[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2034-H2041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                THE ``DO SOMETHING'' REPUBLICAN MAJORITY

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand here in the well 
of the Congress of the United States in the People's House and to have 
my good friend from Ohio chair and to look around and take stock, Mr. 
Speaker, of what has transpired in these first 50 days of the 104th 
Congress.
  History reminds us that the last time the Republicans held the 
majority of the seats in this Chamber, a President of the other party, 
President Truman, called that Republican-controlled Congress the ``Do 
Nothing'' Congress. And yet, as we take a look today in terms of more 
recent history, that description defies reality with reference to the 
104th Congress.
  As they might say in sports parlance, look it up. We have bothered to 
check the numbers and it is very interesting to take a look at this new 
Congress, this 104th Congress, and the flurry of activity that has 
transpired, simply in terms of numbers. For example, Mr. Speaker, the 
number of hours in session, heading into day 50 of this new 104th 
Congress, 236 hours in session, doing the people's business in the 
people's House.
  Now we also compiled numbers over the previous 12 years, in the 97th 
Congress all through the 103d Congress, to really try to assess how the 
guardians of the old order were involved in business as usual.
  Here is what we found. The number of hours in session through the 
first 50 days for the previous 12 years, just a little better than 41. 
Compare this work of the 104th Congress. The number of votes on the 
House floor heading into this 50th day, in our new Congress, already 
145 votes on this floor, in the People's House, about the people's 
business.
  During the previous 12 years, the average number of votes, just a 
little better than 14.
  The number of committee sessions in this new republican Congress, 
heading into this 50th day, 313. The previous average over 12 years, 
121.
  But more than quantity, Mr. Speaker, it is quality of work, work that 
is being done by this Congress, because people come into this Chamber 
not to score debating points, not to take a vacation at taxpayers' 
expense, but to be about the work of this Congress and to honor the 
commitment of the voters of our respective districts.
  It has been chronicled before but it bears repeating because it is 
important to take stock of what has transpired. And, ladies and 
gentlemen, the days of business as usual and the days of almost 
suffocating, stultifying one-party rule are over in this body. Free and 
open debate on a variety of subjects, and a very fundamental change in 
the way this House does business.
  Some on the other side, in previous speeches in this well tonight, 
have decried extremism. Well, this is a revolution, but it is not a 
radical revolution. Instead, it is a reasonable revolution. The notion 
that may seem radical to guardians of the old order is what is 
reasonably expected by the bulk of Americans, this simple notion that 
Congress people live under the laws that everyone else lives under. The 
Shays Act incorporated into our House rules in this 104th Congress, and 
then a notion that this legislative branch should lead by example. We 
have done so, cutting committee staffs by one-third, calling for an 
independent audit of this body to understand where the people's money 
has gone, to make sure that the people's money has been used for the 
people's business.
  Working in so many ways with the adoption of new
   rules to really be involved in the House cleaning, to open the 
windows of this institution and allow for open debate and a dialog and 
a new partnership with the American people.

  So much has transpired, from a balanced budget amendment to a line-
item veto to a meaningful crime control package, to eliminate the 
notion of hug-a-thug, to get away from the concept that we would do 
things to make us feel good but really not influence what transpires in 
the cities and counties and towns of America, making a difference. That 
is what these first 50 days have been about.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I am glad to yield to my good friend from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Let me 
tell you one of the things I have learned during my tenure in politics. 
I think it is important. This is not just patting each other on the 
back, but it is a different way of thinking, because I was in the State 
legislature and have lots of friends who are in elected office, and it 
is generally the accepted rule that you run for office, you pass out a 
brochure that says how tough you are going to be on crime, how strict 
you are going to be on welfare, how tight you are going to be about the 
people's money. As soon as you get elected, you put the brochure on the 
shelf and do not worry about it. You basically handle an agenda already 
in progress, many items set by special interest groups.
  So I think what is so different, you were talking about the 
Republican Congress during Truman's days and here we have a Speaker who 
has an agenda that was introduced on the steps of the Capitol to the 
American 
[[Page H2035]]  people in September, before the election of the new 
majority party and the freshman class, which you two are Members of, 
and he goes around with this thing and pulls it out of his pocket and 
punches holes in it. That is a revolutionary concept.
  When the Speaker of the House is saying to all of the Members, 
particularly the Members of the majority party, he means to stand by 
his promises, that is a very clear signal to the rank and file 
membership, completely different. I have not forgotten my brochure, the 
boss is the folks back home. Here is my brochure, I carry it with me. I 
am going to be accountable to these promises, passing or not passing 
them, I will be accountable, and he pulls it out on a regular basis to 
the American people.
  Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia and the gentleman from Arizona. I would just like to add to the 
statement by the gentleman from Georgia that each time I go home to my 
district, and as you know, I am from the Third District of North 
Carolina, I spend a great deal of the time walking in the malls 
stopping people to say I am your Congressman, Walter Jones, Jr. I would 
like to know what you think about this Congress.
                              {time}  1920

  And to add to what you have said and the gentleman from Georgia, I 
cannot adequately express to you the encouragement that I receive from 
the people as we are helping to rebuild the public's trust. The public 
has lost faith in the Congress, but finally,because of what has been 
said by you two gentlemen tonight, they are seeing that a campaign 
promise is being kept, and they believe that with the help of God that 
we will change the direction of this Nation in which the majority of 
people in my district at least in North Carolina think that the 
liberals have taken this Nation down the wrong road for too long. So it 
is an exciting time and a great time and a great change for America.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Following up on that, I think the gentleman's 
experience is indicative of what has transpired nationally, because the 
gentleman from North Carolina has the great name, Walter Jones. He has 
worked very, very hard, and he had a gentleman precede him in this body 
of another persuasion and another party, and I think it is very, very 
interesting to see the change that has come about with our friends on 
the other side of the aisle with many folks joining the Republican 
Party, as was your personal experience. I also know the gentleman from 
North Carolina, you have been working very hard in terms of keeping our 
promises and our commitments to the men and women in uniform and 
certainly the Third District of North Carolina that is very important 
with a number of military bases.
  Could you tell us about the actions under the contracts?
  Mr. JONES. Absolutely.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield? Will there be a 
possibility at some point that you will yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Thank you very much. I appreciate the 
courtesy.
  Mr. KINGSTON. My jogging buddy from the Northeast who has to come to 
Washington for warm weather these days, we will yield.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Whatever time you have, I would like to 
address some of the comments. I certainly will stick around.
  Mr. JONES. Let me tackle this, because so many good things have 
happened with the contract. Having three military bases in my district, 
Cherry Point Marine Air Station, Premier Air Station from the Marine 
Corps, Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, well known for the great service 
they have rendered to our Nation, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. 
We passing the National Security Revitalization Act, what we are doing 
is what the military needs done is to get support from the United 
States Congress and this Government, and with the passage of that act, 
H.R. 7, what we have done, just three or four points, I want to make 
this quick, first, demands that U.S. troops be commanded by U.S. 
commanders and not placed under foreign commanders; second, reduce the 
cost to the United States of United Nations peacekeeping missions and 
demands that the United States mission to the U.N. press for reforms in 
the notorious U.N. management practices; tightens controls and 
reporting requirements for sharing of U.S. intelligence information 
with the United Nations; and expresses the sense of Congress that 
firewalls be restored between defense and discretionary domestic 
spending for budget years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
  And very quickly, the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from 
Georgia, let me show you, last
 August during the campaign, the Cherry Point pilots for about 5 weeks, 
the fighter pilots that are there to defend our Nation and to fight for 
us overseas, could not train because of the moneys that had been spent 
on these overseas projects by this liberal administration, in Haiti and 
elsewhere.

  So we are trying to restore the integrity of the defense budget so 
that our men and women will be ready to defend this Nation.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. The 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman from Arizona controls the time. We do 
want to yield to the gentleman. We do want to make one point from the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  I represent the 24th Infantry. I had the great honor of doing that. 
We hope they can keep their name, the 24th Infantry Division, instead 
of being rolled into the Third. One of the things that the men and 
women in the ranks, the fighting men and women, the ones who delivered 
the victory in Desert Storm, are always concerned about is they do not 
want to go overseas and fight for a U.N. general. They are ready to 
fight. They are ready to do everything they can for the United States 
Government. They do not want a French military commander telling them 
to go up and take the hill.
  I do not think that is too much to ask. That is a very important 
point which is what we have done.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I will be happy to hear from our good friend from 
Wisconsin whom I have seen in the hall and I guess the gentleman from 
Georgia needs to jog with. My goodness, I need a chance to go out and 
jog with the gentleman from Wisconsin. We welcome him to the dialog.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. You are welcome to join us on our jogging. 
The gentleman from North Carolina, too.
  I hope I am not raining on your parade. I was sitting in my office 
listening to your very compelling discussion of the first 50 days, and 
I felt compelled to come over.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. We welcome you here to engage in the dialog.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. My reaction was, again, I certainly agree 
with your comments that this has been a very busy first 50 days. It 
certainly, in terms of committee meetings, in terms of votes taken, in 
terms of time spent on the floor, is far busier than it was 2 years ago 
when I was a freshman in Congress.
  As I was listening to you talk, it reminded me of the three little 
pigs. That is no reflection on the three of you, but in particular, in 
all seriousness, one character in particular, I have a 2-year-old son, 
and so we asked him what the wolf says. The wolf says, as my 2-year-old 
son says, ``I will huff and I will puff and I will blow your house 
in,'' which is not that dissimilar to what many of the new Members said 
when they were elected to Congress this fall.
  But the point I want to make is even though we have been very, very 
busy, the first 50 days, I certainly do not mind being busy, I think 
what the American people want, and I think all of us would agree to 
this, the American people want action. They want us to complete things, 
and it is smart to talk about all the time we spent here.
  But I think if you look at what we finally accomplished in the first 
50 days, we have passed and signed into law the grand total of one 
bill. So I think we have to keep things in perspective.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman
   from Wisconsin, let me yield then to the gentleman from Georgia.

  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to also ask if your children are familiar with 
the 
[[Page H2036]]  story about the fox and the grapes, saying the grapes 
are sour, and I would say there might be an instruction in that one, 
too.
  As you know, this is a body that has to have action in the House and 
action in the Senate and then action by the President, who today held a 
news conference denouncing much of the contract.
  And, you know, we are hoping, as you know, that the bipartisan spirit 
that passed the bill that put Congress under the same laws as the 
American people and that passed the balanced budget amendment and that 
passed the national security bill that the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Jones] talked about, and the unfunded mandates bill, we 
hope that that bipartisan spirit goes on in the next body, and then the 
President has the great unique opportunity to say, ``You know, some of 
this I can live with.'' And we hope that does happen.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is a valid point. I will yield to the 
gentleman from North Carolina in just a second.
  But again to follow up on what our friend from across the aisle has 
come down to talk about tonight, in dealing with fairy tales, it is no 
fairy tale, as the gentleman from Georgia points out, there are 
different instruments of government with different jobs, and I am sure 
certainly not in the position of pretending to lecture the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, but the fact is the other body is hard at work given 
its special set of rules, given its special set of priorities and, of 
course, as the gentleman from Georgia mentions, there is another 
gentleman ensconced at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave., our Chief 
Executive, who has a chance to sing into law the different provisions, 
and we welcome the involvement of the other body and of the Chief 
Executive.
  But what we have been doing is fulfilling the promises we made to the 
American public and working very hard to do so, and to use a line 
almost Shakespearean in its resonance, it certainly is not, as some 
might suggest, much ado about nothing. We are very hard at work.
  The gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. If I may very briefly and quickly thank the gentleman from 
Arizona for yielding, I would like to remind the gentleman from 
Wisconsin that our Contract with America came from extensive national 
polling of the people to find out their many concerns and to find out 
their 10 top concerns. And what we have done is that we cannot speak 
for the Senate, but we promised the American people that we would get 
these 10 bills to the floor for a vote, and we are accomplishing that 
promise to the American people. So we are keeping our promise.
  We cannot promise what the Senate will do. Hopefully I believe that 
the Senate will follow suit on most of these bills.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield further, I 
recognize and agree with you, all three of you. I think it is important 
that we have a bipartisan spirit. I think it is important that we 
recognize the Senate plays a role, I think an increasingly important 
role, as many of the bills have left our Chamber and will go there and 
go to the President.
  My point is I think it is important as we discuss the 
accomplishments, as Paul Harvey would say, let us tell the rest of the 
story. I think in this case the rest of the story is we have had one 
bill that passed I think it is an excellent bill. I was a cosponsor for 
the congressional accountability bill when I was first elected to 
Congress 2 years ago, and I was proud to be an original cosponsor this 
year. It is a good bill, a bill overdue. My only concern with it, and 
we have talked about it before, we did not have the language in there 
banning the use of frequent fliers. Perhaps we will get an opportunity 
to deal with that issue as well.
                             {time}   1930

  But again you are having a fine discussion, and I wanted to stop by 
and say hello.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
  I think the important thing is I know that you have been with us on 
many of these votes, and we appreciate your joining us tonight. The 
thing to also remember, though, the balanced budget amendment does not 
even have to have President Clinton's signature. He is against it, 
which is fortunate. But what it does need to have--I am not sure what 
the count is right now, I think it is two Democratic Senators who have 
not voted. So I hope the people from Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and 
North Carolina and anywhere else in between who are listening tonight, 
will pick up their phone and call their Democratic Senators and say, 
``Pass that balanced budget amendment. Run your household in Washington 
or our country the way we have to have our households in America.'' I 
think it is a good point.
  The Democratic Party in the Senate is just bogging down the balanced 
budget. Let us get it passed. Let us get on to other things.
  Also, on things that we do not need Senate approval, for example, 
cutting committee staff by one-third, limiting the term of committee 
chairmen and eliminating some of the committees; we eliminated about 25 
subcommittees. We have done that without having to have Senate approval 
for it. So there are many things that were in the contract that were 
done within our power that we could do within these walls, in this 
Chamber, without having the other body sign off on it and slow us down.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  I think the gentleman from Georgia, having served in this Congress 
and the 103d Congress, as has my friend from Wisconsin, can certainly 
see within this Chamber a very genuine difference not only in terms of 
philosophy but in terms of form and function in the way the business of 
this House is conducted. And indeed, during this 1 hour, this special 
order, having our good friend from Wisconsin feel compelled to come 
down and state his case in the well I think bodes very well for our 
democratic Republic and our constitutional form of government because, 
unlike what had transpired in previous years, we did not move to cut 
off our friend. We were happy to welcome him. Perhaps it is a departure 
from special orders in the strictest sense, but we are very happy. I 
think it is indicative of this new partnership and this new dialog.
  Will there be points of disagreement? Certainly. But this is 
indicative of the change in the way we are doing business.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin see what he has done 
now? The gentleman from Arizona is an old sportscaster, and he is 
getting wound up. He knows politics is a contact sport, and that is 
good to have the contact, and I am glad the gentleman is here.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. I just wanted to say that what has been exciting about the 
first 5 weeks is that we have had on these major votes to help make 
this a better country, to help small business, help people as it 
relates to crime, we have had quite a few of the Democrats come in, 
percentages of up to 60 percent who
 have joined us in passing this legislation.

  And that bipartisan effort in coming together for America is what the 
American people wanted. I am delighted, I say to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, that we are working together in a bipartisan way to make 
this a better country.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. In closing, again I thank you for the 
opportunity to spend some time this evening. I felt compelled to point 
out that only one bill has become law, though I trust the Senate will 
look at some of the bills that we have passed. My hunch is that those 
that will pass will be those that actually passed the House in the 
past. The Congressional Accountability Act, which passed the House last 
year. And now it passed both Houses.
  My only request that I have been making, in closing, is that the 
gentlemen also are sensitive to some of the needs that are expressed in 
the contract that I think are bad for America, in particular, things 
like the school lunch program. My wife is a school teacher. I asked her 
about the school lunch program. She said--she is critical of the 
current welfare system, that they could use some changes, but she 
[[Page H2037]]  also said that like most Americans, people are upset 
with the current program, she said she can understand why people are 
upset with the current welfare system.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, if I might, I say to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, if I might, I think this speaks well, the fundamental 
difference in debate, I hope there is not an insinuation that by trying 
to offer block grants to the States, by trying to streamline and 
rethink delivering services, certainly the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
not implying those of us in the new majority who are trying to open 
this process up are trying to take food out of the mouths of children, 
because I think that is a very, very serious accusation.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Again, I am reporting to you what my wife, 
as a school teacher, said. She said, ``Why do they want to change this 
program? The school lunch program is not like the welfare program, 
where people are abusing it. Frankly, it is not even like the food 
stamp program, where people can take the food stamps and maybe have a 
black market. But what the school lunch program is all about is apples 
and milk for kids who may have that as their only meal of the day.''
  And I think, in all candor, I think to serve the American people, 
which we all want to do, I think we have to be very, very sensitive 
that we do not inadvertently, perhaps--so I do not mean to imply to the 
gentleman from Arizona that I think he is doing this intentionally--but 
only I don't think any of us, as a result of our actions, want to make 
it more difficult for children. Again, I think what our goal is for all 
of us is that children in America learn and they certainly learn better 
when they have food in their stomachs.
  Again, I ask the gentleman to be sensitive to that. I have to close.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. One of the sad things about Washington is when you do 
not have the facts, you kind of rattle a little emotionally and say 
this and that. I will not accuse my friend from Wisconsin of that, but 
I would say there are Members in the Democrat Party who have school 
nutrition as their Social Security issue that, first, we scare the 
senior citizens, now we go after the hungry 6-year-old.
  The fact is there are 16 different school
   nutrition programs. We talk about these school lunch programs. There 
are 16 of them.

  What we are trying to do is eliminate them so that we can feed the 
children and let the bureaucrats go out and find other work, other 
things to do.
  Eleven different bureaucracies are trying to be consolidated, as I 
understand it, by the Opportunity Committee, and then four by the 
Agriculture Committee.
  All we want to do is say, ``Hey, there are too many people feeding at 
the trough before it gets to that little 6-year-old. Let us cut out 
some of those and maybe we can feed more 6-year-olds.''
  I know the gentleman's wife's No. 1 goal is education, and I know she 
knows, as do the rest of us--and I come from a family of educators--
that you cannot teach hungry children. You have got to feed them and 
then you can teach them about math, English, prepositions, adjectives, 
and all that sort of stuff.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and 
welcome him to this dialogue during this special order. I think it 
speaks volumes about the fact that we have opened up the windows of 
this Congress and just as we engage in a dialog here in the well of the 
United States House of Representatives, so too do we seek that dialog, 
Mr. Speaker, with the American people. That is the difference.
  To our friend from Wisconsin, even as he departs, and others who may 
be viewing these proceedings on television and at home, I think it is 
important as the gentleman from Georgia points out, the idea is to make 
services more efficient. According to some estimates, for every dollar 
in social spending, 80 cents of that dollar goes to the delivery of 
that program. In other words, the money is not a straight transfer from 
the pockets of the taxpayers to the kids at school. It goes through so 
many different middlemen, if you will, and what we are trying to do is 
reduce the number, reduce the amount of middlemen and make sure that in 
these programs that have great import to the children of this country, 
to the seniors of this country, to the hardworking men and women of the 
6th District of Arizona and beyond, that we have a practical, efficient 
way to do so. That not always is it more money and more programs and 
more centralized bureaucracy here in the Nation's Capital.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. Just very briefly, the gentleman from Arizona and the 
gentleman from Georgia are absolutely on target. This is exactly why 
people back home understand what we are trying to do as the new 
majority. We are trying to streamline government. We are trying to make 
sure that the majority of the dollar gets to those who need the dollar 
and cut through these layers of bureaucracy that keep, as the gentlemen 
said, the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Arizona, from 
absorbing most of the money.
  So we are on target. The people of America, the people in my 
district, say to us, ``Keep going forward like we are doing.'' We are 
going to make government less intrusive into the lives of people, make 
sure those who need the help get the help, but it will be done in a 
very efficient way.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  As we talked about the gentleman's personal experience in making the 
change in terms of partisan label, coming in with his agenda for 
change, this new partnership with the American people, I think it is 
worth noting, just as the gentleman from Wisconsin recited some of 
those measures in this Contract which he fully supported, and just as 
the gentleman noted, 60 percent support on average from our friends in 
the new minority who are coming with us on these programs, there are 
many measures that have a bipartisan nature.
  I know my friend from Georgia would like to speak about the balanced 
budget amendment and talk about that very real accomplishment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. Absolutely, as we speak about 
senior citizens programs, balanced budget, programs for the disabled, 
we have to keep in mind, when we are going broke it does not matter.
                              {time}  1940

  Remember when you were kids, if you found out your dad might have a 
charge at the local drugstore, you go down and you get you a soda pop, 
and you just sign his name. You did not have to pay the 35 cents for 
the Coca Cola, and you thought you were getting something. You were 
charging it to your dad.
  Well, little did we know that, when we were grown-ups, we would be 
charging things to our children, and you would not dream of going to a 
drugstore and charging a sandwich to your 8-year-old, but that is what 
we are doing. We are doing it in Congress, and, if we are going to be 
worrying about kids' nutrition programs, and senior citizens, and so 
forth, we are talking about compassion. We better talk about paying 
down this debt that we have, this $4.5 trillion debt that we have.
  That balanced budget amendment, it is critical because, if there is 
anything that our history has proven since 1969, Congress cannot say, 
``No.'' We have got to have the constraint, the discipline, that a 
balanced budget amendment forces on us.
  I wish everyone would call their Senator tonight and say, ``Where are 
you standing, and why aren't you for it?''
  As my colleagues know, a friend of mine, John Carswell, a farmer, 
told me something interesting last week, and he said a guy went down to 
farm and wanted to borrow another farmer's ax. He said, ``I'm not going 
to lend you your ax--my ax. You can't use my ax.''
  And he said, ``Why not?''
  He said, ``Because I'm making soup tonight.''
  He said, ``Soup? What does that have to do with me borrowing your 
ax?''
  He said, ``Nothing, but, if you don't want to do something, any 
excuse is a good one.''
  That is what the U.S. Senate is doing to the balanced budget 
amendment.
  [[Page H2038]] Mr. HAYWORTH. I note that the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Kingston] has a senior Senator whose vote is very, very important. 
I know you join me, as you said earlier, and, Mr. Speaker, as we know 
that we address the rest of the country, we welcome the phone calls, we 
welcome this new dialog, and I am certain, as the gentleman from 
Georgia will attest, that I am sure the folks in the other body would 
also be interested in hearing from the people as the other body 
approaches this very real vote on a balanced budget amendment. It is 
important for the people of this country, Mr. Speaker, to be heard. 
They were heard November 8, but what I think we are trying to say 
tonight is:
  Just as this continues through the Contract with America over the 
next 50 days, it is an ongoing process, and certainly the American 
people should not think it is a fait accompli, that we have already 
done it. It is continually evolving. The other body has a major role to 
play, and just as we welcome calls, I am sure the Members of the other 
body welcome them, too.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely, and on top of the balanced budget amendment 
we have that very important line item veto which we, the majority party 
in the House, are willing to give to a Democrat President. We might be 
the ones who--that might be just like a boomerang to us. It is going to 
come back and cut projects in our own districts, but it is more 
important than any single congressional district. It will help attack 
that deficit, and I know that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Jones] has worked hard on the balanced budget amendment and the line-
item veto.
  Mr. JONES. Thank you, the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman 
from Arizona. I will always remember during this campaign for Congress 
information I received from the majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], during the campaign that said, ``As you're talking 
about line item veto, and you're talking about balanced budget, that in 
America today the average working family will spend more on paying 
taxes than the average working family will spend on clothing, housing 
or food when half of what they are making is going to paying taxes. How 
can they realize the American dream? When you have a government that is 
bloated and taking more and more out of the paycheck, that's what all 
this is all about. That's why we are the majority party.''
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] 
makes a very important point that can be restated in the following way:
  Certainly the gentleman from Georgia has also seen the figures, and 
according to some estimates, if we fail to rein in this runaway 
government spending, if we fail with a balanced budget amendment or 
some other mechanism to restore fiscal sanity at the Federal level, or 
children unfortunately will not be as
 simple an example as the drugstore charge account, but our children 
and their children may end up paying in excess of 80 percent of their 
income for governmental projects and governmental services.

  That should not be the goal of this country, and indeed other figures 
show us that government at all levels, at the State, local and, most 
notably, at the Federal levels now outstrips manufacturing as the 
Nation's No. 1 employer by 600,000 jobs.
  It is a fair question to ask, ``Does the Federal Government need to 
operate in such a pervasive fashion?'' I believe not, and I believe 
that is why we are taking the important steps.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think also, if you look and consider that the third 
largest spending item in our entire budget is the interest on the debt, 
which is about $20 billion each month, it is money we do not ever get 
back. We talk about investing in education. We talk about investing in 
our Nation's economically disadvantaged so they can join the 
mainstream. We cannot do that when we are spending $20 billion a month, 
and I can promise you that this year you will have requests from your 
congressional district, folks back home, worthy projects perhaps in 
Arizona, North Carolina. They will not come to $20 billion, and yet 
that is what is spent each month just on the interest, and that money 
is gone. We have got to do this.
  Now, one of the things we are trying to do in the contract is the 
welfare reform so that people who are able to work will be required to 
work. We are going to try to make it so dads do not have this alley cat 
mentality that they can go off and just get a woman, or a girl in many 
cases, pregnant and not have any more responsibility than an alley cat. 
We are trying to say, ``Look, you're on the hook, you have got to raise 
that child,'' because those children now are becoming welfare 
recipients themselves, in many cases drug addicts, in many cases high 
school dropouts and so forth, but they need to have dads back home, and 
our welfare reform plan works on restoring the family, and that is 
something so very important.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is very important. The gentleman from 
Georgia makes an extremely valid point, and so there is no mistake, Mr. 
Speaker, let us try to explain we are not here to demonize, or 
castigate, or point fingers at anyone in our society. But instead we 
are taking a look at the simple facts.
  Indeed, from the time 30 years ago, when President Johnson stood at 
the podium behind me here and declared war on poverty, by some 
estimates we have spent in excess of $5 trillion on social spending 
programs. Let me repeat, $5 trillion, government at all levels involved 
in social engineering, and, when you consider our national debt and the 
problem we have there, by recent estimates being $4.8 trillion, our 
spending has eclipsed the national debt on this problem, and sadly, 
sadly it seems all that spending has done in many cases is exacerbate 
the problem.
  The idea should be simply this, that we should not provide economic 
incentives for behavior that tears down our society. We should move to 
strengthen the family, as the gentleman from Georgia mentions, and even 
beyond welfare reform we have to look at this very simple concept. Some 
of my friends from the other side talk about budget formulations, and 
they talk about the dollars that will be lost, the Federal dollars that 
may be lost in their congressional district, and to me it fails to take 
into account this very valid and irrefutable fact, the money is not the 
Federal Government's money to begin with. It is wealth created by hard 
work in the business community, by people earning their paychecks and 
then paying their taxes. That is the part of this process that we 
cannot forget about, and, even as we talk about runaway spending, we 
must also talk about this excessive burden of taxation and why it is so 
important to make sure that parents have money to spend on their 
children.
  The Family Restoration Act makes sure that parents have additional 
moneys, a $500 tax break or an increase on deductions per dependent to 
make sure that families can spend money on members of that family. That 
is what is so important.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And if the gentleman would yield, I think we have 
proven under Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, who frankly did not 
have many successes while he was President, but one of the things that 
he did was he gave a tax cut in the early 1960's. Reagan did one in the 
early 1980's. In both cases it brought about economic growth and 
economic prosperity because the American people know how to spend their 
money better than the United States Congress: more clothes, more 
hamburgers, more records, more cars, more houses are bought by them 
which creates jobs, and that has a multiplier effect for more revenues.
                              {time}  1750

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think we learn from the example of the late President 
Kennedy, and indeed the example of President Reagan, that a tax cut 
really does reinvigorate the economy. That is what we seek to do. 
Certainly the gentleman from North Carolina has lived this, being part 
of a family that has made the transition. I know certainly he champions 
the actions of President Kennedy and certainly looks back to those 
actions as a vibrant, market-oriented, new frontier Democrat looked at 
it 30-some years ago, and we share in that tragedy and our sorrow for 
the Kennedy family and for this Nation. But certainly you have seen the 
change and I know that you join us in this idea of tax breaks.
  Mr. JONES. I could not agree more with what the gentlemen have said. 
I 
[[Page H2039]]  have never seen a person that is so committed to 
helping those on welfare get off welfare and become productive citizens 
than the Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich. He has spoken so many 
times about helping people have that opportunity to better themselves 
and to become productive citizens. But as you have stated and we all 
know, the system that has been in place for 30 years has perpetuated 
itself to help keep people down in back. What we want to do, we want to 
see welfare become a trampoline, not be a hammock. We want to see 
people have an opportunity to join the productive work force of 
America. That is what the Republican party stands for and that is what 
our welfare legislation would be about, helping people get off welfare.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Part of this getting folks to work, we have got to make 
sure that the jobs are out there. I think by giving middle class 
families this $500 per child tax break will help empower consumers and 
stimulate the economy through more consumer spending and create jobs. I 
think the other part of it is to get the Government off of the backs of 
business. Requirement of risk assessments: When EPA and OSHA and all 
the other thousands and thousands of government agencies and 
bureaucracies come and harass mom and pop businesses on Main Street, 
Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, all over the country, let them make 
it harder to pass regulations on businesses, because if businesses do 
not have to pay so much time, effort and energy and money to Uncle Sam, 
they can expand. They can take that little lawn mower store and build a 
branch on the south side of town and create jobs that way. Remember, 70 
percent of America is still working for small businesses.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the gentleman from Georgia again is right on 
the money when he talks about these issues of money and taxation, and I 
think it is very, very interesting to see how the debate has transpired 
in the wake of the mandate of November 8th. The liberal media talks 
about anger and hostility and as if there is some sort of latent 
hostility about the Federal Government. I will let folks in on a little 
secret. It is not that much of a secret. It is not a visceral dislike 
for any segment of our society. No, it is simply this notion: Why 
should people who work hard and play by the rules and try to create 
jobs be subjected to unreasonable, excessive, overregulation. Certainly 
we would all agree that there is a valid place for a modicum of 
regulation within the workplace, a modicum of regulation even in our 
free market economy, but not to the point where it retards the growth 
of business, where it holds back our economy. What we need to do is 
unshackle the chains and let this market move forward with a dynamic, 
free enterprise system. That is what is so vitally important.
  Mr. JONES. If I may, the gentleman from Arizona, just briefly, as you 
and the gentleman from Georgia are talking about overregulations and 
bureaucracies and this type of situation, let me, I happen to serve on 
the Resources Committee under the leadership of Chairman Don Young, and 
we this spring are going to be revisiting the wetlands laws and the 
Endangered Species Act because the bureaucrats, if you will, have taken 
these regulations and these acts and have extended it to interpret it 
as they see fit.
  What we need to do, as you and the gentleman from Georgia are saying, 
we have to bring a balance between business and the environmentalists. 
We have to bring a balance, because obviously the regulations have gone 
too far, created too many problems for business owners, property owners 
and business itself. So again, this is part of the Republican majority. 
We are going to make the changes that can bring the balance that I 
think would be great for this Nation.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is very, very important to take a look 
beyond the contract, and we will continue to do so, not only on the 
Resources Committee, but in so many other avenues. Because this does 
not stop at day 100. Yes, we are stopping here at day 50 to take stock 
of what has been accomplished, and we will do so during the 
continuation of this special order. But it is an ongoing process and a 
national dialog and a new partnership with the people of America, Mr. 
Speaker, that we hope to foster.
  Certainly we encourage their input, especially as tomorrow we move to 
this whole concept of overregulation and we move to a concept of a 
moratorium on regulations, to stop that and take stock of what has 
transpired thus far.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is important also for us to keep in mind 
that we do not want to lose species when we talk about the Endangered 
Species Act. We do not want to lose wetlands when we talk about 
wetlands. What we do want to do is bring some sanity in.
  For example, I had a gentleman, a businessman in my district, send me 
a stack of papers about a half an inch thick. He said ``I have got to 
do this to get a permit to dig a hole because there is questions about 
the wetlands.'' The hole was 3 feet deep. He has to fill out what I can 
only say would be about a half an inch of paperwork, and it would 
probably take a half a day to do it, to dig a 3 foot hole. Not three 
foot long or wide, just 3 foot normal size hole.
  Cases like that we hear right and left. There is a road contractor in 
Georgia, and I know you know what a silt fence is, when you are 
building a new road that now they build these fences to help stop 
erosion, and that is the kind of wavy fence that you see on sticks. I 
have never seen one, frankly, do much good.
  But I asked the contractor, how much did that silt fence cost you on 
widening this road project? The total project for widening the road was 
$1 million. The silt fence was about $30,000. And I said now, 
realistically, the taxpayers are paying for it, so it is not any skin 
off his back, so-to-speak. He is going to get his profit out of the 
job. I said does that fence do any good? He said no. I said should you 
use a silt fence? He said in south Georgia, where everything is flat, 
generally you do not need a silt fence. If you need one, you do not 
need one the entire length ever the road. In north Georgia where it is 
hilly, you need it, and in south Georgia where it is hilly you need it.
  But he can't have that flexibility to decide. What he says is let me 
decide when to use a silt fence or not, and, if I am wrong, fine me. 
Eat up all my profit on the job. Take away my tractor. I promise you I 
am not going to let any dirt move from the site.
  What we are talking about is let's do not micromanage everything out 
of Washington. Let the Georgia DOT or the county commissions make these 
decisions along with the road contractor. You might not need it on 
every single project.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. The point of the gentleman from Georgia is well taken 
again, and indeed the experience of his constituent serves as a 
metaphor. One thing we understand certainly is that in a nation this 
vast, in a nation that differs from region to region, while we may 
speak with a united voice within terms of political philosophy, why do 
not we try to reach consensus with our friends across the Hill? In this 
Chamber the biggest misguided notion is this concept that one size fits 
all. Washington can decree what works in Philadelphia will work in 
Phoenix. What is good until Athens, GA, is also good in Athens, OH.
  What we find is it is better and truly a form of federalism to let 
cities, towns, counties, and States deal with problems where they are 
on the front lines everyday as opposed to a bureaucracy in Washington 
dictating to those groups what should transpire.
  We see it very clearly in what we were able to do in terms of putting 
some meaningful legislation together on the problem of crime, the 
notion of block granting and giving those items back to the States and 
those people on the front lines fighting crime, so vital to our 
situation.
  Mr. JONES. Just to add to your comments, because today at the news 
conference celebrating the end of the first 50 days, I do not think I 
have ever heard a more meaningful talk than the lady who had been raped 
from Ohio and how much she supported and felt that the legislation that 
we passed with this tough crime bill, how much it would help other 
people throughout America. And I thought that what she shared with us 
and the press being there today made us all realize the importance of 
what we had done to help protect America. I just thought that was a 
very special event this morning.
  [[Page H2040]] Mr. HAYWORTH. She spoke with special eloquence, 
because of her situation and understanding that indeed the notion of 
jurisprudence and the notion of criminal justice in this society over 
the last 30 years, in working so hard with this document, the 
Constitution of the United States, to preserve the rights of the 
accused, one unintended byproduct was a swing of the pendulum in a 
direction where hardened criminals could use technicalities, could try 
and trample upon the Constitution, and, in my humble opinion, to try 
and take away the legitimate rights of victims of crime.

                              {time}  2000

  So this Congress, again, is not radical, it is reasonable, 
recognizing that the pendulum needs to be dead center; that we have to 
respect individual rights and the rights of the accused, but just as 
the lady from Ohio told us, we can never have those rights come at the 
sacrifice of the law-abiding and those who are victimized by crime in 
our society.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield further, he is right. We 
have protected the rights of the individual, which is extremely 
important, if not sacred, but at the same time, we cannot compromise 
the safety of the society.
  Yet, we have done that. Criminals on an average serve 35 percent of 
their time, which means our streets are full of people who have been 
arrested not once or twice but 7, 8, 9, 10 different times. The block 
grant concept says to States that ``If you have truth-in-sentencing, 
meaning if you sentence somebody for 10 years, he or she serves 10 
years, we will give you block grants for new prison construction.''
  We hear so often about overcrowding in prisons, and what this will do 
is make our streets safe by taking that element off the street, which 
is what the victim who was raped needs, what people in Arizona
 need, what people all over the country need.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think, again, the lady from Ohio, as the gentleman 
from Georgia made a very vital point and very meaningful point today 
about the whole notion of crime and punishment, because her attacker, 
her assailant, was able to take advantage of prison programs to get an 
education, and no one would deny that benefit, but also taking 
advantage of free weights and building his body so he could go back out 
and commit other crimes.
  We are not saying that those who meaningfully choose a route of 
rehabilitation should be stifled, but those who look at their time 
incarcerated as free time at a health club or self-improvement to go 
out and perpetrate criminal acts, clearly that must stop.
  What this Congress is trying to do, by engaging in debate with our 
friends from the other side of the aisle, by hammering out these 
programs, by engaging in a new dialog with the American public, is to 
deal directly with those problems, because we believe that the law 
abiding must be taken care of, and must have the proper remedial 
recourse, just as those who have been convicted of crimes.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas, and welcome him, as well, as a newcomer.
  Mr. BENTSEN. As to yourself, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I will only take a minute of the gentleman's time. I am 
actually waiting here for another special order.
  The gentleman talked about the block grants, and I would like to ask 
the other gentleman as well, there are a couple of things that I have 
concerns about the block grants that affect my State of Texas.
  My State has been on a prison building program for quite some time, 
and yet, according to the Justice Department, while we have reformed 
our penal code, we are building more prisons at an extremely fast pace, 
we are selling bonds and raising millions of dollars in capital in 
order to do this, we still will not qualify to meet that 85 percent in 
sentencing the way that it is calculated under the bill.
  The problem that I see is that we are sort of caught between a rock 
and a hard place, because as we try and build our way out of it into 
the capacity that we can raise capital, and then we look to the Federal 
Government for some of the tax dollars that we send up, and we send a 
lot of tax dollars to Washington from Texas, the Congress is saying in 
this legislation ``We are sorry because you are not quite there yet,'' 
and try as we might, we may not be there. I have a problem with that.
  That is one. The other question I would ask relates to the other 
block grant, which is a concern that I have. Isn't it true under the 
law enforcement block grant program that replaced the 100,000 police, 
isn't it true that if a State or a city wanted to, that they in fact 
could spend all that money on midnight basketball or some other program 
that some of us might feel is not proper?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask the gentleman a question, first. Although I 
was born in Texas, I do not claim to know all the politics there for 
1995. I would say to the gentleman, with the majority leader, Dick 
Armey, with the majority whip, Tom DeLay, and I understand there is a 
gentleman named Phil Gramm who may be the next President, I do not 
think we would pass a bill that is punitive to the State of Texas 
prison program.
  The Department of Justice, as you know, was against this crime bill. 
Janet Reno fought it every inch of the way. I suspect that information 
is not 100 percent accurate. I will follow up with you on it, if you 
want to look at that further.
  I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the block grant program, 
remember, the 100,000 police officers, the Clinton bill only paid for 
20,000 of them. The rest of that money, there was only $8 billion in 
that program, and it takes about $8 billion a year to fund it. The 
100,000 police officers were not there.
  I trust my city police in the First District of Georgia, all over the 
State of Georgia, as I know you do in Texas, to make the right 
decisions. I'm not afraid of them taking that money and building 
midnight basketball domes. I just do not believe they will do it.
  They may say ``We do not need police officers, but we need a police 
car, we need some radio and we need some other drug interdiction 
equipment,'' but I think they are going to be able to make that 
decision better than Congressmen and women from New York City and from 
California and elsewhere.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I have a couple of questions for my 
good friend, the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate the gentleman being 
here, but I think the point is very valid that the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston] makes.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] outlined what I believe to be 
in one sense the worst case scenario, and yet even with that type of 
construct that he offers us, should it not really be left up to local 
governments in that regard if law enforcement officials who ultimately 
are accountable, I would imagine, to the voters, or to the city 
councils and city managers of respective localities in Texas? If they 
were to spend that money in an ill-advised way, from my point of view, 
I believe they would be directly accountable to the people of those 
areas. I do not believe it should really be under my purview to make 
that change.
  With reference to the prison system in Texas, and I will defer to my 
friend's knowledge of Texas politics, and what transpires at the State 
capitol in Austin, but let me ask this simple question: is there a 
truth-in-sentencing provision under Texas State law?
  Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, in 
Texas, and I will take the opportunity, in fact, to ask my good friend, 
the State Senator, John Whitmire, who led the effort to reform the 
penal code in Texas, to come up here and talk to Members of the House 
about what we have done in Texas to ensure that in Texas, if you do the 
crime, you serve the time. I will bring him up, so we are trying to 
make this.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. You have passed the truth-in-sentencing provision out 
of both houses?
  Mr. BENTSEN. We have passed our version of it, yes, which I think is 
a very tough bill, and I will be glad to get the gentleman the 
information on it.
  [[Page H2041]] Let me also raise the point, both of the gentlemen 
talk about the fact of the police and that issue. Now my city, the city 
of Houston, where my mayor, Bob Lanier, made a campaign issue of 
putting more police on the street, and he took moneys and did that, and 
now we are getting moneys from the Federal Government, and we are going 
to put 128 more police on the street.
  However, let me say, my point really comes down to where people have 
argued, and I was not here, like the gentleman, I was not here last 
year, I was in the private sector.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. You were in the real world?
  Mr. BENTSEN. As opposed to the unreal world, yes, whatever we 
determine that is. But I was watching what was going on up here. Last 
year we were saying that we didn't want block grants. Last year we were 
saying we didn't want midnight basketball.
  Now we turn around and we do this. Mr. Speaker, I have a disagreement 
with that structure of the block grants. I have people who come back, 
some people from your party, who come around and say ``Well, Mr. 
Bentsen supports midnight basketball.'' That is not exactly accurate, 
because the bill as it is drafted would allow it.
  I disagreed with that, so I bring that up as a matter of debate, that 
some of us do believe if we are going to fund things for police and 
that is what we want to do, that is an issue of debate, but I would say 
some in your party, political operatives, et cetera, would come back 
and accuse people such as myself, to say that I am for something when 
in fact I am making the point that I'm not.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I appreciate the gentleman from
   Texas and his point of view, and in fact welcome him to this special 
order, as we did the gentleman from Wisconsin preceding him.

  If the intent is to decry the theatrics and the hyperbole of 
politics, let me assure the gentleman from Texas that certainly those 
of us involved in the campaign in 1994 were subjected to the same 
unfair scare tactics, and I guess it is a simple situation that what is 
good for the goose is good for the gander, but I think it is only a 
small part of the larger questions that delivered the mandate on 
November 8. I welcome the gentleman from Texas, who was elected 
November 8 as well.
  But what we see nationwide is a concept of accountability and 
responsibility, while at the same time we move to ensure constitutional 
rights and establish this new dialog with the American public.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it is 
important to remember that this bill takes the power away from 
Washington bureaucrats, and it puts it back in the hands of the Houston 
police department and the folks in Atlanta and Savannah and Brunswick 
and Statesboro and Waycross that I represent, where I think decisions 
can be made more effectively as to what they need.
  Remember, midnight basketball is just one of many so-called 
preventative programs. Self-esteem programs were also in the bill that 
we passed in August of 1994. There is a lot more to the bill, but the 
idea is who is best to make the decision, the people who live and work 
on the streets where the crimes were committed, or people in the 
sheltered Washington, DC world.
  I know the gentleman will agree with us, that the decisions are 
better made locally.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think we are all in agreement that it is marvelous to 
have this time together, even under the guise of a special order, to 
actually engage in this meaningful, I believe, debate, because I 
believe this Nation is better for it.
  To be certain, we may be of two minds, we may be of 435 minds in this 
august Chamber, as to how to redress the problems of our society, but 
it is helpful to have a chance to represent our districts.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. KINGSTON. There is another important subject that is in the 
contract, and that is term limits. I know the State of Texas, the 
legislature only meets every other year, and that generally you are in 
the real world as a result of that. In the State of Georgia, we meet 40 
days a year, but the representatives on the State level and the county 
commission and so forth are generally not full-time. They are involved 
in making an honest living in the real world, and one of the things 
that we need in Congress is more people like you who have been in the 
real world, more people who have a frame of reference of business, of 
education, of being a police officer, and so forth. We need to have 
that element to get away from the professional politicians.
  One of the things the Contract With America calls for is an 
involvement on term limits.
  Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I will be happy to yield. I know our time is almost up. 
I know you are here to be part of a special order, in keeping with the 
spirit of this open time, if you just have a question.
  Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and his courtesy.
  One quick question: Does the contract, or would you support 
retroactive term limits? Because as newer Members, I think that without 
retroactivity, and the city of Houston has retroactive term limits, by 
the way, because the voters passed that, without that that puts the 
newer Members at an uneven keel compared to the Members who have been 
here for a while.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. That is a very interesting question. During the course 
of this debate as we continue along, certainly that amendment may come 
up in committee, no doubt. Who knows, it may come up here on the floor. 
That is a very good question you are asking.
  Mr. JONES. Very briefly on term limits, as you might or might not 
know, my father served here for 26 years. A few years ago we had on the 
back porch of his house a very nice discussion about my belief in term 
limits, and he made the comment to me at that time, he said, ``Son, I 
didn't do a very good job of raising you.'' Of course, he had been here 
again for 26 years, but I am a strong proponent of term limits, and I 
hope that both sides, as you feel strongly about term limits 
apparently, that we will gather the 290 votes that we need to pass this 
part of the Contract With America, because the American people 
throughout every poll that I have seen for the last year and a half, 
and I used to be in the North Carolina General Assembly; I served for 
10 years; the people of America want the right to see term limits come 
to the Congress of the United States.
  I hope that both sides in a bipartisan way will come together and 
work together to get the 290 votes, because we apparently right now, 
the gentleman from Arizona, it is my understanding we are anywhere from 
30 to 40 short.


                          ____________________