J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend, the minority whip, trying to whip this body into a rage with an editorial from the Hartford Courant. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear really the poster boy of American liberal journalism, Bob Woodward, on ``Meet the Press'' this weekend, saying in effect that all of these chargers were trumped up, that there was no reason to attack the Speaker on any of these things. In fact what we see, Mr. Speaker, is a minority so bereft of ideas, so unwilling to come to the table, so unwilling to address the central question, which is balancing this budget in 7 years, that they will try any tactic of character assassination, any exaggeration, anything to avoid the point. Mr. Speaker, the American people want it now, they want it simply, they want us to face up to the challenges they put us here to face up to. They want us to balance the budget and not to engage in character assassination.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Illinois, and I dare say to find some of the most stunning fiction in this Nation one no longer needs to visit bookstores, one no longer need go to the library. Simply listen to the rhetoric chanted almost as a mindless mantra from those disciples of big Government who fail to understand one basic principle. You work hard for the money you earn, you ought to hang on to more of it and send less of it here to Washington. The fact is, and we will repeat it again, we are not making these draconian cuts the other side attributes. We are restraining the rate of growth to save the very programs they purport to champion. Sooner or later, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the liberals in this Chamber and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will have to step forward with us and govern. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we extend our hand. Join with us and govern. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of personal affection for the gentleman who preceded me here in the well, but the simple fact is when you talk about genuine cuts, about the only real cut we have seen is my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, shaving off his trademark mustache. The fact is, for all the venom and vitriol about incredible cuts and draconian measures taking place, that simply is not the case. Rather, we are slowing the rate of growth of Government. To my friend who says, Mr. Speaker, that we are affecting seniors and students and families, I say he is right; we are affecting them in a positive way. We are making sure that the American people hang onto more of their hard-earned money. Indeed the tax cut, the $500 per child tax credit, goes to help 80 percent of families in this country. Certainly there is a problem with facts and rhetoric. The fact is we are helping working Americans by this very simple premise: They work hard for the money they earn, they ought to keep more of it and send less of it to the Federal Government here in Washington, DC.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my good friend from Connecticut. He raises a point that is absolutely valid and cannot be repeated too often. That is the fact in the span of little more than 40 weeks in a majority in this Chamber we are looking to reverse the course of 40 years of a philosophy predominated by the notion of bigger is better in a centralized government, in a centralized bureaucracy. The gentleman from Connecticut is quite correct to point out that what we have decided to do at long last, after almost a half century, is to seriously evaluate the efficiency and the practicality of the entitlement programs in addition to discretionary spending. I look in the well, I see my good friend from Michigan, and I know that he has been a watchdog on these issues. I know that at times he quite accurately, I believe, voices some frustration that we hear from many of our constituents saying it is not happening fast enough. What I would say, Mr. Speaker, to those who join us tonight here in this special order is we get the message. But a journey of 1,000 miles, in this case a journey of $12 trillion, to mix metaphors here, begins not with a single step but in this single session dedicated to making the fundamental change necessary.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman repeat that? We have to amplify what is in effect a balanced budget bonus that will be there.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, some of the debate has been characterized, and indeed some have talked about letting people hang onto more of their hard-earned money as if it were the equivalent of free candy. I have heard that expression used by some who would try to envelop themselves in a populist mantra. Again, this is money earned by working Americans. It is their money. And, [[Page H 13717]] again, we come back to the central realization: This Government does not create the wealth. In our free market economy, this Government does not create the wealth. The wealth and the economic well-being results from the fruit of labor and work. So what we are simply saying is for working Americans, you deserve to hold on to more of your money, because you know best how to care for your family. You know best the dreams and the aspirations of your children. You know best the dreams that you have for your children. You should have that money to spend as you see fit, to save, to invest, because in doing so, you will not only be caring for your family, you will be caring for your community.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for saluting the other gentleman from Michigan, who tonight serves as our Speaker pro tempore, and who, indeed, led the way with a tangible action to right size the government borne of his experience in the working world.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is real money, and I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for making that vital point. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note, and my colleagues here gathered on the floor on both sides of the aisle, I think it is worth noting that in the wake of this historic shift, with the changes that have taken place, there has been a great deal of heat generated on this floor. We recognize the fact that good people can disagree, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is too much to ask the American people to join with us now to take a look simply at the proposals which we have outlined; coolly, objectively, yes, compassionately, divorced from the venom and vitriol and exaggeration that so often takes the place of sound public policy discussion. Indeed, what has happened here, tragically, has been almost the utilization of political theater instead of rational policy discussion. So, Mr. Speaker, I simply have a challenge to the American people and, indeed, to our friends on the other side and, indeed, to our President at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, echoing what the gentleman from Connecticut has said. There are philosophical disagreements. There may be a different way of looking at what should happen in the future. We believe, in the new majority, that we have fashioned a plan that indeed complements very nicely, ironically, the path first endorsed by candidate Clinton in 1992, many of the objectives he said he had hoped to reach as a candidate. Again tonight, Mr. Speaker, as we have done on so many occasions, recognizing that some things are nonnegotiable, the notion of balancing this budget in 7 years, the notion of providing adequate funding to reevaluate what transpires with entitlements to evaluate and better understand how to make sure that we have a safety net instead of a hammock in terms of social spending, but once again, Mr. Speaker, we would be remiss if we did not say again the hand is extended from this legislative branch to the executive branch, from the Congress of the United States to the White House. [[Page H 13718]] Again, Mr. Speaker, we would simply ask the President of the United States to join with us and govern, to set the stage for a balanced budget in 7 years, because the American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, coming back off of break and spending time at home reminds me of the fact that on Saturday, John Micah Hayworth turns two, our youngest child. And if we do nothing to change the culture of taxing and spending, if we are somehow able to hold this remarkable experiment together with the legislative equivalent of chewing gum and bailing wire, postponing the decisions we need to make, John Micah Hayworth over the course of his lifetime as a working adult will pay over $185,000 in taxes to the Federal Government just to service the debt. Just to service the debt. The President, to his credit, a couple of years ago, in sending his budget proposals up to Capitol Hill, included a page called generational accounting, measuring the effects of expenditures in governmental services, projecting it on the next generation of taxpayers. The results were astonishing. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that those who join us are seated at home when they hear the figures, because they are mind boggling and terrifying. To maintain the current culture of spending and governmental services at all levels, the average taxpayer of the next generation would be looking at surrendering 82 percent of his or her income in taxes to provide those services. [[Page H 13716]] Now, look at the steady increase. In 1948, an average family of four surrendered 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal government. By 1994, it was almost one-quarter of income, 24 percent. Clearly there is nothing ignoble, there is nothing selfish, in saying and recognizing that the people of this country, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat and Independent, all work hard for the money they earn. They should hang on to more of it and send less of it to the Government, because, as the gentleman from Michigan points out, it is a matter of allowing the market to flourish and to prosper and to rekindle the economic engines that have driven this country so dynamically. That is the challenge we face. It is not a matter of downsizing; it is a matter of right sizing. What is right for the future? Good honest debate can take place. The gentleman from Connecticut mentioned it. I championed the fact that the gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the President of the United States, has put his signature now on what is in effect a contract agreeing to the parameters of a balanced budget in 7 years with honest numbers.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, to listen to my friends from the liberal side of the aisle, it would seem that they can find their calling after public life in plastic surgery. For once again, they are desperately trying to put the best face on things. The fact is, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, President Clinton has finally agreed with the new majority to balance the budget in 7 years, to use honest numbers to do so. And speaking of honest numbers, my good friend from Vermont needs to be corrected. On student loans in the next 7 years the new majority proposes to spend an additional $12 billion; in Medicaid, an additional $38 billion; in Medicare, over the next 7 years, we will spend an additional $1.6 trillion. Robert J. Samuelson, in yesterday's Washington Post, to paraphrase his column, said, when one side consistently distorts positions, then the purpose is to destroy, not to debate. Mr. Speaker, I implore all the American people to get involved in an honest debate, not bent on destruction of the other side but preservation of our system.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few statements because I asked for time when someone else controlled it, and he was not willing to take on a couple of questions. One of the preceding speakers talked about an antipathy, an animus toward letting the American people hang on to more of their hard-earned money. He did not degree with the notion of tax cuts. He said this new majority was cutting the earned income tax credit for working Americans, for those lower income Americans. Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the facts reflect, the earned income tax credit funding increases by some 43 percent. Then another speaker earlier said that this new majority was intent on cutting student loans. Mr. Speaker, the record reflects that the new majority is offering a $6 billion increase over the next 7 years in the student loan program. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the rhetoric needs to square with the facts, and when we talk about working people, it is interesting that the President of the United States, in the State of the Union Message, stood at this podium and defined working Americans as those making under $70,000 a year. I do not know by what barometer working Americans have to make $70,000 a year or less. I find it very curious.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield for a question on financial aid?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield for a question about working people?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio who preceded me here in the well because I think he refocused the real issue here. I listened with great interest to the distinguished ranking member on the minority side from appropriations when he offered the following construct. He said, if I can remember his words accurately, that what was going on here was an exercise essentially to get the President of the United States to agree with the goal of the Speaker. With all due respect to my good friend from Wisconsin, I am simply asking, and I think the majority of the Members of this House are simply asking, is for the President to finally come to agreement with himself. The words are here from the State of the Union Address, February 17, 1993, the President's first State of the Union message, which I watched as a private citizen. Quoting the President now, ``I will point out that the Congressional Budget Office was normally more conservative about what was going to happen and closer to right than previous Presidents have been. I did this so we could argue about priorities with the same set of numbers.'' The President Clinton of 1993 stated it clearly. The President Clinton of 1995 [[Page H 13303]] takes a different view, and as my good friend from Wisconsin pointed out when he disagreed with the President even committing to the notion of a balanced budget, in the new incarnation from the President, over 10 years, he said words to the effect, if you do not agree with President Clinton wait around, his position is bound to change. I respect my good friend from Wisconsin for that observation as well. So let our friends from the minority join with us in the majority again to renew our commitment to these honest numbers given us by the Congressional Budget Office, commit to the goal and the reality of a balanced budget within 7 years. In the meantime, while the disagreements continue, in the meantime, as we work to get past this impasse, let us work today where we can make change, where we can restore the rightful job responsibilities and the activities of the Federal Government; therefore, let us move, let us move to say ``yes'' to the rule, and ``yes'' to the legislation at hand as we move in a reasonable, rational manner to restrain, yes, but also to restore the essential functions of government.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the gentlewoman in the wake of her statement that the tax breaks are allegedly going to the wealthy if the gentlewoman considers 80 percent of American families wealthy?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes, for children primarily for a $500 tax break per child.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I can assure the gentleman personally there is no scheme. We are simply trying to balance the budget for our children and for future generations and to assure Medicare and prosperity for seniors.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, is it not also true that this Government would still be in operation had the President not wielded the veto pen earlier this week?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Just one question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inquire of my friend, the gentleman from Maine, is it not true that the President could end this right now with a stroke of his pen on the continuing resolutions that have been sent, instead of vetoing those resolutions?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], and indeed, would say that on one point we can agree. The gentlewoman from California suggested that it would be appropriate for this body to meet collectively in prayer, recognizing that we may worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and do so in different fashions. I would respectfully ask that our colleagues on the democratic side join us. Indeed, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] is proposing a national day of fasting and prayer, and if not this Sunday, then sometime in the future, and perhaps that is an element upon which we may agree. The great thing, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned many times standing in the well of this House, debating many contentious issues, is this: Good people may disagree. It is championed throughout this constitutional Republic. Disagreement in itself is not unhealthy. Debating these issues is vitally important, especially at this juncture in our history. In the wake of the historic moment at which we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, I thought it important to bring comments from my constituents, those who have written to me during this week. In direct contradiction of what the public opinion polls are showing us, faxes and letters to my office are running 12 to 1 in support of the majority's budget plan. From a gentleman in Scottsdale: ``Keep the faith. Don't give in. Continue to fight for a balanced budget, lower taxes, and a downsizing of the bloated Federal Government.'' From a gentleman in Glendale, Arizona: ``I have worked hard all my life to try to get ahead, only to have more and more of my income forcibly taken away and given to others. Some of my money even goes to pay the salaries of the very people, the IRS, et cetera, whose job it is to take my money.'' From a gentleman in Chandler, Arizona: ``My house is behind you completely. For those of you who disagree with a balanced budget in 7 years, well, get a grip and hold on, because that is what the American people really want.'' This gentleman adds, ``I don't care what the polls say.'' In his opinion, he says, ``The truth is, they are rigged to show the President's way of thinking. After all, look at who takes all those polls.'' From a family in Paradise Valley, Arizona: ``Please hold firm. Closing the government down for a while will not hurt the country as much as continuing the current course of overspending.'' Unless there is a mistaking of the comments here, the people who wrote this letter do not rejoice in the fact that Government employees are out of work, but what they are saying has been echoed by many constituents and others who have written me from across this country. What we face right now will not hurt the country as much as the current course of overspending. My colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, put it quite eloquently: It is time to do the right thing. My good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the other side of the aisle, who has a difference on how to get there and whose differences I respect, said the same thing: The time has come to balance the budget. We should have that debate. We may disagree as to some of the methodology, we may disagree as to some of the tactics, but the fact remains, that time is now to balance the budget. From a gentleman in Mesa: ``Most all the people I talk to support the Republicans on the budget issue. Don't cave in to the news media or to the Democrats. We hope that our representatives will do the right thing this time.'' Again, my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, pointed it out, how previous Congresses, in the wake of the last balanced budget in 1969, how previous Congresses had abdicated their responsibility. Perhaps the pressures of history and the unique time in which they served in this body forced them into another course of action. But at this time, for this House, for this country, Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. It is time to get on a glide path to a balanced budget in 7 years. I have noted before when I have come to the well of this House that candidate Clinton in 1992 talked about a balanced budget. In an appearance on Larry King Live, he pledged to ``balance the budget in 5 years.'' Then, Mr. Speaker, as I stand here in the well of this House, surrounded by the echoes of history, and here at this podium, where so many chief executives have addressed this Nation, we can also recall the words of President Clinton in his first State of the Union message, and these are the words of President Clinton. ``I will point out that the Congressional Budget Office was normally more conservative about what was going to happen and closer to right than previous Presidents have been. I did this so that we could argue about priorities with the same set of numbers.'' Friends, let us use the same set of honest numbers. Let us balance the budget. I thank the Speaker and all my colleagues for joining me here tonight.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Could you repeat that?