[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14916-H14917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2644

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
withdrawn as a cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 2644.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my good colleague, who is 
educating this body about the perils that we are really in and what we 
can do to help this and make the future for our children better.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Kansas and I 
would invite him to join us here in this historic Chamber to discuss 
issues of historic import as we are transforming this government, not 
by reinventing it, but by remembering what works; remembering that 
document from which all of this flows, that remarkable document called 
the Constitution, and remembering this fundamental premise: That when 
people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, the fruits of their 
honest labor, and save, spend, and invest it according to the dictates 
of their conscience and their priority, there is nothing selfish about 
that.
  I am sure what prompted my friend to come to the floor was the 
evaluation of our colleague from Nebraska, who has spent countless 
hours on the Ways and Means Committee drafting tax reform and reduction 
policy, who informed us earlier that less than 2 percent of this vast 
array of money we are talking about, less than 2 percent in the grand 
scheme of things is used for tax cuts.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think it 
is a tremendous point and that that needs to be driven home to this 
body even more. Right now, the Federal Government, and this is a 
massive amount, it is hard to understand, takes 22 percent of the U.S. 
economy. It is the Federal Government. This huge piece, 22 percent.
  Now, the gentleman from Arizona I am sure probably knows this figure, 
but in 1950 does the gentleman know what percent of the U.S. Government 
was of the Federal economy?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I know the gentleman from Kansas will inform us all.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It was about 4 percent. Can the gentleman imagine what 
the liberation would be of this Nation, of the people here, if the 
Federal Government, instead of 22 percent, was just 4 percent? Or, what 
if we got from 22 percent to 15 percent? There would be a blossoming 
across America of growth, of productivity, of jobs, of opportunities, 
of people going forward themselves and saying, ``My goodness, why were 
we carrying such a heavy load?''
  The next number of years, what has to take place in this country is 
we have to shrink the public sector, because the private sector is 
tired of carrying it and cannot carry it any further. That is what we 
are trying to do. It is not Draconian; it is very compassionate to help 
people.

[[Page H14917]]

  This could be one of the greatest Christmas gifts that we could give 
the American people, my children, and our future grandchildren, and the 
children of the gentleman from Arizona, to get this down so that they 
can be liberated and free.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas, because 
he makes an incredibly valid point that really should be the foundation 
of our labors in the days to come. As the controversy continues to 
surround this new direction in which we are heading, returning to those 
values which made us great, it is worth noting that in the spirit of 
the season, the greatest gift we can give to our children, we can give 
to our grandparents, we can give to our parents, and we can give to 
generations yet unborn, is a stable environment in which this 
constitutional Republic can flourish, and individual initiative can be 
rewarded.
  So, that is the challenge and that is the great gift and the great 
opportunity that we trust our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will join us in giving the American people this season of the year.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield just a 
moment, because the gentleman from Arizona has been deeply involved in, 
and started, what has been called the Constitutional Caucus. I would 
ask the gentleman if the Founding Fathers were alive today, does the 
gentleman think they would find that we have a constitutional 
government existing and operating in Washington?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the time, I thank the gentleman 
for the question. I think they would find a government that has become 
a hybrid, and I do not mean that in a good sense. I know the gentleman 
has great background in agriculture. Perhaps it would be more accurate 
to say a mutant, constitutionally mutated from this document here, 
which is our cornerstone, read and reshaped and stretched ofttimes 
beyond recognition from its original intent to fit the explosive growth 
of an evermore centralized bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that spends even 
more.
  So, we have stretched it out. It is our mission, and that is why I am 
so glad to have our colleague from Kansas to join in restoring 
constitutional government, recognizing the legislative branch has every 
bit the role of self-examination and introspection that the judicial 
branch is afforded through the notion of judicial review, that the 
executive branch uses, that we together, with those other two branches, 
can restore constitutional government. That is exactly the challenge to 
use this timeless document as we confront the next century.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I think it also ties into this overall issue of the 
budget debate. If we would get back to what the Founding Fathers had 
envisioned of a limited Federal Government and saying this is a limited 
government of limited powers, the Federal Government would not be 22 
percent of the economy. It would not be the burden that it is today. We 
would not have as much centralization; we would have much more 
decentralization and things out amongst the people where they could 
control them closer to home and closer to them.
  That was the original design, and I think we have gotten away from 
that to our peril. The gentleman has a particularly good effort going 
on, that before any bill is introduced, before it is taken up on the 
floor, that the constitutional basis for that bill would be discussed.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time, and the purposes to which we must 
reaffirm ourselves, to which we must devote our attentions, for just as 
we take an oath, as we took an oath in this Chamber collectively, just 
as the newest Member, the gentleman from Illinois did today, taking an 
oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, it is 
more than lip service.
   Mr. Speaker, good people may disagree and we champion those 
disagreements and we want to have open, honest debate on different 
priorities, but I think the gentleman from Kansas really hit the nail 
on the head when he discussed the Jeffersonian ideal, the ideal of the 
one whom our friends on the other side of the aisle claim as their 
ideological benefactor, one of their Founders.

                              {time}  1615

  When Jefferson called for limited and effective government, that is 
the distinction, not that Government should be reduced beyond 
recognition so that the people are not empowered, that Government has a 
rightful role in society, but it is a limited and effective Federal 
Government which makes the difference and to which the gentleman from 
Kansas has devoted his energies, indeed as part of this new majority. I 
thank him for all the efforts he has made in so many different ways to 
realize that dream for our children, for our parents, for our 
grandparents, and, indeed, for the American Nation.
  Again, it is worth noting and we again issue the challenge. To those 
who disagree with us, Mr. Speaker, to those who offer the endless 
mantra of disinformation about so-called Draconian cuts with reference 
to the Medicare Plus Program, again, Mr. Speaker, we ask them, show us 
the mathematical operation that takes an increase from $4,800 of 
spending per Medicare beneficiary this year and over 6 years time 
increases it to $7,100 per beneficiary, show us where that is a cut, 
and $1 million will be paid to them.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would not this. I cited Benjamin 
Franklin earlier. Will Rogers offered an update in the mid-20th century 
before his untimely death: ``The only thing certain is death and taxes, 
but death does not get worse every time Congress meets.''

                          ____________________