J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is a daunting challenge at hand, and part of that challenge of saving Social Security is to approach this problem not as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans; understanding the dependence of many in their old age on this program, understanding the concerns of those of generations just entering the work force, understanding the concerns of baby boomers who have paid into the system and hope to see it continue. As we begin this debate, as we work to solve this problem, this resolution is a good starting point. In committee we accepted many amendments from our friends in the minority. Now, there is not unanimity, to be sure, but with this resolution we reaffirm the primacy, necessity and commitment of this Congress to the Social Security program. And, more importantly, we say, let us save it without increasing taxes and protecting against inflation. So that is where we start. I would echo the comments of my colleague from Michigan; that we should avoid the temptation to point fingers, to engage in fear rather than facts. And the reality must be borne out by our rhetoric and, more importantly, our resolve. The American people look to us and count on us, and in this spirit today it begins now with the passage of this resolution.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a point that needs to be brought home is something borrowing from the gentleman from Colorado who talked about the percentage of our gross domestic product that now goes to taxation. Though I fear, Mr. Speaker, from time to time that is a very salient point and factually correct, sometimes we need to translate that into everyday language by offering other examples, and the gentleman from Georgia has done so. I would say it this way, borrowing from my other colleague from Colorado: There has come to be in this Nation an observance of a day that is not exactly a holiday, though it offers emancipation from the burden of taxation. We call it tax freedom day. Depending on the calculation, whether we are talking exclusively about Federal taxes or if we combine them all, as the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, the cost of all taxation and the hidden costs of regulation, quite often, American citizens work from January 1 through our Independence Day or close to it on an annual basis to free themselves from the yoke of taxation. That is what we are talking about here. These deal with flesh and blood human beings who are facing decisions, who, oft times, in a household, we will see both parents working, not by choice but by necessity, as my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, points out, because one spouse is working essentially to continue to pay and satisfy the gaping wall of taxation. It is a very simple concept here. One works hard for the money one earns. One should hang onto more of it and send less of it here to Washington, D.C., because now we find ourselves in the day of an overcharge. We are overcharging for government services. When money hangs around the Federal Treasury, it is kind of like cookies in the jar in the Hayworth household. Somehow somebody gets to it. In the case of the money, it is spent by bureaucrats. As the attorneys would say, there is a preponderance of physical evidence to say what happens to the cookies in the cookie jar and who might get them from time to time. So what we again must embrace is this notion of broad-based tax reform. Despite the calls of those who would offer the politic of fear, we embrace the policies of hope when we say that every American who succeeds ought to have the opportunity to hang on to more of what he or she earns and send less of it to the Federal Government; and understand that those who have succeeded through their investment, through their risk taking, if you will, in the marketplace, create jobs and create more opportunity and help to fuel an economic boom. So that is what we champion here, along with our three other pillars of policy in the 106th Congress, to strengthen and protect Medicare, to improve education by empowering parents and local communities and, thirdly, to improve and bolster our national defense.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is funny my colleague from Colorado should ask me that question. Because, just as our good friend from Tennessee pointed out in paraphrasing the words of our President, Mr. Speaker, these are the words of the President, if memory serves, one day, probably less than 12 hours, after he outlined 80 new programs involving close to 80 new taxes. Mr. Speaker, he said in Buffalo, New York, and I quote, speaking of the budget surplus, ``We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right but,'' closed quote. There, Mr. Speaker, therein lies a major difference. It comes down to a question of who do you trust? The President thinks you ought to trust him to spend your money for you. We say, if there is ever a choice between Washington bureaucrats and the American people, Mr. Speaker, then we side with the American people, because, Mr. Speaker, Americans know best how to save, spend and invest for themselves and their families. Therein lies a difference, a difference of freedom and a real contrast between the politics of fear from those who make outrageous claims about Social Security and our budgetary process and the true policies of hope that we embrace with lower taxes, stronger schools, a stronger military and a real plan to save Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me. I am especially interested in some of the definitions that tend to waft around inside the Beltway here, one being ``compassion.'' I think, if one saw the New York Times last week, they saw an example of this. The noted commentator and columnist, Tony Snow, mentioned it this past Sunday on Fox News Sunday when a front page article in the New York Times bemoaned the reduction in applications for food stamps. Mr. Speaker, let me simply affirm that the truest form of compassion is not adding people to the welfare rolls, not adding people to the food stamps program. The true definition of compassion is helping those people, just as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned, move from welfare to work so that they have the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families, so that they have the chance to realize their hopes and their dreams. That is the true measure of compassion. Mr. Speaker, I must also note with great interest some of the comments in the preceding hour. It is sad to hear some come to this floor and so passionately try to sell an agenda of fear to the American public, rather than facts, to merchant or to market the politics of fear as opposed to the policies of hope. Mr. Speaker, this common-sense conservative majority, in the tradition of welfare reform, is moving four major goals: Number one, to protect, save and improve Social Security and Medicare. Number two, to offer meaningful tax relief for working Americans. Number three, to improve education, not by micromanagement from Washington bureaucrats but by empowering parents and students and teachers and local school districts. And, number four, to strengthen our national defense and security. Indeed, I was walking over with a constituent, a man who lives in Winslow, Arizona, part of the Guard and Reserves and also a Federal employee. He was telling me on the way over to this Chamber how he and his wife embrace the notion of lower taxes for everyone because they do not want to see someone punished for succeeding. They understand that as they will experience this year, with a child under 17 still at home, a $400 per child tax credit. That $400 stays in their pocket to save, spend, or invest as they see fit. Mr. Speaker, that is the challenge, is it not? Is there not a central choice here? Who do we trust, Washington bureaucrats or our family, to make decisions? That is the key and that is what we champion in this common-sense majority. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see another of our colleagues, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), one of our newcomers. I welcome him to the Chamber. We are glad that he is here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, just to bring home the point again, mindful of the letters the gentleman brought from constituents, and as pleased as I am, Mr. Speaker, that one of my constituents from Winslow, Arizona, joined me on the stroll over, this topic of death taxes came up at a town hall meeting last year in Winslow, Arizona. As our schedule worked out, this was a noontime meeting. One of the great satisfactions of this incredible honor of serving in the Congress of the United States is we meet so many people who want to make a difference. Two young men had gotten an excuse from school on their lunch hour, an early dismissal, to come to the town hall. These two young men had aspirations of attending one of our military academies. They came, and they heard some of the seniors and other citizens in the room discussing just what my colleagues have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this incredible unfairness of the death tax. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was reminiscent of the franchise that Art Linkletter used with such great effect over the years, ``Kids say the darnedest things.'' Here was this young man standing there just at the height of his youth and enthusiasm and wanting to do the right thing and wanting to join the military. He stood there ramrod straight and said, ``Congressman, sir, do you mean to tell me the Federal Government taxes you when you die?'' And there was laughter, just as this response comes. But as I reminded the citizens assembled, it really was not funny. My colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), was quoted in the Wall Street Journal during his first term who evoked memories of our early colonial days when he said of the death tax, ``No taxation without respiration.'' That particular observation has stuck with me. But, Mr. Speaker, it goes further than that. Understand that this tax is so oppressive and our mission as a constitutional republic has gone so far afield. Remember what Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanac, ``There are only two certainties in this life: death and taxes.'' But even Dr. Franklin with his tax and his ability to invent and to almost see into time and foretell the future, even Dr. Franklin would be shocked to come back to this constitutional republic that he helped to found, and his reaction would be much like the reaction of the young man. Do you mean to tell me this government taxes you when you die? We have seen it in our districts, in our States, across the country. Energetic enterprises, businesses that are not huge conglomerates but family-owned businesses, whether on Main Street or on the ranch or on the farm, those businesses broken apart, the assets sold, to satisfy or try to satisfy this most egregious tax that reaches in even to the grave to rob those who have accomplished.

Mr. HAYWORTH. My colleague makes a very, very good point. It has been echoed by several economists and several columnists. Indeed, Robert J. Samuelson in this town talks about the double counting. We have dealt so much for so long on so many topics, sadly, in an atmosphere of doublespeak from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Indeed, my colleague from Colorado, perhaps unintentionally, was describing quite accurately the feeling of many Americans when he used the phrase ``get away with it'', an abdication of responsibility so breathtaking and shocking not only in terms of personal conduct but also in terms, Mr. Speaker, of the sacred trust which we assume as constitutional officers. Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder to see some who come to this chamber, as did our President for his State of the Union message, and stand at the podium behind me here. I took my own copious notes, and by my count the President proposed 80 new programs, 80 new programs, in the span of 77 minutes. And now, when our friends put a sharp pencil to paper and check the very real cost of those programs, to really pay for those programs we must have close to 80 new taxes or fee increases. And yet those who would tell us that they would guard the surplus, that they somehow are true guardians of the public trust, are engaged, in fact, in double count and doublespeak. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we heard it in this very chamber in the hour preceding this one, when those who look for shortcuts to political advantage continue to market and play upon the politics of fear rather than the policies of truth and hope. That is what we hear, Mr. Speaker, even in the wake of today's passage of a bipartisan resolution recommitting this Congress to the safety and sanctity of Social Security. We had one gentleman from Texas come to this floor and, in essence, say that Social Security was going to be destroyed. How sad and how false. We have a responsibility to our constituents who have called upon us to represent them, to govern, because we have been selected by the people and for the people. And, oh, how I yearn for straight talk and taking a look and making the tough decisions. Because as I said in this chamber earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we cannot approach this as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans to solve this problem. And yet the temptation of political advantage and the siren song of notoriety inside the beltway tends to propel others in these very partisan directions. Let us at long last, Mr. Speaker, call for truth in personal conduct and in leveling with the American people both on matters of demeanor and policies of government. Is that too much to ask? Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to hear the Vice President of the United States say to the assembled press corps 1 year ago, ``My legal counsel informs me there is no controlling legal authority.'' I think the Vice President was wrong. There is a controlling legal authority. It is called the Constitution of the United States. And, moreover, there is a compelling and controlling moral authority, and it is called the oath of office that each of us take. And how those succumb to temptations to ``get away with it'', whatever ``it'' may be, is both galling and not to be easily understood; and, in the final analysis, reprehensible, because it ignores and it counterfeits the sacred trust that citizens have placed in us. That is the challenge we face; not to be facile and glib and get away with it, but to be about the business of the people; not to fly from place to place for campaign-like rallies, but to join with us and govern; and not to double count or double deal or doublespeak, but to work out legitimate differences and speak as best we can with one voice to confront these problems. These are the challenges we face.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just follow the observation and say it is my honor to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means; and our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), currently chairs the Subcommittee on Social Security but in the 104th Congress it was his job as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources to put in place welfare reform. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I cannot help but remember that essentially the same welfare reform package intact was passed once by this Congress and vetoed by the President; again by this Congress and vetoed by the President; and finally, when it was sent the third time, as we understand from press accounts, one of the President's political consultants used the baseball analogy, saying, Mr. President, you do not want three strikes and you are out; sign this legislation. I appreciate the fact and indeed, Mr. Speaker, we all know from our civics class, that we enact laws, but the President must execute his signature to see those laws implemented. So we welcomed at long last his signature. This is an example of a contentious challenge that was met head-on even in the atmosphere of contention in that 104th Congress to bring about a desired change, to now where we can measure compassion by a more accurate barometer by the number of people who voluntarily leave the welfare rolls in favor of work; by the news that there are fewer applicants for food stamps because people are becoming self-sufficient. Again understand, we make no pretense of ripping away the social safety net, but welfare reform helps prevent that safety net from turning into a hammock. That is what we have accomplished on both sides of the aisle. And that spirit, that example, should serve us well as we deal with this very difficult question of Social Security reform. How do we best save it? How do we maximize opportunities for all of our citizens, regardless of their age or their station in life?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague Mr. Matsui and I are introducing the Bond Fairness and Protection Act of 1999, a bipartisan compromise approach to addressing the tax consequences of electricity deregulation for tax-exempt bonds issued by municipally- or state-owned (``publicly-owned'') utilities for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Despite the lack of federal legislation in the 105th Congress in this area, 18 states have already gone forward and begun to deregulate electricity at the state and local level. The era of competition has already started both for publicly-owned and investor-owned utilities operating in these states. Our home states of Arizona and California have taken significant steps down the road to deregulation. In Arizona, Salt River Project, a Phoenix-based municipal utility, has already opened up its territory to competition. While deregulation faced a setback last month, the Arizona Corporation Commission continues to work on a deregulation plan for all Arizona utilities that will benefit all ratepayers. In California, a statewide deregulation plan is already in operation. Publicly-owned utilities have operated until now under a strict regime of federal tax rules governing their ability to issue tax-exempt bonds. These rules were enacted in an era that did not contemplate electricity deregulation. These so-called ``private use'' rules limit the amount of power that publicly-owned utilities may sell to private entities through facilities financed with tax-exempt bonds. For years, the private use rules were cumbersome but manageable. As states deregulate, however, the private use rules are threatening many communities that are served by public power with significant financial penalties as they adjust to the changing marketplace. In effect, the rules are forcing publicly-owned utilities to face the prospect of violating the private use rules, or walling off their customers from competition, and in either case raising rates to consumers--the precise opposite of what deregulation is supposed to achieve. The consumer can only lose when this happens. The legislation that we are introducing today would protect all consumers by grandfathering outstanding tax-exempt bonds, but only if the issuing municipal or state utility elects to terminate permanently its ability to issue tax-exempt debt to build new generating facilities. Such an election would not affect transmission and distribution facilities, which generally would still be regulated under most deregulation schemes. Publicly-owned utilities that do not make this irrevocable election would continue to operate under a clarified version of existing law, thus remaining subject to the private use rules. This legislation attempts to balance and be fair to the interests of all stakeholders in electricity deregulation while keeping the interests of the consumer paramount. It strikes a compromise between publicly-owned utilities and investor-owned utilities by providing an option for publicly-owned utilities to address the problem of how to comply with private use restrictions in a deregulated world, an option that involves significant trade-offs for the publicly-owned utilities that seek to utilize it. For investor-owned utilities, requiring publicly-owned utilities to forego the ability to issue tax-exempt debt for new generation facilities should mitigate any potential or perceived competitive advantage in the new deregulated world. At the same time, it honors promises made to bondholders under contract and existing tax law, thereby avoiding the inequitable consequence of applying old rules to the new deregulated world of electricity. In addition, for those concerned about the environment, it provides incentives to deliver electricity efficiently and encourages the retrofitting of aging facilities. Most importantly, for consumers, it allows competition to thrive while protecting local choice and local control. We point out to our colleagues that identical legislation, S. 386, has been introduced in the other body by Senators Gorton, Kerrey, Jeffords, Hollings, Thurmond, Harkin, Murray, Smith of Oregon, Johnson, Wyden, Leahy and Hagel. Mr. Speaker, we plan to work with all interested parties, and most importantly American consumers, to ensure that we end up with the fairest, most reasonable solution to this complex problem. We want electricity deregulation to be a good deal for everyone involved, especially the American consumer, who certainly deserves the lower electric bills that a competitive marketplace is supposed to provide. We believe this legislation addresses all of these concerns and promotes fair competition in the electricity industry. We urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I submit the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest a few days ago when the President of the United States came to this Chamber and outlined some 80 new programs in the span of 75 minutes, and, Madam Speaker, indeed I believe it comes down to a question of trust, because how interesting was the President's statement in subsequent days in Buffalo, New York? Quoting the President now, Madam Speaker: ``We could give it,'' referring to the budget surplus, ``We could give it,'' the budget surplus, ``all back to you and hope you spend it right, but . . .'' Madam Speaker, that outlines a clear difference between the two major political parties. It is a question of who do we trust? Do we trust the government more to spend our money given the long history of wasteful Washington spending by this overgrown bureaucracy? Madam Speaker, the majority party and the common-sense conservatives of this country trust the people. That is why we called for broad-based tax relief, so that all American families can save, spend and invest in their own future. It is a major difference. Indeed, Madam Speaker, it is a question of trust.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states, ``The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, a President. Not a prince, not a potentate, but a citizen, a citizen who, like every citizen, must have respect for the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, Article II, Section 4 specifically describes impeachment as the remedy before us. Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of censure in the United States Constitution, a document of limited and specified powers. To the arguments from the minority side on censure, let me quote a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), in an article appearing in the Boston Globe in March of this year. He was talking about the majority party, and so he offered a pot shot, but listen to the words; I quote them now. ``Faced with a choice, they go for symbolism over substance. That is what censure is.'' The words of your colleague, my friends: ``Symbolism over substance, that is what censure is.'' The Arizona Republic opines: Skip the evasions and inventions. If the President lied in his deposition and in his grand jury testimony, and then took pains to cover his tracks and to encourage others to mislead the grand jury, the constitutional remedy is to impeach and allow the truth to emerge in the resulting Senate trial. The Mesa Tribune editorializes, quote, ``It is a crime to lie under oath, period.'' I take no pleasure in this circumstance, but for those who want to carve out an exception to the rule of law, it is as if we take the scales of justice from the hands of Lady Justice and take off her blindfold and ask her to put an eye on the opinion polls and a moistened finger in the wind. I rise in support of impeachment with a heavy heart.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding this time to me, and I, too, rise in strong support of our men and women in uniform who find themselves today in harm's way, indeed of all those who wear the uniform of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note in response to the criticism from my friend from Texas that came earlier that there are many who confuse dissent with lack of resolve. Indeed the tyrant whom we now confront, Saddam Hussein, was heard to brag to the international press that he remained in power while George Bush was deposed. Mr. Speaker, the tyrant does not understand our constitutional republic, and, Mr. Speaker, in that spirit today I rise to celebrate the ability of every Member of this House and of every American citizen to come to this floor and freely express his or her opinion. That is for one of the freedoms we fight, that is one of the freedoms that must be preserved, that is part of the constitutional process we confront. Mr. Speaker, let us all remember that and embrace it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, I would hazard a guess that she did not spend an inordinate amount of her time filling out forms for Washington, D.C. explaining the effectiveness of her time- honored methods of enforcing discipline in the classroom and holding her students to a higher standard and, indeed, that is what we have to recapture. It is not found in radical theory but it is found in a reduction of what some political scientists would call the bureaucratic inertia and what goes along with it, the requirements of all sorts of paperwork being filled out and all sorts of grant applications and all sorts of justifications for what really is vital, helping teachers teach and helping children learn. That is the basic, what is so vital in this human equation. Many more things are there to commend as we take a look at this budget agreement, including national defense, a priority promised in the preamble to our Constitution. As we take a look there and look at that time crisis that our military personnel are confronting, we have worked now to supplement our defense spending in this uncertain world. We have taken steps in that direction. But there are a variety of things to commend a reassessment of where we are headed in terms of our budget, to work for an honest compromise and again in this divided government, in our constitutional republic with a conservative Congress and a liberal President, there is the challenge of give and take and compromise. And so on a variety of fronts, whether education, or the national defense or working to make sure that there are extenders and modest tax relief in terms of an acceleration of the 100 percent deduction for health insurance for the self-employed. We have a variety of things on the table and in the agreement that commend it to the American populace, not the least of which being on another front the move to control pornography on the Internet. So many different topics, many different things to commend the bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening again to talk about America's priorities and the pursuit of common sense conservative goals, because as my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia points out, Mr. Speaker, it makes sense to get the resources to where they have the most impact. Education is far too important to leave up to Washington bureaucracies. So what we have done is to agree in historic fashion to provide resources but to make sure those resources are implemented at the local level. That is the key, because the first priority, of course, must be with parents and the teachers who are there in the classroom who know our children's names, and the school board members whom we elect. Indeed, I would tip the hat, rhetorically speaking, to those colleagues from Pennsylvania, the gentleman form Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who have worked so hard to say that the proper role is to make sure that resources are spent at home in local school districts and, indeed, that is commensurate with our overall philosophy of transferring money, power, and influence out of the hands of the Washington bureaucracies and back to the people at home who are on the frontlines addressing the problem. That is the key. Just as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) in Dollars to the Classroom stipulated that 95 percent of every Federal dollar spent on education, or 95 cents of every Federal dollar spent on education should end up at home in the classroom and only 5 cents should go to the care and feeding of Washington bureaucrats is a common-sense approach. Further as our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has pointed out, when it comes to special education, and the needs there, to make sure that this Congress lives up to the promise it made in 1975. I was in my senior year of high school, Mr. Speaker, a promise a liberal- controlled Congress made to say to the States, ``Oh, we're going to help you fund special education'' but sadly that is one of those promises that never really was fulfilled. The challenge remains for us to really help children with special needs commensurate with what we have done across the spectrum in terms of education and taxation, in terms of tax-free education accounts for college students. We need to expand that, but we have gotten a good start. And today as we prepare this historic budget agreement, we continue to shape those priorities. I thank my colleague from Georgia. I look and I see that one of my other colleagues from Arizona has joined us on the floor, but I just want to thank my friend from Georgia for pointing these things out.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening not to attempt to drive a wedge among Americans of different backgrounds. Indeed, I believe what President Theodore Roosevelt said is true, that though we come from many different backgrounds, we celebrate 100 percent Americanism, even when people have different views about a variety of issues. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well tonight further to discuss the challenge that still awaits this Congress, the challenging decisions we confront. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the citizens of the sixth congressional district of Arizona, who I am pleased to represent, indeed all Americans from coast to coast, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress is making progress on a variety of fronts, but most especially on that topic that seemed to be on the tips of just about everyone's tongue, especially on the other side of the aisle earlier this week, and that of course is education. Mr. Speaker, I think common sense dictates that education is too important to be left up to Washington bureaucrats. That is why in the midst of this historic attempt to reach a budget agreement, I am personally pleased to see that after a time of discussion and negotiation, those who represented the administration found that also this should be true. For while there will be increased spending on education, it will be done at the local level. Indeed, perhaps even exceeding the hard work done by our colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) in his Dollars to the Classroom Act, which said that for every education dollar at the Federal level, 95 cents of that dollar should end up in local classrooms, helping teachers teach and helping children learn. And indeed, in the wake of these negotiations, now 100 percent of the money will end up at the local level for States and, more importantly, for local school districts to determine how best to utilize for teacher training and for challenges they confront. Because after all, the key to solving many difficulties and challenges in education are confronted by school board members who are elected in their respective communities, by the teachers who know the names of the children in their classrooms, by the parents who have a concern because they have been entrusted with our most precious resource, a resource for which no price tag can be attached. We have been dealing with many challenges when it comes to these budget talks and, Mr. Speaker, I can remember on a few occasions even the President of the United States has come into this Chamber with his State of the Union messages and he has offered some interesting comments. Indeed, in the last State of the Union message, Mr. Speaker, when you totaled up everything the President had proposed in his budget plan, you were looking at more than $150 billion of new spending. The common sense conservative majority has put the brakes on that. And more importantly, to pay for those programs, not with a great deal of illumination or elucidation, but the President of the United States had a price tag attached, over $130 billion of tax and fee increases. Mr. Speaker, we can report this evening that there will be no tax increases in our agreement. And more importantly, Mr. Speaker, because we do face pressing needs, not only the Y2K crisis that confronts us in the field of high technology, but more basically, as we take a look at the preamble to the Constitution and our charge to provide for the common defense, every dollar of new social spending will be matched with a dollar for our defense spending, for, Mr. Speaker, reports have come to us that are indeed disturbing, reports of a hollow force that we have not seen since the late 1970s, reports of a spare parts and personnel crisis. I know that other colleagues will join us to discuss these pressing issues, but we are making the choices right for America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, regardless of the rhetoric that is bandied about on this floor, it would be nice if everyone here learned a simple lesson when they came to the well of the House. The lesson may not be taught that often in school; it should be taught at home to tell the truth. Now, Mr. Speaker, since the debate centers around numbers, here are some important numbers our colleagues should remember: Number of days since the last U.S.- U.N. inspection for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: 71. Number of days since the last fundraiser featuring the President: 2. Number of meaningful educational initiatives passed by this common sense conservative Congress, vetoed by the President of the United States: 7. Number of Cabinet meetings held in the White House by the President of the United States this year: 2, focusing on his personal problems. Mr. Speaker, we need not fall for the lure of focus groups. We need to join sincerely to solve problems and not leave education up to the Washington bureaucrats. Remember these numbers as the days continue.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my good friend from New York State and, Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember and to celebrate the contributions of my other colleague from New York State. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fossella spoke of it a second ago, the realization of what transpires here in the people's House before we are accorded the great honor of the doors opening and our hand being raised in taking the oath of office to join the 434 others as Members of this people's House. And I can recall following the 1992 elections, when many of our philosophy despaired a great deal, there was a ray of hope, not only as that adversity engendered determination, but also because here in this Federal capital there was one who was willing to step forward, to take on considerable political challenges, to shoulder considerable challenges of romance. And I can recall reading the press accounts, Mr. Speaker, when our good friend, Mr. Paxon, was courting Susan and made history proposing to her on this floor. Now, according to the press accounts, Mr. Speaker, a Member from the other side of the aisle congratulated the couple and uttered what I believe will be proven to be a very forlorn wish because he hoped that their progeny would all be little Democrats. And I do not believe that our friend has yet to school Ruby in all the intricacies of civics, given her tender age, but somehow I doubt even through those years of rebellion that will strike inevitably in adolescence that she will embrace another partisan philosophy. But I mention that because, Mr. Speaker, we rise in celebration of our friend who made history here in so many different ways, not only with the tip of the rhetorical cap to cupid but also in the way this institution operates. I can recall the visit to Arizona, two visits in fact, but the second one stands out in my mind of our colleague and his bride, and it was at a time when our youngest was still in the playpen and would be in our campaign headquarters. I can remember introducing them to so many folks who walked the precincts, so many folks who made the phone calls, so many folks who, Mr. Speaker, we cannot help but describe as a miracle, people of both political parties find these incredible folks who are willing to give of themselves and their time to volunteer in campaigns. And so it was that day. I can remember pulling out the playpen saying that my colleagues from New York would soon need it. But before they added Susan Ruby to their household, they added a class of 73 new Members to this institution. And in so doing changed the balance of power within this the people's House in a very healthy way, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, in a historic way, in a way in which many now are just coming to appreciate. Mr. Speaker, I sit and wonder when I think about those who have gone before in this American parade, those who have made history. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a very human equation at work where preparation meets circumstance to make history. So it has been for our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon), rising to the challenge at a time when our political party was out of power, both in this institution, as has been well documented and referred to seemingly an infinite number of times. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, he stepped forward in the midst of that adversity because he was well-trained by his dear late father who instilled in him a commitment to public service. But also, Mr. Speaker, to the machination so vital to public service, and I use that term machination not in a pejorative sense, but just in simply the list of logistics and how we get from point A to point B and how we put to work those miraculous individuals who become volunteers in our campaigns and how we are able through that framework to influence public opinion and win friends and gain public office as he did at a comparatively tender age, as it should be noted. The years have been none the worse for wear to our friend who chooses to leave the people's House at still a relatively youthful age; and yet, Mr. Speaker, he will always be remembered in this institution among Members of both parties as our majority maker. Because while others engendered the vision, perhaps, he put his shoulder to the wheel. He encouraged candidates. He was willing to travel across this country. He was willing to summon and marshal the resources. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we remember him for his contribution to history, not only in helping to make our majority, but in helping us preserve it. Yet, as my newest colleague from New York State noted, despite those considerable achievements that will be recognized by historians and political scientists and those who share our allegiance both to the country and to the party we represent, there is a very real personal quality and unique spirit and bearing that we will miss in this Chamber, but that we will always champion no matter his future endeavors in the public arena or in private business. So, Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit tonight that we come to honor Bill Paxon, our friend from New York, who succeeded Jack Kemp in this people's House and who will, for years to come, cast a long shadow and offer a standard that will be difficult to meet, much less exceed.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I came to the well of this House, and I asked the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, to refrain from attending two major fund-raising events, to stay here in Washington and work with the Congress to make the decisions necessary to reach accord on our budget situation. The President, indeed, decided not to go to Palm Beach, Florida, but sadly, Mr. Speaker, the President plans to go on to New York City for not one, but three fund-raising events tonight. Those three fund-raising events will give him a total of 100 fund- raising events, Mr. Speaker, and yet the President all year long has only held two Cabinet meetings, on both occasions to discuss his personal situation. Mr. Speaker, I would call on the President again not to attend the fund-raising meetings in New York, especially, as I pointed out yesterday, because they are to benefit a sitting member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, a person with aspirations toward moving to the other side of Capitol Hill and the other body. Even though Washington is hard-bitten and cynical, Mr. Speaker, even our opposition can see the conflict of interest.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Spreaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for his thought-provoking remarks. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to many different perspectives on this floor and in this chamber on this Sunday afternoon when we remain in session intent on doing the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I was especially astounded to hear a lecture in ethics from the other side, particularly from one Member who finds himself ethically-challenged and, indeed, involved in civil litigation concerning what many would define as an ethical problem, and yet that is the level of absurdity we have reached in Washington, when those who are suspected of doing wrong often stand to claim their endeavors to be right. So it is sadly, Mr. Speaker, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where this morning our President met with leaders of the minority party, but failed to meet with the leadership of this House from the conservative majority. Indeed, in discussing with the leadership of the majority party the phenomenon, apparently this President has not met with the majority leadership throughout this two years of the 105th Congress. Yet tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States will leave our Federal capital, intent on raising funds for electioneering. First he will go to Palm Beach, Florida, and then tomorrow night he will go to New York City. New York City? Yes, New York City. He will be there to raise money for a Member of this House who sits on the Committee on the Judiciary and who has aspirations of joining the other body here on the hill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand how hard bitten and cynical Washington, D.C. has become. Indeed, in stark contrast to my usual weekend activities when I am back home in position to listen and learn from the constituents of the 6th District of Arizona, I had the opportunity this morning to watch the various Sunday news programs, and came away from those just a bit chagrined by the ferocity of the spin cycle, and the seeming hunger on the part of the media elite to cast aside the Constitution and find some unconstitutional or extra- constitutional remedies for the plight in which our President finds himself. Mr. Speaker, we should all remember, we stood here as a body 435 strong in January of 1997, raised our right hands and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Those in the Executive Branch take a similar oath. And for anyone in any office to suggest that we cast aside the Constitution and constitutional principles to embrace some remedies of convenience, do our constitutional republic a grave disservice. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would call upon the President of the United States to cancel his questionable fund-raising activities tomorrow, to stay in Washington, D.C. and to do something unique, indeed, novel: To call the leadership of the Congress and to join with Members of this House and the other body in constructive solutions to the challenges we face. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, let us state clearly, so there will be no doubt, we are prepared to stay here as long as it takes.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Again, I am somewhat amazed and chagrined that now over 100 people, almost 120 people have either taken the fifth amendment or fled the country with regard to this investigation. It only compounds the difficulty that sadly we see in this city within this government, within the executive branch. As I was looking at the report card offered the President by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Speaker, I thought about my own children, their educational experience and the fact that our youngest, John Micah, not to be confused with the gentleman in the chair from Florida tonight, but John Micah with an ``h'' at the end of his middle name, is fond of a new endeavor at school, being a year out of kindergarten and being 4\1/2\, something called connect the dots. And it is a metaphor for what is transpiring within the executive branch of this government, to the point where we have moved past connecting the dots in some areas of conduct and, to mix metaphors, we have moved from that endeavor of connecting the dots to Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale of the emperor's new clothes or the lack thereof. It is amazing, again, to see the willingness of people to turn away, to actually try, through the punditocracy to distract us, to suggest that constitutional procedures should not be followed, that it really would be better to try and find an unconstitutional or extra constitutional third way that is just as devoid of reality as any fanciful tale you could find in children's literature.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, since this White House is so poll driven, that is the one time this administration ignored the polling in this Federal capital district. In the District of Columbia, where over 70 percent, well nigh close to 80 percent of parents, when given the choice, said, yes, we want to have an option and educational scholarships for our children. That should come as no surprise, Mr. Speaker. Imagine the dilemma of parents whose heads hit the pillow every night knowing that they are sending their children into unsafe, unproductive schools, where their safety is threatened, where sadly they are not learning. Yet, to have that wiped away in a show of allegiance to factions and groups who insist they want to improve education but instead seem to want to expand the educational bureaucracy is yet another reason why we find ourselves in this dilemma of the factually challenged White House and a factually challenged President.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect to this ongoing saga that we would be remiss if we did not point out. Because as my colleague from Indiana just briefly touched on, there seems to be a tendency in this town for members of the fourth estate, that is to say, the press, to view things with a prism that always and forever supplies a benefit of the doubt to the executive branch and to the administration. You mentioned that in terms of the alleged government shutdown that may be formulated at this time. I think it is also important, again, to review the itinerary that we understand the President will follow tomorrow. Tomorrow the President will not be involved in negotiations to end this stalemate. The President will instead first go to Palm Beach, Florida and then follow up that trip with a trip tomorrow night to New York City to fund raise for his political party and for candidates including in New York City a gentleman who serves in this House, who also serves on the Committee on the Judiciary and who entertains ambitions of moving across this Capitol into the other body. Now, again, I should point out that we certainly know why Washington fancies itself a sophisticated place, sometimes sophisticatedly cynical. But even with the collective mindset of journalists and the punditocracy in Washington, D.C., certainly, Mr. Speaker, we can detect some conflict of interest. Indeed, my colleague from Indiana, in his other position in oversight on the yet another committee, we understand that given campaign finance difficulties of the minority party in this Chamber, apparently in excess of $1 million, some $1.7 million has yet to be refunded that the minority party in this Chamber claimed they would do given the status of those contributions and the apparent illegalities involved. Does the gentleman from Indiana have a comment on that?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the distinguished majority whip, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, as I have had the honor and privilege of serving in this House, I am struck by what our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, tells us tonight, because we have seen example after example, sadly, of this President and this administration saying one thing and then doing another. In fact, I think about the historic budget agreement that was reached last year by this allegedly do-nothing Congress to balance the budget for the first time in a generation, to set up budget caps, ceilings that were to remain inviolate. Now, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, points out, in the last nanosecond of the 11th hour, perhaps based on focus groups and extensive polling, suddenly, education becomes the watchword; sadly, not in an effort to improve education, which we believe is too important to be left up to Washington bureaucrats, but because of the endless posturing and preening and electioneering that continues, regardless of the dates on the calendar, but now has grown more frenetic and frantic, given the constitutional questions that confront us, and also our constitutional heritage of an election that approaches the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. It is very insightful.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, indeed, as I stand here from this unique vantage point in the House, I note that just behind the gentleman is a rostrum. On an annual basis, we invite the President of the United States here to offer a State of the Union message. I remember this year the President's insistence when he said, about moving from the politics of deficit to the policies of surplus, not one penny out of the surplus unless it goes to save Social Security. Save Social Security first. Yet, almost within the twinkling of an eye, there was the administration petitioning the Congress for close to $3 billion for spending in Bosnia. How profound. How prophetic the words of the columnist from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Paul Greenberg, who instructed all of us years ago, Mr. Speaker, in the case of President Clinton, listen not so much to what he says, instead, watch what he does. And it has been trying, challenging, and ultimately tragic that we are beset by a chief executive who so often, in so many different circumstances, says one thing and then does another.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Maryland. His math comes up short. Only 2 percent of Federal spending goes to administration? That is just not true. But then again there is a lot that goes on here that seems to be part of the spin cycle. Mr. Speaker, I noted with great interest this morning the President met with the minority leadership. In 2 years' time he has never bothered to sit down with the people who run the House of Representatives, members of the majority, to craft a policy for America's future. It has been very interesting, Mr. Speaker. In fact tomorrow on the President's itinerary are two fund-raisers, one in Florida, the other in New York. The final one is to benefit a Member of this House who sits on the Judiciary Committee and who has aspirations of joining the other body. Now even in a town as cynical and as hard- bitten as Washington, D.C., can people not see some conflict of interest? We are happy to stay as long as it takes to make sure that education is left up to the people, not the Washington bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, we implore the President of the United States to join us to find real solutions.