J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the rule on H.R. 1214 and I support passage of this legislation. I do, however, want to express my concern with the Rules Committee failure to make in order an amendment which would have reaffirmed our Nation's obligation to American Indian communities. A bipartisan amendment, offered by Resources Chairman Don Young, would have set aside 3 percent of appropriations for block grants to native American communities. This amendment was important because it would have recognized the unique nature of the Federal Government's relationship with native American tribes. My concern is that direct block grants to the States may adversely affect tribes for two reasons: One, States do not have the same obligations to tribes that the Federal Government has; and two, some tribes, like the Navajo Nation, cross State borders and would have to petition more than one State for funding. The Young amendment would have addressed this concern, and I regret that it was not made in order. leaders that, although the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order, our bipartisan efforts to secure protections in H.R. 1214 for native Americans will continue.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Sure.

Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] is absolutely right. And what we have done is we have taken an uncle, Uncle Sam, and not even plugged him as a surrogate father. Instead, we have made him Big Brother in Orwellian fashion, in 1994 instead of 1984. And now, 1995, we have a significant segment of a once-proud political party engaged in Orwellian newspeak and the tactics of fear, saying that opportunity is somehow perverse, saying that work and responsibility, while giving a rhetorical tip of the cap to those virtues but maintaining that it is the government that is the sole generator of same, and I do not believe that we have seen for those, and I know you have run across people like this. I think one of the throw-away lines we encounter from time to time is, ``There is not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties.'' I would beg to differ a great deal. But the irony will be we will see a number of fair-minded Democrats come with us because, as we have seen on other items in this Contract, when you get away from the smoke and mirrors, when you get away from the Orwellian newspeak, when you get away from the tragedy of a once- proud party now bereft of new ideas, indeed one publication on the Hill said of the Deal plan that the leadership of the other side grudgingly accepted that as an alternative.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I wish we could say that in every circumstance in every human endeavor things will change for the better, but I think that would be both practically and intellectually dishonest. We harbor no delusions that this is a perfect plan. But we have seen the height of imperfection and the notion of tragedy born of the last 30 years of so- called compassion. To spend in excess of $5 trillion, and understand we are just approaching that in terms of our national debt, and that in itself is a tragedy, but to spend in excess of $5 trillion on programs noble in their intent, since we should always assume the best of those with whom we disagree, but to have them fail so completely. As has often been noted during the course of this debate, if you were going to declare war on the American family, on responsibility, on our very fabric as a society, you could not have done better than the so- called war on poverty, because it, in essence, changed the scope of how we react as a society; and it took away the notion that for every right there is a responsibility. Indeed, it seems that now the defenders of the old order would say, ``I am, therefore I am entitled,'' instead of, ``I understand as an American that I have rights and those rights are coupled with responsibilities and my rights stretch only as far as the rights of another, and it is my responsibility not to infringe on another's rights.'' Instead, now we have a situation where the working poor and those who are not classified in the working poor, those who are fortunate enough to prosper in this society, many who come to this Nation from other shores legally to live the American dream, find themselves paying and paying and paying into this system.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Between the University of Kentucky and Arizona State. Much to his delight, much to my chagrin. But it really brings forth a description of both that basketball tournament and I believe it is safe to say what has transpired here in the halls of the Congress, and that is March madness that is really without parallel. I during the course of their 35-minute special order enlist the help of one of their aides, and I am not here to demean that aide in any ways, but I thought it was very interesting, a scroll that was festooned about his person, I suppose in documentation of the working poor, and I would salute the working poor, indeed we are holding them up and championing their efforts. I listened with interest to the gentlelady from Ohio, but I could not help but notice the similarity of that gentleman working to provide that visual aid, if you will. And instead of really offering stirring testimony to the working poor, it really resembled someone wearing a bed sheet as a ghost as if this were Halloween, and I could not help notice the parallels because this is what it has come down to, a debate from the other side largely devoid of fact, filled with sentiment, much of it heartfelt, but also much of it, I would say, calculated, designed, to scare everyone in America; first the elderly, then the working poor, and now the children. Children have been used in this debate as pawns in the political process, teachers requesting that students write letters not born of any heartfelt philosophical viewpoint on the part of the young students, but born of an indoctrination of a failed liberal state. Again I want to say we are not here to demonize those who are down on their luck. We are not here to discourage the working poor. Quite the contrary. We salute their efforts, but what we are here to do in this 104th Congress is to change for the better a failed system, perhaps noble in its intent, but somehow glaringly ignoble because it deprives the very people it purports to help, it deprives them of their dignity, it deprives them of the opportunity to work, and it robs from them not only their rights as individuals, but their responsibilities in a free society.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friends from Ohio would yield, and I recognize my friend from Kentucky controls the time, and as I have been checking in other quarters, a certain school from Kentucky controls the basketball game tonight.

Mr. HAYWORTH. What is more mean spirited than leaving an ever- increasing debt and burden and responsibility like that on the younger generation and on generations yet unborn? The time to change it is now. The steps are being taken in these first 100 days. We take another major step tomorrow with welfare reform.

Mr. HAYWORTH. What I find amazing, and we do not want to move too quickly, because I think that we have almost numbed the American people, I hope at the end of these 100 days, when we enact these sweeping changes, I know the reaction of the liberal media in this town and the folks who make up this culture, almost diametrically opposed to the reforms we bring, they will try to stifle a yawn and say, ``Well, so what?'' We can predice that reaction. But the American people, and this is the key, as my friend from Kentucky points out, the American people recognize that their work helps generate the wealth that they have a stake in that wealth by their very labor, and that they are entitled to keep more of their hard-earned money, and send less of it to Washington, D.C. My friend from Ohio, from Cincinnati, said it so well, as there is a myopia, or a tunnel vision when it comes to this topic. So many times I have heard other friends, and maybe we just disagree, talk about the money they will quote-unquote ``lose'' in certain projects, but they fail to understand this: It is not the government's money. The President may have proposed it in the largest tax increase in American history. It may have won by one vote in this Chamber, in the 103d Congress, by one vote in the Chamber in the 103d Congress. It may have been foisted upon the American people in the name of so-called deficit reduction, even though those numbers we know are subject to sleight of hand, or shall we say a charitable interpretation by the White House. But the fact is, the money does not belong to the Federal Government. It belongs to those who labor those hours, who earn that money, and who give in unparalleled fashion freely, voluntarily, into our tax system, obeying our tax code in so many ways. And it is not the Federal Government's money. It is just interesting to see that interpretation that would be so statused in its approach that it would begin and end with the Federal Government. To the contrary, we say. It begins with the individual and it end with the individual, and responsibility rests with the individual, working together in corporate fashion, for education, for spiritual enlightenment, and, yes, for government, based on a society of law, and for civil order. And it is an all-encompassing picture that recognizes the sanctity and the primacy of the individual and the freedom and the liberty he or she enjoys in this Nation, in this constitutional Republic. We place our faith not only in God, but ultimately in the American people to decide what is best for themselves.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And the incredible observation that we hear from the other side--our good friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] says it is the yeah-buts. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], my friend, had another description earlier on this. It boggles the mind, and I believe it is summed up in Marvin Olasky's new book entitled, Speaker, it is wonderful to have this time here tonight for a little straight talk among friends and to realize that we are poised to change this system for the better.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening tonight to many different viewpoints. I listened with great interest to my good friend from Illinois who could no longer stay with us on the floor. Let me pause at this juncture to yield to my friend from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] who I think wants to read into the Record a couple of items of great import with reference to our friend from Michigan who preceded me in the well.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. My friend from Illinois raised a valid point, and I think it is one we should all remember, that good people can agree to disagree, that good people can interpret in different manners the statistics available and the implications of various policy decisions, and, in fact, we can disagree on holy scripture. I celebrate religious and spiritual diversity in this country. I thank my Creator that we live in a country where we are free to engage in the exercise of religion as we see fit. But I would simply point out to my friend from Illinois, when he quoted Christ and the Gospel according to Matthew, Christ said when you do this to the least of these, you have done it also to me. He did not say when government does this for the least of these. And then again there can be a legitimate difference of opinion about that. Perhaps some interpret the ``you'' to be a universal you, to be a government so powerful, so all encompassing that we would leave for government the responsibility to change the hearts of man, that we would leave for government the responsibility of charity and compassion, that it be the sole province of the Federal Government to provide the same according to its own definition. And that is a legitimate policy difference. That is fine. Good people can disagree. But, Mr. Speaker, again, and I visited in a moment of almost levity with one of our distinguished colleagues on the other side today who looked at me with a wink and smile and asked me to calm down, and I nodded. But I will tell you, when people on the other side do as they did yesterday, comparing those of us in the new majority to members of the Third Reich or those of us involved in legitimate policy differences with a different vision for America to slaveholders of the Civil War days, you wonder what is really at stake. Have we so perverted legitimate policy divisions and discussions that we are willing to engage in reckless name calling? My friend from Michigan salutes the Deal bill. That is his right. I would simply point out, Mr. Speaker, to those assembled and to our audience gathered beyond this hall via television, that we have a different interpretation of who would have gone to work or who will go to work under our resolution as opposed to the work requirements in the Deal bill. Good people can disagree. My friend from Minnesota came to talk about the personal nature of the so-called cuts, and I think that term is inaccurate, but he is entitled to that term because I believe he assumes that there is a vacuum into which his son is stepping and which there is no escape. But I know when I heard him speak of his son that his son has the wherewithal and the ability to take a detour in plans. It may not have been what he intended, but he will find another way to help. That his daughter-in-law, so intent on teaching children with learning disabilities, does not rely solely on the province of the Federal Government to do the same. And I would invite my colleagues to come with me to the Sixth District of Arizona, to the small town of Holbrook, and visit a single mother who has battled the odds to open a restaurant and who time and again offers to the welfare-collecting youth of that city employment, and she tells me invariably after three weeks time the youngsters employed there leave. Why? Because it is simpler to take a check and a handout instead of a hand up.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my good friend from Ohio in the chair tonight. At the outset, I yield to my good friend from Georgia for a moment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentlewoman has to understand how on Earth can you increase a program, now, in fairness, if you are saying there is a reduction in anticipated increases, I would certainly contend that is an interesting way to define a cut.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I would point out that deficit reduction came at the expense of hard-working taxpayers who would like to keep more of their money in their own pocket, and if we cut taxes and cut the deficit and build this economy, then that will be the answer for everyone including those trapped right now in the prison, if you will, of welfare, and a system that is broken, and we all agree is in need of some radical change. We asked for that type of change, and that is what we are working to do with your majority bill, H.R. 4. We welcome your thoughts on it, but we would ask you to take a much closer look at the numbers you purport with reference to the Federal lunch program. One is tempted to recall the words of our good friend from California, ``There you go again,'' not talking about the real numbers. We call for increases in the school lunch program of 4.5 percent over the next 5 years, an increase over 5 years of $1.1 billion in expenditures, and we are getting the job done while we are hearing a lot of rhetoric.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I note with interest the gentlewoman from Arkansas preceded me in this Chamber by one term, part of the 103rd Congress, I know not her voting record personally, but I do not know the former majority is on record as voting for the largest tax increase in history, a tax increase which hit so many Americans in the wallet as to be just grossly unfair, and went on with the gasoline tax the average impact of which being in excess of an average of $400 per year in additional energy payments for every family in America, regardless of their socioeconomic status. So I would contend with the lady and my other good friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not believe we can tax ourselves to prosperity, and nor, although there are certainly some noble aspects to the notion of a deficit lockbox, I believe we have to return the money to the people who earned that money in the first place. If I could speak for just a few moments on the 5 minutes I have, I thank my good friends on the other side for their restraint. I would also add that I certainly welcome tonight's meaningful dialog in stark contrast to the hysterics we heard earlier today. I mentioned that earlier today during the debate I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone from any political party would choose to compare their opposition to the Third Reich of Nazi Germany or to slave holders. I believe that was inexcusable, but I welcome certainly the tone tonight which has changed. You and I just happen to have a difference of opinion. I think we also have a different interpretation on some of the numbers, but let me yield in the interests of fairness to my friend from Arkansas.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership in the House Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest today to the arguments being articulated on this floor, and it is certainly true that good people can disagree on the best methods to redress the problems in our society. But I have listened with great alarm to a positive program for change being maligned, harkening back to the days of the Plantation South or the Third Reich of Nazi Germany. Mr. Chairman, that is inexcusable. How can we in the name of freedom and decency stand by silently when we see examples just as we saw a couple of years ago in Chicago during the drug raid when police found 19 children living in squalor in a cold, dark apartment, 2 children in diapers sharing a bone with a family dog, the children belonging to 3 mothers and 6 different fathers who were getting $4,000 in cash benefits per month from the Federal Government? It is this system that is wrong, and when people come here to the well of the House and say that we are trying to take food from the mouths of children, nothing could be further from the truth. We embrace a program of compassion and positive change, and all the malingering, malicious theatrics of the other side are inexcusable. I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, and I ask my supporters to do so, and, yes, fair-minded people from the other side of the aisle to change this program for the better to get away from the bankrupt policies of the past that are bankrupting us not only fiscally but morally.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider these two related statistics. Seventy percent of juvenile delinquents in State reform institutions lived in single-parent homes or with someone other than their natural parents. This is a telling statistic. Here is what makes it so frightening. According to some projections, only 30 percent of white children and only 6 percent of all black children born in 1980 will live with both parents through the age of 18. Mr. Speaker, this is a recipe for social disaster. Yet, instead of joining us in changing the welfare system, the liberals come to this floor day in day out and whine, moan, and distort the facts. Why is that? Could it be that they have a vested interest in the current system? You see if you follow the money you find that Government bureaucrats' special interest PAC's gave overwhelmingly to liberal Democrats. In fact, the largest Government employees PAC gave 99 percent of its contributions to liberal Democrats. So when my liberal Democrat colleagues come down here and defend the failed policies of the past while professing their compassion for the children, ask yourself, Who are they really speaking for?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and listened with great interest to our friend from California outline many of the reforms. One other reform that I think is so vital, because again, despite the propaganda and the labels of mean spiritedness about our proposal that the defenders of the tired old system continue to propagate, I think it is important also to note that this legislation would harmonize the aid to families with dependent children and the food stamp program, allowing States to use one set of rules for families applying for food stamps and AFDC, and, by providing that one-stop service, would actually make the entire process more recipient friendly, and it would make the programs more taxpayer friendly by eliminating red tape, and indeed, when you strip away all the hyperbole from the arguments and ask, I believe, a fairer question of the other side, why this constant defense of the status quo, we come to understand that in fact the minority party, many of the liberals in that party are in fact championing the continuation and the growth of the bureaucracy. They are championing the duplicative type of problems we have had. That is all I can really draw from their arguments and their opposition, and we are trying to change that, not out of mean spiritedness, but out of public spiritedness, the idea being that even those recipients are entitled to more efficient service, though truly needy in our society should benefit from a program that will treat them with some dignity, not only inspiring those able-bodied folks to work, and to look for work, and to really be involved in our great, free market economy, but also on the governmental side to downsize, and I think much of the hue and cry comes from those who quite candidly would rather work in the public sector, would rather have these programs duplicated instead of appealing to what is--makes preeminent common sense from my viewpoint and what is just reasonable, and that is to combine these programs to serve the needy recipients and, again, to cut out excessive governmental waste, and I think that reform is vital to be mentioned.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I just want to thank our good friend from California for delineating so many provisions in our Welfare Reform Act that we will talk about tomorrow, and certainly many more provisions remain, and we invite, Mr. Speaker, all the American people to be involved in this debate in this new partnership, and I think it is fair to mention that people at home are saying, ``Well, what does this mean for me, for the taxpayers of America, for those who are working to provide for their families and who are providing through charitable sources, and also through their tax dollars, for the truly needy?'' What we are saying is it is time to change the system. And for those who find themselves entrapped in this system that would lead to a growing cycle of dependency, we are saying take heart. Benefits will remain for the truly needy, but we offer you an opportunity to truly become involved in this system, to understand and enjoy the dignity of work and the fruits of your labor and to really become involved in this grand experiment we know as the last best hope of mankind.

Mr. HAYWORTH. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows and as I am glad to articulate here on the floor of the U.S. House tonight, I think by any objective standard, even the standards set by our friends on the other side of the aisle, the yeah-buts, the people who say, ``Yeah, we need welfare reform but,'' it is important to remember this. It is the current system that hurts children, because the current system encourages self-destructive behavior, it encourages dependency, it encourages out-of-wedlock births. Our bill does not end assistance to children. Let me repeat that for the mythmakers on the other side of the aisle who would try to gain unfair partisan advantage by wielding a campaign of fear unparalleled in our society, our bill does not, does not end assistance to children. It only terminates cash assistance. No responsible parent would reward an irresponsible child with cash payments and an apartment. No responsible employer would give workers a raise simply because they have additional children. If people in the private sector, who care about the quality of work being done, who care about the future of their children, who seek to instill responsibility and responsible actions, if private businesses will not do those things, the taxpayers of this country who work from January 1 on through now almost 6 months of the year paying off their burdensome taxes, those taxpayers who work hard for their money should not be asked to do those things, either.