J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would join with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, in all well wishes to the Houston Rockets, and also really to the Orlando Magic, because cheering the NBA finals we are going to see some great basketball. Also during the finals we will hear terms like air ball and slam dunk. These terms can also apply to what is happening right here in Washington. The new Republican majority is a slam dunk on the liberal establishment and the bloated Federal bureaucracy. The new Congress wants to deliver a facial on deficit spending. On the other hand, President Clinton's administration is an air ball. Every time the President tries to show leadership, he is throwing up a brick. The latest example is his threatened veto of the rescission bill. In his first veto Bill Clinton will cut off funds to flooding victims in Missouri, earthquake victims in California, and those who suffered as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. Mr. Speaker, instead of constantly throwing up air balls, Bill Clinton should pass the ball to the team who will not choke when the going gets tough.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, once again the distinguished minority leader has given us ample evidence as to why my friends on the other side of the aisle will remain in the minority. I am sorry I did not blow up this picture as did the distinguished minority leader, but I have here a picture of my three children. My oldest daughter is Nicole. She is preparing to go to Arizona State University and Nicole is very interested in getting a student loan. But Nicole is happy to step up and pay an extra 68 cents a day if it will help us restore fiscal sanity in this country. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, again I appeal to you, please quit trying to play this baseless class warfare game. Put your shoulder to the wheel and help us govern, because this is not about redistribution of wealth, this is about saving a republic from fiscal disaster, and it is incumbent upon all of us to answer this clarion call to save this country, including students willing to pay an additional 68 cents a day because that is the average they would pay in an increase on their student loan.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I will lay aside my prepared remarks this morning to answer my good friend the gentleman from California. It never ceases to amaze me how the guardians of the old order who were here as part of an incredible corrupt regime during the former majority are so willing to hop on the Speaker and his positive agenda for change. With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, why do you not join with us to put your shoulder to the wheel and govern this Nation? We have the majority. Get over it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding time to me. I thank my friends on the other side of the aisle who brought forth this amendment. I listened with interest to my good friend from Utah thanking the distinguished minority leader for the time to bring this to the floor. I am sorry the minority leader had to leave the floor so quickly because I believe inherent in any question of policy is the question of process. So I find it very curious that it is widely speculated upon in the press that the distinguished minority leader will not vote for the budget plan which bears his own name. Perhaps there will be some late-breaking developments in this case, but I find it incredibly interesting that so bereft of ideas is the other side of the aisle that the minority leader, in final summation of the arguments, will not vote for this budget plan and indeed, despite the valiant efforts of our friends who are blue dogs, they are truly blue dogs today, in all respect I say that, because so many Members of their own party will abandon them.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann budget because our national debt will exceed $7 trillion by the year 2002. What does this mean in human terms? I, too, have a picture, his lifetime, if nothing changes, John Micah will pay over $180,000 in interest alone on the national debt. This is wrong. This uncontrolled spending must stop. Those who are addicted to deficit spending claim to be protecting groups such as children and senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, how can someone who is willing to suffocate our kids with our debts pretend to represent them? How will tomorrow's children be able to afford to go to college or buy a home if they are forced to pay for this excessive spending? How is someone who is willing to bankrupt programs for seniors pretend to be protecting them? How do the American people benefit if we reject this last, best chance to put our fiscal house in order? Mr. Chairman, I say, support the Neumann budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ, the President's top 10 excuses for not offering a credible balanced budget alternative: Ten, pollsters told me not to; nine, don't worry, be happy; eight, the flowers are blooming, the sun is shining--who can think about budgets in the spring; seven, what's a couple trillion dollars between friends?; six, distracted by the start of the baseball season; five, I've fallen and I can't get up; four, contract-fatigue; three, those darn Republicans have taken all the good ideas; two, when the going gets tough, stick your head in the sand. And the President's No. 1 excuse for not offering his own credible balanced budget alternative: The dog ate my budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ-- here are the top 10 tactics of the new minority in the postcontract period. No. 10. Change the name of ``Medicare'' to ``Mediscare''; No. 9. Hire Freddy Krueger as the new liberal Democrat spokesman; No. 8. Get Leon Panetta to take likeability lessons; No. 7. Set up a new political action committee--the ``Whine producers''--w-h-i-n-e; No. 6. Insist that it is relevant to carp, complain, and sit on the sidelines instead of offering policy alternatives; No. 5. Put an ostrich ranch here on the Hill to mimic the practice of putting heads in the sand to hide from problems; No. 4. Insist that a bigger Federal Government is the only way to meet any challenge; No. 3. Get the Department of Education to change the name of ``addition'' to ``subtraction''; No. 2. Revise history to say the credibility gap was a good thing; And the No. 1 postcontract tactic of the new minority--grouse, grouch, grumble, and mumble--do anything but cooperate.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of my colleague from Colorado, and would propose to offer to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that we see another sterling, yes, even a textbook example of why there is a new minority in the Congress of the United States on that side of the aisle. It is fascinating to listen to this almost instant revisionism of history, socialism for the wealthy. Well, that is a very interesting point of view, and I guess in terms of playground name calling, that certainly may have some validity in a nonsensical sort of way. One analog that does pertain, however, is the notion of the American family being put into a cage. The American family has been enslaved, but it has been enslaved by those proponents of big Government who believe that always there must be tax increases, that always people need to take out their wallets and give more and more money to Washington. And the facts speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that in 1948 the average American family sent 3 percent of its income, the average American family of four paid 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government. And yet by 1994, on the heels of the largest tax increase in American history, the average American family paid 24.5 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government. And this was not class warfare, this is virtually everybody, with a quantum leap in what they had to pay to the Federal Government. And now, fresh on the heels of a nonsensical, dishonest school lunch scare program, the new minority, the guardians of the old order, are trying to scare seniors and students. The fact is that we are not taking away student loans of the new majority, but it is also the fact if we do nothing, if we allow the status quo to persist, there may not be university systems, there may not be a constitutional Republic in 5 to 10 years to have a worthy educational system to begin with. To those who would always use the scare tactics about school lunches and claim cuts when there are increases, let me simply say this: The fact is we have to make responsible choices. The fact is that even in increasing funding or changing the method of supplying funding to give the money to people on the front lines, we are transforming what is done. We are making programs more effective to ensure that we may save them. And no clearer tactic or example can we see than in the realm of Medicare, where in fact my colleague, the preceding speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado, tried to scare seniors and claim there are cuts. Friends, we are making rash on America reasonable increases to save the Medicare Program. We are not making cuts. That is what we must do: make responsible choices, not come in and carp and complain and hope against hope that somehow in November 1996, the voters of America will return to a bankrupt policy of always and constant growth of Government.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5- minute rule: the Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on International Relations; and the Committee on Veterans Affairs. It it my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, liberal Democrats have taken to this floor to decry, accuse, condemn, denounce, declaim, vilify, incriminate, fulminate, remonstrate, deprecate, and attack any plan to balance our budget. For some reason, they see no need to balance our budget. We have to make changes. Despite all the carping from the other side, our friends on this side offer no alternatives. They offer no solutions. They offer no plan. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Republican majority introduced a plan to balance our budget in 7 years. There is no longer any excuse not to balance the budget. We have exhausted all the old methods. All of the old big government ideas have been tried and found wanting and found lacking. for the liberals to come to this floor with their hot air about class warfare is nothing short of irresponsible. The American people are tired of excuses. They want this Congress to balance the budget. Republicans will do this, with or without the carping and crying of the liberal Democrats.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the attention of my colleagues words from the Mesa Tribune in March of this year. Mark Flatten and Chris Coppola write the article. ``In Arizona, sewage must be treated to drinking quality standards before discharged so that it won't harm phantom fish in a dry river.'' The passage points up the challenge we face, the absurdity of regulation run amuck. For that reason, I stand in opposition to the amendment and in strong support of H.R. 961. I have good friends who sponsor this amendment. I have no doubt to the nobility and the aim and the intent of the amendment. Here is my problem, colleagues. It seems to me that though the amendment is born of a noble impulse, it assumes the worst about duly elected representatives at the State level. In other words, the assumption is that our friends in the State legislatures, that our friends in local and county government cannot move effectively to solve problems on their own. Indeed, the overwhelming sentiment and the underlying philosophy of the first 100 days of this new Congress was this concept: That those on the front lines can best fight the battles. I am pleased to hear of the strides here on the East Coast. I am pleased to hear of the improvements, and indeed no one in this body, I believe, disputes the notion of the need a quarter century ago to stop and take stock of pollution and move toward meaningful conservation. But the problem comes, as I see it, in making the Federal Government always the instrument, and indeed making the unelected the final arbiters of what measures should be taken. With that, I oppose the amendment, and I stand in strong support of H.R. 961.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5- minute rule. The Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on International Relations; the Committee on Resources; the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, there are some things going on here in Washington the American people really ought to know about. Members of President Clinton's Cabinet have raised some very serious questions about the long-term health of Medicare. A report by the Medicare trustees concludes that Medicare will begin losing money next year and could become insolvent by the year 2001, and, by the way, this Medicare board includes Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, Labor Secretary Robert Reich, and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Now, last Friday, the Speaker of the House wrote the President expressing his concerns over this matter and communicated a willingness to work together on a solution, but the news about Medicare has apparently fallen on deaf ears at the White House and on this side of the House because the Speaker's letter is being dismissed with the usual class-warfare rhetoric. In fact, Leon Panetta suggested the White House will do nothing to help fix Medicare. This is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. Medicare is going broke and all the White House can offer up is class-warfare rhetoric. This shows a total avoidance of responsibility and a lack of respect to older Americans who expect leadership from Washington, and not excuses, not class- warfare.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time this morning, and I in many ways endorse what the preceding speaker, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] had to say. I was listening with great interest this morning to my fellow newcomer, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and indeed at the outset of her remarks I would endorse fully that no one, no one in this Chamber, would ever endorse the acts of violence, the unspeakable acts against those in Oklahoma City. History points a way for us, it compels us, it offers lessons, and at this juncture in human history, at this juncture in the history of this proud Republic, I believe it is important for all of us to remember the admonition of that great and good man, Dwight David Eisenhower, who led the most powerful army ever assembled in the free world against the most onerous and evil regime in human history. Eisenhower, when he stepped onto the beach at Normandy following the waves of invasion, noted that it was impossible to walk a step without stepping on dead or decaying human flesh, such was the magnitude of destruction there, and yet following the war's completion and the restoration of peace, when Dwight Eisenhower answered a clarion call to serve this Republic as its Chief Executive, he made some very valid points regarding political battles. To paraphrase Ike, he said, ``Always believe the best of your political adversaries. Always assume that they, too, want what is best for the American people and yet move in a different direction under a different philosophy to bring about their desired results.'' I think those words are incredibly important for us to remember as we again come into this Chamber, the site of so much of our history. Let us note once again that good people may agree to disagree. Let us not impugn the motives of those duly elected by their respective districts to offer a point of view as we move to achieve a consensus. But by the same token, and perhaps it is somewhat ironic because, after all, the political process is the vehicle which brings us here. Let us never confuse dissent with hatred. Let us never politicize such a tragic event as the one that occurred in Oklahoma City in hopes of increasing our number for either side of the aisle. Let us truly join together in debate that is, yes, oft times contentious, but always with the knowledge of the inherent wisdom of what Dwight Eisenhower said, that good people may disagree. And I noted with some concern this morning the seeming implication that there was silence from this side, that there was an endorsement of violence, and, if I mistook the remarks, then I would stand corrected. But let us all avoid the temptation to politicize this dark chapter in American history, and let those who are working amidst the rubble in Oklahoma City to rebuild lives, to revitalize their community, let them stand as an example to the overwhelming goodness that is ours in this constitutional republic. To the people of Oklahoma City and to the people of the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, I say, Let us rejoice in this process of representative democracy that allows us to peacefully state our differences.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, for the last generation the governing principle here in Washington, especially here in the Congress, was always, above all, make government bigger. We now see the consequences of this ridiculous principle, almost $5 trillion national debt, bloated, inefficient government, failed welfare state, obsessive regulation, and some of the highest taxes in history. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrat leadership claims that we Republicans misread the message of last November. They claim Americans really do not want a tax cut, they do not want term limits, they really do not want to balance the budget. But, Mr. Speaker, it is the liberal Democrats who have misread the message of last November, because, you see, the Contract With America is not about Republicans, it is about the American people. The American people want an end to the out-of- control growth of a Federal Government, they want safer neighborhoods, they want lower taxes, they want a secure future for their children. That is what our contract is all about. It is not really all that complicated. The new governing principle in this Nation is not what benefits the Government but what benefits the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the preceding speaker on one matter: There is a circus and it is not the Ringling Brothers outside; the circus came to town 40 years ago with my liberal brethren on the other side of the aisle, still dealing with hocus-pocus of the speaker when we know that Senator Mosely-Braun of Illinois introduced all these little sleight-of-hand documents here. Let us talk about the rhetoric and the clowns. Those are folks who come forth making claims so outlandish regarding school lunches and school loans they would be funny if they were not so pathetic. Then you have the real acrobats. Those are the Members who talk about deficit reduction but then acting another way to spend our grandchildren's money without shame. They could be the real contortionists. Then you have the tightrope walkers; those are Members who balance precariously between what the voters want, which is lower taxes and lower spending, and then you have what the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party wants, which is higher taxes and more spending. Mr. Speaker, there is one real difference between Ringling Brothers and the liberal Democratic leadership: At least the real circus out front is entertaining.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my friends, the liberals on the other side of the aisle, and they do some very creative writing as we just heard from the preceding speaker. As we begin to debate this issue of tax cuts, I think it is important to keep one fact uppermost in our minds: Those who send their hard- earned money to Washington did not cause this deficit. Those liberal big spenders who sat and dominated this Chamber for so long, those are the folks who caused this deficit. It is an obvious but overlooked point. So when the liberals say they cannot afford to cut taxes, what they are really saying is they will not cut spending. This whole debate is evidence of a disturbing mind-set on the part of the liberals from the other side of the aisle which assumes all the money in America belongs to this Government and that this Government needs the money much more than America's families. Friends, it is the American people who need tax relief. They have been tightening their belts for years while the Government has continued its big-spending ways. Mr. Speaker, it is time the taxpayer got a break, and it is time this Government tightened its belt.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let us resist the temptation of the guardian of the failed policy of the past to come up here and offer faulty rationalizations for class warfare. Let us talk real facts. And, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. In 1950 the average American family paid 2 percent of its income to the Federal Government in taxes. Today, the average American family pays 24\1/2\ percent of its income to this Federal Government. Something is wrong with this picture. For the last generation, this Congress has operated under the false assumption that all money belongs to the Federal Government. If a person has any money, therefore, it is only because he has obtained it from the Government or it is money that has not yet been taxed. That is absolutely wrong. With the rise in excessive government and excessive taxes have come a true decrease in freedom. Every dollar Government takes away in taxes is a dollar less in economic freedom for American businesses and families. Last November the American people sent a message to this town. Republicans heard that message. That is why there will be meaningful tax reform for deserving American citizens.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Twenty-two.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from Ohio has noted, as many of us have, during the course of these first 100 days, that indeed many folks who walk to the chamber in fact become walking advertisements for term limits, walking examples of the reasons why we should enact them. Let me pause here to make a distinction because I also want to point out that good people can disagree and no doubt others will follow us in the chamber, making distinctions of conscience, of conviction, but we abhor the gamesmanship that was played during the course of this debate, really spurning the notion of what the will of the people might be.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It has been very interesting to listen to the debate, and I would associate myself in full with the remarks of the gentleman from California who preceded you in the well. But, Madam Speaker, it was very interesting earlier tonight to hear one of our friends on the other side talk about the ship Contract with America listing and creaking and the bow breaking and all these terrible things. Amazingly, and undoubtedly since so many members of the media in this town work in complicity with those on the left, I just think they have missed the story. The fact is that we pledged to bring 10 items to the floor for an up or down vote. And even though there is disappointment tonight, as my friend from Ohio mentions, the fact is there is cause for jubilation because now we have enjoined the dialogue. And coming from a State in which the major city is named Phoenix, I assure the American people tonight, Madam Speaker, that this issue will again rise from the ashes.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Oregon offered us a scriptural admonition this morning. She quoted the words of Jesus Christ, ``Suffer the little children and let them come unto me.'' No interpretation, no translation of that scripture have I seen that ever said, ``Let them go unto a Federal Government.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a simple fact, liberal Democrats oppose changing this welfare state. It suits them just fine. They created it, and they have supported it since the 1960's. Despite the overwhelming evidence that welfare has played a major role in the breakdown of American society, liberal Democrats continue their love affair with this failed system. They seem willing to do anything to defend this failed welfare state, including a curious inability to properly count wholesale distortion of facts and shameful name-calling. Mr. Speaker, the good news today is that the liberal Democrats' days are numbered. They no longer have a monopoly over this Congress, and their pals in the media can count fewer and fewer followers. The only refuge now for these liberal Democrats is the bureaucracy, but even this will not escape the glare of public scrutiny. The American people have grown tired of seeing this Federal Government become the charity of first resort. Today we will have meaningful welfare reform.