J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. In response to my colleague from Texas, the reason we engage in this debate, and it is good that there are honest, philosophical differences; but I think all Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, need to be reminded that the money we are talking about does not belong to the Federal Government; it serves no higher purpose when we leave it in the lands of Washington bureaucrats, and the best way to empower all Americans is to make sure that all Americans hold on to more of their hard-earned money. I would be happy to point out again that if we examine the alternative offered by the minority, it offers tax relief in one hand, it takes it away with estate tax increases on the other hand. The net tax relief of the minority package is a total of $8 million as opposed to $48 billion of comprehensive relief offered by a bipartisan majority. Again, I would point out that many Members of the minority, just a few short weeks ago, embraced a $300 billion tax relief package.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I always listen with great interest to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my close personal friend. He said just a few minutes ago, we cannot have it both ways. Indeed, that is true. Sadly, this motion to recommit says to the American people, Mr. Speaker, ``Wait, wait for tax relief. We believe it is important, perhaps not as important as a bipartisan majority of this House. We believe it is important, but you need to wait a while longer.'' This legislation also, or this motion to recommit, offers tax relief with one hand and takes it away with the other. Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken loudly and clearly about the unfairness of the death tax. A recent issue of USA Today describes it thusly, quoting now: ``Taxes aren't popular to begin with. But of all the ways Uncle Sam takes a cut, none may be detested more than the tax levied on an estate after someone dies. ``The idea of the government reaching into the grave and grabbing 37 to 60 percent of the wealth accumulated during a lifetime is, well, ghoulish to many. It's the depressing confluence of the only two things in this world that Benjamin Franklin noted were `certain.' '' Mr. Speaker, we remember the statement of Dr. Franklin. He said, ``In this life, two things are inevitable, death and taxes.'' But Mr. Speaker, I think even Dr. Franklin, if he had the powers of prescience, could not begin to fathom that the constitutional Republic he helped to found would one day tax its citizens upon their death. Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan majority of this House believes quite clearly there should be no taxation without respiration. Yet, with the motion to recommit, the minority in this House asks us to wait a bit longer. I said earlier, in somewhat hyperbolic fashion, that, quoting the old movie line, sadly, our friends on the left say ``No tax relief, not for nobody, nohow.'' That is the essence of their motion to recommit, because it once again delays, delays tax relief for the American people. The record speaks quite clearly that this commonsense majority in Congress has delivered tax relief in the past, even as we have paid down the debt hanging over the heads of our children, even as we have walled off 100 percent of the social security surplus for social security. Today we said to those businesses that are going to be affected, you deserve tax relief; to the self-employed, you deserve 100 percent deductibility of insurance; and no, you need not wait until there is beachfront property in Yuma, Arizona. You need not wait for the physically improbable to finally get tax relief, because, Mr. Speaker, we understand what the American people are saying loudly and clearly: Yes, save Medicare and social security; yes, improve education by empowering parents and teachers and getting funds into the classroom; yes, let us make sure we provide for our national security, so grossly neglected by the current administration. But Mr. Speaker, the American people also say to us, let us provide financial security. Let us build on this prosperity by recognizing this simple truth: that the money earned by Americans belongs not to the Treasury of the United States and Washington bureaucrats, but to the people who earn it. The legislation supported by the majority will enact that tax relief now. The alternative offered by the minority in this motion to recommit says yet again, let us delay and delay and delay some more. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. The verbiage and the numbers, when we strip them all away, show an antipathy toward the simple notion that Americans should keep more of their hard-earned money. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would call on my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit. Vote for real tax relief and real prosperity for all Americans.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Welcome, my colleague from California, to this Chamber and to the debate. To my colleagues on the left and my friend from Texas, whom I guess left the Chamber, I would simply point out again that facts are stubborn things. It is a fact that we have paid down over $140 billion of this debt. It is a fact that the budgeteers not here in Congress, but down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue at the White House who assessed what has transpired here with our budget, say that in 1999, for the first time since 1960, the United States Government offered a budget surplus over and above those funds of the Social Security Trust Fund. I would remind my colleagues that it was the efforts of this majority to lock away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security in stark contrast to previous majorities in earlier years where that Social Security money was spent just as fast as it could be printed.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in response to my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), with whom I see eye to eye on many issues of national security. I appreciate his points but it is interesting that it is somewhat of a selective outrage at the majority in this legislative body because I can remember the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, visiting this Chamber for a State of the Union message and in outlining budget priorities failed to even articulate just a bit of rhetoric for those veterans who have served our country. Indeed, as the record reflects, it was the majority adding $1,700,000,000 in health care benefits for our veterans. The other irony, I would point out to my friends in the minority, is this, just a few short months ago they embraced tax relief to the tune of $300 billion and yet now, Mr. Speaker, they tell us it is risky to propose real tax relief of even $48 billion to help America's working families.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in brief response to my colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the litany of game shows. Perhaps one we might call on our friends on the left to actually watch and live up to is the game show ``To Tell the Truth'' because that seems to be sadly, noticeably absent from the litany of lines we are hearing today from the left. My friend from California and others in this Chamber are well aware that small business owners, family farmers, actually create jobs for other Americans, so reducing the tax bite, saying death to the death tax actually empowers Americans to keep their jobs, rather than seeing family farms sold off to pay off a huge tax bill, and the same thing with businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who has labored so hard for this commonsense reform so greatly needed for so long. History reminds us that Arizona's favorite son, Barry Goldwater, in the other Chamber, brought this idea forward long ago. I am so glad, in the spirit of bipartisanship now, that others in previous Congresses so reluctant to address this commonsense reform would join with us today for this landmark legislation. Almost 20,000 seniors in Arizona, 1.1 million seniors nationwide, are being penalized because they choose to work, are being penalized because they bring to the workplace maturity and experience and energy. Mr. Speaker, we need those experienced workers in our work force. One thing I have learned in representing the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, with so many seniors, is that these folks have so much to contribute, so much to give, yes, as volunteers in retirement age, but also active in the work force. That is what they bring and that is what we celebrate today. So again, we welcome the converts to this, and we are at long last addressing this issue. This is a great day for America's seniors, for all Americans, because today we throw off the yoke of unfairness: an important first step which we must follow in many other ways, but it begins here, it begins now, and we welcome the cooperation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I bring this House and the American people good news this morning, because I have just come from a hearing conducted by our Committee on Ways and Means, on which I am honored to serve. The good news, Mr. Speaker, for all Americans, but especially for senior Americans, is that this House is preparing to get rid of the unfair penalty on earnings for senior citizens. It is unfair; it is work that is long overdue, and by listening not only to the people of Arizona, but to the people of America, this House stands ready to end the unfair earnings limit on seniors who are Social Security recipients. We are also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the President yesterday in an interview joins with us on this. I only hope that the President will also join and work, as this House has done, to sign legislation that ends the unfair marriage penalty on so many Americans. So, Mr. Speaker, the record is clear: this Congress is working to end tax unfairness and restore tax fairness and equity for the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the esteemed Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. What is the name of the song, My Funny Valentine. The opposition would be funny if it were not so sad. Here we are with a historic opportunity. Mr. Speaker, 30 Members have joined with the majority on a bipartisan basis to offer much-needed relief from the marriage penalty to restore fairness to taxation, and what we get are the clever arguments from the same folks who wanted to redefine the word ``is.'' Now they want to redefine the word ``rich.'' A couple, perhaps both schoolteachers, both earning $25,000 a year, in the minds of the minority, congratulations, they are rich. Therefore, they do not deserve relief from the marriage penalty. Friends, we have a historic opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I would extend my hand in partnership to the minority to restore fairness rather than trickery, rather than clever arguments, rather than the footnote of subparagraph B, real marriage relief penalty. I ask them to join us in passing this bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank my colleague, Congressman Fred Upton, for introducing H.R. 2130, the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act. On December 17, 1999, Tom Gugliotta, who plays for the Phoenix Suns, suffered a seizure and was nearly killed after taking a form of furanone di-hydron, a generic chemical name for gamma butyrolactone (GBL). In the United States, products containing GBL have been marketed as dietary supplements and the sale of GBL is not regulated in most states. GBL is the primary precursor used in the production of gamma- hydroxybutric acid (GHB). GHB has predominantly been abused by America's youth to produce euphoric and hallucinatory states, and for its alleged role as a growth hormone releasing agent to stimulate muscle. Additionally, GHB has been used to assist in the commission of sexual assaults. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has documented over 5,700 overdoses and law enforcement encounters with GHB and 58 GHB-related deaths. GBL, once absorbed orally, is rapidly converted into GHB in the body and produces the same profile of physiological and behavioral effects as GHB. In 1999, the FDA issued several warnings about products that contain GBL and asked manufacturers to voluntarily recall all products. Unfortunately, products containing GBL remain available for sale over the Internet. H.R. 2130 directs the Attorney General to schedule GHB (together with its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers) as a ``Schedule I drug'', the DEA's most regulated drug category, under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In addition, H.R. 2130 specifically names GBL as a ``List I chemical'', the DEA's most regulated chemical category. Illicit use of many GHB analogues and precursor chemicals is a significant and growing law enforcement problem. Importantly, H.R. 2130 will help DEA not only control GHB, but the full range of CSA drug control measures would also apply to GBL. It is imperative that the DEA has necessary tools to control these dangerous substances to further prevent incidents such as Tom Gugliotta's seizure. Therefore, I urge an aye vote on H.R. 2130.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the aforementioned legislation by my friend from Ohio and urge other Members to join us in this effort. Mr. Speaker, there is a gulf between the rhetoric of Washington and the reality of everyday life in America. Not only are religious broadcasters under attack from this administration and its political appointees, also over our break we heard the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was going to come into one's home if one had a personal work station, if one was a telecommuter. Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that I bring quite literally hope to the House floor today, the Home Office Protection Enhancement Act. Because even though the administration has backed away, now we know that rhetoric does not square with the reality. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would call on our President tonight to make sure that his words match his actions and to ensure that the only snow job in Washington was the blizzard visited upon the East Coast earlier this week.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank my friends from the left, in the minority, for offering some points of view. And others will come later. I think it is important to remember this. As the President said when he came to give his State of the Union message, first things first. Now, we had to get him to agree with us, and he finally did so after initially wanting to spend almost 40 percent of the Social Security fund on new government programs. We finally got him to agree, no, no. Let us save 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security. We welcome that. The President was also content to let the House work its will when we brought to the floor his package of new taxation, higher taxation, and fees in the billions of dollars. And not a single Member of this body voted for those new taxes, neither Republicans nor Democrats. So we appreciate him acceding to the will of the House in that regard. Now, we cannot make too much of this, Mr. Speaker, or emphasize it enough. The President and the Speaker of the House had agreed to the notion of across-the-board savings, maybe not even a penny on every dollar, but savings enough to make sure we stay out of the Social Security Trust Funds. We welcome back the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. We are pleased he is back in town, back from his campaign cash swing on the West Coast. We hope now he will sit down and solve the problems. We can get it done.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, and again we need to reaffirm and amplify not only what the chart indicates but also what our colleague from Georgia mentioned. We have been able to pay down debt this fiscal year. We are in the process of paying down close to $150 billion in debt. Over the past 2 years, almost $140 billion in debt paid down. We are in the process of doing this. And, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues hear at town hall meetings two concerns. From day one, when I was elected to the Congress of the United States, my constituents said loudly and clearly, Mr. Congressman, get Uncle Sam's hand out of Social Security money. Wall that off for Social Security. And we have done so. And the President has at long last agreed with us. But they have also said, pay down the debt; and we have been doing that. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can point out again the atmospherics of this chamber, the histrionics from the other side. The problem is this: The institutional pressure of those who want to grow government, Mr. Speaker, those who sadly could be described as serial spenders, and I am not talking about a breakfast offering of fruits and grains topped off with milk, but the serial spenders, the compulsive spenders, who always heed in their priorities the notion that they know better what to do with the people's money. We are saying we are going to save that money for the Social Security Trust Fund. And it is akin to our rich spiritual tradition where, as part of the service, we pass the plate. All we are asking the left to do is put a penny on the plate. For every dollar of discretionary spending, Mr. Speaker, can they not spare a penny for grandma? A penny saved is retirement secured. One hundred percent of Social Security money to Social Security. And, accordingly, we have made the difference, and we invite our friends on the left to join us.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the minority leader was on the West Coast raising campaign cash. It is interesting to hear the rhetoric about campaign finance reform. But I guess he has to do what he felt was important. That is where his priorities were. I am sure he can address the House and our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, about that.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield time to me? I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Georgia. I am sorry that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations is no longer here with us, because I think we have an honest disagreement in terms of the way he portrayed what we have done to save the Social Security fund, which we pledged to save, in stark contrast to the President who came in January and said let us save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus and then spend close to 40 percent on new government programs. I did not hear from the gentleman from Wisconsin, was he proposing new taxes on the working poor to go to this? I did not hear that side of what he was talking about in terms of the tobacco settlement, so I am uncertain. If he was proposing new taxation on the working poor and on working Americans, I think there is justifiably a problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I think he is setting up the parameters of something that is very interesting. If every bit of that money would go to the Social Security and Medicare trust fund instead of to the trial lawyers, if the money would truly go for public health, then I think there may be an area of agreement. I welcome that type of light and I welcome the passion that the gentleman from Wisconsin brings. But the fact remains, the situation that exists today is one in which we are trying to find a way to deal with priorities and to find savings. Again, we are talking about simple savings of 1 cent on every dollar of discretionary spending, and to defend both the priorities of the left and our own priorities, as well as the priorities of the administration, that would be the simplest way to solve the problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for pointing out this key distinction and difference. Yes, unapologetically, I believe hard-working Americans should hold on to more of the money they earn instead of sending it to Washington. Yes, $1 trillion out after $3 trillion projected surplus over the next decade is reasonable. Because $2 trillion are going to save Social Security and Medicare, and the other trillion dollars, as we can see from the institutional pressure of the other side, they want to spend that money. They would rather have Washington spend that money. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the wrong thing to do. All the American people should hold onto their money. As to the canard of tax cuts for the wealthy, I would simply point out that all working Americans who pay taxes should have a right to have their money back. Certainly my friends on the left do not impugn initiative and success. They are not coming to the floor to do that. But, again, it begs the question. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left should join with us if they bemoan or belittle four-tenths of a cent in terms of reductions. They should join with us. If they do not think it is a big deal, then join with us and let us reach an agreement.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And I think it is important to make this point, because I think we would be remiss if we did not for purposes of total candor, intellectual integrity and a good sense of history, again, I welcome the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and obviously he has passionate feelings and they are deeply and honestly held. But for the record we should indicate and point out that when my friend from Wisconsin chaired the Committee on Appropriations, when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge of this House, they spent huge sums of Social Security money for bigger and bigger and bigger government programs. That framed their priorities. And so I welcome any type of alternatives they might offer to truly help us preserve the Social Security fund 100 percent for Social Security. I would make this point because the gentleman from Wisconsin raised this topic. He said $17 billion were being raided out of the program. That begs the question, Mr. Speaker, to help us find the money, why do the minority appropriators not join with the gentleman from Georgia and the others on the Majority side to find the savings? All we are asking is one penny on every dollar of discretionary spending. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously that a penny saved is retirement secured.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not suggest that for everyone on the other side of the aisle, and certainly administration representatives, and I know representatives from the Committee on Appropriations, were here. But, apparently, the House Minority Leader, the man in whom Members of the opposition party place their trust and the responsibility of leadership, saw fit to leave town instead of being involved in the budget negotiations. It brings all of this talk about a do-nothing Congress, it rings kind of hollow for those who, I suppose in good faith, want to see a solid record, to leave town on a fund-raising trip for campaign cash.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, so we can try to get a handle on the sums we are talking about, money that could be well spent in America's classrooms helping teachers teach and helping children learn, annually we are looking at an appropriation for that cabinet level agency of $35 billion?

Mr. HAYWORTH. So forget, if my friend would yield further, forget the colloquialism about an 800-pound gorilla. We have a $120 billion sum of money that in essence is unaccounted for from the department in Washington, D.C. charged with teaching responsibility and the three Rs. Maybe that is the fact, Mr. Speaker. We talk about reading, writing, arithmetic. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to our friends in the Department of Education, we need to teach a fourth R, responsibility, and accountability, and counting, with a C, to be able to actually handle their books. I think it is important to inform the body, Mr. Speaker, based on current events, that we do welcome back to the Chamber the House minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). I had a chance to welcome him. I am sorry he was not here yesterday to be involved in the budget negotiations. I understand he was fundraising on the West Coast. We certainly find it interesting, those denizens of campaign finance reform, busily raising campaign cash. But we welcome him back. Mr. Speaker, if I could inform my colleagues, I understand that substantial progress has been made toward a budget agreement. Indeed, the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House have agreed to across-the-board savings. Sadly, the problem comes in this Chamber, because of an inability of the minority to join with us to find those across-the-board savings. We have advocated simply finding savings in one penny of every discretionary dollar spent. We think that is a way to come together, and we understand there are priorities on the left, there are priorities on our side, the other body has priorities, and the administration has priorities. Once we come to a basic agreement, which apparently has been done, the best way to fit in the amount of overspending or what would be overspending and a raid of the social security trust fund, the best way to accommodate that spending without raiding the social security trust fund is to simply call for across-the-board savings of one penny on every dollar. Mr. Speaker, we understand the President of the United States has given his word to the House Speaker, and I would hope that our friends on the other side of the aisle could reach an accommodation with the administration for a simple, across-the-board savings. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we certainly would invite our friends on the left to apply for their own hour of special order if they would like to continue the dialogue. But of course one of the oldest political tricks in the book is to try to change the subject. We appreciate that, and we understand their inherent distrust of allowing the American people to hold on to more of their money, not to mention, unfortunately, their mistaken notion that you cannot actually increase government revenues by allowing people to save, spend, and invest more their own money that leads to economic success, that leads to more jobs, that leads to prosperity, and in turn brings in more receipts in taxation to the Federal Government. But that is fine. It is nice to have a catchy slogan. The fact remains that there is a very simple way to deal with the question we face right now. That is to save one penny on every dollar of discretionary spending. My friends who pledge fealty to Social Security should note this, and let us note this for the Record, Mr. Speaker, just for historical accuracy, over three-quarters of the Republicans serving in Congress at the time of the Social Security Act supported Social Security. So all the canards and misinformation and perhaps confusion on the left can be cleared up.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) yield?