J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, I think, for that athletic observation. [[Page H 7189]] Again we see and rejoice in the fact, Mr. Chairman, that good people can disagree on a variety of issues. Certainly there is disagreement on this issue this morning. I rise in strong opposition to the Hoyer amendment. As we observe, there is an important and oftentimes divisive debate in this country about the morality of abortion and the sanctity of human life. It is my strong conviction that elective abortion is the taking of innocent life. This amendment, however, goes far beyond the question of the legality of abortion. The Hoyer amendment seeks to make abortion a taxpayer- subsidized entitlement by allowing Federal employee health plans to provide abortion. Currently, 72 percent of Federal employee health care premiums are paid by the Federal Government. It is my belief that Congress has no right to forcibly compel taxpayers, many of whom share my strong beliefs of the rights of the unborn, to pay for elective abortions. Elective abortion is not health care. The Supreme Court has ruled that ``abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of human life.'' That finding was in 1980. I urge my colleagues, especially those with whom I have a philosophical disagreement on this issue, do not make elective abortion a federally funded entitlement. For that reason I would ask my colleagues to join with me in opposition and ultimately to defeat the Hoyer amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for this time to speak on behalf of his amendment and say with all due respect to my friend from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that, no, now is not the time for a prospectus. You see, Mr. Chairman, there has been a long period of time where prudent study could have been done of this building. And just to amplify what my friend from Tennessee said, the prospectus was never done during the course of this time to answer the most basic questions: How big this building was going to be; how much it would cost or even the exact location. Today we are hearing some information on this, and then we heard all about consolidation. My other friend from Maryland talked about the fact that it might save a billion dollars over the next 30 years. Mr. Chairman, we have had funding estimates on this consolidation. They have ranged from $500 million to $1.3 billion. The cost is now estimated at $810 million. Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize the word ``estimated.'' We do not know. The cost will probably go higher. Mr. Chairman, it is time for the FDA to perform its core mission. It does not need any further facilities. Yes to Duncan, no to Gilchrest.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] for yielding me time and welcome the opportunity to speak against the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The fact is, it is our constitutional prerogative to act at this juncture, because through the appropriations mechanism, we do have a chance to send a clear signal and to establish sound policy. Mr. Chairman, I rise to fully associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Idaho. Yes, the process can be reformed at some juncture, or [[Page H 7230]] refined I should say, but this is our opportunity to say ``no'' to the mysterious new air force of the BATF; to take a serious look at what has transpired in recent days; and to say enough is enough. It is time to rein in this agency and we do it through the appropriations mechanism.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the preceding speaker pooh-pooh the results of the House audit. My goodness, the most profound news to come out of this new Congress, another promise kept that showed by this audit what blatant disregard House officials had for common mathematics. Listen to this. Records were so inadequate and so incomplete that the auditors would not render an opinion on the reliability of the House's financial statements. This is the worst evaluation that an auditor can issue. The finance office in this institution under the previous rule processed $700 million a year in expenses and salaries using handwritten ledgers that the auditors cannot make sense out of. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this new majority with help from dedicated Members of the new minority will remake this institution in the image of the American people. Today the audit symbolizes another promise made, another promise kept, keeping our word and bond with the American people to get back to basics and get back to business.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, when I return home to the Sixth District of Arizona and visit with my constituents and talk to them about various issues confronting this body and this Nation, the question always arises: What are you in the Congress doing to take the lead? What differences have you made by example? Today in this Congress, we reaffirm one of those examples with the announcement of the privately conducted audit of this institution, the first ever, the first in its history finally being completed. Unfortunately, some of the worst fears of the American people have been confirmed with this report. Because you see, Price Waterhouse, the independent accounting firm with whom we contracted to do the audit, said that the records were so poorly kept that they could not even make an accurate assessment of the problem. What a terrible indictment of the old order, that this, the people's House, had fallen into such disrepair in terms of balancing the ledger books, in terms of keeping track of your money, that the independent accounting firm could not even issue any type of evaluation or accurate opinion. In accounting parlance the worst possible evaluation. The audit is rife with examples. The House Finance Office, an office which processes $700 million a year in salary and expense checks using handwritten ledgers to keep records. Here in the information age, as we brought the House of Representatives on line and on the Internet through Thomas, as we look to the technological advancements in the computer age, and still in this institution handwritten records. The opportunities for abuse were plentiful. The audit notes bills were paid late, appropriations limits ignored. Little accounting for the property and equipment belonging to this, the people's House, and with the computer program and the computer system that does exist, significant security problems. Now, be forewarned: It is almost impossible in the course of 6 or 7 months to take this institution and automatically put it on the right track. Certainly more remains to be done, and [[Page H 7156]] there may even be a period of time here where we are trying to move from these archaic, unrealistic accounting practices to a fair, honest, and open system. The hard work may still be ahead of us in correcting this as an institution. But I noted with great satisfaction that Members on both sides of the aisle stepped up unanimously I believe, if my math is correct and my recollection correct, to vote for a resolution approving of this audit and carrying on the business at hand. This morning, during the course of 1-minutes, one speaker had the audacity to pooh-pooh, I guess, just put down the audit process. I note with interest the Member voted for this resolution. I appreciate his commitment there. But the fact is that working together, Members of both parties must remake this institution in the image of the American people. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to that.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin to limit the use of funds for the acceptance and processing of mineral patent applications or the issuance of such patents by the Secretary of the Interior. The amendment before us does not merely continue the mineral patent moratorium in the fiscal year 1995, as we have been led to believe. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently opined that a valid mining claim is ``private property in the highest sense of the word.'' The action of the Secretary to grant title to a mining claim which is supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit and for which all other requirements of law have been met is not discretionary. Rather, it is ministerial. I oppose the present patent moratorium, but at least the present moratorium recognized the prevalent court rulings. The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is clearly an infringement on these private property rights. The amendment of my friend from Wisconsin invites a flood of takings litigation by those applicants recognized in last year's bill to have met last year's requirements and for which the Secretary was not barred from spending funds to process or issue mineral patents. The Department's records as of last fall indicated some 388 applications for mineral patents were so vested. This amendment could subject our Government to expensive litigation and a staggering takings liability. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, this will have a chilling effect on mining companies and on folks who have claims and are filing for the patents. It in essence is a job killer. What we are doing here today is working to create jobs in the private sector, because these jobs are not Republican jobs or Democrat jobs or liberal jobs or conservatives jobs; they are jobs for the people of this country. I stand up and say yes to jobs, and no to the amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coburn amendment to restore $52.5 million to the Office of Indian Education. As I noted during debate on the Obey amendment last week, over a century ago the United States entered into treaties with many native American Indian tribes. My congressional district contains portions of eight sovereign Indian nations, including the Navajo Nation, America's largest reservation. Although I would prefer restoring the entire $80 million cut from this important program, I am grateful for the opportunity to restore a good portion of these funds. I believe that if this amendment should fail to be adopted, Congress would be reneging on an important promise made to native American children. I hope that my colleagues will join me in keeping our treaty obligations by supporting the Coburn amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 1995, our friend, Mr. Medicare, will turn 30 years old. His trustees recently told him that he is very sick, but he knows that if he just changes some of his habits, he might be able to survive. Let us take a look at some of his birthday cards. Here is one: ``Dear Mr. Medicare: We're very sorry to hear you will be dead in 7 years. We can't help find a cure because we're focusing all of our efforts on misleading the public about your illness. Sincerely, the Democrat caucus.'' Here is another: ``Dear Mr. Medicare: We hope you're feeling better and are assured that we are doing everything we can to help find a cure for your sickness. Especially considering all the people that you help, we believe it is vitally important that you are around for years to come. Working hard for your future, the Republican conference.'' Mr. Speaker, it is obvious which card gives comfort to Mr. Medicare and all the people he helps.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I look around this Chamber and as I think about the promises in January, the notion was to come here and to end business as usual, and that is in fact the intent of many of us in this Congress. Ofttimes it involves reaching across the aisle, listening to different arguments, and basing our support or our opposition not on previous partisan labels, but taking a look and carefully examining the problems one by one. That is why I am pleased to stand in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I represent a large portion of the Navajo Nation, that sovereign nation within the Sixth District of Arizona and reaching beyond the borders of Arizona to several other States. I am mindful of the fact that in our treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation, we have a variety of promises that were made well over a century ago. Now, I stand here in support of this amendment not to criticize my friends on this side of the aisle, who believe we can look for other sources of funding, but, instead, to underline the importance of upholding these treaty obligations and looking to educate the children of the native American tribes, for it is a sacred obligation we have, and it is a proper role of the Federal Government to move in that regard. So, for that reason, again, I stand in strong support of the amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] and his constituent, it is precisely because we are thinking of people like Herb and people like my 91-year-old granddaddy who is happy to have Medicare, that the new majority is pleased to say we [[Page H 6836]] will be raising benefits for Medicare recipients over the years from $4,800 in 1995 to $6,700 in 2002. I say to my colleagues, Look closely. The figures don't lie. The math is here. Believe the real math and not the new math of alleged school lunch cuts and all the other politics of fear being propagated by the guardians of the old order who always play upon the politics of envy instead of having the vision for the future this American nation needs.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we have heard it again this morning. The gentlewoman from Connecticut brings it up. The only change the guardians of the old order want to make is to change the name from Medicare to Mediscare. They are intent on scaring senior citizens, despite the report of the Medicare Trustees that tell us that Medicare goes broke over the next few years if we fail to do anything. The new majority is committed to governing this Nation, is committed to saving Medicare, and, yes, is committed to a variety of alternatives. Far be it from the fear tactics of one-size-fits-all with one type of tactic to use. We want to broaden the options, to save Medicare for future generations, because our responsibility to govern allows us to do nothing less.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ, the top 10 reasons Democrats want to tie up the House with procedural votes today: (10) Build up voting percentage. (9) Journal vote important to the American people. (8) Like to work hard at nothing all day. (7) Manufactured rage makes me smile. (6) They say they are not for sale. What they won't say is nobody's buying their line anyway. (5) We don't want to work. We just want to bang on this gavel all day. (4) Monday Night TV is just reruns anyway. (3) Holding breath until blue in the face doesn't work. (2) Bonior told them to. And the number one reason Democrats want to tie up the House with procedural votes today: (1) They have fallen and they can't get up.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, and I thank the ruling of the Chair, and I thank my friend who is the whip on the other side. I would also point out that what is past is prologue. That is written across the forum in the National Achieves, and it is true. The fact is, and this is absolutely germane, not since 1923 has the majority party enjoyed less than 60 percent of the seats on the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, with the addition of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] we are at 59 percent. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely germane to realize this fact. There is a new majority exercising the will of the American people. Get over it. Help us govern.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely fascinating to listen to the guardians of the old order, the new minority, espouse a form of institutional amnesia. I may not have been here in previous Congresses, but thanks to C- [[Page H 6720]] SPAN and thanks to the history books, we can take a look and we can see what happened time and again in this Chamber. Debate was shut up. People were stifled. We had a decision that existed that was egregious. point of order

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I think what we saw on November 8 of last year was the American people saying, ``Let us open the windows of this Congress, let us reform this Congress; yes, perhaps in revolutionary style, but also in a rational style. Let us have common sense returned to Government.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what this legislation will do. By innovation we will be able to streamline and correct problems, outmoded regulations, outmoded laws, find a vehicle to restore rationality, and that is why I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to stand here in strong support of the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ, Bill Clinton's top 10 reasons for proposing a balanced budget: No. 10, Hillary: Out of town. No. 9, I did what? No. 8, time to really tick off Gephardt. No. 7, sneaking suspicion that Republicans have been right all along. No. 6, tired of being irrelevant. No. 5, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. No. 4, only way to get networks to cover him. No. 3, ploy to get David Obey to join his fan club. No. 2, too much McDonald's coffee. And the No. 1 reason Bill Clinton proposed a balanced budget: Newt envy.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, this morning the silence is deafening. Only 2 members of the new minority, with over 200 members in their ranks, only 2 members of the new minority stood here in the well of the House to champion the President's effort to balance the budget. Let me again repeat what the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Appropriations told both the Associated Press and ABC News: I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don't like the President's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks . . . If you can follow this White House on the budget, you're a whole lot smarter than I am. So spoke the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Small wonder then that I refer to my friends on this side of the aisle as guardians of the old order. We welcome the President's efforts, but as our own leadership said, this train left the station, and he is making a vain attempt now to latch on to the caboose.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule. Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on House Oversight; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, we can say this tonight in the wake of the President's speech. He says now he wants a balanced budget. Let him work with us to achieve it in 7 years instead of a decade hence.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what I believe the American people want is not only civility in political discourse but straight answers. It is borne out in the frustration of an unrepentent liberal, the ranking member on the minority side of appropriations, who says of his party's own standard-bearer, and again this bears repeating, for those who have just joined us, according to the Associated Press, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Dave Obey, ``I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don't like the President's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks.'' That is reflective of a frustration born of a failure of this administration to rest comfortably with the mantle of leadership upon its shoulders. Now, good people can change their minds from time to time on the issues. But I believe my friend from Georgia will bear me out, as he visits his district there along the beautiful Georgia coast, the fact is that people are highly suspicious when public policy is predicated on the prevailing winds akin to a weather vane.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not care to speculate on the society status or where one might go on in terms of policy formulation at the White House, but I do find it curious that those members of the former majority, those guardians of the old order who would accuse the new majority of governance by polls find themselves tonight foisted upon a new pole, the Chief Executive finding now that the American public does want to see a semblance of fiscal responsibility. The reason I use the term ``semblance'' is because, once again, the President says, well, it would be nice to have a balanced budget but let us not do it in 7 years, no, no, let us stretch it out over a decade, over 10 years. Now, by my calendar, as I check it, and the gentleman from Georgia perhaps can bear me out on this, that would be the year 2005. In the interim, according to the Medicare trustees report, which three of the President's own cabinet officers signed, Secretaries Reich and Rubin and Shalala, the Medicare trust fund goes broke in 6 years. The fear I have, even as I welcome the President, albeit late to the table and to the recognition of the necessity of reducing the growth of the size of government, is, again, an inability to own up to the stark reality we face. And I cannot fathom why that is.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we will continue the colloquy, as I enjoy the comments of the gentleman from Georgia and appreciate the enlightening nature of the same. It is curious tonight, again, to see this sea change from the White House. And again, reminiscent of that children's song----

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, for yielding to me. I think it is very important, in the wake of the Presidential address, to go on the record as the new majority party at a historic moment in our history to say that we welcome the President, albeit better later than never, finally owning up to the task of leadership and perhaps reading the polls and seeing that the American public does, indeed, want its politicians, no matter their party affiliation, to work toward a balanced budget. But even as we welcome the President's constructive move, I know my friend from Georgia will be surprised when he hears that the harshest criticism, according to the wires of the Associated Press, Mr. Speaker, the harshest criticism comes from the ranking House Democrat on appropriations. Let me quote what our friend, Mr. Obey, the Democrat of Wisconsin says about the President and tonight's exercise. I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don't like the President's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks. Now, let me hasten, Mr. Speaker, and my good friend from Georgia, Mr. Kingston, to again reinforce the fact that the words are not ours. They come from the President's own side of the aisle. Indeed, those who bemoan the rise in partisanship and who continually talk of gridlock would do well to remember tonight that the harshest criticisms, again, comes from the President's own party, those defenders of the statute quo who have yet to meet a Government program they do not like, who have yet to meet a tax increase they do not like. And even as the President talks of tax cuts, again, he always qualifies those comments by talking of the middle class or the working class. [[Page H5899]] I know the gentleman from Georgia remembers the State of the Union Message where the President stood here behind us at the podium just in front of the Speaker's rostrum and offered a very curious type of family tax cut for families making only $75,000 a year, so a family making $76,000 a year I guess did not qualify as a working family, but also perhaps the gentleman from Georgia remembers the curious provision of what the President talked about at that time. Do you remember what that was? It was this, that the tax cut would only apply to children before the age of 13. So, in short, the President's idea back in January was to penalize anyone who succeeded who made over $75,000 a year and not only to penalize people who succeed but to penalize their children for growing up.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it was nice to see the President sit beside the Speaker of the House and agree that the Medicare trust fund has serious problems that need to be fixed before it goes broke by the year 2002. It was encouraging to see the President agree that Medicare cannot survive under the status quo--that changes are necessary to preserve, protect, and save Medicare. But Mr. Speaker, where are the President's ideas? Where are his solutions? Where are the ideas of my liberal Democrat colleagues in the House? It is easy to stand around and talk [[Page H5778]] about a problem, but it takes real leadership to actually work to solve a problem. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are showing leadership by producing real solutions to the real problems facing Medicare today. If the Clinton Democrats want to be relevant, I say it is time to put up or shut up. It is time to act responsibly and offer solutions, not criticisms.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, like so many other Americans, I listened with great interest Sunday afternoon to the dialog between the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Hampshire. I believe that for the most part, it reaffirmed an observation that I have made on this floor many times, that good people can disagree. I think there are candidly some profound points of disagreement. But there was one characterization from the President with which I take issue and I thought I would share with you today. During the course of his remarks, the President characterized the new majority in this House as isolationists. Let me humbly suggest that there is nothing isolationist about putting legitimate American interests first on the world stage. Indeed, our foreign policy should be one that operates under the principle of enlightened self-interest, working together with the international community, through the United Nations, not to place some international creed in a position of preeminence to American policy but to work in concert with other nations, understanding full well our role in the world community as indeed perhaps the world's lone remaining superpower. I thought the Speaker was very gracious in characterizing the President's efforts in many ways. I think quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is a tribute to our fighting men and women that they can take on missions of great difficulty, such as the one in Haiti, when in essence our fighting men and women were called upon to be social workers in olive drab. They were placed in harm's way not to defend the legitimate interest of the United States but to try and referee a potentially explosive situation. I thought the Speaker put it succinctly when he described the difficulty in the Bosnian theater confronting the U.N. peacekeeping force. As the Speaker pointed out, military troops are not introduced into a theater to become hostages. They are there to free hostages. They should be there to liberate, not to find themselves enslaved. Indeed, I believe it was that great internationalist President and that great war leader Dwight David Eisenhower who recognized the reality of operating in an international setting within the international community but also said, and it was reflected in his actions in the White House, that we should define our legitimate self-interests. I applaud the fact that a young pilot, Captain O'Grady, is back out of harm's way. I applaud the efforts once again of our Armed Forces to free him. But again putting Americans in harm's way is not the answer to the problem. Mr. Speaker, lest there are some who think this is a partisan harangue, let me pause at this juncture to welcome what I believe to be the bipartisan initiative of one of my preceding speakers this morning, the gentleman from Maryland, who once again renewed his call for a lifting of the arms embargo in Bosnia. For in the final analysis, it is the oppressed who must rise against the oppressor to fight for freedom. In the final analysis, it is the legitimate national self-interests of others that help define their place in the world. Again, I take issue with the notion that it is somehow isolationist or xenophobic to always insist that the United States should execute its foreign policy with its legitimate national interests preeminent in the formulation of same.