J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from New York, and thank him for coming to this floor and responding in measured tones to some of the shrill rhetoric we heard this morning. I have one comment in particular about blackmail. The record will show in our discussions with the White House, the new majority has moved some $400 billion in the direction of the White House, and the White House has responded with only incremental efforts to reach some sort of consensus. Therein lies the rub here, because, again, in the wake of the rhetoric, I would simply make this statement: The only thing extreme on this floor is the extreme good sense the new majority is showing in trying to put our fiscal house in order. As my friend who chairs the committee so vital to international relations understands, it is fiscal responsibility, not only in our own financial markets, but internationally, that builds and expands the full faith and credit of the United States. And after almost a half century of runaway deficit spending, now trying to put our house in order should be paramount. So let the record reflect that this new majority has moved in the direction of trying to reach some sort of consensus. But as everyone in any business knows, a bad deal is not the answer. No deal may be better than a bad deal.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we were to use this time for a special occasion that appears on the calendar in a few days, and we will get to that in a few minutes. But after hearing the rhetoric bandied about this floor this morning and on into the afternoon, I think it is important to make several points. First and foremost, when we talk about credit and credit ratings, when we talk about abdication of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, the problem is this: For too long those who have come to this Chamber have always found a reason to say yes; have always found a reason to spend more and more of the American taxpayers' money. For almost a half century, it has been fact in this city, in this Chamber, that it is always easier to say yes. It is always easier to say, oh, gee, we should be able to find some money for that. To that extent, we have now spent ourselves to almost $5 trillion of debt. No, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate abdication of responsibility is not facing up to this problem and saying, let us work together to change these ways. The ultimate abdication of responsibility would be to continue to heap debt upon debt upon those who have no voice in this Chamber, for they are generations yet unborn. We have heard a lot about bipartisanship. Let me congratulate the President and his budgeteers for something they did a couple of years ago, something called generational accounting, where the President asked his budgeteers to take a look at Government as it exists today and extrapolate what it would cost the average American taxpayer if nothing changed. The President's own budgeteers said, if nothing changes, the average American 25 years from now will surrender 82 percent of his or her income in taxation to some level of government, to some governmental entity. Today the American taxpayer, the average American family pays more in taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined. Yet, our friends would come here and say, gee, if you want to make the Government work, we will just take more or hang on to more of people's hard-earned money, and we will get our act together. Yet the inescapable fact is, for every dollar raised in taxes for years, this Congress has spent $1.59. Now it is supposed to be different. My distinguished friend, the gentleman from Michigan, quoted Mark Twain. Mark Twain also said this: ``History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.'' Yes, momentous decisions await us in this Chamber. Yes, the American people deserve the best. Yes, the American people deserve a Government that will allow pro-growth policies by letting people hang on to more of their hard-earned money and at the same time deliver a one-two punch, not only allowing Americans to hang on to more of their money but, yes, curtailing the levels of spending. It is only extreme in the sense that it makes extremely good sense. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield to my friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from California, again, for expounding on some of the rhetoric we heard this morning. One who preceded us in America's public affairs said it this way, Mr. Speaker: This is the issue, whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. The truth of those words rings true. And it is in that spirit that we move today to our reason for taking this time, as Members of the majority, to commemorate the fact that on February 6, the great communicator, indeed one of the greatest Presidents ever to serve in the Oval Office, Ronald Wilson Reagan, will turn 85 years of age. There are so many inspiring factors, when one looks at the life of Ronald Reagan and his life in public service, but I look to his earlier years. Indeed, many, to offer this personal note, have looked at my career, those pundits and would-be potentates of the fourth estate inside this beltway, as some have written of my stewardship in this Congress, my heavens, he is a sportscaster. Well, let the record show that Ronald Reagan began his working career on the air in radio, first at WOC Davenport and then WHO Des Moines and indeed, the bulk of his duties entailed sportscasting. Now, I will be the first to admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am certainly no Ronald Reagan, but we are joined today in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, by those who have served President Reagan and those who continue to serve former President Reagan. I would be happy to yield some time again to my good friend from California, one of the surfing Congressmen, indeed, one of the surfing speechwriters who worked in the Reagan White House, who was present at the Reagan revolution, my good friend, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for his unique perspective. Now we know it will be in the history books one day, and perhaps in the archives of those who follow American political endeavors, that our good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], camped out on the back lawn of Ronald Reagan. A couple of points and then I will yield to the gentlewoman who has the distinction of having the former President as a constituent, at least part of the time. It is this notion of optimism. Dwight Eisenhower said that a great leader should always be optimistic; not a cockeyed optimist, to be sure, but one who believed in the basic goodness of people, and one who would defend the notions and the ideas he put forth. President Reagan said it this way. Before he ever became a candidate for office, quoting him now, ``They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.'' As the gentleman from California outlined, facing considerable odds here at home domestically, facing the pundits and those who would fail to acknowledge the common sense of his policies, Ronald Reagan was willing to see a policy through. Because of his efforts, it has been said by our friend from Great Britain, the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, if there is one individual responsible for the victory of the free world in the cold war, his name is Ronald Wilson Reagan. With that, I am happy to yield to my good friend and fellow freshman, the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand]

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and reclaiming my time, I would ask if during the course of her busy day if she still has time to pause with us and reflect on those personal glimpses of President Reagan, she is more than welcome during the remainder of our time to do so. My good friend, the gentleman from California, reflecting and offering yet more personal glimpses, as well as policy analysis of those years, the Reagan years in the White House and those years before, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend from California for that heartfelt tribute, and for his willingness to share the very personal side of history, a history of this Nation, a history of this world, in which our former President, Ronald Reagan, served as a catalyst; a man who had the courage to point out the world as it was and the conviction to help change the world to the place it ought to be. I look here in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and I see another of our good friends who has joined us in this effort to continue the battle, to restore the notion of freedom and constitutional government to this great constitutional Republic, and for his perspectives on the service and stewardship of President Reagan. I am happy to yield time to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his perspective. It is worth noting, as the gentleman from Minnesota points out, Mr. Speaker, that President Reagan's observations still make the point today. Indeed, in a speech delivered about a year ago the President said these words, and I think they still pertain to our situation today: After watching the State of the Union address the other night, I'm reminded of the old adage that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Only in this case it's not flattery but grand larceny, the intellectual theft of ideas that you and I recognize as our own. Speech delivery counts for little on the world stage unless you have the convictions and, yes, the vision to see beyond the front row seats. How important that is, Mr. Speaker. My friend from Minnesota was absolutely correct. Words do mean something. Promises must be made but, more importantly, promises must be kept. It is the vision that President Reagan spoke of in his inaugural address, on that day in January of 1981, that made the point so well: It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work, work with us, not over us, stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. Indeed as the words are bandied about on this floor, as the epithets are hurled, remarks of blackmail and extortion and extremist, let us remember the observation of Mark Twain, that history does not repeat itself but it rhymes. And as President Reagan embraced the vision of Abraham Lincoln, that the American people once fully informed would make the right decision, let us dedicate our work and our labors in this legislative branch of Government to that same endeavor, recognizing that good people can disagree, recognizing that in a free society debate leads to decision, and also recognizing the contributions of a great American. Mr. Speaker, let us wish the happiest of birthdays to Ronald Wilson Reagan as he approaches his 85th, and let us remember his example and do all that we can to ensure that his vision of America, a vision that harkens back to our founders, is remembered, not for its novelty, not for cutting back, to seem to embrace antiquity, but because it embraces the basic goodness of the American people and an undying optimism that is uniquely American. Happy birthday, Ronald Reagan.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend for yielding. Yes, I was unable to be at the freshman advance--note, Mr. Speaker, we do not use the word ``retreat'' in any way, shape, or form--with the freshman advance, and I was interested to read the comments in one East Coast newspaper, ``Humbled Freshmen Regroup,'' or words to that effect. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota shares the same sense of honor and awe that comes with serving in this House. Indeed, as old man eloquent John Quincy Adams said upon his election, after serving as President, upon his election to the House of Representatives, there is no higher honor than service in the people's House. Mr. Speaker, and to my friend from Minnesota, I think what confounds the fourth estate is that though we are honored and awed to serve here, we understand that we were sent here to change business as usual, and the spirit remains and the almost, you could see it coming a mile off, from my days in the media, we were bound to get a story at the halfway point that, gee, some folks have grown, that is, they have accepted the ways of Washington; some people have matured, that is, they have been willing to accept compromises in certain ways, and that somehow reasonableness, the Washington definition, higher spending, higher taxes, more big Government, and an abandonment of campaign promises, that type of reasonableness had infected our ranks. Well, Mr. Speaker and to my colleague from Minnesota--I am sure he will join me on this--we do not for a minute accept the Washington definition of what is reasonable. Our mission is to serve our constituents and the American public who have the ultimate wisdom, who understand what is reasonable, who know what it is like to sit around a kitchen table and try to make ends meet, who know what it is to try and pay the tax man, who understand the notion not only of trying to pay the tax man and trying to take care of their many obligations but also who look for unlimited economic growth, who try time and again to deal with the impediments that this Government has placed upon them in trying to start a business, in trying to create jobs, people who are willing to see this economy grow if only the shackles are taken off and truly a free market is embraced.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Minnesota. Yes, it was with great interest and, indeed, somewhat of surprise, although I expected in part the rhetoric that came from the President the other night when he said the days of Big Government are over, and now the challenge becomes, Mr. Speaker, for this President to join with this new majority and to really live up to that notion. I ran into a reporter who will remain nameless, from one of the major television networks. ``How is it going, Congressman?'' ``Great.'' ``Did you see the headlines in the paper? It says President embracing GOP agenda.'' This reporter said, ``You managed to make victory look like defeat.'' I said, ``No, sir, with all due respect, you have. There is great reason to be optimistic. The President has now at least turned the page and changed the terms of debate and has taken a look at fiscal responsibility. Yes, there are many details to be worked out. Let us rejoice in that realization.''

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend from New Jersey again and again and again using the word ``clean.'' I would suggest to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that is inappropriate for this fundamental reason: We have failed to clean up this city. Thus far, the mission is still in front of us, to try to reconcile the problems of our Nation but not to always resort to big government as the answer. The point was made at this podium 2 nights ago. The President of the United States came in, and on the headline in the Washington Post it said the President embraces GOP themes. Well, let us break it out from party authorship or pride of authorship and let us work together. The problem remains the same. The budget has yet to be brought into balance despite the fact that this new majority gave the President a balanced budget with some votes from the other side of the aisle. To clean up our situation, we must embrace fiscal sanity, and these things are joined together, and we have to reconcile the differences.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan. As we are gathered here on the floor to have a little straight talk, I think it is very interesting again to recall the words of our Chief Executive, who stood here at the podium 2 nights ago and who said the days of big government are over. Well, maybe there is a word we should insert there, because I think what the American people want to know is that the days of big spending government are over. For how could the President make that assertion 2 nights ago, and be here in this Chamber with his Cabinet officers, including two of the biggest spenders the executive branch has ever seen? If not the biggest spenders, certainly two of the most well traveled Cabinet secretaries this country has ever seen? I exchanged pleasantries with Secretary O'Leary. Much as been made, and, indeed, the record of her travels has been chronicled for all in this free society to see. And apart from recognition of those problems, the White House has turned a deaf ear. Of course, this White House, goodness knows, has problems of its own. Then Secretary Brown. It is almost as if the receptionist at the Commerce Department could make a recording that rhymes: ``Mr. Brown is out of town.'' That in itself would not be so bad, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, but Mr. Brown is out of town, and he is on your expense account, you, the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, all of us in here, all of the American people who pay their taxes, who play by the rules, are financing trips that need some oversight, expenditures that this Congress should take a very real look at, and, again, not questioning the sincerity of the service, but instead looking at the evidence, the compelling evidence. A few years before we got here there was criticism of another Secretary of Commerce who served under a Republican President, and previous Congresses chose to investigate that Secretary of Commerce. And yet expenditures for the current Secretary of Commerce are some 145 percent above his Republican predecessors. Now, I realize in this town, and given the kind of quirky mathematics employed by the liberals inside the beltway, they will probably try to say that is a cut. But it is an increase, and it is to the credit of the gentleman from Michigan that he has brought it to our attention and a credit to the fact that it has not gone on his credit card, but has been brought to the attention of the American public.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am so glad to see my friend from Connecticut here, because once again he returns to the key point in this debate. We are trying to realize budgetary savings, not by eviscerating programs but by reducing the rate of growth. I cannot help but note with great interest when our friend who visited two nights ago, the gentleman who lives in the big White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, talks about budgetary savings, he is talking about the same type of exercise, yet he remains unchallenged on that by our friends on this side. Yet that curious mathematical exercise, where increases are called cuts, runs rampant in this institution; and I salute my good friend from Connecticut for once again bringing it to our attention. I would like to inquire of my friends from Connecticut, because this is something that intrigued me: In the latest budget our President has offered us, he himself talked about the days of big Government being over; but as I understand it, his plan calls for some $200 billion in higher taxes and some $350 billion in additional spending over and above the real savings that you have labored so hard for to try and right-size this Government. That, to me, is especially confounding, and I am wondering why the reports of, dare I say it, budgetary neglect or overspending are not really chronicled in the White House budget offer. It is very curious what transpires inside this beltway with the representations of certain budgetary exercises.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think my friend offers an interesting analogy, and what I have often said, despite some of the labels and names that have been bandied about this Chamber, what difference does it make if an idea is called conservative or liberal or whatever, if it makes sense? The notion being this: that if we are able truly to empower the individual, if we are able to make sure that society has a safety net instead of a hammock, then that should be our goal. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Connecticut for his diligence in looking at budgetary issues and acknowledging, while sometimes we may not see completely eye to eye on every item that comes down the pike, certainly there is a broad consensus within this new majority to address the problems. But even as we had our friend from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue join us the other night and say that the days of big government were over, I was intrigued by the statement that followed that. On one occasion he said, ``But we cannot fend for ourselves,'' or words to that effect. And I believe that we have to be very careful of that type of blanket statement, for what it does is contradict the previous statement. For it is not the role of government to step into every home, to step into every situation; to say, Washington calling, and we are here to provide you certain safeguards, or we are here to step in and intervene in every avenue of your life. Of course not. The notion is this: that for society's poorest, that for society's sickest, that for society's weakest, government can exist to help make sure that rights are enforced, that individual liberties are not taken away; but we must remain ever vigilant that the same government who works to empower us with those rights does not in the process take away a person's well-being, both mentally and financially.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, again I come to the well and listen with great interest to my good friend from Texas, even as he decries fanaticism, launch into his own special brand of name calling. And that is fine; good people can disagree. But it is precisely because we need to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States of America that we must move together to attack this egregious deficit and this huge debt in the trillions of dollars, and the best way to do that is to truly put aside name calling and work together, work together to end runaway spending. The President came last night and he said the days of big Government are over, and yet the budget plan he endorses calls for an additional $350 billion in spending and additional $200 billion in taxes. Friends, let us work together. But the same old formula of tax-and- spend is not the prescription for America's future. It is time to truly say the days of big Government are over, and a limited and effective Government should be the mission of the United States of America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for sharing her views here, and I think she does point up something upon which we can all agree, and that is that fundamental to debate in a free society is the notion of disagreement, and it is the mission of all of us to achieve consensus. But the question comes, at what price? Mr. Speaker, I bring you greetings from Arizona, the Grand Canyon State. I am here, Mr. Speaker, to use this time to address what is not a credibility gap, but instead a credibility canyon. Indeed, all members of the new majority, as well as members of the minority, welcome the President of the United States to this Chamber tonight, where he will stand at this podium and deliver his State of the Union Message. To quote one pundit in this town, he said, ``Heretofore most State of the Union Addresses by most chief executives have been forgivable.'' Well, at the danger of incurring the wrath of that pundit, Mr. Speaker, let us remember, let us remember the words of our President in his previous State of the Union Messages. First dealing with the budget. Quoting now from his 1993 address: The plan substantially reduces the Federal deficit honestly and credibly by using in the beginning the most conservative estimates of Government revenues, not as the executive branch has done so often in the past using the most optimistic ones. Again from 1993: This budget plan, by contrast, will by 1997 cut $140 billion in that year alone from the deficit, a real spending cut, a real revenue increase, a real deficit reduction, using the independent numbers of the Congressional Budget Office. Yet throughout last year, throughout 1995, President Clinton submitted to this body budget after budget after budget, but refused to use those objective numbers of the Congressional Budget Office. It was not until this new majority ultimately persuaded him to submit a CBO- scored budget to end the recent shutdown that he lived up to the above statements. Most astonishingly, Mr. Speaker, from last year, quoting now the President of the United States who stood at this podium. ``I certainly want to balance the budget.'' Yet the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, as reflected in the record of this institution and through reports of the news media, President Clinton vetoed the first balanced budget submitted by the Congress in a quarter of a century. Then to the topic of welfare reform. Quoting again from 1993's address: Later this year, we will offer a plan to end welfare as we know it. I want to offer the people on welfare the education, the training, the child care, the healthcare they need to get back on their feet. But, say after 2 years, they must get back to work. Then from 1994: So we must also revolutionize our welfare system. We will say to teenagers, if you have a child out of wedlock, we will no longer give you a check to set up a separate household. We want families to stay together. We will provide the support, the job training, the child care you need, for up to 2 years. But after that anyone who can work, must. Then from last year: Nothing has done more to undermine our sense of common responsibility than our failed welfare system. Let this be the year to end welfare as we know it. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the President year after year has come to this House and addressed from this podium his willingness to end welfare as we know it, he did not support the welfare reform bill that had broad bipartisan support. Instead, he vetoed the welfare bill that Congress sent him. Again from 1993: This plan will give this country the toughest child support enforcement system it has ever had. From 1994: If we value responsibility, we cannot ignore the $34 billion in child support absent parents ought to be paying to millions of parents who are taking care of their children. Then from 1995: If the parent is not paying child support, they should be forced to pay. We should suspend drivers licenses, track them across State lines. Now, Mr. Speaker, the welfare reform bill that President Clinton vetoed would have required States to create a central case registry to track the status of all child support orders. The bill also gave the States the authority to suspend drivers, professional, occupational and recreational licenses of anyone whose child support payments are in arrears, all the things the President said he wanted to do last year. Mr. Speaker, I understand my time is short. The record is replete. Words mean something. Actions speak louder than words. Mr. President, keep your promises, join with the new majority, and let us help govern this Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, once again, I listened with interest to the remarks of my friend from Texas, and what a pity it is, ladies and gentlemen, that the minority is reduced to this, to chanting a seemingly mindless mantra, with no basis in fact, with selective use of quotation. What this new majority always said is that the starting point was looking to find numbers, honest numbers, that begin to balance this budget in 7 years. That is the starting point. That is the parameters of the debate. But it is not a fait accompli. It is not sending us a budget that has all the savings in the last year and continues the culture of tax and spend and spend and tax some more. What the American people want, Mr. Speaker, is this: A government that achieves an honest consensus, that saves not only the seniors of this generation, but generations yet unborn; a commonsense budget and set of priorities that preserves this great noble experiment in a constitutional republic and preserves this American dream. That is the task before all of us, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time, also for his hard work on this important issue. I turn to this side of the aisle and see my very good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], who has worked so hard on the same. Mr. Speaker, one of many issues addressed here, and I have risen on many occasions to note that what this entire exercise should be all about, is what is reasonable, what makes sense, and I believe, as part of the Corrections Day, this piece of legislation is eminently reasonable because it resolves a problem that agricultural interests and endeavors have experienced with the Clean Water Act. H.R. 2567 will modify the way the Clean Water Act applies to constructed agricultural drains, recognizing that this law was never intended to bring the quality of agricultural runoff to the level of a pristine stream. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2567. I urge the adoption of this commonsense legislation, and, Mr. Speaker, I pause again and make note of the commonsense consensus in this Chamber on this act, on this corrections exercise.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I would also like to publicly thank the gentleman from California, chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, along with the ranking member. It is great to have a chairman like the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] and a ranking member like the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], my dear friend, who have worked so hard to try and address and redress some areas that are in need of common sense and a consensus. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from American Samoa very much for all of his efforts as well. Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by my colleague, this legislation is to approve an agreement for the settlement of litigation over the Saddleback Mountain property in Arizona. The agreement provides for the sale by the RTC of part of the Saddleback Mountain property to the Salt River Pima Indian community, to be held in trust by the United States as part of the property to the city of Scottsdale. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the result of months of negotiation between the city of Scottsdale and the Salt River Pima Tribe, and lacks solely to authorize and confirm the agreement and to provide that the property purchased by the tribe will be taken into trust reservation status. Mr. Speaker, again, as we take a look across our country, and as we take a look here in the Nation's Capital, so many contentious issues where at times we agree to disagree, I think it is especially noteworthy that here we have an example for, indeed, not only this august Chamber, but for the rest of the country, of local empowerment; of officials from the city of Scottsdale working with officials from the Salt River Pima Indian community to work out the problems to their mutual satisfaction, and then inviting the Federal Government to work to approve this. I think it typifies the notion of a new partnership and local empowerment. Again, I think it is important, as both the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member pointed out, S. 1341 does not authorize any expenditure of funds by the United States. So, this is a cost-free, or relatively cost-free item that again empowers local communities given the special trust relationship with the United States Government and the special things we needed to work out in this place of legislation. Undoubtedly, I would urge this august body to joint with our friends in the other body to adopt this and move forward. Once again, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I pause and thank my good friends, the chairman of the subcommittee and the distinguished ranking member, for all their efforts and call on my colleagues to overwhelmingly pass this common sense, practical approach to local empowerment and good government.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding time to me. I listened again with great interest to my good friend from North Carolina, whom I enjoyed many times on television with his beautiful singing voice. But tonight, here in the well of the House, he is singing a bit off key, especially when he quoted the Speaker of the House and some statement about withering on the vine. Once again, the complete record shows that the Speaker was talking about the Health Care Financing Administration, not the Medicare Program. I will be happy to supply the gentleman with the complete quote. But moving on to the broader context, since our friends on the other side talk so much about reinventing government, we will borrow that phrase and say we are going to reinvent government right here and right now, not with a Rube-Goldbergesque contraption but with simple commonsense funding of necessary programs. Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record thanking the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for recognizing the needs of native Americans and taking care of projects that both parties concur are important. So, once again, amidst some of the ying and yang that takes place here on the floor, I hope that we can have give and take and calm minds and calm voices may prevail and we can enact these programs.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for the legislative day today, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks''.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is always refreshing to hear the comments of my good friend from Massachusetts, and to hear the frustration on that side of the aisle, especially when it comes to the Secretary of the Treasury and his effort to dillydally around with the debt limit, the debt ceiling, being so in love with the notion of keeping the Government operating that he would take pension funds to pay it; an oath of fealty to keeping the Government running instead of being true to the American people. Mr. Speaker, neither side has all the answers, but the fact remains that we must remain true to our country, to our Constitution, and to generations yet unborn by at long last passing a budget that comes into balance in 7 years, using honest numbers. Let us get past frustration and let us see productivity and once again we reach out our hand to the minority party. Join with us and govern this Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, speaking of Orwellian doublespeak, to hear my friends from New York talk about Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln and mention the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the same breath is truly astounding. My colleagues, once you get past the politics of victimization, the debate is about this: Why is $12 trillion over the next 7 years not enough? Why should the children being born today pay over $185,000 in interest on the debt if we fail to act? My friend from New York indicts this majority in Congress because he would rather go back to business as usual, to the 40 years that gave us this mind-boggling debt, to just continuing on with spend and spend and tax and spend some more. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. I am proud to stand up for the people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2727, the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1955. The Congressional Responsibility Act corrects a serious violation of the Constitution: Article I, section 1 states that ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' The section, moreover, makes clear that this legislative power includes the power to regulate. Congress, however, routinely delegates this authority to unelected bureaucrats. The Congressional Responsibility Act will stop delegation by requiring Congress to approve Federal regulations. Americans are disillusioned with Government. They believe, in particular, that Congress, designed to be the most accountable branch of Government, has grown increasingly unresponsive and unaccountable. As usual, the American people are correct. Government is less accountable than it was the first 150 years of the Republic. Beginning in the late 1930's, the Federal Government retreated from the fundamental constitutional principle that vests lawmaking power solely with the people's elected representatives. An elemental principle of representative government is political accountability: The public's right to hold elected officials responsible for the laws imposed upon them. This is especially important today, as government has assumed an increasingly larger role in the lives of Americans. But good government suffers, liberty diminishes, and bad laws proliferate when the link between voter and elected official is severed. The Framers of our Constitution understood this danger and wisely followed John Locke's admonition that ``the legislative cannot transfer the power of making law to any other hands.'' In practice, however, Congress routinely delegates its lawmaking duties to politically unaccountable bureaucrats who craft regulations with the full force of law. From clean air to savings and loans, past Congresses have ceded responsibility for lawmaking to bureaucratic fiat. Delegation gives life to bad laws. Such laws would not stand a chance in bright, open sunshine, but they can slip by in the dark, without widespread support or deliberation. For example, in 1972, the Clean Water Act granted the Corps of Engineers authority to regulate areas adjacent to, or connected to, navigable waters. Over time, however, Federal regulations have been extended to include even isolated wetlands with no connection to navigable waterways. This is clearly a case of regulations going far beyond the scope of statutory language; in fact, the word ``wetlands'' does not appear in the 1972 Clean Water Act. This law, which was originally created to prohibit the discharge of pollutants into water. It was used, however, used to prosecute John Pozsgai of Morrisville, PA. Pozsgai cleaned up a 14-acre dump site he purchased to expand his truck repair business. Although Federal regulators may have been happy to see the junk hauled away, when Pozsgai leveled about 5 acres with clean fill dirt, the EPA took him to court because it said the dump he cleaned up was really a valuable wetland. He was fined $5,000 and sentenced to 3 years in jail. Pozsgai's only crime: dumping dirt without permission. Delegation also permits Congress to grant favors without imposing costs and to exercise selective power without taking responsibility for its consequences. Like budget deficits, Congress is able to reap the benefits of its largess, but avoid blame for its costs. Moreover, delegation allows powerful special interests to expand substantial resources in private to benefit the few at the expense of the many. With delegation, Congress can be everything to all people, but, ultimately, it is the people who lose. The Congressional Responsibility Act corrects these abuses by requiring agency regulations to be presented to Congress for a vote, either under expedited procedures or through the normal legislative process. The bill provides that Federal regulations will not take effect unless passed by a majority of Representatives and Senators and signed by the President--or a veto is overridden. This concept was offered by Justice Stephen Breyer--before his appointment to the Supreme Court--as a method to satisfy ``* * * the literal wording of the Constitution's bicameral and presentation clauses * * *'' This reform is ideologically neutral and nonpartisan. Concerns about delegation have been voiced by people from across the political spectrum, including Judge Robert Bork and ACLU president, Nadine Strossen. I hope that my colleagues who are committed to restoring the public's right to hold its elected officials responsible for their actions will support this important legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Truly historic it would be.