J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia who joins my good friend the physician from Florida.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Even in addition to common sense, which I laud the gentleman for mentioning, and which many observers would say time and again seems to be absent not only from this Chamber at times, but also through the vast bureaucracy, we need a proper reassertion of constitutional authority. That is why every proposed regulation should not be enacted by bureaucratic fiat, for as my two colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, what oft times happens is you have a shift in the power. Instead of the power being conferred by the people on their duly elected representatives to make laws, the power is bequeathed or ceded to the regulators who can come up with regulatory expansion, as my friend from Georgia mentions, that exceeds what the average person would deem to be reasonable. In doing so, it subverts the whole notion of laws and by the expansion of what I choose to call the tyranny of the bureaucracy and the power being conferred on government bureaucrats, what we have done is allowed those bureaucrats in essence through the issuance of regulation to make laws, because as my two colleagues know, certainly my physician friend from Florida understands, those folks with the sanctions of imprisonment or fine are basically enacting laws. Of course I yield to my good friend from Florida.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, recalling my career in radio, here is a golden oldie I am sure our liberal friends will absolutely love. It is taken from one of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign commercials: I'm Bill Clinton, and I think you deserve a change. That's why I've offered a plan to get the economy moving again, starting with the middle-class tax cut. But after the election, Bill Clinton forgot about the middle class. He must have developed some sort of memory problem. For 2 years when he and the liberals had control of both the White House and this Congress, Bill Clinton still refused to honor his promise to cut taxes to the middle class. In fact, the record clearly shows he raised taxes, 250 billion dollars' worth. Bill Clinton traded in his promise of tax relief for the largest tax increase in American history. And then, in this new Congress, he vetoed tax relief the new majority provided to most every American. Mr. Speaker, the President had a chance. He blew it. The new majority is committed to letting Americans hang onto more of their hard-earned dollars.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is important again to articulate something, because it is lost in the politics of hyperbole, in the grand political theater of the propaganda on the Nation's radio and television stations right now. And incidentally, I would challenge my former colleagues in television to do their reality checks that they often reserve for the political campaigns. I would challenge my former colleagues in television news around the country to apply the truth ads to these cynical, manipulative, untrue announcements and maintain the vigilance now that they reserve for the election campaign. But the gentleman from Georgia brings up an interesting point. I do not know anyone, despite the extreme rhetoric of those outrageous claims made on television and radio, I do not know anyone in the new majority who would for a moment wish that his parents would have inadequate health care, desire for his grandparents inadequate health care, purposely move to starve children and deprive them of the basics of life, nor doom America to drinking dirty water and breathing impure air. The claims are outrageous, and my colleague from Georgia correctly points out the challenge is met. The challenge is presented by the waste, fraud, and abuse in the current vacuum in a Washington-based, one-size-fits-all system that is devoid of the very compassion it claims to give to people, for it denies the most essential element of our freedom: The opportunity to choose. When my parents turn 65 next year, when that happens, there will be no federally provided shopper to accompany them out of their homes and to decree what department store they will visit, what clothing they will buy, what car they will drive. And yet in the current health care system, in the one-size-fits-all anachronistic plan of the 1960's, which we hope to update, improve, transform and, yes, even save, a vacuum exists. A massive bureaucracy exists that invites the very waste, fraud and abuse that the gentleman spoke of.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would close with an observation by one of my constituents in the Navajo Nation, having spent Sunday in Window Rock, Arizona. A lady told the story of a young homemaker in a Navajo household cutting off a substantial portion of a hand. Kids asked her why. She said, I do not know; mom did it. So she went to great-grandma and she said, why did you cut off a major part of your hand. She said, well, it used to be a smaller pot and so I had to cut that off to make it fit in the pot, an example of a tradition for tradition's sake that defied common sense and needed to be changed, in much the same way we need to make changes here. Not because Washington said so, but because technology and the people living in those areas are willing to make the changes of their own volition. History does not occur in a vacuum and history is on the side of freedom.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And if the gentlewoman would yield, it is worth noting that one of the genuine reforms and one of the few times in which the gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the big white house was willing to work with us was on this notion of unfunded mandates, where Washington bureaucrats decreed to local government officials you will do it this way. The frustration of that system has led the mayor of Winslow, AZ, to coin a new phrase. He calls it the idiocracy. The idiocracy which would mandate an action being taken without taking into account the realistic, common sense, reasonable notions of the good people who live right there in the area and also want to redress the problem but on their own terms, reflecting their own priorities, with no less of a commitment to solving that problem. That is what we must remember.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And if the gentleman would yield, numerous examples from the great Grand Canyon State of Arizona, one in particular from a couple of years ago, bears out what I talked about in an abbreviated fashion this morning in responding to my good friend from Georgia on this floor, and what we have talked about tonight, and indeed what is one of the basic tenets of this new practical, realistic, common sense majority, and that is one size does not fit all. Phoenix is not the same as Philadelphia, nor is Flagstaff the same as Fargo, ND. And, indeed, something that transpired 2 years ago in the desert City of Tucson, Arizona, offers a stirring example. There was a violent windstorm in the desert. Those wind storms blow up great dust devils, great amounts of dust in the air. Visibility is poor. There was a car crash on Interstate 10, one of those long 20-car tangos, if you will. But also, even as that was transpiring on the interstate, moving through Tucson, Arizona, technical data collection, equipment provided by the Federal Government to monitor the Clean Air Act, showed that at the same time Tucson was technically in violation of the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Now, the particulates in the air on that day did not come from the cars involved in the accident on the interstate, it came from the particulates in the air. When you live in a desert and a windstorm blows up, there will be more particulates in the air; ergo, Tucson is not the same a Tacoma. Different places, different areas of this Nation, different climatic conditions offer different challenges. And, yes, while there are some technologies that are common, certainly the circumstances of those respective areas should be taken into account, not for Washington standards but for local standards that are realistic, reasonable and move to protect the environment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would you yield just a second? I want you to repeat the amount of money spent on this over 12 years, over 15 years.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If you would yield for a second, let me also say the great State of Arizona does not subscribe to savings time either.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentlewoman would yield, indeed the current Superfund legislation, in stark contrast to the genuine reforms the new majority would propagate, which we advocate, the current Superfund legislation could well be renamed the special interest and lawyer subsidy act with an incidental tip of the cap to the environment to camouflage its true purpose. I mean that is a long title, but that is in essence what has transpired here. Come to think of it, may not be entirely grammatically correct. I would bow to my friend who taught the fourth grade so capably for many years in that regard. But regardless of the fractured syntax, it does not take away from the validity of the observation of the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I can recall on another occasion just prior to our recent recess when we returned home to the districts, where I came to this floor along with the gentleman from Georgia, a gentleman from Maryland, a gentleman from Michigan. No, we do not agree on every jot and tittle of what should transpire with meaningful reform to conservation and environmental legislation, and yet there were some common themes. One just rearticulated by the gentleman from Georgia dealing with the notion of local control and State control now being perhaps the most capable way to address many of these problems. Indeed, I do not believe anyone would argue of the necessity of the action taken in the early 1970's in the Nixon administration to create an Environmental Protection Agency. The question now becomes, however, with 50 States with their own departments of environmental qualities, in other words, 50 State-run EPA's, in effect, a legitimate question can be asked, should everything be centered in Washington? Indeed, the gentlewoman from California referred to one of the main problems, and let me pause here so no one will misunderstand. I do not discredit the millions of hard-working people who are in the employ of the Federal Government. I realize many of them work hard to do the jobs they are given. But sometimes those jobs are ill defined, or worse, the dynamics or the situation into which these employees are thrust leads to impracticalities, such as the notion of being deskbound instead of in the field looking at problems. On an occasion which we were discussing Indian housing, and there are more native Americans living on reservations in the Sixth District of Arizona than anywhere else in the continental United States, one of my constituents offered the story. There was a body of water on the reservation land in that district that the people had come to call Twelve Mile Lake. Well, there was some contentious debate with an EPA administrator, I believe from San Francisco so the story goes, according to my constituent. And during many telephone conversations, the EPA official in San Francisco behind a desk was adamant, certainly there must be significant wetlands protection for that body of water known as Twelve Mile Lake. The tribal administration, my friend who recounted the story, said, sir, you don't understand, it is not a significant body of water, it is a tiny body of water. It is akin to a mud puddle. Oh, certainly you exaggerate, said the EPA official. There must be these safeguards. Well, miracle of miracles, the U.S. official, the San Francisco bureaucrat, left that beautiful city by the bay and traveled to the reservation land, and the tribal officials took him to what in essence was a mud puddle. My constituent said, evoking images of Madison Avenue, it made for a Kodak moment to see the expression of stupefaction that crossed the bureaucrat's face. He said something to the effect of, you're right, it is a mud puddle. Why do you call it Twelve Mile Lake? And the tribal official said, well, you see, sir, that's what we've been trying to tell you. The reason this particular small body of water is called Twelve Mile Lake is not because of its dimensions but because, you see, it is 12 miles from the center of town to this particular body of water. And I think the story speaks volumes, and I daresay a disturbing tendency would be the overzealousness to abandon the context of what is reasonable to have almost the unbelievable advocacy of saying that mud puddle should be equated with a navigable water and should be a wetland that is protected. And that is the next course of action that has been taken on many different fronts. What should always undergird our mission in this Congress is a standard test of the law of Western civilization. What is reasonable? What would a reasonable person do?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I will ask the gentleman from Georgia to yield so I can respond to my friend from North Carolina.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield further, that is exactly what I am saying. Or the experience I had on one occasion, flying here and some of the folks on the flight, some of the flight attendants involved in their union made clear their displeasure with the incumbent President and members of the liberal minority and said that they called the local chapter of their union to put in their two cents worth and those members of the union were amazed to hear that a portion of their dues were going, even really without their knowledge, to guardians of the old order, guardians of the special interests, folks who would put bureaucracy above people and folks who would trust Washington, DC more than the American people. Those folks were absolutely flabbergasted. That is exactly what I am saying and to my friend from Georgia, I will say something else. It has been noted that Boss Sweeney of the AFL-CIO has asked for what sounds like the Clinton tax hike, an increase in those dues. Even as they bemoan the so-called stagnation in earning power, these bosses are asking for an increase in those dues, ergo a compulsory donation to the guardians of the old order without one whit of personal conviction from many members of unions. Indeed by some estimates almost half the members of unions are conservatives who vote consistently with the new majority. It is one of the ironies of life here in Washington.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friends for yielding, and lest, Mr. Speaker, those viewing on television and in the gallery would misunderstand what we are saying, we do not have any problem with good, honest debate in the American political system. We do not have any problem with honest differences of opinion. But it is more than ironic, indeed I daresay it is hypocritical of those on the left who would repeatedly use the lexicon of special interests and big money and power and extremism applying to members of the new majority and yet as my colleague from California has outlined, actually take money from outside States and congressional districts, take Washington money and pour it into a certain district. There is one other further distinction. Because, Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States who have come to view this endeavor quite cynically might honestly ask, well, what is the difference? There is a major difference. When union bosses take union dues and without the permission of union members take those compulsory dues and donate them directly to the Democrat National Committee, and indeed even as we have derided the increase in taxes, even as we have pointed out the Arkansas shuffle from a campaigner-in-chief who spoke of balancing the budget in 5 years only to renege on that promise, from a campaigner-in-chief who spoke of tax breaks for the middle class, only to renege on that promise, from a campaigner-in-chief who talked about ending welfare as we know it, only to renege on that promise, veto those measures in all three instances, now again comes another irony of saying one thing and doing another. The Beck decision, a mechanism my good friend from Pennsylvania, well versed in the law, is aware of, effectively said to end that practice of compulsory, nonvoluntary donations. And yet this President and his Justice Department refuse to enforce that decision. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the American people for their cynicism, but I believe a little background is in order. For the difference is if people can freely give to candidates of their choice, then so be it. But it should be a donation freely made. Not in the realm of compulsory action.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let me assure my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, that after the hue and cry and the celebrations this Earth Day, many committed conservatives will stand there to clean up the mess left by so many so-called environmentalists. It is interesting to hear the lines provided today, Mr. Speaker, from our friends on the liberal side, their carefully crafted scripts engaging in playground taunts. Let me state unequivocally and for the record that the new majority is in favor of clean air and clean water, and yes, restoring balance to our laws, recognizing that Phoenix is not the same as Philadelphia, or that Flagstaff is not the same as Fargo, ND, and relying on people on the front lines to solve their problems in the 50 States where there are departments of environmental quality, and in the communities, understanding that there are differences. The key to solving the problem, Mr. Speaker, resides with the American people, not with the Washington bureaucrats, and no amount of name-calling can change that fact.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from South Carolina for joining us here to talk about taxation. I thought especially eloquent was the gentleman who preceded me at this podium, the gentleman from Kansas. And while he is quite eloquent in his verbiage, I thought the stack of books that now comprise the Internal Revenue Code, Mr. Speaker, with those joining us on television this evening and this afternoon back in my home State of Arizona could see with their own eyes that huge stack of books in a system that has grown more and more complicated. I think just as there were volumes upon volumes, that picture spoke volumes. The gentleman from Ohio, you mentioned yesterday's proceedings, and I thought it was interesting what transpired in this Chamber during the course of the debate. A couple of arguments used and one, quite candidly, that some Members of the new majority bought into, was this notion that somehow the Constitution of the United States should not be amended or amended only sparingly. I just thought it was worth going back to article 5 of the Constitution, this document of limited and enumerated powers, to see precisely what is said. Again, I think the first clause in article 5 lays it out quite simply: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution. Now, for the accurate historical picture, of course there is one prohibition dealing with the Government and dealing with a certain year date, 1808, with reference to some amendments to the Constitution, but that had to do with the foundation of this very republic and some time- sensitive matters. But that is clearly where it is left. You see, our Founders did not say, now we would limit you to a Bill of Rights or to 40 subsequent amendments. They left no numerical prohibition there. Nor did they feel it was their place to articulate a procedure that either of these two Houses in the legislative body would follow. Indeed, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to watch Members of the liberal minority stand up to profess great feeling for the Constitution, but in reality, to hold higher alleged rules and customs of this House than the Constitution. To somehow claim, and I know that I am joined here by friends who work on the Judiciary Committee who are in their own right juris doctors. And for the purpose of full disclosure Mr. Speaker, ``J.D.'' in my name does not stand for juris doctor. It stands for John David. I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on television. But I think it is worth noting that our Founders simply said whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, they gave us the ability to bring these proposals directly to the floor. And if there were ever a proposal that we needed to move on, it was the tax limitation amendment that fell somewhat short last night but is long, long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I attempted to offer some perspective during the course of last night's debate, and indeed I thank the gentleman from Ohio for allowing me to fulfill a promise, because as I said from that well that we would have to wait for a special order to articulate this. But a couple of points worth noting. Those folks who were so reluctant to amend the Constitution failed to answer the question I proffered last night. And that was, if a direct personal income tax were such a good idea, why did the Founders not put it in the original document? They were strangely silent about that amendment. But also it is worth noting what transpired in the wake of the 16th amendment. The Center for Small Business Survival put together a survey, put together a study, went back and took a look at the original tax code in 1913, in the wake of the passage of the 16th amendment, and the numbers were absolutely astounding. If we wre to take the tax code of 1913 and apply it in 1990's dollars, a single person filing singly, of course, would be exempt on the first $46,000 of his income. A married couple filing jointly would be exempt on the first $59,000 of their income. And most astonishingly, to take the 1913 tax code and project it into 1990's dollars, 1 percent tax would be levied on the first $298,000 of earnings. Absolutely astonishing. How then do we account for the change? How do we account for the volumes the gentleman from Kansas brought? Quite simply this. The insatiable desire of this Federal Government to take money from its citizens, to reach into the pockets of hard-working Americans. If you need proof, understand this. Adjusting for inflation, according to the Center for Small Business Survival, even adjusting for inflation, the cost of the Federal Government from 1913 until the present day has increased in excess of 13,500 percent. The marginal tax rate on families has increased some 4,000 percent. The arguments have been made eloquently here again in this special order. I commend the gentleman from Ohio. But simply this thought should be remembered: When the average American family surrenders more to the Government in taxation than it spends on food, shelter, and clothing combined, something is fundamentally wrong. We were sent to this Congress with a basic premise and a basic promise: To let the hard-working people of the United States of America hand on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington. Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleagues who join me here tonight. I salute them also for voting for this tax limitation amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the time. Listening to my colleague across the aisle from Colorado talk about this process being an insult, I would just simply remind all of us that article V of the Constitution simply says in its opening clause: ``The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution.'' It does not provide for any other folderol where there are urgent questions of action to be taken. It is incumbent upon this Congress to take those actions, so it is not insult. It is proper to move forward in this fashion to amend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of this proposed constitutional amendment, because there is nothing extreme about allowing the American people to hang on to more of their hard-earned money, and there is nothing nonsensical about requiring a supermajority to raise taxes. Indeed, history has proven all too eloquently in recent years that this institution has raised taxes time and again to the point that over the past few years, for every dollar raised in new taxes, Congress spends $1.59. Mr. Speaker, this is a great idea whose time has come. Just as Arizona and several other States of the Union have put provisions such as this in their respective State constitutions, I rise in full support of doing the same thing in our Federal Constitution. As we have seen the cost of government grow 13,500 percent since enactment of the 16th amendment, we stand on the rights of taxpayers. We stand on the rights of the American people. We stand for this rule. And we stand for this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. There are two documents to which we should pay great attention this evening, Mr. Speaker. One, of course, the document which is the foundation of our constitutional republic, the Constitution of the United States, and I have listened with great interest, the spontaneous historical revisionism which has gone on during the course of this debate, for it is worth noting and worth asking: If a personal income tax were so desirable, if a personal income tax were so laudable, why did not our Founders spell that out by levying a personal income tax in the main body of this document, the Constitution of the United States? Now history shows us that it was a constitutional amendment that gave us a personal income tax, the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, which leads me, Mr. Speaker, to the second document here, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is a document with which Americans come into more contact on an annual basis, unfortunately, than I dare say the Constitution of the United States. Form 1040. This is the first. Mr. Speaker, the Center for Small Business Survival conducted a study, which I think is incredibly illuminating, for it went back to the initial tax tables and the tax code levied or instituted in 1913 and projected that into real dollars in 1990, and the statistics and the findings are nothing short of amazing. If we applied the tax tables of 1913 to the American people today, in real dollars today, a single filer would be exempt on his first $46,000 of income. Simply noted, it is this. I can show my colleagues the tables, and I will do it during a special order. But the fact is even adjusting for inflation, since the institution of this income tax, the spending of Government has increased by 13,500 percent, and if we are so quick to riase taxes, our Founders did give us a mechanism to correct that. It is a constitutional amendment, and the only game being played is the increased transference of wealth from the American people to the shores of the Potomac. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this amendment, and the American people know it is the right thing to do.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to repeal the Trading with Indians Act. The Trading with Indians Act was originally enacted in 1834, and at that time it served an important purpose: to ensure that Federal employees did not improperly influence native Americans. However, today this law is unnecessary and unproductive. It establishes a prohibition against commercial trading with native Americans by employees of the Indian Health Service [IHS] and Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. In many cases, this prohibition also extends to transactions undertaken by the spouse of a Federal employee. The penalties for violations include a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. The act further provides that any employee who is found to be in violation should be terminated from Federal employment. Enforcement of this outdated law has caused great difficulties for many native American families. It has also made it more difficult for IHS and BIA to retain quality Federal employees in certain facilities located on remote parts of reservations. Both Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Interior Assistant Secretary Ada Deer have expressed support for repealing the Trading with Indians Act. The Senate has already approved legislation identical to the bill I am introducing today. Mr. Speaker, repeal of the Trading with Indians Act is long overdue. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Missouri. Many things she said I agree with: the notion of health insurance being able to be taken from job to job; the notion of affordability and portability is important. But again my friends on the other side would rather play politics and indulge in name calling than deal with sound policy. No, it is not extreme to let the American people have medical savings accounts so that they can decide how to spend their health care dollars. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that will help American taxpayers and the hard-working men and women of America immeasurably, and once again, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this basic question: Why should we be afraid to let the American people have control of their own money, have control of their own future, and again, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this question: Who do we trust; the people of the United States or the Washington bureaucrats? Mr. Speaker, I trust the people of the United States.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the gentleman making this point, and I simply want to make this point that I think it transcends almost every debate we have here, and it is a philosophical point of view that I think rings true with the majority of the American people. As you relate to us the experiences of Michigan, as our colleague from Maryland relates the experiences in his State, certainly none among us would argue that at certain time in our history, the Federal Government has played a genuinely worthwhile role in serving as a catalyst to deal with some dramatic issues, but history does not occur in a vacuum. Therefore, the challenge for us at this juncture in our history is to ask this question: Who do we trust? Do we trust the American people, do we trust local officials, elected by the people close to home, officials elected to State government, the State agencies that have grown up in the last 25 years to confront these problems, or do we always and forever turn these problems over to Washington bureaucrats to offer a Washington solution which may fit Washington, DC, but which might not fit Washington State? that is the essence of the debate that we have on a variety of topics. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for drawing that distinction yet again when it comes to environmental legislation, the true meaning of conservation, and what it will mean to protect and preserve the environment as we move into the next century.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend would yield, there is something fundamentally wrong when the average American family pays more in taxes than on food, shelter and clothing combined. There is something wrong when Washington sends its resources to pay for 111,000 IRS employees, and yet can only have 6,700 DEA employees and only 5,900 border patrol employees. What does that say to the American people? The Washington bureaucrats are saying, ``Oh, we do not have time to staunch the flow of illegal drugs. We do not have time to guard the borders, though that is one of the prerogatives of the Federal Government as mandated in the constitution. But we do have time to audit you, Mr. and Ms. America. We do have time to cast aspersions on your honesty. We do have time to try and find our way into your pocketbook again and again and again and again.'' Mr. Speaker, there is nothing ignoble or dishonorable about hard- working American taxpayers hanging onto more of their hard-earned money and sending less here to Washington, DC. Indeed, in the days to come once again, I know my friend Georgia disagrees with this notion, we extend our hand in cooperation to the minority. We extend our hand in cooperation to the President of the United States. We have talked the talk for too long. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to walk the walk. We voted that way in this Chamber. We hope that those who would give lip service to these ideals would join with us and get about the business of governing. The American people deserve no less.