J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me yield to the gentlewoman from New York for a comment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. We will try to make sure we control that.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, there is one thing that undergirds this, and that is a moral imperative for generations yet unborn and for our children, my son age 2, who will pay in excess of $185,000 in interest on our debt if we do nothing. With that, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HAYWORTH. What I would suggest is what is the big deal about giving us 30 days?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would yield for a comment to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Since my friend from Florida addressed the question to the good friend from California, I would be happy to yield time to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I certainly, certainly appreciate the Chair's reliance on self-sufficiency. I am armed with the second hand of my watch from my alma mater, which is altogether reliable. With that in mind I would be happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Florida.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, during the course of these special orders, is it in order or appropriate, even though I control the time for this hour as the designee of the majority leader, is it appropriate to find some way to yield the time in an orderly fashion so we might invite our friends from the minority to engage in a dialogue about the future of this country? For example, in 3-minute allotments to each side. Indeed, if I may be so bold and with unanimous consent from my friends from the Democratic side, to perhaps continue this through the following hour, as they are the designees of the minority leader? What would be in order?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If that is fine, we would ask the Chair's indulgence and that of the timekeeper to allow us to know when 3-minute increments expire. Is that appropriate? Could we do that?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I would simply like to make this point: I find it especially objectionable, indeed, the gentleman from Florida, a fellow freshman, I suppose who is guilty of showing extremely good sense, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], pointed out the fact that Federal Government, the executive branch, went to great expense to send out letters with paychecks attempting to play the blame game and politicize the entire crisis, even with Federal paychecks. I decry that whole notion we should play the blame game. I am also happy, however, to point out that in the best tradition of the truth will out, in the best tradition of people having all the facts, we are joined by one tonight who fought off the blame game, who gave straight talk to the people of his district in California. It is an honor to welcome back to this Chamber and to this special order my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. I thank the gentleman and welcome him as the newest member of the extremely good- sense bunch. We are happy to have you here. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, while I certainly appreciate the fact my good friend from Florida is here tonight, I will be happy to answer his questions here later tonight. However, with the deference we showed the minority side, let us first make our points. I will be happy to yield time them. Seeing my friend from Florida reminds me of a couple of questions he brought up. First, this morning, in the well of the House with, I guess, a valiant effort to do some stagecraft with the wastepaper basket and simulated checks, but I applaud the gentleman for this: At long last in some perhaps passing way he chose to embrace a tentative economic conservatism and fiscal soundness. I appreciate that in the gentleman from Florida. But even as he decried in his words the fact that visas were not being issued by this Government, I would respectfully point out to my friends from the minority one of the reasons those visas are not being issued is because members of the minority, when they served as the majority of this House, used this voting card as a Visa card, trying to charge up debt upon debt upon debt on future generations, and, yes, change is difficult, and answers may at times be imperfect. I wish there could be a straight line. I wish there could be a cogency to this to wrap it up in a neat little package. But the fact is this: As painful and at times confusing as these days may be, to change the culture so pervasive in this town, it is so easy to say tax and spend and spend and spend and spend some more. We have to take measures to do so. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for making his point. Reclaiming my time, it is vital that we move forward. But it is also worth noting that, in the words ironically of the gentleman who now resides at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to quote him from his campaign in 1992, ``Change is hard, change is difficult.'' How unintentionally prophetic the candidate's words were and how tragically cynical that candidate's words were when he said, ``I believe we can balance the budget in 5 years.'' I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to my friend from Kentucky and again I thank him for joining us during the course of this hour.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Speaker and I thank my colleague from Kentucky for joining me this evening. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friends from the minority just a few moments prior offer a variety of opinions. And indeed as we stand in this Chamber tonight, surrounded by the great law givers of history, in a Chamber that resounds with the echoes of history, again we acknowledge the right of Americans to disagree and at times to disagree profoundly. At this juncture in our history, we have come, once again, to a fundamental argument as to the philosophy and purpose of government. In the preceding presentation from the minority party, I listened with great interest as time and again well-meaning Members of this House mentioned that they stood for a balanced budget but--and therein is the rub--but. There is always something that seems to get in the way, and regrettably a quarter century has passed since this government faced up to the notion of balancing the budget. So it is always simple, in terms of rhetorical excess, to divert one's attention from the central goal, and in the midst of a cacophonous presentation, unfurl the venom and vitriol of name calling and things that just do not square with the facts. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman of this House, and those who join us tonight, there is one central and inescapable fact of our recent time here in this historic 104th Congress. Because once you get past the rhetoric and the apologists for those who would continue to promote a tax-and-spend agenda, once you would get past the rhetoric of victimization that spews forth like unto a flood from the other side, we are faced with one indisputable fact. This government would not face this partial shutdown if the President of the United States would have exercised his constitutional responsibility to sign the appropriations bills. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in all candor, in all sincerity, the straight talk, the inescapable fact is this: Only one man stands between Government employees and their jobs, and he resides at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh, to be sure, those who would continually look for excuses and ways to spend more of your money will tell you it is not so. They will continue to label people with unfair epithets, and that is their right in a free society. But understand that this President failed to sign those appropriations bills, and understand further, and this is the distressing fact, this President did more than make an agreement. He signed a public law in November saying that he agreed with the notion of balancing the budget within 7 years using honest, nonpartisan numbers as offered by the Congressional Budget Office. And the tragedy of this situation is that this President again abdicates his responsibility. Believe me, there is no joy in having the situation come to this.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield briefly?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for 5 minutes, when really 10 seconds is needed. Just for the sake of pointing this out, when we talk about the extra-Constitutionality or the implication is that somehow these endeavors are unconstitutional, I would simply point out nowhere in this document do you see the phrase ``continuing resolution.'' Nowhere in this document is it explicitly delineated that above all costs, government will remain open through the process of continuing resolutions. Good people can disagree about the intent of the Constitution and the dynamism of it and how it can be stretched and pulled and turned or interpreted in different manners. But I think it is worth noting that this is not some sort of sanctified notion that is somehow noble that we go back simply to business as usual and not deal with this question at this juncture in our history, for now the time draws here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, and it is always interesting to speculate on what our Founding Fathers might have done. I think, in retrospect, they probably would have included language that would have offered the balanced budget amendment that we now need, because the gentleman outlined a severe problem of always wanting to expand, for oft-times noble purposes. I do not question anyone's sincerity. Indeed, Dwight Eisenhower said of our political adversaries, ``Always presume they, too, want the best for this Nation.'' But it has been so easy over the last half century to say worthwhile, you bet you. Some we need to do, absolutely. But we have expanded the role of this Government to the point that we have conferred upon it a status that is illegitimate to this extent. It seems to suggest the notion of infinity with reference to resources, and these resources are finite. There will be disagreements as to the emphasis, as to the direction, but if we agree on nothing else tonight, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let us agree in a constructive way to acknowledge these resources are finite and the consequences are great for American people living today and those generations yet unborn, and let us move together to solve the problems, because that is the most important thing that we can do. I yield my time to my friend from Kentucky.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Our dear friend from New York truly did take a parting shot. We could go back and play historical revisionism and infinitum. The question is not who created a program, but who is willing to save and sustain it. I know no one in this majority who is willing to abandon Medicare or willing to abandon Social Security. I know no one in this new majority willing to abandon Medicaid as a goal, but of course we have offered alternatives, and upon that good people may disagree. To my colleagues from the minority, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues from the majority and those who have joined us this evening nationwide on C-SPAN, I think it is important to note that we may engage in constructive dialog. Indeed, it is our hope that that constructive dialog that occurs in this Chamber, where so many great debates have gone on through the years, is also occurring at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave., and let us work together to save this Nation by making it economically sound. With that I yield to my friends from Kentucky and Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is just not true.