J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I would recognize now our good friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I do, and I defer first to our good friend from South Carolina for his observation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. He makes a very valid point. Indeed, as my other colleagues have gone out to do town halls in their districts, also perhaps via mail, asking through questionnaires what is going on, I think the gentleman from Illinois makes a point that cannot be stated enough. A bipartisan group, including three of President Clinton's own Cabinet officers, say we have to fix this because if we do nothing, the program goes broke. The other thing we need to state, because somehow, through the midst of deliberate disinformation and an advertising campaign, one simple fact has also been ignored. We need to state it ad nauseum. That is this: that under our plan for Medicare plus, average expenditures per beneficiaries increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. No doubt earlier in this special order that fact has been brought up, but I daresay it is something that needs to be repeated again and again and again. And, indeed, we hear from people in our districts, we hear from people in our States tonight via the telefax, just before I walked in on the floor, the Epsteins from Arizona, a pair of self- described seasoned citizens, to use the expression of one of our friends from radio fame, write me and say this: ``Stay the course. Stick with present budget. We support the efforts of the 104th Congress. Good luck. Keep the faith.'' Ms. Nelson from Clarksdale, AZ, called in tonight with a three-word message: ``Don't back down.''

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think we go to that word ``extreme'' and use it in a couple of different directions. I think, with reference to what my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, just outlines, especially in the wake of the curious behavior of this Nation's Chief Executive, who says one thing one day and something else the next day, I think we have to say, ``This is extremely confusing.'' And with reference to extremism being used with our plans, extremism, I think we can simply say that what we have talked about, saving, protecting, my good friend, and defending Medicare through Medicare plus, genuine welfare reform, tax cuts for the middle class, and a glide path to a balanced budget in 7 years, I think we have to describe that as being extremely, extremely commonsensical.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Georgia and I think he brings up several good points in terms of the behavior of the gentleman who sits at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. It has been curious throughout his term, and indeed the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] in a radio response to the gentleman from the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. once speculated that perhaps we ought to constitutionally set up a new office and call it ``Campaigner in Chief,'' so that the gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. can go around and make the speeches and get people to like him, to really like him. In the meantime, we ought to find a genuine chief executive who is willing to join with us and govern. It is not my intent to pour salt in the wounds rhetorically, but it is very curious that much of what candidate Clinton spoke of in 1992, much of what the good doctor repeated here tonight, is included in what we have sent to him that he chose to veto. There comes a time when regardless of party label, we are called upon to join together and govern. And if we are to be candid, while there are those firm [[Page H 12182]] in their resolve who have called me tonight, there are others who have contacted me. My wife gave me the number of a family in Scottsdale, AR. A little boy doing a school project needed our address, so I called him. He was surprised to hear from his Congressman. His dad got on the phone and said, ``Congressman, I am really worried about the Government shutting down tomorrow.'' And I said, ``Sir, I share your concern. We in this Chamber did what we could, what is within our rights to do, and the President chose not to go along with it.'' The reason we did it was not to box anyone into a corner, but for the very reasons that my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, and my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio mentioned, and that is as genuine as our concern is for the seniors of this country, we also have great concern for our children and generations yet unborn. The fact is, my little boy, John Micah, who will turn 2 December 2, has hanging over his head if we do not make changes, if we maintain the status quo with the legislative equivalent of chewing gum and baling wire, if we continue to try and keep things going as they are, John Micah over the course of his lifetime will pay over $185,000 just on the debt. Just to service the debt. That is unconscionable. We cannot do that to our children. That is why we are making the tough decisions we have to make to change what is going on. If it takes this action, as regrettable as this action may be, far better to take this action to change the course of what has gone on, to change the thinking within this Chamber, yes, within this beltway, yes, but to change the thinking to correspond with what we are hearing from the great heartland of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. There is one other example that I think we should bring up in the wake of that horrible, horrible assassination in Israel. During the course of the state funeral when representatives from both parties joined the President to fly to Israel, and granted it was a difficult time emotionally for the President, we understand that. But during the course of time spent in the air that exceeded 24 hours, I think something like 26 hours, to hear from our leadership in this House that their interaction with our Chief Executive consisted of a ``Thank you'' and a hand wave, and that was the extent of the interaction, I have to question this. Why is it that the Chief Executive is happy to keep Air Force One on a runway at LAX and pay $200 for a haircut and take the time to do that as he did a couple of years ago, and then not talk to the leadership of these two bodies to solve the problems we face. There comes a time when we have to have responsible leadership, and it absolutely astounds me. I know, colleagues, when we raised our hands and took the oath of office we do so to govern with the consent of the governed. We were elected, and so too was that gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Again this evening, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, to those watching tonight, we extend the hand. Mr. President, join with us and govern. The American people deserve no less. It is astounding behavior and it is quizzical to say the least. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, I think in fairness we do need to point out one thing that the liberals offered and it came very late, indeed, in the last nanosecond of the 11th hour as we stood on this floor and talked about the compelling need for Medicare reform and cited the report. And I would ask the gentleman from Florida if he could get the poster and hold it up again. We cited what three of President Clinton's own Cabinet officers signed off on in April. ``The present financing schedule for the program, the Medicare program, is sufficient to ensure the payment of benefits only over the next 7 years.'' When we saw that, and chose in the wake of that report last spring to move to protect and preserve and defend Medicare, our friends on the other side, the liberals, stepped forward with a Band-Aid. They said, OK, we will do a little tinkering around the edges. Indeed, in the words of one wire service dispatch, in the words of one political observer, in his opinion it amounted to a ``deathbed conversion.'' At the last nanosecond, they stepped forward with a Band- Aid. Mr. Speaker, I will just make one point and then I will be happy to yield to my friend from Georgia. I heard earlier in this hour the gentleman from Pennsylvania stand in the well and talk about the surgery he needed to return to this Chamber with vitality. It was not easy surgery. He stayed the course and got the medical work done. Mr. Speaker, I daresay our friend from Pennsylvania and his example serves as a metaphor for what we face with these programs. It takes surgery, not a Band-Aid, to solve the problem. But that is the only thing that has come from the liberal establishment. And as we move past a Great Society, let us go to a better society. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Georgia, my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think some very valid points have been raised. Once again our friend from Ohio offers graphic evidence, anecdotal evidence of what can go wrong. My friend from Illinois made a very valid point, reaffirmed to me by the senior citizens of the Sixth District of Arizona. Waste, fraud and abuse is a shocking part of this problem. It is one element of the problem in dealing with health care coverage for seniors. But, again, what we have to point out, and in my couple of moments here before we wrap up, I want to point out a couple of things. First of all, what we are doing with Medicare is improving and protecting and preserving the system, taking the average beneficiaries, cash award of $4,800 this year, increasing it to $6,700 by the year 2002. Also, what we are doing are expanding the choices, giving people more choices, not forcing anyone into the program. But if people like the current system, they are certainly welcome to keep this system. The sad thing is that younger people have no choice. As I mentioned earlier, my young son, if we change nothing will pay over $185,000 in taxes just on interest on the debt during the course of his lifetime. To the President's credit he did something called general rational accounting in his last budget where he projected the services for the next generation of Americans if we do not change anything, if we do not right size this Government. And taxpayers of the future, the average taxpayer would have to surrender 82 percent of his income in taxes to the Federal Government. We have seen it rise exponentially, from 3 percent of the average family of four's income in 1948 to almost one- quarter of the average family's income in 1994. We have to change that not to build a great society but to build an even better society.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening on behalf of an oft misunderstood segment of our society, those who live in the American West. I bring before this House tonight a document signed by many of my constituents. The document, on parchment, was taken off the No. 2 liner board machine, which is now out of commission at Stone Container in Snowflake, AZ. The document starts, in its preamble, with a quotation from our Declaration of Independence and then, in the main portion of this document, a statement of concerns about our freedoms issued October 6 of this year, the following is stated: In this year 1995, we again find a need to petition our government to redress wrongs being perpetrated against its citizens: 1. Congress has passed laws establishing Federal agencies, then has not monitored the severe impact of regulations put forth by the agencies which go far beyond the intent of the Congress. This represents a usurpation of power by agencies not delegated by Congress nor established by a vote of the people. 2. Congress has passed laws which are severe and inflexible, causing major economic and social damages to our citizens and to our communities. The Endangered Species Act is one such law. The Endangered Species Act is being used to stop all natural resource development; mining, oil, timber, farming and ranching. Destroying the wealth of our Nation and breaking economic hardship upon Americans. The Endangered Species Act is being used to close our forests, denying access to all people in Arizona for wood products necessary to sustain their families. Leaving our forests without the tools necessary to thin and maintain forest health. The Endangered Species Act is being used to deny citizens the right to protect their property from flooding. The Endangered Species Act is being used to take patented water rights and to stop development on private property. The Endangered Species Act is being used to close land to livestock use. At every stage of these oppressive actions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble of terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States of America, appealing for the rectitude of our problems, do solemnly publish and demand that our rights be restored and that the abusive power of the numerous Federal agencies be curtailed and brought into conformity with the law; that severe and inflexible laws such as the endangered Species Act be reformed. We do declare this day that we the people will use every lawful means to bring our elected officials to accountability. As one of those elected officials, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to sign this document, because I believe it resonates with the freedoms outlined in this document, the Constitution of the United States, a document sacred in the ayes of many which is a document of limited and enumerated powers. And this Congress must stand, as we prepare to face a new century, to recognize the fact that, as this document outlines, quite often regulatory agencies have overstepped their bounds, especially in the western United States. Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that the citizenry of the western United States is oft misunderstood; that their intent is often maligned. It comes as no great surprise. Indeed, one such person, once called an advocate for Arizona, has become a disciple of the District of Columbia. The Secretary of Interior has told the American people at least on two occasions, once at Tufts University, he said and I quote, ``Those holding opinions of the environment different from ours'', and he was addressing people who felt as he did about the environment, and this is a direct quote, ``are guilty of the worst sneak attack upon America since Pearl Harbor''. Mr. Speaker, that type of extremist rhetoric has no place in this debate. Good people can disagree, but there is no sneak attack being launched by the citizenry of the western United States. Instead, by regulatory fiat self-appointed legislators, both in the regulatory agencies and, indeed, on the Federal bench, have stepped forward to declare a war on the way of life, to declare a war on the hard working law [[Page H 11911]] abiding citizens of the western United States. Friends, this is not about extremism, at least not from the standpoint of rural westerners. This is about what is reasonable and what is rational, not what is radical. Indeed, the radical talk comes not only from the Secretary of Interior but from the President of the United States, who, in his radio address last Saturday, used the most demagogic of terms to mischaracterize the plight of westerners. Friends, what we seek is balance. Economic balance, environmental balance, and true conservation for the United States of America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my dear friend from New Mexico talk about the voting last night, and with typical Orwellian Newspeak and an inability to capture basic mathematics. Once again, the gentleman misses the point. When the dust clears, the Republican party will have picked up three key seats and one through five major elections. The fact is for the first time in 28 years, a Republican made huge gains, even though we did not win the Governor's mansion in Kentucky. While work is going on, while we have a 50-seat majority in the New Jersey House, while we will see the governorship come to us in Louisiana, while we saw a reaffirmation of our policies in Mississippi, the American people have their eyes on what goes on in this Chamber. The fact is the American people want to see us balance the budget. I listened with all due interest and due respect to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] talk about giving a Christmas gift. Well, the greatest Christmas gift we can give seniors and we can give youngsters and we can give everybody in this Nation is balancing our budget, getting our fiscal house in order. Those are the most important numbers.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. A very key point, and if the gentleman will yield, I think it is important before, Mr. Speaker, we end up in a type of alphabet soup when we talk about the Congressional Budget Office or OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, that we make this clear distinction. Indeed, it happened prior to us joining this institution, prior to the historic shift: The President of the United States stood at the podium here behind us at the outset of the 103d Congress and he said, with great oratorical flourish, that his administration would always use the figures provided by the Congressional Budget Office, because year in and year out, they were the most reliable numbers. Yet, the same dichotomy and indeed the same reversal that we have seen on so many issues came with our friend at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, when somewhere along the line, camped out in the Rose Garden, was that mythical figure, Rosie Scenario. Rosie Scenario set up shop with the President's budgeteers in the Office of Management and Budget, and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, Rosie Scenario and those at OMB cooked the numbers for a 10-year plan that my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], is absolutely correct in stating gives us no type of balanced budget, throws the numbers out the window that this same President said were the most reliable numbers. And, clearly, this dichotomy is behavior and rhetoric and instant revision of history calls into question just how serious the gentleman at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is in joining with our new majority in the legislative branch to truly govern. My friend, the gentleman from Arizona, I know we have talked about it on several occasions, this flip-flop, and I think it is incumbent upon the incumbent President to join with us and govern.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thought of another familial relationship, a parental bond. You described the service of your father in this House, and how both of you made that philosophical journey. As we turned to our friend, the gentleman from California, a couple of distinctions, Mr. Speaker, that are worth being noted in the Record. First of all, we heard our good friend, the gentleman from Florida, speak of Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson was indeed a man of many talents, including that of being a vintner, a winemaker. It is our privilege to have someone from the real world, from the wine country of California, a vintner, here serving with us in this freshman class; but also he draws a distinction, and it is akin, it comes back to the Sixth District of Arizona, for his mother was born an inspiration by the Inspiration Mine, in the Sixth District of North Carolina, so in a sense, I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, or the Sixth District of Arizona and I would like to claim him as at least an honorary Arizonan, the vintner of the House of Representatives with a very, very sober reflection on what has transpired in these last 40 weeks.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think he absolutely sets forth the dynamic at work here. The question is, Are we willing to love generations yet unborn enough and those youngsters who are now in our homes--and I think of my children, one of them in college but two not even in grade school yet--do we love them enough to leave them a country where they will not continue to pay our debts? I think the gentleman from Texas offers an embodiment of part of the change that took place last year on that fateful Tuesday in November, a change that continues around the country tonight. Indeed, as I heard the words of my friends from Texas, I thought of my good friend from North Carolina who went on a personal journey, both intellectually, philosophically, and finally politically. For the gentleman from North Carolina had his dad serving in this House, a conservative man who yet sat on the other side of this aisle. I yield to our friend who reserved this special time to talk about what has gone on not only in his own life politically but what has gone on in his district in North Carolina.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said something very interesting, paraphrasing friends from the fourth estate who sometimes seem to step across that bound of reporting into advocacy for those who always propose bigger government programs and a highly centralized state. It was interesting to hear that description of your candidacy as radical. Of course, the amazing thing is that only to those who exist inside the beltway were our candidacies or is this new majority in any sense radical. Quite the contrary, to the people in the heartland of America, from California to Florida, through Texas and in Arizona and in the great State of North Carolina, throughout this country, it is not radical; it is rational and reasonable. And therein we find the difference. Despite what the media axis between New York and Washington would report and promote and quite often distort, the American people in their infinite wisdom cut through all of that and understood what was at stake. I think we have a prime example here on the floor tonight in our good friend from Texas, the pundits called, as you will remember, the giant killer, who was able to win election to the Congress of the United States after many tries and some talk from the pundits that he ought to maybe not think about public life.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I see that one of our friends from Florida has joined us who was also a part of that historic night but even more importantly is part of this new history-making majority in the House of Representatives. As we yield to our friend from Florida, I would imagine that, even though the gentleman from Arizona and I reside in neighboring districts and hear much the same message, I have to believe that the gentleman from Florida hears similar things from his constituents.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from North Carolina, and I am pleased to join with him and our friend from California and my neighbor from Arizona as well as my good friend from Texas this evening. History demands that we recall the historic moment that occurred 364 days ago, the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November 1994. An election that literally shook the foundations of this institution, when for the first time in four decades the old order that talked about more and more government spending and more and more debt on our children and more and more authority resting in a massive centralized bureaucracy with little accountability to the people, that philosophy was rejected. Now as America prepares to confront a new century with leadership truly passed to a new generation, those of us here and assembled on this floor tonight and, Mr. Speaker, I daresay, those who join us via the technology of television, deserve a status report on what has transpired. Forty weeks of governing in the wake of 40 years of liberal rule, and the people need a status report. Though it is not my intent [[Page H 11815]] to go in alphabetical order, Mr. Speaker, I do see my good friend from my neighboring district in Arizona, Mr. Salmon. Mr. Speaker, what is he hearing at home?

Mr. HAYWORTH. As I heard my colleague from Arizona, I think of our colleague from Texas who perhaps more than anyone in this institution has lived the American dream, who knows what it is like to pull up from the bootstraps. I would ask the gentleman from Texas, coming through the experiences he has, knowing the ultimate fabric and value and truth of our society, what does he see as the mission for the future?

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I think that is vitally important, and indeed we should address some of our comments, Mr. Speaker, to those who may be looking in who say to us, gee, you have not really gone far enough. And what I can say, Mr. Speaker, to those who have that idea, I would say, perhaps you are right. But it is exceedingly difficult in the span of 40 weeks to change a culture that has grown up over 40 years, not impossible, because we have taken the first steps to do so. But in this climate, within this beltway, with the Orwellian Newspeak that ignores the realities which mathematics bears out that the so-called cuts in fact are reductions in future expenditures, that have no place on any legitimate number line, but only on the squiggle that seems to meander around this district, from Federal office to Federal office, we need to have straight talk with the American public. The fact is, we are taking some steps that while they may be called momentous, history will record, perhaps as modest, but as my friend from California said, the journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. My journeys yesterday took me to the town of Eloy, AZ, and to the town of Casa Grande, and in Eloy I had an assembly with the entire student body of Santa Cruz High School and the question came up, Congressman, how would you rate yourself on education spending? And indeed, some of the folks who may be looking in, Mr. Speaker, are looking to the Department of Education and saying, well, there is an area, there is a project left undone. And it surprised me when I explained to the student body and to one of the questioners, I felt it was important, again, echoing the comments of the gentleman from California, I believe it is important to take the billions of dollars spent on a bureaucracy directed by a friend of mine, former Governor Riley of South Carolina, a fine and decent gentleman, but a centralized bureaucracy spending billions of dollars, I would far rather return that money to the States and counties and localities and to the school boards and ultimately to the front lines, to help children learn than to continue to perpetuate a vast bureaucracy. Indeed, as we look at the so-called Information Age, at the technological advances that we have now, what do they echo, what resounds from them in this new computer age? It is what we find in the Constitution, it is what we find in the writings of Madison, which is the power of the individual, and so that is our mission, to help empower the citizenry, to understand the value and the power of one, and to rejoice in the fact that yes, we unify on key questions and yes, even as we have differences of philosophy within this Chamber, sometimes I think exaggerated too greatly in the theater of politics, yet we have this mission to allow people to live up to their fullest potential, not due to the dictates of government, but to the dignity of their respective person. That is what this revolution encompasses, not what is radical, what is exceedingly reasonable, and much remains to be done. I yield to my friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I think we see why I have such ample evidence of the pride I take in having such a responsible neighbor, because it is a pleasure to serve alongside him in this House, and geographically, to have our districts alongside one another. My friend, the gentleman from Arizona, makes a very good point when it comes to personal finance and the family gathered around the kitchen table, trying to decide budget priorities. It is irresponsible to the 10th degree to imagine a family transferring its debt from Master Card to Visa in a type of credit card kiting scheme. And yet, and yet, Mr. Speaker, in common parlance here, as a Member of Congress, many of us have come to call the card that I hold here now, our voting card, in an attempt to laugh to keep from crying, we call this voting card that each of us has, the world's most expensive credit card. There is an element of humor in the truth. Again, I think we cite it to laugh to keep from crying, so absurd has this equation gotten over the years, so overreaching has this Government come into the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. America. The reason we call our voting card the world's most expensive credit card is because when my colleagues and I received ours, each came with a debt of almost $5 trillion. The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I would simply conclude by thanking our good friend from North Carolina, having the foresight to schedule this special hour on an auspicious night where we rejoice in the fact that we changed things through ballots and not bullets, where we rejoice, in the freedom of our society, in the basic dignity of the American people which we hope again to empower through a revolution that is not radical but is reasonable, rational, and we will see through.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, he makes a point so profound, and I think it demonstrates why the people of his congressional district had the great and good sense to end a long term for his predecessor and to make a change for the better in Texas, and indeed, as we see what goes on, the question remains, not the worthiness of some projects, because some projects are exceedingly worthy when viewed in a vacuum, when viewed without the reality of the budgetary constraints in which we live. And for those at home, Mr. Speaker, who may be watching saying, yes, but, yes, but, what about the role of government as charity, I would simply suggest this: Nowhere in the document of the Constitution, in the preamble especially, do you see the word charity. Indeed, it is not the province of the Federal Government to be the charity of first recourse. This Government exists, it derives its powers, from the people to serve the people, and indeed, my friend from California who serves on the Committee on the Budget has been dealing with the heavy lifting and the harsh realities of the numbers we confront. In one sense, in Washington or Orwellian Newspeak, it is an incredible, monumental task and exceedingly difficult. And yet, in real-world numbers, it is a challenge that must be met. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], what struck him most about the entire budgetary exercise on the committee and seeing this through to fruition with the reconciliation package?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about this Nation is the fact that we can come here and agree to disagree, the fact that we are free to have a variety of different opinions. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] who preceded me in the well has some very definite opinions that differ from mine, as is her right, and really, there is so much information that begs a response that I just think it is appropriate to point out a couple of things. No. I, with reference to first amendment rights of freedom of expression, this is what the Constitution says: ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that the Congress will subsidize with American tax dollars someone's right to politically organize. Mr. Speaker, it is not really free speech when you and I are required with our tax dollars to pay for it, point No. 1. Point No. 2, with reference to the comments of my friend from Indiana, I find it incredibly shocking that a public housing project would be involved in what amounts to a senior shakedown. The language needs to be repeated, because it needs to be amplified. All tenants are asked to become members of the National Council of Senior Citizens, NCSC. That in itself would not be so bad, a simple request. Of course, the American people need to know that over 95 percent of the funding for the NCSC comes from you and I and other taxpayers. But still, that money is not enough. There has to be more that comes from seniors. There are many reasons for joining NCSC. First of all, you have the privilege of living in these beautiful buildings protected with security and free from financial worries of high rent and big raises which people are forced to pay in privately owned apartments. The NCSC is a well-known and powerful national organization with political clout in Washington. To carry on, the organization needs money for these worthwhile projects, such as lobbying and letter writing which takes paper, stamps, envelopes, and hard work. Dues are payable the first of June. Now, certainly, Mr. Speaker, every organization has a right to ask for membership, but is it the role of the Federal Government of the United States to step in with taxpayer dollars and be a party to what in essence is a letter that I believe tries to intimidate seniors involved in the shakedown. It was interesting, too, to listen to some of the rhetoric that is brought forth to the well of this House. My good friend from Texas just talked about cuts. Again, my friends on the liberal side of this House fail to understand simple mathematics. When expenditures are increased, there are no cuts. Average spending for a Medicare recipient will rise from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. That is an increase of 45 percent per beneficiary. Yet, in the twisted mathematics of Washington, replete with Orwellian news speak, people come to the floor of this House time and time again to talk about cuts. The gentlewoman said we were holding the American people hostage with reference to making a decision to finally balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, I submit, if we do not face economic facts, we will continue to hold future generations of Americans hostage. If we fail to answer this clarion call to action, we will be acting without any responsibility or regard for the real work at hand. Make no mistake, this talk of cut is absolute fiction. This is absolutely false. We are restraining the rate of growth in government; we are not making cuts. That is patently true. The fact is that we are moving now to save the very programs that folks claim are being sacrificed, to save the very programs that will work for this generation of seniors and to provide the framework to continue those programs on. That is the absolute fact in front of the American people. In this debate, let people of goodwill with disagreements come to this floor and indeed, write their Congress people, but let them do it without tax dollars, without the largesse of the hardworking men and women of America, because face it, friends, one of the big truths is this: Money does not emanate from the government, it comes from you and me, from working and paying our tax dollars. That supplies the money, and we should be held accountable for the way in which that is spent. Now, absolutely good people can disagree, and I would champion the right of my friend from Texas to disagree with me, as she often does. But let us level with the American people. Mr. Speaker, we will continue this at a later time. The debate goes on.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to follow my colleague from Ohio in these morning sessions. This morning, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would illustrate a couple of differences between our budget plan, the conservative commonsense budget plan, and what the White House has offered. This is the budget reconciliation package. Yes, it is lengthy. Yes, it is exhaustive. But yes, it is complete. We have managed to do in less than 40 weeks what the liberals could not do in 40 years. That is, change the size and scope of the Federal Government. On the other hand, here is the President's plan, such as it exists. Some interesting charts, a few talking points, but, Mr. Speaker, the devil is not in the details. The devil is in the denial. As our Speaker and the leader of the other body go down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to meet the President, I wonder which President will show up. I hope it is the President who says he is for a balanced budget in 7 years. I hope it is the President who says he wants a tax cut for the middle class. I hope it is the President who says he wants welfare reform. If it is that President, Mr. Speaker, let him join with us to balance this budget and get this country back on track.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. So those sitting at home saying, oh, sure, he had Lee Iacocca helping him every step of the way, are sorely mistaken. His business was a home grown business. But he took that same type of drive and discipline and working with other Members of the freshman class through a group known as the New Federalists did the heavy lifting. And when people said it could not be done and when it got bogged down in institutional inertia, the fact is that Members of this new majority, including several of you folks who have been here for awhile, stepped forward to say this is too important to leave to the institutional business as usual. And the important thing to note is that, several Presidents have come to that podium here in this Chamber during joint sessions of Congress, during the respective State of the Union Message, talking about reducing the Cabinet-level agencies. And yet, because there was an unwilling majority on this hill that always believed in the growth of big government, those best laid plans were put aside. They were put on the table. And now, ironically, it is the legislative branch serving as the catalyst to reform and downsize the executive branch and actually all of Government. So my friend from Michigan is to be commended.