J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think you make such an outstanding point, that we have to remember that we are offering again, as our good friend from Florida pointed out at the outset of this time together, we are offering choices. And the ultimate choice is if people like what they have, they can keep it. Again, I am struck by the difference. It is interesting to see some Members of the fourth estate try to cover this debate and try to draw an analogy with the failed soup to nuts, cradle to grave, socialized plans that were offered 2 years ago and say that somehow there is a synergy between the two things. Nothing could be further from the truth. Going back to our analogy of the hanging curve ball, how interesting it is that guardians of the old order and proponents of socialized medicine are now coming to this floor saying that we denied, or that we would deny people their choice of their own physician. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no synergy between these two episodes in history. We are offering something profoundly different, predicated on what is, I believe, the essence of being an American, the chance to take a look economically and personally at what is best for our future destiny and having an option to determine what is best. It is so interesting to hear the descriptions, as if latitude in personal decisions is something to be feared or as if there is some sort of unseen compulsory action that will take place that will force people into certain programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are enlarging choice for the American people and renewing freedom that heretofore has been denied for the past 30 years, despite the virtues of this program, when people magically hit the age of 65.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I know we listened to our colleague from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] bemoaning prescription costs. Again, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has pointed out what may very well be one of the virtues of these many different plans, that there may be copayments and reduced fees for the very prescription drugs that my friend from Vermont was so concerned about. This is really the essence of the debate we are having here. Again, good people can disagree. There are some who legitimately believe that it is the domain and the responsibility of the Federal Government to act not only as the charity of first recourse, but to be the principal architect and the principal provider of about every service here in the late 20th century. I think, fundamentally, the American people reject that notion, but the American people look for a plan that empowers the populace, that empowers the citizenry, and that can give them the very choice they need to make responsible decisions. Again, those decision governed by their particular situations and their particular lifestyles. That is what is so important. So the very thing that our friend seemed to fear, may, in the final analysis, be a phantom.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, I think he makes a very, very valid point. And, quite candidly, there have been those seniors that have come to me, and perhaps other Members in your respective districts have found this to be true as well, and they say, now, wait a minute, what about this whole notion of tax cuts? So many of those seniors I talk to I ask, and many of them were starting a family in 1948, maybe had a couple of kids. Back from the war, starting a career. And for an average family of four in 1948, 3 percent of that family's income went to the Federal Government in terms of taxation. Now, compare and contrast that with last year, when a typical family of four surrendered almost one quarter, 24 percent, of its income to the Federal Government. As the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] points out, with State and local taxes, with the hidden cost, the hidden taxes, if you will, of regulation, more and more people are surrendering 40, almost 50 percent of their income to the Federal Government. So, again, what this new majority is trying to do, what we are tying to do in the Congress of the United States is empower people, not only the seniors but the families, to have more of their hard earned money. The people of the 6th district of Arizona last November sent a very simple message to Washington through my election, and that is this. We work hard for the money we earn. Let us hang on to more of it and send less of it to Washington. That is not born of a selfish impulse. Simply people realize that the place for charity does not come from the Federal Government being the charity of first resort. And while there have been many innovative programs designed to empower people, we cannot empower people on one hand and yet enslave others with the same type of equation. There has to be opportunity across the board. And I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for bringing up that very real challenge, whether it is income tax or payroll tax for part B Medicare in that trust fund. We have to understand that the work force today is called on more and more to pay taxes and they need to hang on to their money, and we have to find a way to get that done. And that is why this plan, I believe, offers the best alternative yet devised to empower people and to work this problem through.

Mr. HAYWORTH. This is something. To use the words you have up here for us, let me recite it for the folks on what the Post has to say about the Democrats' MediScare campaign. ``Crummy stuff.'' ``Demagoguery, big time.'' ``Scare talk.'' ``Expostulation.'' Finally, quoting again, ``It is irresponsible.'' The fact is, as my good friend from Florida knows, we have yet to really see a definitive plan. And this is part of the frustration that I am sure the gentleman encounters in his district. As the gentleman's experience warrants in Florida, so too is my experience in Arizona. Many seniors living in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona are saying to me, ``You know, you are right to try and fix this problem, and not wait on a commission or not take a Band-aid approach to say, `Okay, there is a problem, but let us just try to solve it through the next election.' '' Believe me, from the old days of politics, the easiest thing to do would be to stick our heads in the sand or try a little change here in the hopes that we could paper over it through the next election. But I know that is not what the people in Arizona or Florida or Connecticut sent us here to do. We are here to make the changes needed, responsible, reasonable changes, to improve this system; thus the name, Medicare Plus. This is one other note we really have to reinforce, despite all the scare talk: If people like conventional Medicare, as they have it now, they are free to keep it. You mentioned the experience of your mother. My granddad is 91. He does not want a lot of things to complicate his lifestyle. He may very well want to stay on the program that has served him, and that, too, will be his choice.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I think that is absolutely the key point to this debate, and we have to ask ourselves, realizing that good people can disagree, and indeed we come to this Chamber to discuss issues of vital importance, such as Medicare preservation and Medicare improvement; we have to simply give people choice. You know, I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, as our friends preceded us in this special order, and I noted with interest a couple of remarks from my good friend from Washington State, and just to put this in some perspective, in my former profession, where I talked a great deal about athletics, I think my friend from Washington State offered the improper analogy. He was claiming that the new majority was trying to throw a Randy Johnson-like fast ball past the American people. I would take issue with that. Instead I would say that our friends, who are really guardians of the status quo and the old order, the new minority, is trying to throw the American people a hanging curve ball, because let us make no mistake about it, my good friend from Washington State who preceded us here in the well, those who studied the health care debate of a year and a half to 2 years ago realize that our friend from Washington State was the proponent of a health care plan, a national health care plan that can be safely said was even to the left of President Clinton's plan. It was as if my friend from Washington State wanted to transmogrify the United States into the Dominion of Canada to try to bring that type of health care to this country, cradle to grave, soup to nuts, State- sponsored triage that was, in my humble opinion, irresponsible, with a massive centralized bureaucracy and putting health care decisions in the hands of government. What we are trying to do is to change that, to say that the time for scaring the American people is over. It is time to provide options. We have options in every other walk of life. Why should we change at age 65 and only have one plan in a one-size-fits-all scenario? That is the wrong route. Let us provide more choices even as we restrain the rate of growth. We still have growth in expenditures. But I was also struck by one diagnosis that my friend from Washington State, as a psychiatrist, I think, was very appropriate in offering. In the early days of this Congress, as things changed, he talked about the fact that the guardians of the old order were, to quote him now, ``in a state of denial about the way things have changed here, and the new philosophies predominant on the Hill.'' I would simply add a footnote to that. Not only were members of the new minority in a state of denial, that denial has been followed by rage, and one of the lessons I have learned here, and I will be very candid with my friend from Florida, to my eternal regret, in the wake of the historic shift within this body, what we find so often now is that the debate has very little to do with policy and everything to do with power from the perspective of my friends in the new minority. So jealous are they of the change in power that they will do anything, say anything, claim anything, to scare people about changes that need to take place, and so, again, I think that we ought to stretch out a hand and say good people can disagree, but let us suffer no illusions or delusions about what is going on here. We have a plan, a responsible plan to deal with the sobering realization that the trustees' report brought to the floor that Medicare, if we do nothing, goes bankrupt in the next 7 years. Again, I hear our friends in the mass media, many of them almost acting as if in collusion with the new minority to claim it is to pay for some sort of tax cut. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is, as my friend from Florida knows, through the stewardship of the Committee on the Budget, the hard work of the gentleman from Ohio chairing that committee, we took care of making sure that all Americans could have more of their hard-earned money in their pocket, and this instead is in response to a bipartisan trustees' report that compels us to act now. In fact, as I see here, the gentleman has brought something to the floor from a publication not typically sympathetic to conservative points of view.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I notice, without having the privilege of taking one of your statistics courses when I was at North Carolina State, but just to put it in real terminology, I offered this example before and I think it has some validity here, in real live terms. When my daughter asked for an increase in her allowance, I gave her $5 a week until junior high. By the time she got to high school, we said, Honey, live a little. We doubled it to $10. I do not know if it was fiscally responsible or not. She did not grouse and complain and say, Daddy, you did not take it to $15. Therefore, you cut my allowance by $5. She had a genuine increase. Her allowance was doubled. I think the point the gentleman is making is this is not rocket science, but is, as in the mid-to-late fifties, what Dwight Eisenhower used to call the study of government and description of politics, ``sophisticated nonsense.'' Lost among the sophisticated nonsense and fear tactics and rhetoric is this very simple message that is the foundation of what it is we are doing. Again, I yield to my friend from Florida, because I do not think we can repeat this enough.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the city of Scottsdale and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community in Arizona, I am introducing legislation which would approve an agreement for the settlement of litigation over property located in Scottsdale, known as the Saddleback Mountain property. Saddleback Mountain is an important conservation resource, and this agreement will preserve it for future generations. The property is a 701-acre tract of land which was owned by the failed Sun State Savings and Loan and is now held by the Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC]. The agreement approved by this legislation provides for the sale by the RTC of part of the Saddleback Mountain property to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community, to be held in trust by the United States as part of [[Page E 1961]] the tribe's reservation. The rest of the property will be sold to the city of Scottsdale. This legislation, which is the result of months of negotiation between the city of Scottsdale and the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian community, will serve to ratify and authorize the agreement and will provide that the property purchased by the tribe will be taken into trust reservation status. It does not authorize any expenditure of funds by the United States. The Saddleback Mountain-Arizona Settlement Act of 1995 is noncontroversial and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ, here are the top 10 reasons why liberals refuse to help in the effort to save Medicare from bankruptcy. No. 10, they are not in charge anymore. No. 9, they are just mad because they will not be getting a pay raise this session. No. 8, fearmongering. What a blast. No. 7, they might throw a collective tantrum and explode. No. 6, they are just stalling until they can get into the witness protection program. No. 5, responsibility? Why act responsible? No. 4, that Trojan horse thing. What a breakthrough in modern political communications. No. 3, forget that going from $4,800 per year to $6,700 per year is really an increase. Forget that. We have some really neat color pictures to show you. No. 2, with all their scary disguises they did not know Halloween was at the end of the month. And the No. 1 reason why liberals refuse to help us in our efforts to save Medicare from bankruptcy, well, that would actually mean caring about seniors instead of the next election.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of World War II, I want to honor an Arizona National Guard Unit, the 158th Regimental Combat Team [RCT] or ``Bushmasters'' as they called themselves, which fought in the Pacific campaigns. When the war ended, they had spent 4 years overseas, 312 days in combat, and suffered approximately 1,600 casualties in three campaigns. While they went unnoticed with the public, they were recognized by the Commander of the Army in the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur. The Bushmasters had earned three campaign streamers with two arrowheads, a Presidential unit citation, and the unending praise from General Douglas MacArthur. He proclaimed: ``No greater fighting combat team ever deployed for battle.'' Arizonans already knew what General MacArthur discovered about the Bushmasters because they were our soldiers. They were our husbands, our fathers, and our sons. They were citizen-soldiers who came from cities such as Phoenix and Tucson, from the many Indian Nations in Arizona, from the mining communities of eastern Arizona, from the timber and railroad towns up north, and from the ranch country in the south. Before World War II, the Bushmaster Regiment already had a colorful past. The unit charged up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders, secured the border when Poncho Villa raided the border towns, and fought in France during World War I. Arizonans had many reasons for joining the unit. Some of them joined for the camaraderie. Some joined because the unit was colorblind and it gave them dignity and equity that they did not have in civilian society. The unit had some of Arizona's more famous people come through its ranks, including the late Senator Carl Hayden and Pima Indian Chief Antonio Azul. When the Bushmasters reported for Federal service, they proved their value during the Louisiana maneuvers in 1940. The regimental commander Col. J. Prugh Hernadon, a bookkeeper from Tucson, tried a new form of communication with his radios. He had native American members of his unit transmit messages in their native languages to keep the enemy from intercepting their radio transmissions. The Bushmasters performed so well that the Army shipped them to the Panama Canal Zone shortly after Pearl Harbor was attacked. They were given the task of defending the canal from sabotage. A year later General MacArthur personally requested the Bushmaster Regiment to help him capture the island of New Guinea from the Japanese. In January, 1944, the 2d Battalion, under Lt. Col. Frederick Stofft of Tucson, were the first soldiers of the Bushmaster Regiment to enter combat. The Bushmasters developed a reputation for their fighting skills. In the Philippines Capt. Bayard W. Hart, a Cherokee Indian, and his men of Company G from Safford, AZ, were awarded the Presidential unit citation for capturing a Japanese gun emplacement without a loss of life to his men. In Dutch New Guinea, they beat the battle-hardened Japanese Tiger Marines. Shortly after the battle they became feared by their enemy. Japanese shortwave broadcasts referred to them as ``the butchers of the Pacific'' for the rest of the war. It was no surprise to the Bushmasters that they were selected to lead the assault of the invasion of Japan. When the war ended, the Bushmasters returned home to Arizona, going back to the lives they had known before the war. They may have come from different cultures, spoke different languages, and grown up in different traditions, but they fought for the values they all shared as Americans: freedom, democracy, and justice. Mr. Speaker, Americans can best remember their sacrifice by striving to live by those values that they were so willing to fight and die for.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, not at this time, I will not yield. The gentlewoman has had 5 minutes. I appreciate my amount of time. I will not yield to the gentlewoman at this time. I would be happy to debate her at a later time. So too have we had interesting interpretations, not only from the gentlewoman and indeed from almost all the folks over here on this side of the aisle, as to what is transpiring in terms of health care for all Americans, but especially health care for senior citizens. I listened with great interest as my friends on the other side continue to play the game of ``MediScare.'' As my colleagues know, we thought the big fiction time for reading, Mr. Speaker, was in the summer with those great big, thick paperback books. No, no. It is right now here in the fall with the blatant charges that are coming from the other side that are just filled with disinformation. With reference to the so-called spousal impoverishment statute, I would hope that Members on the other side would stand with us to rail against the greater source of spousal impoverishment and family impoverishment, and that is a confiscatory tax policy that penalizes for Americans for succeeding not only in this life, but from the grave. The same folks who voted to tax us retroactively maintain an estate tax that is absolutely confiscatory and punishes the very people we should be helping. Indeed our entire policy is this: ``If you succeed in this Nation, somehow you are to be punished.'' It is not fair. Why it is not fair that one works hard and succeeds. They ought to take that money and surrender it to the State.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy spending time of course in the Sixth District in Arizona, but I also enjoy returning to the well of this body to hear some very creative accounts of what has transpired here, and I appreciate my predecessor here in the well for offering her unique interpretation on events, but, as the Record will reflect, because I have done some checking specifically about the statue of the suffragettes that came to the floor as a unanimous-consent request, one Member, a new addition to this House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, stood in opposition citing the cost of $80,000 to $100,000. Now there are those in this body who say, ``Hey, it is no big deal. A little bit of money for a symbol; that's fine.'' I personally would like to see the statue brought up, but perhaps we ought to find some means of funding to remove the statue----

Mr. HAYWORTH. I will not yield at this juncture. I will continue my remarks, and the gentlewoman has had her time earlier. My colleagues heard it completely in the fiction that we will hear no doubt again from the other side today. It has been the greatest line. It is cited as a catechism even among the pollsters of the liberal news media who seek somehow to solidify something that is absolutely false. The other side will march to the well of this House and say that the new majority is trying to change Medicare to pay for a tax cut. That is just blatantly and totally false. The fact is the new majority worked very hard on a budget plan to bring this budget into balance within 7 years that paid for all of the tax reductions along the way. My colleagues, here is the big secret that somehow is not getting out. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the major news media outlets of this Nation to use this part of my remarks because it is the absolute truth, and it is what people are missing in this whole debate. If our budget were balanced today, right now, we would still have a problem with the Medicare trust fund. Members of both parties, three members of the President's own Cabinet, tell us that Medicare is going broke. We have to fix it, and something else that follows the school lunch fiction and all the other scare tactics. The fact is we are not cutting Medicare. We are reducing the rate of growth. The average expenditure per beneficiary rises almost 40 percent over the next 6 years, from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. So, it is not a cut, and to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and creative accounting from the other side almost defies imagination. I say to my colleagues, apply it in everyday terms to your own life. Your son or daughter comes to you asking for an allowance. I use an example from my own. My oldest daughter, going from junior high to high school, wanted an allowance increase from $5 a week. I felt in a sense of parental largesse we double it to $10 a week. Now because I did not give her $15, Mr. Speaker, she wasn't yelling that it was a cut of $5. She got a real increase. So, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, listen closely to the charges. They are without foundation. It is the MediScare tactics of the past. Read the real record. Check the real numbers.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit, because it is not the concept of special interests per se; it is taking a special interest in the hard-working men and women who are risking their lives daily and making a decent and honorable living by mining this Nation's resources so that this Nation can continue to prosper. My friend from West Virginia came forward and offered some points that I think need to be addressed. No. 1, it is important to remember that in the western United States, for example, in Gila County, AZ, 97 percent of the land is under Federal control. Have there been problems in the past? Certainly. But the conference report provides rational, reasonable reform. Gone are the days when someone can file a patent and then take that land for nonmining purposes. We are getting rid of that. Mr. Speaker, do not be deceived. It is time to stand up for American jobs. It is time to recognize the reality that this Nation as a whole prospers when the mining industry and those working in that industry are allowed to continue to earn an honest day's wage. So that is the special interest I rise to defend, the hundreds, indeed, thousands, of hard-working men and women in the Sixth District of Arizona who will lose jobs if we file this moratorium and in essence hang up a sign on the western United States saying ``Closed for business.'' Because, rest assured, Mr. Speaker, if we do that, then we will sound the death knell for the mining industry in the western United States and we will send jobs out of this Nation to foreign shores. And instead of the dreaded corporate welfare, well, friends, we will have genuine welfare, as we make honest, law-abiding citizens wards of the State.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman brings to mind a program in Arizona, known by its acronym, WOW, Women Off Welfare, which employs many of the same notions that you describe in the program in your home district in Georgia. Let us hope for our society that we never go down the road where Government has grown so large, where it has taken over acts of kindness and charity to such a great degree that we denigrate those who would step forward through traditional notions or innovative notions of charity that offer perhaps the most elemental and the most significant contribution that can take place, one-on-one caring, not care-taking. For indeed as we see, who cares more about children? Their parents. Not someone employed by the Federal Government in Washington. I do not call into question a government employee's dedication. But it will never take the place of a parent's love, it will never take the place of mentoring that most parents can provide, and indeed as we confront a new century, it is important to note that Uncle Sam is our uncle, he is not to be big brother, nor is he to be Mother and Dad and surrogate family to the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, first, for purposes of rhetorical self-defense, and also to make sure the pages of the Congressional Record have some ring of truth, I am compelled to note for the Record that though I was recruited as right tackle at North Carolina State, I soon discovered myself left out. So, that is the first tale about football. But it is interesting to hear what you folks have seen in Georgia, and Michigan, and in Pennsylvania, and indeed I beg your indulgence for arriving a bit late, but we had the inaugural meeting of the----

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia would yield, yes, I am very familiar with the story of what transpired in San Luis and indeed would like to thank the Arizona Republic newspaper for bringing that story to such prominence to citizens of Arizona, and indeed, to the Nation. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] points up something that is very, very important here. Again, it is time to pause for a distinction, because implicit in what the gentleman says is the notion that a lot of people, whether they are citizens or not, would move to take advantage of what I believe to be misguided largesse of this Federal Government, and we need to make this distinction. Mr. Speaker, when we are here tonight speaking, we are not here to demonize those who come to these shores looking for a better life who follow the path of legal immigration, but it is summed up in the very description that I believe some people have almost become immune to hearing. It has become a catch phrase. Why do you think we call it illegal immigration? It is against the law. Therefore, it is incumbent upon this Congress to carry out the wishes of the American people, especially the people of the border States, and indeed nationwide, who see the fruits of their labor, their hard-earned money taken through what many would call confiscatory taxation policies and bestowed on folks who are not even citizens of the United States. Now, there can be a legitimate debate, and indeed, there is great diversity in this House, and there are many different philosophies, and there are those in this body who genuinely believe that it is the role of this government to be the charity of first resort. I think that is blatantly wrong. Some people have that idea. But even if we accept that idea, should not charity begin at home?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think it is very important, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, as Americans join us via C- SPAN to be part of this process, many folks have spoke about the intent of the new majority to consolidate some roles and to eliminate various cabinet level agencies. I was involved in an interview with a national magazine yesterday where the question was put to me saying, Well, you have yet to eliminate a cabinet level agency. We realize you are working very hard in the Commerce Department, and certainly there is great merit to the elimination and consolidation of some worthwhile programs, and ultimately the elimination of that cabinet level agency, but the question came from the journalist, why have you not done more? I think again, this cannot be stated enough, Mr. Speaker, to the American public. It is very difficult in the span of 9 or 10 months to reverse the inexorable trend of the previous 40 years. We are working very hard to reduce the size of government, to rein in waste in spending, to eliminate not only waste, fraud and abuse in a program like Medicare as we move to enact Medicare Plus and enact a better Medicare, and do that across the board in every area of this Federal Government, but it is a challenge that takes more than a few weeks.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a point made quite well by Marvin Olasky in his book, ``The Tragedy of American Compassion.'' Somewhere along the line in this country we decided that caretaking should be substituted for caring, and so engrained has it become in the subconscious of the body politic that it is pervasive almost to the point that we gauge caring by examples of caretaking through Federal largesse. Now, are we saying that people should just be cut off, tough luck? No, not at all. What we are saying is this: as we transform this welfare State into an opportunity society, we should take care to make sure that what we truly have is a safety net instead of a hammock. That is the challenge we face as we move to confront a new century, and as we engage in open and honest debate with those who may have a different point of view.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, because the vernacular of Washington, and especially the liberal press corps, has really taken over. Two years ago it was the notion of gridlock. Now it is the notion of a train wreck. It is important to note, just borrowing that phrase right now, that I believe, as our good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Hastert, has state so well, I believe the American people firmly have their train on the tracks toward lower spending, lower taxes, reshaping this to be a limited and effective government for the next century. With that train on the tracks, the challenge now exists in the executive branch for the President, who came on television in a brief 5-minute speech a few months ago, who again asserted the importance of a balanced budget, for the President to come along with us in a bipartisan fashion to move to balance this budget in 7 years. And if the President is willing to do that, and if the President is willing to come along with us in a bipartisan fashion, along with members of this minority, then the American people's train will stay on track. However, if others who cannot seem to part from an almost pathological need to spend more and more money, to make government larger and larger, if they cannot abandon those outmoded notions, then the responsibility for any wreck will be on them. [[Page H 9658]]

Mr. HAYWORTH. And you shan't during my time here. Although it is very good to listen to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, outline the parameters of very important legislation which passed this House overwhelmingly, and we look forward to seeing it enacted into law, and I realize quite often this is the function of State government. But when many highway projects were being completed when I was growing up, you would see that famous slogan, ``Your tax dollars at work.'' Mr. Speaker, I think it is just important for the American public, who has seen so much of its income, the American families have seen so much of their income, taken in taxation by this Government, to the point, as my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, pointed out a few moments ago, in 1948 the average family of four paid roughly 3 percent of its income to the Federal Government. By last year, almost one- quarter of the average family of four's income was surrendered to the Federal Government in terms of taxation. I believe the hardworking people of America need to know that oft times political advocacy here on the bank of the Potomac, rather than any charitable or philanthropic endeavor, is where their tax dollars were at work. Are we here to suffocate or strangle or silence public debate? Of course not; certainly not here in the well of this Congress, where we preserve everyone's right to have a diversity of opinion and to express that opinion. However, the point is, pure and simple, it is an inappropriate use of tax money for groups to come to this Congress and ask for the largesse which is the money of the American taxpayer, to take that money and go out and be involved in political campaigns, or to take that money and come back here to lobby in the halls of the Congress for yet more and more money.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield---- [[Page H 9657]]