if you would like to try a health maintenance organization and indeed with some of the current insurance, medigap insurance in Arizona, some seniors are absolutely enjoying and enthralled with some limited HMO coverage. If they have that opportunity, they get that. Also the notion of a medisave account so that seniors can have control of their health care dollar. Just a couple of options, and time would not permit me to go much longer, being a veteran of television.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for again introducing and really being the catalyst for this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I think perhaps you were also in the Chamber the night this particular measure was first debated. I can recall, after all, this is known as the people's House, and as my good friend from Indiana joined me here on the floor, I guess it is safe to say that there was a particularly raucous response from one of our friends on the minority from California. Indeed, to read his comments the following day in the Wall Street Journal, I found it to be somewhat incredible; quoting him now, ``It is a glorious day if you are a fascist; if you are a fascist, it is a glorious day.'' My friend from California took great unbrage at the fact that through the efforts of my friend from Indiana this new majority was moving not to extinguish advocacy, but to say, as my colleague from Indiana did so quite eloquently, if you are engaged in lobbying, do it on your own time with your own dime. Would that it were just a dime being spent. But as my friend from Indiana, in concert with my good friend from Maryland and our more senior colleague from Oklahoma have detailed, this is not penny ante here. This is $39 billion in money from the taxpayers of America, Madam Speaker, from you and I and other taxpayers out there working hard to feed their families and to provide a future for their children, or as seniors on a fixed income, to make ends meet. Their money is going into a process that I think is fair to describe, and I am not exaggerating here, it can only be described as somewhat incestuous, where people come to the Hill and lobby for funds and, indeed, many of their endeavors are worthwhile, and [[Page H 11434]] yet even in receiving the taxpayers' largesse, they return, courtesy of those same funds, to again ask for more and more of the taxpayers' dollars. Good people can disagree. I have often made that observation in the Chamber. And while I would never impugn the motives of my friend from California who on that particular raucous occasion perhaps it can be said chose to impugn our motives, could it be that as the Wall Street Journal editorialized, that in moving to correct this abuse we had tapped into a power source for those so willing to take the taxpayers' money in the advocacy of a certain social agenda? Madam speaker, in the preceding special order I paraphrased the comments of Abraham Lincoln, and the message still applies here: The American people, once fully informed of the facts, will make the correct decision. There has been a widespread cry across this Nation for reform. On the first day of this new Congress, this new majority passed the Shays Act, a simple but powerful notion that those who serve in this Chamber should live under the same laws as every other American. Now, indeed, if we are called to a higher standard, then a reexamination of where the hard-earned money of the American people goes is also in order, and I salute my friend from Indiana and, indeed, my good friend from Maryland who joins us here tonight in their efforts to fully inform the American people, because there is no place for the relentless assault on the pocketbooks of hard-working taxpaying Americans for continued subsidizing of big Government-orchestrated charities. We must make a change, and we, the new Members of this institution, stand united to make sure that change is realized. With that, as I continue the dialog, I see our good friend from Maryland, and perhaps I should yield back to the gentleman who controls the time, my friend from Indiana, for the purposes of recognizing our friend from nearby Maryland.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Unfortunately, I was not there, but I have been treated as every Member of this institution. Every Member of this new majority has been treated to a ceaseless parade of epithets from those who see the gravy train about to come to an end. And it is a measure of their desperation, as has been noted here, that they will make any comparison, no matter how vile, no matter how reprehensible. I have to say, with great confusion, I am surprised the fourth estate that so assiduously covers matters here does not respond on its editorial pages with outrage about these statements, but then again I guess we are new to this town and we have a lot to learn from those groups. But it is amazing to see those comments bandied about.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. We detailed a few figures concerning taxpayer-funded opposition or taxpayer-funded advocacy in the political arena involving our friend from Washington State. Others, Madam Speaker, may be joining us tonight saying, Well, you are not giving us the entire picture. We need some more evidence, if you will. What else can you show us? you talk about abuses of the taxpayers' money. What else can you show us? I think it is instructive to go back to Federal funding as it existed from July 1993 through June 1994, and take a look at what has gone on. And I dare say, given the fact that this Congress was controlled by those with another philosophy, perhaps these appropriations even increased in the last fiscal year. But that fact notwithstanding, the AFL-CIO, July 1993 to June 1994, over $2 million in taxpayers' money. And, of course, big labor is operating a program called Standup designed to defeat the new agenda in Congress. But, again, it is not the disagreement, but the fact that over $2 million of taxpayers' money went into that endeavor. AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, $148,000 of taxpayers' money going into political advocacy. Perhaps most egregiously, the National Council of Senior Citizens, a whopping $68 million. I had to take a look at this to make sure I had this right. $68 million. Over 90 percent, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, 96 percent of this charitable organization's funding comes from the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. Yet, the same organization, taking over $68 million in taxpayers' money contributed $405,000 to 134 candidates for Congress. Again, if people want to contribute to political campaigns, that is their right. But 96 percent of that $68 million and over $400,000 going into those endeavors? Madam Speaker, it appears it was charitable only to the candidates involved. It was charitable only to those ceaseless proponents of a welfare state where big government is the answer to every question and where they would will a veil of secrecy descend. And when that veil is lifted, the most amazing and, yes, the most vile epithets are employed. As we began in special orders tonight, I invoked the words of outrage from our friend from California who said as we passed this bill, quote, ``It's a glorious day if you are a Fascist. If you are a Fascist, it's a glorious day.'' Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a glorious day for the American taxpayers when we are willing to stand up and say no more of this abuse. Let us lift this veil of secrecy and more importantly, let us terminate this egregious action.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, and I listened with great interest to my two colleagues from Indiana, my good friend from Maryland, and my friend from Washington State who preceded me here at this location. Madam Speaker, I thought our friend from Washington State made a very valid point that needs to be amplified. Disagreement over political philosophies is not the issue here; but, again, dipping into the pockets of American taxpayers to fund that disagreement is absolutely the issue we are talking about tonight. My friend from Washington State, lest he be accused of sour grapes, was far too modest to detail what has gone on against him in his home district. I just thought for the record it would be good to analyze where some of the attacks on our friend from Washington State, from whence they have come, groups financed, oft times in large measure by tax dollars from the American public against our friend Randy Tate in Washington State. A radio advertisement in March dealing with lawsuit limits, this suit brought by Citizen Action and Trial Lawyers. $15,000 goes into that anti-Randy Tate ad campaign. AFL-CIO radio ads in July dealing with OSHA regulation, $20,000. AFL-CIO TV ads in August dealing with OSHA regulation, $80,000. Save America's Families. Gee, I thought we were trying to do that, but I guess in this Orwellian newspeak one takes on a title that works. Save America's Families TV and radio ads in September dealing with Medicare or, in honor of tomorrow's holiday, we could daresay their attack as Mediscare, $85,000. A telephone campaign from the same aforementioned group, $10,000. A Medi-caravan, $10,000. $230,000 from these advocacy groups personally attacking a Member of Congress. Now, again, Madam Speaker, I will applaud anyone's right to come to the well of this House, anyone's right as one of our constituents, anyone's right through the first amendment to the courage of their convictions; but it is a far cry to talk about the courage of one's convictions and the convenience of taxpayer dollars. To those again who would try to misdirect this debate, to those again who would cry that it is an effort to silence a particular political philosophy, I would just simply say once again the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, the efforts of my colleagues here in drafting this legislation, to take into account not only the legitimate concerns of charity but also another angle. If I daresay, on first amendment rights, to make sure that Congress does not absolutely prohibit or proscribe entreaties with elected officials on behalf of charities or on the parts of these organizations, the gentleman has included that in the legislation. So, indeed this is to silence no one. But let the American people understand something that has been made painfully clear to those of us assembled here on the floor and, indeed to you, Madam Speaker, that in the midst of an historic shift to change this institution, sadly, arguments that come from those opposed to our changes have nothing to do with policy and have everything to do with power. Who has the majority in this Chamber? Who has the opportunity to advocate certain policies? And, again, I say that political conviction is one thing, but political convenience is quite another. And in the case of our good friend from Washington State, and in indeed in the case of several others, again we draw this distinction. It is fine to have disagreements. It is fine to have at times what might be characterized as bare-knuckled comparisons and contracts in the political arena. But even rhetorically as you make your points, realistically do not pick the [[Page H 11438]] pockets of Mr. and Mrs. America to do that. Have the courage of your convictions, rather than the convenience of taxpayer largesse. Let me close with this comment. Those who would say we are silencing a certain philosophy, I think, perhaps so championed that philosophy that they are the same type of folks who believe that electricity emanates from the light switch, that milk is found in a container, and that this money originates with the Government here. The money does not originate with the Government here, Madam Speaker. It is in the pockets of every American who is working hard. And if those Americans choose to voluntarily give to an organization to advocate a point of view, that is their right. But involuntary servitude to a political philosophy must be stopped. That is what we are trying to do with this piece of legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Florida for holding this very important special order this evening. Indeed during the course of this I am reminded of something which I believe was said by Abraham Lincoln. To paraphrase him now, he said, I believe the American people once fully informed of the facts will make the correct decision. Madam Speaker, as I have listened tonight, I have noted those speakers who have preceded me have made mention of the fact that in this debate, certain facts are ignored. It has been detailed here, some would say with perhaps great explicitness, the brutality and the violence of this procedure, and really ``procedure'' is almost too kind a word. It in itself is a euphemism. As I stand here, Madam Speaker, tonight in this Chamber, with colleagues and interested bodies and indeed via the technology of television many fellow Americans looking on, I think it is also important to talk about other facts, because those who oppose our efforts to ban this type of procedure will use certain ad hominem arguments, they will suggest that somehow those of us on this side of the debate would champion violence at various clinics. Let us go on record and be unequivocal about this point tonight. Madam Speaker, we, and indeed I think I can speak for all of us in this Chamber, abhor any act of violence toward any American. But we are talking about an incredibly violence act tonight. One of my colleagues called it child abuse. We pride ourselves on living in the so-called information age. Those who may take exception to the details of this procedure being delineated during the course of this debate, I would simply ask this question. Is it not important that all the facts be known? Is it not important that we be fully informed as we make this decision? Because again as Lincoln pointed out, once we are fully informed of the facts, then we make the correct decision. It is a very simple question, really, one that is often lost in the midst of rhetorical flourish, in the euphemisms that abound, in the abstractions of alleged constitutional rights, that indeed we champion, for this is the most basic of those rights, the right to life, the right that the innocent preborn be given an opportunity to live or at the very least through outlawing this heinous procedure, that this particularly gruesome method of extermination go the way of so many acts noted for cruelty and insensitivity and blatant violence. It is important to look at the facts. It is important to end this violence. It is an action that I am confident that many, who may have varying degrees of disagreement on other aspects of this debate, in the final analysis will rally behind.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ, the top 10 reasons liberals oppose reconciliation. No. 10, mistaken notion that milk comes from cartons, electricity from light switches, and money from the Government instead of from taxpayers. No. 9, forget Travelgate and Whitewater; it is more fun to rip off taxpayers in the broad daylight. No. 8, tax and spend without end, tax and spend without end. Hey, Mr. Speaker, why would the American people join in that mind- numbing chant? No. 7, liberal PR firm of Jennings, Rather and Brokaw advises keep confusing and misleading the public, then leave the rest to us. No. 6, anxiously awaiting new sitcom from Larry and Linda Thomason: Bureaucrats Know Best. No. 5, people should not keep more of their money. That is unfair and, besides, it makes too much sense. No, 4, liberal mantra for year- round Halloween: Trick the people then treat big government. No. 3, people's money, what a wonderful thing to waste. No. 2, self- reliance, what a dangerous concept. And the No. 1 reason liberals oppose reconciliation, a secret fear that the President will flipflop again and refuse to veto this commonsense approach to the future.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] play a game that really should be called, Who does he think he's fooling? I at least was happy it was a multiple-choice test because we will provide seniors something that has been lacking in health care for the last three decades, a choice, the most fundamental element of American freedom, the freedom to choose what health care plan is best for them, and once again, Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, with the twisted Washington mathematics of the guardians of the old order, can an increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002 be considered a cut. How is that a cut? It is an increase of almost $2,000. Mr. Speaker, the American people will not be fooled. They understand it is time for fundamental change. That is why we were sent here, and that is why we will change things for the better.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my good friend from Illinois who preceded me here in the well. He quoted Abraham Lincoln accurately. But he misapplied the quote, for rather being malicious and mean-spirited, the only mantra the guardians of the old order can offer, instead what we are doing today is embodying the spirit of America. Because we are saying to America's seniors, you deserve to have a choice in health care. You do not need to be cut off magically at age 65 to a one-size-fits-all plan. We believe you have the right to determine the health care you should have, and if you want to keep Medicare as it exists now, then you have the right to keep that as well. But the senseless mantra that we are making changes in Medicare for tax breaks for the wealthy is patently false and, Mr. Speaker, even malicious. How sad it is; it is symptomatic of the new minority, folks who have no vision for the future, would only apply a Band-Aid and only came up with a plan in the final nanosecond of the 11th hour, instead of dealing responsibly. Friends, join us. Let us reform Medicare for the better.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of wild accusations and some very interesting and creative, if not altogether truthful, analogies. My dear friend from Illinois brought up perhaps the strangest I have heard today. Let us get away from this, and let us talk fact. Let us get away from the mythical mathematics of Washington, DC. Fact No. 1: Medicare spending per beneficiary increases from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. That is an increase of almost $2,000. That is reality. That is real math. Fact No. 2: We provide choice to seniors through Medicare Plus. Only the guardians of the old order who put their trust not on individual initiative but an overgrown, gigantic Federal bureaucracy dictating to the American people would say otherwise. The fact is we provide choice, even if seniors want to keep the program they have intact and make no change. That is why it is Medicare Plus. That is why it is good for the American Nation. That is why it will pass in this body later this week.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend and colleague the gentlewoman from Florida bemoan what she feels to be inadequacies in the new Majority's plan for Medicare reform. Let me point out to the gentlewoman and indeed other Members of the Minority who may share her concerns that this Majority is listening. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] will offer an amendment tomorrow, I think more than symbolic, I think symptomatic of the fact that we address that we have a serious problem here and we are looking for legitimate ways to solve it. So be on the lookout. Mr. Speaker, I trust the gentlewoman from Florida will join us, as will many of her colleagues on the other side, to vote for a responsible amendment to add even more fraud and waste abuse prevention. Let us tell you what the plan is doing right now even without the Schiff amendment. Here is what we are doing in the plan to strengthen Federal efforts to combat waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. First of all, we are providing monetary incentives for individuals who report a violation that results in savings to the program. Second, we are doubling sanctions for filing false claims or committing fraud. Third, we are authorizing direct spending from Medicare trust funds for the OHS Inspector General. Again, let us address the fact that we will deal with waste, fraud and abuse. Some steps are taken, even more steps will be forthcoming tomorrow in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. It has been interesting to hear some of the debate tonight. While good people can from time to time disagree, and ofttimes we do in this Chamber, as is our right, being American citizens, I did listen with interest to one of the Members compare this with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That has no place in this debate. That has no place whatsoever. The gentlewoman from Florida used the term mendacity to talk about the new majority's plan. Mendacity to those building word power--the gentleman from Ohio went and checked the dictionary--and it refers to deceit or lies. The facts speak for themselves. The Medicare trustees' report issued by a bipartisan group said the Medicare trust fund goes broke in 7 years if we do not move to solve the problem. Mr. Speaker, one of my friends from Pennsylvania pointed out that when this Medicare bill was passed in 1965, only 7 percent of the then minority party, the Republican Party, voted for Medicare. I guess we could play historical one-upmanship. I guess we could come in and say, which party controlled the Congress when the slaves were freed, which party controlled the Congress when women were given the right to vote. In both instances, the Republican Party controlled this Chamber. But we are not here to play historical one-upmanship. For the question is not who created a program, the question is who is willing to step forward to protect, preserve and defend a program? The fact is, we have to move now deliberately to save this program. Band-Aid approaches will not work. I do champion the fact that at long last our friends on the other side have offered a plan. One newspaper analysis called it ``a deathbed conversion.'' After months of saying do not do anything, things are going fine, do not change the system, the, suddenly, in the last nanosecond of the 11th hour, the new minority steps forward and says, ``Well, yeah, there has got to be a change, but not too much of a change.'' When the canard that failed to work, that these savings were somehow going to tax breaks, when that canard failed to sink in with the American people, then they said, ``Well, we have to look for a plan.'' It is a plan, regrettably, symptomatic of the politics of the past, for what it calls for is a Band-Aid approach. Let us get through the next election and maybe, if we are lucky, a few years beyond that. Believe me, when it comes to electoral health, I think everyone's impulse would be, gee, if we did not have to deal with the problem, we would not want to, but the fact is we are elected to govern. It is our responsibility to save this program, reasonably, rationally. We passed a budget plan. We took care of the tax cuts way back in March. We have paid for the tax breaks. Even if the budget were balanced tomorrow, we would still have this problem with Medicare. Mr. Speaker, friends on the other side, we may disagree. But it is incumbent on all of us to look to preserve a program for the future, and Medicare Plus does that and more. It offers choice. It offers freedom to the American people to choose the doctor they want and the health care plan they want. That is why I urge my colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan fashion to reform Medicare in the years to come.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I just do not think we can state this enough. Now, I do not know by what mathematical gauge we are dealing here in Washington. I know George Orwell wrote of a ``Newspeak,'' a different type of language that said ignorance is strength, war is peace, and things of that nature. I cannot help but see the same type of pattern here with what goes on in terms of Washington numbers. Now, I know the gentleman has been well respected in the world of business. Would the gentleman just review the numbers here again on this chart and explain again very slowly, so the American people can understand, and especially those who reside inside this Beltway, can understand what in essence is going to transpire.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I guess it is just a situation where Halloween came a little bit early and lasted for the better part of 3 months. The chances now for us to expand choices, to offer real reform rather than a Band-Aid approach for the American people and preserve this program so that we can take the steps necessary in later years, indeed to preserve it for future generations, it is summed up in the name Medicare Plus. And as both my colleagues from Florida, Mr. Speaker, have indicated, it offers choice. And as my good friend from Connecticut so articulately phrased it, what is wrong with having that type of choice. We will leave it to the American people who duly elected us to debate this issue and make the necessary changes to preserve, protect, and improve Medicare.

Mr. HAYWORTH. An increase of almost $2,000, it appears.