J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for this time. I again rejoice for this debate on the House floor because once again it points up some very important differences. I listened with great interest to the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations essentially call this exercise, and I believe I am using his words accurately, ``a national disgrace.'' Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a national disgrace to allow hard working people to hang onto more of their own money and send less here to Washington. I do not believe it is a national disgrace to allow for the reduction in the overall growth of spending, to make sure we save and preserve programs for Americans. That is what we are doing with this Balanced Budget Act, as we work to preserve Medicare into the next generation, as we preserve veterans' benefits, as we work to make sure that this Government takes less money out of the pockets of working Americans, to allow them to keep more of their money to save, spend and invest as they see fit. The fact that over 70 percent of these tax cuts go to families making under $75,000 is not disgraceful, it is the truth, and it is good for the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, again we see where there are genuine differences honestly held and where there may be other measures that have yet to be taken to address problems that people on both sides of the aisle have. But again I come down to speak on behalf of this legislation because of the many positive effects we will see, not only, although goodness knows it is important enough to balance the budget for the first time in a generation, not only because we preserve and protect Medicare for the next decade and set up the framework with a bipartisan commission to look at the very serious questions that confront us when the baby boomers start to retire, but also because of the second part of this agreement which we will come to tomorrow, the first meaningful tax cuts for working Americans in 16 long years. Again, it is part of the difference in philosophy, where we honestly believe that working Americans deserve the chance to hold onto more of their hard earned money and send less of it here to Washington, and these two measures fit together like hand in glove. Today we deal with spending, tomorrow with tax cuts. The bottom line is a better future for the American Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, for yielding to me and thank my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Price, for his thoughts on this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult at times for a career politician to go do this, but I would ask all of us to leave the spin cycle in the laundry room. The fact is historians and the American people will judge us on how we arrived at this important date with this important piece of legislation. What we can truly say today, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not a victory of party. Quite the contrary, it is a victory for our country. Because we put aside some partisan differences, we tried to reach accommodation on some deeply held beliefs, and such is the essence of our Democratic lifestyle and the principles we embrace. It is interesting for me personally, Mr. Speaker, as I reflect back to the summer of 1969, to the year of the miracle Mets and man on the Moon, the summer before the sixth grade for me, and the last time the American people had a balanced budget. How important it is that, in waiting a quarter century or more, an entire generation, in effect, we now have the chance to embrace a balanced budget. How important it is, too, that we have taken a new look at how we administer the different rules in Washington, DC, how we are now willing to transfer money, power, and influence out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and back closer to home so that people on the front lines can make decisions, so that parents are free to save, spend, and invest for their children as they see fit. And how pleased I am, Mr. Speaker, that we join in a bipartisan fashion to preserve and strengthen Medicare through the next decade. For my parents, who, so youthful in 1969, turned 65 this year; we owe it to my parents and other parents to make sure that Medicare is preserved. This budget agreement does just that. We can do no less and also establishing a framework for the future as the baby boomers begin to retire. I thank my colleagues for joining together. I urge passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration and assistance.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I claim this time for purposes of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida, of the Subcommittee on National Defense. I would like to bring the DRAGONFLY program to the gentleman's attention. The DRAGONFLY program will demonstrate the revolutionary flight potential of the canard rotor/wing or CRW high speed vertical take-off and landing concept and to assess and validate CRW's characteristics and capabilities using unmanned aircraft technology. Details on this revolutionary program came to my attention too late to be included in the defense appropriations bill now under consideration. I understand that the Defense Department plans to pursue this technology. However, due to budgetary constraints, funds could not be included in this year's budget request. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the gentleman's subcommittee consider the funding requirements for the DRAGONFLY program during conference on the defense bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I very much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate his attention to so many matters of vital importance within the State of Arizona and certainly his attention in this regard.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done in producing this bipartisan bill so important, indeed so vital to the State of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, as you may know, San Carlos Lake, located in the Sixth District, is now on the verge of drying up. Current estimates suggest it could be dry by September. Now as we might expect, this is causing great concern among the local residents because this lake has great recreational value; and, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, it is vital economically to the residents of the sixth district living around San Carlos Lake. Commensurate with the philosophy of the new majority, Mr. Chairman, we are seeking to solve this problem, first at the State level, but certainly we would be remiss if we did not try to employ every opportunity and explore every avenue of possibility that may exist. And, so, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to say that I would appreciate the gentleman's help in exploring ways to provide assistance to these people of Arizona's sixth district as we seek to prevent this lake from drying out.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it was good to be back home in the Sixth District of Arizona last week, being outside of the beltway and all of the speculation and all the imagined conversation, and to talk to honest to goodness Americans and Arizonans, people who are pleased at long last, Mr. Speaker, that this conservative majority will deliver on promises that should have been realized a long time ago: tax cuts for the American people, the first tax cuts in over a decade and a half. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Sixth District viewed with alarm, concern and outright curiosity the claims by some about the notion of giving income tax cuts to people who do not pay income taxes. They said it in Show Low, Arizona, they said it in Eagar and Overgaard: How do we give an income tax cut to someone who does not pay income taxes? How indeed, Mr. Speaker? The good news is, over 70 percent of our tax cuts go to middle income families, working Americans. We realize the value of work, we realize the value of individual initiative, and Mr. Speaker, we realize the value of having hard-working Americans keep more of their own money in their pockets and send less of it here to Washington.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my airplane was unavoidably detained because of avionics difficulties from Chicago into Washington this afternoon. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I missed two votes held under suspensions. I want the Record to reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 849 and also ``yes'' on Senate Joint Resolution 29.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. I believe it was Art Linkletter in a joking vein who reminded us all that kids say the darndest things. I must tell you today, Mr. Chairman, that listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I am reminded that liberals say the darndest things. Let us say it as it really has been. The gentleman from Massachusetts talks about a house of cards. Here is the problem, Mr. Chairman. It is that the liberals on this side have built a house on credit cards, going to the American people time and time again to take more money out of their pockets, and the gentleman from Massachusetts speaks of a tax break fairy. No indeed, Mr. Chairman, a tax break reality is what the American people deserve. And that is what they receive under the majority's plan. The gentleman from Massachusetts, indeed our friends on this side of the aisle, all know that this tax bill provides tax relief to working Americans. Indeed, well over 70 percent of the tax breaks here go to families earning between $20,000 and $75,000 a year. In my State of Arizona, 570,000 children will be eligible for the $500-per-child tax credit--$438 million in education tax benefits will go to Arizona families. And all Arizona small businessmen and ranch owners and farmers will benefit from an increase in the death tax exemption. No, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, this plan makes imminent sense. Again, to echo the curious findings of my friend from Massachusetts who spoke about Rumpelstiltskin, the sad fact is that while this Government has not demanded the firstborn child of every family, it has asked for more and more and more of the average family's income until the tax-and- spenders who dominated Washington for so long asked for more and more and more to the point where, Mr. Chairman, the average family in this country pays more in taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined. In the name of fairness, we ask the American people to join with us and let us make sure the American people hang onto more of their own money, send less of it here to Washington. That is the key to our future success. That is the true bridge to the 21st century.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin. But I think this points out the fundamental difference between our two major parties. Indeed, to echo the comments of my colleague from California, sadly, sadly so many of our friends on the other side are unalterably opposed to the American people hanging onto more of their own money and sending less of it here to Washington that they would try to nitpick an agreement broadly arrived at with the President of the United States. Mr. Chairman, all we need do is listen to the hardworking American people. One of my constituents, via telefax, a small business owner, Jon Cramer, points out the wisdom of those who live far beyond the Beltway in the great State of Arizona, when he says, ``JD, you cannot give an income tax break to those who do not pay income taxes.'' It is a very simple thought. Not fraught with cruelty, as some would suggest, but a commonsense compassion. And again it is important to note the reality of the evaluation by the nonpartisan Joint Tax Commission that tells us that fully, fully 76 percent of the tax relief in the Republican plan goes to families earning between $20 and $75,000 a year. Indeed, for those who lament and would claim the greatest tax breaks go to the wealthy, well, it is interesting to evaluate who they believe is wealthy. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe anyone here who is a homeowner pays rent to himself, and yet that is the twisted evaluation that comes from the highly partisan report from the Treasury Department. No, I believe that the majority tax plan is the best and I believe that, sadly, though our friends on the other side rhetorically come here to the well and say that, yes, they have now embraced tax cuts, history is an incredible teacher. It shows us, Mr. Chairman, that for the first time in 16 years, the first time in over a decade and a half, a new majority is finally about the business of giving Americans, working Americans, much-needed tax relief. My colleague from California said it well, and I do not impugn the motives of those on the other side who are trying to catch up and proffer some sort of tax relief. Indeed, in a sense, Mr. Chairman, it is a measure of how far we have come, but sadly the minority substitute has miles and miles and dollars and dollars to go before it is credible.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, well, there they go again. It is tragic, in a sense, to come to the floor of this House and hear such extreme, shrill and, yes, I am saddened to say, false rhetoric from liberals who constantly apologize for expansion of government and higher taxes for the American people. The sad fact is that the Treasury Department and other partisans, such as my good friend from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], are using books that have been cooked so much they are charcoal broiled. How many families do my colleagues know who pay rent to themselves, owning their own homes? That is what our friends say the American people do. That is why our friends would say that a middle-income family earning about $40,000 a year somehow makes in excess of $75,000 a year and somehow is wealthy. It does not add up. Indeed, when we come to saving Medicare, we worked out commonsense reforms with the very administration that I think my colleague from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] would champion. So let us return to a voice of reason, common sense, giving tax relief to working Americans. That is the key. That is what our plan does, 76 percent to families making between $20,000 and $75,000; and that is why the American people will prevail.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. I am pleased to follow my chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. I have been listening, Mr. Speaker, with great interest to the cavalier fashion in which fear replaces facts on the other side. It is sad to see that happen. I do not think the point can be made often enough that when you cook the books, as the liberal minority has done, in the process you fricassee the facts. Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anyone, including my friends on the minority side, I do not know of anyone who pays themselves rent to live in a house they own. Only in Washington, DC in the desperation of trying to concoct fear rather than new ideas, rather than joining with us to decrease the tax burden on working Americans, decrease the size of government, have a limited and effective government, only in Washington do we see this kind of math. To hear the minority whip come up and talk about the balanced budget taking shape in 1993, I was a private citizen. I know exactly what happened in 1993, the largest tax increase in American history. It took a new Congress cutting spending, it took a new Congress coming in and saying, let us reverse the culture of tax-and-spend to take the first fledgling steps in reducing by $50 billion the size of government to make it limited and effective. And the truth of this tax cut, Mr. Speaker, is the following: 76 percent of the tax cuts go to benefit middle-income families, families making between $20,000 and $75,000 a year for, Mr. Speaker, we realize that those middle-income taxpayers are exactly that. They are not rich. They are working Americans. They deserve a break. They will get one.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], and I really appreciate the lecture on tax cuts from our friend on the left. It is akin to letting Dr. Kevorkian come in and design a Medicare plan for us. The problem is this: The numbers that are being used by my friends on the left have been cooked well beyond well done. Let us tell the truth to the American people, Mr. Speaker. The fact is this: Tax cuts proposed by our majority, over 70 percent go to families earning between $20,000 and $75,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe most working Americans consider themselves rich. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe most working Americans pay rent to themselves for the houses they own. Yet the numbers offered by the highly partisan Treasury Department are the numbers upon which our friends on the left base their baseless canards. The fact is we provide tax relief to working families. That is the difference.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. And that is the basic common wisdom of those who involve themselves in the process, not to get caught up in micro or macro economics, but simply to provide for their families, to answer the call to duty, whether it is found in wearing the uniform of one of the branches of service in this country or contributing in other ways to our economy and to their communities and to their families. That is the simple elemental, yet vital, wisdom behind the plan that we are offering that essentially provides tax cuts for life, those child tax credits, those credits that help youngsters go on to college, those ways to save through those saving years that my colleague from Wisconsin and I found ourselves in as we are trying to provide for our children, also prepare for that final phase of life, those retirement years. And that is what is so appealing about this modest first step in tax reduction. And again, as my colleague from Wisconsin points out, Mr. Speaker, here we are poised to offer the American people the first tax cuts they have really enjoyed in a decade and a half, and the thing that we should note about this, the wonderful thing, is that this will actually help our economy grow, this will actually help raise the revenue rates, as again in a bipartisan fashion, as President John F. Kennedy said in the early 1960's: ``A rising tide lifts all the boats.'' And so it is in that spirit that we offer this based on historical perspectives, not only the Reagan presidency, but before that with President Kennedy, so that people from both sides of the aisle understand the value of cutting taxes, allowing people to hang onto more of their own money and really conferring, as if this government had to confer, the honor and the privilege and for all practical purposes the money that belongs to the people in the first place, keeping it there in their pockets and taking less and less of it for what has grown into a Federal leviathan here on the banks of the Potomac.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and those who join us coast to coast in this Chamber this evening. I just wanted to say that my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] offers a very commonsense approach to the next step. And I think the gentleman from Wisconsin in his introductory remarks has pointed out and offered to us a very reasonable approach here based on what has happened before. And certainly we understand, coming from outside the Washington merry-go-round, as so many people called it for so many years, outside the beltway, that there is a lot of cynicism out there. And I appreciate the fact that my colleagues pointed out that our budget agreement really projects very modest growth and that is why we have the realistic point of view. But even more so, the notion that we can repay the national debt is vitally important. Because when I go across the width and breadth of the 6th District of Arizona, an area in square mileage about the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and hold town hall meetings, people will come and, yes, they will talk about the annual deficits, but inevitably someone steps to the microphone and says, Congressman, that is fine. But how do we get a handle on this five plus trillion dollar national debt that we are leaving our children? I just think, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] offers a lot of commonsense based on his background as a math teacher, based on his business acumen as a home builder; and I just appreciate this foundation, if you will, of a practical, commonsense plan to make sure that our children have a debt-free future. And I cannot help but remark as I heard my colleague from Wisconsin talk about his father-in-law, I think about my father-in-law down in Yuma, AZ, someone who spent his years in the Marine Corps defending this country away from home for years on end, and I think about the legacy of those who have gone before, many of the veterans I visit with in the 6th district, veterans of World War II, the Korean war, Vietnam, Desert Storm, people would have answered the call. And do I believe, as President Franklin Roosevelt said, to different generations fall different responsibilities. And God willing, if we can avoid a major worldwide conflict, and certainly we hope and pray with a strong national defense and reasonable approaches worldwide we will be able to do so, but our challenge, our rendezvous with destiny will be a reconciliation and elimination of this national debt after we take the first step of eliminating these annual deficits. So I just wanted to come down here and tell my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Speaker, and those who join us that this plan bears definite consideration and support as we ask the reasonable, logical, and practical question: Where do we go from here? For these reasons, I salute my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I do not think this point can be stressed enough. I know that I joined with the gentleman in the Social Security Preservation Act with this purpose in mind. I am glad to see this notion incorporated into the National Debt Repayment Act, so that we have real funds, tangible funds and not some sort of slips of paper that say IOU when we are dealing with something as sensitive and as important as Social Security, something else that affects my parents, affects my colleague from Wisconsin's parents and obviously affects many of our constituents. Again, I salute this very rational, reasonable framework. Let me just depart for a second, because I think this is important, too, because, Mr. Speaker, ofttimes when we come to this floor for purposes of explanation, and certainly given my colleague's ability to explain these concepts in very simple, easy-to-understand terms, there is a temptation by those who oppose us to claim that we have simply got on our green eyeshades, to claim that we are simply sitting here with calculators. Indeed there are those critics who would claim that within our chests beat calculators instead of human hearts. Let me assure, Mr. Speaker, those who might rise in opposition to us that it is precisely because of compassion that we offer this, that it is precisely because we want a firm foundation and to fulfill promises made by this Government to our seniors but also to provide for those generations who are younger, for those generations yet unborn a reasonable framework and a reasonable, rational way that they can have a constitutional republic and enjoy the freedoms that we have had. And so that is what I think is important to stress. This is not something that needs to be necessarily caught up in decimals and in dollar signs, if you will, but with a very real, compassionate, tangible goal. That is, the preservation of this country, the preservation of this constitutional republic to silence and to diminish this very genuine, silent killer, if you will, the twin maladies of annual deficits and the national debt. That is another reason we have to look at this with great interest, because it is the ultimate act of compassion. While of course it is inevitable that we talk about numbers and explain this in a common sense term, undergirding all of this is the example and the notion of true compassion. As my colleague from Wisconsin mentioned earlier, as we cannot say too often, Mr. Speaker, the money belongs to the people that earn it. The money does not belong to this government. Our job, our mission here poised for the next century is to realize and act upon that basic truth. The money belongs to the people of the United States. They should hang on to more of it and send less of it here to Washington, DC. That is a point that I think we should reemphasize.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If my colleague will yield further, again that points to one of our other aims as there have been changes in this Congress as we rethink the future, and that is the notion of transferring the money, power, and influence out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats, back to people at home, beginning with the family but also including those local and State governments, those who are on the frontlines. Janesville, WI, differs greatly from Scottsdale, AZ. Indeed within Arizona in my own district which spans from Franklin to the four corners, to Flagstaff in the west, there are different circumstances and different challenges in an incredibly diverse district. So much the better, then, that we are able to establish a framework that pays off the debt that puts the trust back into these ironically named trust funds. If there is one of the oxymoronic phrases of Washington, DC, certainly as we stand here at this juncture of our history, it would be the notion of trust funds since so much of those funds have gone to other matters, pressing matters to be sure but matters for which those funds were not originally intended. We put the trust back into those trust funds but most importantly we have the money stay in the pockets to working Americans. That is vital.

Mr. HAYWORTH. As my colleague offers this scenario, I concur wholeheartedly. I also salute my colleague because, again, the temptation is when you come to this town, and obviously there are some philosophical differences, I find that many of us can oftentimes end up in partisan arguments that are almost pointless games of what if, or what happened in the past. I think it is worthwhile and quite candidly refreshing, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague from Wisconsin comes here not to point fingers at that side of the aisle or necessarily to try and gain partisan advantage, but simply to offer a plan that people of all political labels should seriously consider as we say, OK, what is past is prolog, that has gone before, we can continue to play these games of revisionist history, or we can deal with the problems that we have encountered with the simple notion that my colleague and I learned in Scouts: Try to leave this a better place than we found it. Really is it just as simple as that; that we can play the hand we have been dealt, that yes, we have made some changes; that yes, those changes have us on the road to a balanced budget much more quickly; that yes, last week in the House Committee on Ways and Means we were able to fashion a tax bill that does not offer as much tax relief as I would like or my colleagues from Wisconsin or indeed many folks would like, but is an important first step. Moving on that, we can build.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I absolutely agree with my colleague from Wisconsin. I am heartened by the fact that as we take a look at the tax bill that moves out of the House Committee on Ways and Means that I was pleased to vote for last week, last Friday, 93 percent of those tax cuts go to families earning under $100,000; 75 percent of those tax cuts go to families earning less than $75,000. Though there is a temptation, and I heard earlier tonight when I had the privilege of sitting in the Speaker's chair for a previous special order, though there is the temptation to try and tinker with the numbers and cast a partisan light on them, these conclusions are drawn by the bipartisan Joint Tax Committee. So we have Republicans and Democrats taking a sober, practical view, not for political gain, simply saying that without a doubt, these tax cuts go to help working Americans more than anyone else. It is an important first step.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for taking this time, Mr. Speaker, to explain this very important, I believe, exciting and necessary concept of the National Debt Repayment Act, and again what undergirds this when you get past the math, when you get past the micro and macro economic models, is a very simple motion. People work hard for the money they earn. They ought to hang onto more of it, send less of it here to Washington D.C., and in the process as we prepare for a new century we ought to focus on the notion of transferring money, power and influence out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and back home to the families, to the local communities, to governments on the front line who confront these several problems. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I again just want to comment on my colleague from Wisconsin making this very practical common sense point. How do you offer a tax cut to those who pay no taxes, and, Mr. Speaker, although there are those who might misunderstand, this is not standing here pointing the finger of blame toward any one segment of the society. It is simply asking the very practical question. It would seem to me that only in this town, with some who champion the notion of government being the source of so much, that even the notion would be advanced that those who pay no taxes should somehow receive a tax cut. But again, when you leave this Beltway and the culture that has grown up around this Capital City, and travel to the Sixth District of Arizona, or travel to the great State of Wisconsin, or places in-between, and go to any town and talk to any taxpayer, they will reaffirm the absurdity of the notion of offering tax cuts to those who pay no taxes. And again, Mr. Speaker, and this is something again not to cast a pall of partisanship, but to simply rejoice in the fact that here in this institution we can debate reasonable differences in a reasonable fashion. It astounds me, quite candidly, to look at some of the other figures that have been proffered that actually take on another absurd notion when there are those who come to this Chamber and talk about these very modest tax cuts, 93 percent of which go to families making under $100,000, that somehow anyone could characterize those as what is that tired, sad phrase we hear? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Simply is not true, but using some of those peculiar numbers people are incorporating what homeowners would earn in rental income on their own homes. My colleague, who is a home builder, who understands the intricacies of mathematics far better than I do, can simply attest to the absurdity of that notion which is being proffered as a reason to oppose our plan and our very modest array of tax cuts.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning mindful of the fact that this is a special day in American history. For one-half century and 3 years ago on this date, the largest amphibious assault in the history of warfare occurred on the shores of Normandy. Representing the people of the Sixth District of Arizona, I am pleased and proud to represent many veterans, some of whom were there at Normandy that day, some of whom visited with me last Saturday in a townhall meeting at Apache Junction. To those who survived and were victorious in that battle, in that crusade, Dwight Eisenhower called it, in Europe, I believe this House and our Nation continues to owe a debt of gratitude. So it is in that spirit this morning that I rise, remembering those who paid the ultimate price to remind us all that freedom is not really free, it does involve sacrifice. Those of us who were part of generations as yet unborn one-half century ago should heed and remember the sacrifice of so many great Americans who joined to preserve our freedoms in this constitutional republic. So on this date, June 6, 1997, we again acknowledge the sacrifice of so many, the pride of a grateful nation, and we rejoice in our ability to come to this Chamber to discuss our differences openly and honestly and to maintain the integrity of our constitutional republic. Thanks to all of our veterans, and especially those who found themselves in action at Normandy 53 years ago today.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, within the Rules of the House, if I might suspend for a second, within the Rules of the House, I would ask to be allowed time to finish my remarks, for I was interrupted and the gentlewoman failed to suspend.