J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would also point out it goes to 80 percent of the American people, not to the wealthy.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House, we have a simple choice today: Do we want to continue to shackle the American public with ever-rising taxes, with suffocating regulation, with more and more taken from their paychecks? Do we want to continue to enslave future generations to a debt that is simply unconscionable? Or are we willing to vote yes on the rule, yes to a balanced budget? I do it for all the children of the Sixth District of Arizona, for all the children of America, and especially for John Micah, who in 2 weeks will be 2 years of age and who, if we do nothing to stop this unconscionable, continual slide into the abyss, will pay over $185,000 in taxes during the course of his lifetime just to service this gross national debt, which basically is a crime against future generations. My colleagues, vote for the rule, precisely for the people you champion. Vote for the rule to empower those who need better economic opportunities. Vote for the rule to empower future generations and current American citizens. Vote yes on the rule and yes on a balanced budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I was going to say, such an honor to have with us the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who spent a good bit of time using special orders to help, I believe, shape the new majority.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, once again, mention was made of this vote. And somehow it may be missed by some folks in the media, but we need to again point this out. When the gentleman from Pennsylvania says that the new minority overwhelmingly voted to raid the trust fund, here are the numbers: 177 Members of the minority party voted to basically say to the executive branch, to the Secretary of the Treasury and others in the executive branch, sure, go ahead, take the trust funds. Spend them to keep the Government in business. Only 18 Members, only 18 Members of the new minority were confident to help us.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would gladly do so for my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania, and as we collectively and, indeed, as a new conservative majority within this chamber, move to bridge this credibility canyon, we can only do so by stretching out the hand of straight talk and truth.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think he makes a very valid and accurate observation. Indeed, if we were to move away from the metaphor of the ship of state and talk about the House of state, if you will, and make this President the custodian-in-chief, what, in essence, is going on is the equivalent of taking the dirt, trying to sweep it under the rug; taking all the debris and simply stuffing it underneath the couch, or within the cushions of the couch, and making things presentable for company coming in 1996. That company being the American citizens who go to the voting booth. Trying to put the best appearance on things instead of really getting down to cleaning up the place. Now, I have to say, speaking from personal experience, and as my dear wife would bear out, I am not one of the greatest housekeepers on earth, but before my wife and family come back here on the rare occasions to visit in Washington, I know I better clean that house and get it ready. I better clean that apartment and get it ready. I cannot shovel the dirt off, I cannot just stuff the trash in amidst the cushions. What we have to do is make a fundamental change and a clean sweep of the idea of politics as usual. More evidence of the credibility canyon. Each time I step into the well of this House, I think about those chief executives who have stood at this podium on truly historic occasions, both Republicans and Democrats. I think of Franklin Roosevelt on December 8, 1941, discussing the events of the previous day as a date which would live in infamy. I think of President Ronald Reagan coming back to address a joint session of Congress after a would-be assassin was unsuccessful in the attempt to take the President's life. I also recall, as a private citizen, watching on television a newly- elected President who told us he was a new kind of Democrat; standing at that podium and lecturing the minority party at that time that he and his administration would only use numbers and only formulate budget projections on those figures supplied by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, for those numbers were the most accurate. Yet, I would refer my colleagues to this chart, because through the efforts of this Congress, the President appeared not here at the podium but in a basically 5-minute live television insert casting about for a political solution for a genuine problem of governance, and he said we need to balance the budget in 10 years. A funny thing happened between the time President Clinton stood at that podium and addressed a joint session of Congress and when he appeared in that brief television segment earlier in this 104th Congress. Somehow the President abandoned the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. But, friends, these are the numbers. Mr. Speaker, these are the numbers the President said would be the most accurate. As my good friend from South Carolina indicated, look what happens. Oh, yes, 1996, deficits below $200 billion. The equivalent of trying to sweep something under the rug. But then, look, from 1997 through 2005, with the exception of 1998, when just barely the numbers are under $200 billion, in essence we have $200 billion deficits for another decade.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to my good friend from South Carolina.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman points up another aspect of the gulf that can only be described as the credibility canyon. How can this President claim to be a champion of Medicare when he is willing to cynically try to hold down the part B premium for the year 1996 only to have it rise again exponentially?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the gentleman from Iowa to repeat those numbers so that the Speaker and indeed the American people, who join us this evening, can hear this again. Would the gentleman please repeat what he just said?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to my good friend from the great State of Iowa, one of three freshman Members of the institution on this side of the aisle who is a physician.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Two points we need to bring out at this juncture, because again some people may have missed the entire reason we enjoined this Medicare reform topic to begin with. Contrary to the very interesting fictions and political theater emanating from the other side, this has nothing to do with the issue of tax cuts. The reason we were prompted to take action, as a new conservative, responsible majority here to help govern is the conclusion of the Medicare trustees in a report issued April 3 of this year. The Medicare trustees, a bipartisan group, including three of President Clinton's own Cabinet officers, Secretaries Rubin, Reich, and Shalala, signed off on this language, ``the present financing schedule for the program is sufficient to ensure the payment of benefits only over the next 7 years.'' So a 7-year window to make reforms. But here is the other topic and the other key thing that we must bring out at this juncture, because, again, in the confusion that has resulted on this other side, some folks have gone out and put on television ads that can only be described as fiction. The fact is, we have repeated it, mentioned it once tonight, but it bears repeating, the average expenditure per Medicare beneficiary will increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. That is an increase. That is not a cut.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, the credibility canyon only widened in the past couple of days when the President, listening to his polster and his political [[Page H 12332]] consultant, decided to reinvent himself in the image of the saviour of Medicare, when in essence, as we heard the cold hard facts from the physician, facts borne out, not out of fear mongering but out of compassion that this gentleman who has worked on the front lines of the medical industry, we know that the President's arguments are essentially fictional. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, my good friend, author of the Shays act. What seemed to be revolutionary here in this country, that Congress people should live under the same laws as every other American, our good friend from Connecticut.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for that observation. I welcome to this special order the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the Speaker repeat that again what the President told you?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] who puts it very succinctly, and again it bears repeating what transpired on this floor today, H.R. 2621. The overwhelming majority of the liberal guardians of the old order said to the President and to his Secretary of Treasury in effect, ``Go ahead, raid the Social Security trust fund even as you stand before the American public and claim to be the defender of America's seniors because, after all, we're bound to find some sympathetic ears in the media and because it will be so greatly repeated, it will inspire confusion. So go ahead and do that.'' How crass, how shameful, how political. Friends, we were sent to Washington to change business as usual, no more excuses, no more gimmicks. And to those who write and say, ``Gee, why don't you just go and send in a clean CR?'' let me make this observation. The difference comes in philosophy, not in procedure. Just as we are constrained to speak in legislative style here in the House, just as we observe convention with the rules of the House, so too do we make use of legislative tools at our disposal to implement the changes needed. I defer to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut, and indeed, I thank all of my colleagues. Again, Mr. Speaker, we would simply make this point. Even as our chief executive or campaigner in chief prepares to leave this Nation, as we understand he is planning to do, to go to Japan, again Mr. Speaker, we extend the President of the United States a hand to say, ``Enough posturing. Let's join together and govern.'' That is the central issue. Even as our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, made the point, it is worth noting this. We are not playing a game.

Mr. HAYWORTH. For it is our mission to balance the budget and change the philosophy of taxing and spending, and interesting interpretations that have to be called fictional offered by the cynical guardians of the old order.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, tonight as the shadows descend from coast to coast, it is worth noting that life goes on in these United States, despite one cable network offering a countdown akin to a spacecraft countdown for the alleged shutdown of Government. Life continues. Tonight again we are reminded that we have fateful choices to make, that we have significant differences of opinion; that, indeed, in many cases, we should rejoice in those differences, and we are certainly entitled to different interpretations. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that tonight it would be important to offer the rest of the story. As one of our commentators so eloquently puts it on radio on a daily basis, for example, I have the greatest respect and affection for my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop], from the other side of the aisle, who was just in here talking about a conservative Democrat balanced budget plan. I must say, indeed, that I welcome that initiative on the part of the conservatives on the other side of the aisle. There remain philosophical differences, but unfortunately, my friends who would call themselves conservative on the other side of the aisle are in fact a minority within a minority. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop], chose to characterize the outcome of the vote on his self-described conservative Democrat balanced budget plan, saying it was rejected by the majority, full disclosure demands and accurate counting of the vote. The sad fact is, and I can understand my friend's frustration, the sad fact is that a majority of his own party rejected that plan, including the minority leader. There reaches a time, Mr. Speaker, where we cannot be content with those who would merely talk the talk. The people of the United States, in my opinion, have spoken clearly and compellingly that they want to see a change in the culture of endless taxation and spending, and yet leaders step forward, claiming one thing and ofttimes doing another. I find it especially ironic that this Nation's Chief Executive, who made well known in his youth his opposition to some of the actions taken by the President of his party in the late 1960's, in fact, it was said of that President in the late 1960's that he suffered from a credibility gap, how unfortunate it is that our President tonight suffers from an affliction that can only be described as a credibility canyon, so wide is the gulf between what Bill Clinton, the candidate, said, Mr. Speaker, and what Bill Clinton, the President, is willing to deliver. In 1992, then candidate Clinton, on national television, said that he would commit to balance this Nation's budget within 5 years. As President, Bill Clinton, earlier in this session of the 104th Congress, worked overtime on the [[Page H 12329]] votes of six Members of the other body who voted for a balanced budget amendment in the 103d Congress. He applied Presidential pressure so they would change their votes and that a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution would fail. In 1992, Mr. Speaker, candidate Clinton spoke of a tax cut for the middle class. Very early in his term, President Clinton gave us the largest tax increase in American history, a tax increase affecting virtually every American, for it was not only on income tax, it was not only retroactive, taxes increased also on gasoline that every American, virtually, buys. Then, just a few weeks ago, perhaps suffering from the affliction that, Mr. Speaker, you so accurately described in your radio address of a few weeks ago, this overwhelming need for our chief executive, instead, to act as a campaigner in chief, the President went down to Houston. This is the article that appeared on the wires of the Reuters news agency, with an account of what transpired in Houston. ``Clinton said he knew that a lot of people in the room were `still mad about the 1993 budget,' and, in his words, `they think I raised their taxes too much, it might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.' '' Then the following day the President, in a press briefing, tried to make light of this assertion, saying that his mother advised him not to make speeches after 7 o'clock. I appreciate the President's attempt at humor. I guess there might be some effort to laugh, if it were not so serious and, fundamentally, if it were not so tragic. Where does the President stand? People have quoted polls here. The most compelling poll or the most compelling polls are those turned in Election Day every 2 years to decide who serves in this Congress, every 4 years to decide who serves in the oval office. There comes a time, sooner or later, when we are called upon in this country to join together and to govern, and as the gentleman serving as our Speaker pointed out in his radio address of a few weeks ago, this President seems content playing the part of campaigner in chief, rather than Commander in Chief. Indeed, as our friend in the chair tonight made the point in his radio address, ``Perhaps we ought to try and work on a constitutional amendment that would allow this President to be the campaigner in chief while we go look for a genuine chief executive to help us govern.'' Things are not always as they seem. The cataclysm that many have spoken of that supposedly took place today with the alleged shutdown of government services has yet to be realized, and yet those apologists for more taxes and more spending came to the floor of this House today, and so great is their affinity for big government, they voted basically to allow the executive branch to raid the trust funds to keep the government in business. H.R. 2621, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass, to prevent disinvestment of trust funds, 177 Members of the liberal minority voted no, saying, in essence, ``Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of the Treasury, go ahead and raid those trust funds.'' The irony is compelling that those who march to the well of this House day after day and claim that they are the protectors of Social Security and they are the protectors of Medicare, and yet today when they are called upon to vote to protect the very trust funds they allegedly pledge an oath of fealty to, somehow they just cannot do it. Mr. Speaker, I am joined on the floor tonight by two of my colleagues who are also new to this Chamber. I would first yield to my very good friend, the gentleman from the golden corner of South Carolina, Mr. Lindsey Graham.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my great friend from South Carolina, and I am also pleased to see our very good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], who joined us as one of the newcomers, one of the 73 conservative newcomers to this House. Mr. Fox, welcome. I know that certain actions in Washington have been both disheartening and enlightening simultaneously for the gentleman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, If I could just interrupt the gentleman a moment, because I want to make sure I understand this point and, indeed, so the Speaker and others joining us tonight can understand. When there is this rise, which is proportional, the proportion stays constant. What the gentleman is saying is cost-of-living adjustments will help seniors absorb that cost.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to our friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I was just going to say, if the gentleman would yield, the only possible mathematical operations at work are akin to something Orwellian. [[Page H 12334]] We recall the noted British author, George Orwell, in his book ``1984'': Ignorance is strength, all the different observations in Orwellian Newspeak, and in the new mathematics, within this Beltway, and especially on this side of the Chamber, an increase is a cut and a cut is an increase. It adds up to this new international symbol that really deserves a place in our policy Pantheon, the international symbol for Stop Whining. I defer first, if I could, to the physician, our good friend, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my good friend from Illinois. He said, ``Federal workers, the ones who elected us, do not want to see the Government closed down.'' There are a lot of dedicated governmental employees. I do not doubt that for a second. But the fact is there is a special interest at work here. It is the special interest of those who always ask us to tax and spend and take more of your money to run a bigger and bigger and bigger Federal Government. All the other issues are misdirected. All the other issues are to take you away from the central defining question that we are to decide today or in the days to come. That is, do we want to fundamentally change the culture of tax and spend in Washington? President Clinton said time and again on the campaign trail, he was for a balanced budget. My good friends on this side of the aisle say time and again, ``Well, sure we want to balance the budget, but no.'' No ifs, and, or buts. No excuses. It is time to change the culture of tax-and-spend, time to balance the budget, and we intend to do exactly that.