J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Social Security Protection Act of 2003. Now, the gentleman who preceded me in the well, the gentleman from California, spoke of the initiatives this committee and this House adopted to crack down on fraud and abuse, specifically the abuse of Social Security payments going to convicted felons. We have a chance now to expand that, to deny fugitive felons and payroll violators from receiving Social Security benefits and help individuals with disabilities. This is the key thing for me, my colleagues, because so many folks in the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona have come to me to extol the virtues of something this Congress did back in 1999, as we put people back to work with our Ticket to Work incentives that year. And while we have granted tickets to work across the country to emphasize the ability in disability and put people back to work, an important piece of clarifying language is in this provision. It clarifies that the Work Opportunity Tax Credit would be available to employers who hire a disabled beneficiary who is referred from any employment network, not just the State rehabilitation agency. So we actually expand the pool of people who can go to work and add further incentives in our Ticket to Work. So, on one hand, if we are talking about Social Security protection, we move to bar those who would take advantage of fraud and abuse. We crack down there. And yet for the most deserving among us, people who genuinely want to get back in the workforce, who have been met with limitations heretofore, we expand their opportunities to find work. We expand the opportunities for those who are willing to put them to work. It creates the type of balance necessary. It is the ideal type of perfecting and expanding legislation that is meant when we say we step up to protect this vital program. It shows reasoned balance and perfection in what is all too often an imperfect world as we strive to further strengthen and protect and perfect our process of Social Security. If nothing else were there but this expansion of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Ticket to Work Program, I would stand in favor of this bill. But it does so much more. I would invite all of my friends in the House to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by my friend from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). It may be well intentioned, but it fails to embrace a couple of realities and perhaps this is the fundamental difference among friends. Mr. Chairman, success in welfare reform means reducing the number of people who seek welfare, people who actually go to work. There is news to celebrate according to our own Department of Labor, Mr. Chairman. The job market in the United States, despite the challenges we face now, which we all admit we have, from July of 1996 when we first passed this to last month, January of 2003, according to our own Department of Labor, the workforce has added 11 million jobs. Unemployment is a real concern. We all understand that. But actually, unemployment was reduced from when we passed this measure in the last Congress, in April of 2002. Now, understand the welfare rolls are reducing. We have held constant the dollars that are going to the States. It is a net increase. No one doubts that there are fiscal challenges facing the States. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is, the States as laboratories of democracy must fashion their own solutions, not flexibilities in the form of pseudo- mandates from the Hill, but reasonable, rational solutions based on the work that is fundamental and inherent in this act, that rewards work, that provides funding for child care, that instead of cursing the darkness, lights a candle of opportunity for so many families. That is what makes this reform historic. That is why we should reject the Cardin substitute and support H.R. 4.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution; and, oh, how I wish we were not in this well at this time to express such sentiments. Mr. Speaker, we differ on issues. That is the hallmark of a free people, and yet this afternoon we rise as one to remember and memorialize the contribution and the sacrifice of the Columbia Seven. Of the seven aboard, Mr. Speaker, several had connections to Arizona, perhaps the most pointed and poignant that of payload specialist Michael Anderson. Though Michael called Spokane, Washington, home, he spent some of his younger years in the State of Arizona, attended Avondale Elementary School and carried with him on this flight a T- shirt from that school and that student body. The principal at Avondale Elementary now says another type of special memorial will be there in the school to remember that special student. Indeed, also in our West Valley, Mr. Speaker, there is the Challenger Learning Center, so named for another group of seven who paid the ultimate price; and at Central Arizona College there is a NASA Aerospace Education Center. Mr. Speaker, we are reaffirming some difficult lessons today, even as we memorialize and celebrate America's mission and indeed mankind's mission to the stars, as we think that over four decades ago President Kennedy stood at the podium behind us, challenging this Nation to land a man on the moon and bring him safely back home to earth before the decade of the 1960s is out. Mr. Speaker, we remember the message of the Australian Prime Minister upon the landing on the moon when he said, We salute the spirit of dangerous adventure that has brought mankind to this accomplishment. The danger remains apparent. The spirit of adventure remains, Mr. Speaker. We remember and memorialize the Columbia Seven; and as we remember, as we rededicate, as we conduct the inevitable oversight that our Constitution mandates, let us make the vow not to retreat but to advance, to think beyond what has gone before, to revisit the moon, to one day be involved in manned exploration of Mars, to continue the advancement of human knowledge for which the Columbia Seven gave their all. That is the true memorial to these heroes who soared in the heavens and embraced the spirit of dangerous adventure. God bless them and their families and all affiliated with them and our great country.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a little more than halfway through our nation's history, when the West was still an untamed region full of untapped potential, central Arizona's early settlers embarked on what has become a hallmark of American vision, boldness and success. The story is that of the Salt River Project, the nation's third largest public power provider, the largest supplier of water to the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and the oldest multi-purpose reclamation project in the U.S. Incorporated on February 7, 1903, the Salt River Project, more commonly known as SRP, deserves special commendation in its centennial year for the prominent role it has played in central Arizona's growth and development. Its place in Arizona's history prompted me and my colleague, Congressman John Shadegg, to nominate SRP for inclusion in the Library of Congress's Bicentennial Local Legacies Project. Before SRP was formed, pioneers of the area that now encompasses large parts of my own Congressional District 5 saw opportunity in the desert region they had settled. Farming, commerce and trade were beginning to boom. But the region's main source of water, the Salt River, proved fickle and dangerous. To preserve themselves, their families and their future, the pioneers banded together to secure a reliable water supply. They envisioned a great dam in the Salt River Canyon east of Phoenix and, though the idea may have seemed fanciful to some, it won the support of President Theodore Roosevelt. With passage of the National Reclamation Act of 1902, the foundation was laid for formation in 1903 of the Salt River Valley Water Users Association, a non-profit entity that later became the Salt River Project. Local farms were offered as collateral to secure a federal loan for construction of a stone masonry dam on the Salt River. When the dam was completed in 1911, it was rightly named Roosevelt Dam after the president whose visionary reclamation concepts helped settlers of Arizona and other Western states forge progress and prosperity. Today, SRP has more than 780,000 electric power customers, shares ownership of power plants in four states, participates actively in power transmission decisions across the West, and manages six dams on the Salt and Verde rivers and thousands of miles of canals and laterals that deliver more than 40 percent of the region's water supply. Among utilities nationally, SRP is recognized for its customer service, employee-community involvement, corporate giving and environmental leadership. There can be no doubt that SRP will continue to be a major force in meeting Arizona's water and power needs, and an invaluable partner to the communities it serves. With pride, Mr. Speaker, I salute the Salt River Project on its 100th anniversary.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon in Scottsdale, Arizona at 2 o'clock Mountain Standard Time, there will be a memorial service held for the man described as the ace of aces, a genuine hero, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Joe Foss. Joe Foss accomplished much in his life. Indeed Tom Brokaw in his book The Greatest Generation devoted an entire chapter to the life of Joe Foss. It was a remarkable life, not only in wartime but in winning the peace. A two-term governor of South Dakota, the first commissioner of the American Football League, president of the National Rifle Association, a television personality in his own right, and finally in retirement Joe Foss relocated to Arizona. It was my privilege to know this great and good man, this genuine American hero who despite the reputation of fliers had none of the swagger but all of the humility and humble nature that a man could possess. The story goes once a journalist asked Joe Foss about his many earthly accomplishments, and Joe said ``Yeah, I guess I have done a lot of things but nothing compares to the day when I met the Lord.'' Now Joe Foss is with the Lord, and I know the people of Arizona along with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow), the people of South Dakota, and all of America remember and revere this great American. At ease, Joe, rest in peace.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the resolution; not with joy nor with blood lust nor with a sense of vengeance, but instead, with a clear-eyed analysis of the threat that is presented. Mr. Speaker, I give thanks for the fact that this debate is occurring not via satellite television from Baghdad, but, as it should, on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, where people of good will and honest conviction can disagree. In the preceding few minutes, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some embrace a collective multilateralism as the doctrine and seeming salvation of this new century. There is one major flaw with that notion, and it is expressed in the first action all 435 of us who serve here take when we raise our right hand and take the oath of office. Because, Mr. Speaker, when we do so, we pledge to uphold not the charter of the United Nations but the Constitution of the United States. Do not mistake the desirability of coalitions. There is a place. They are desirable. Our own Secretary of Defense has told us in this war there will be many different coalitions. There will be those that come to support us out front. There will be others behind closed doors. There will be different ways different nations will show their support. But, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, our Founders quite properly, in enumerating the responsibilities of this government in a document of limited and specified powers, first and foremost, we are to provide for the common defense. We do that not by seeking the permission of the Congo or Cameroon or France or Germany. We do that by clearly, unmistakenly, and unashamedly protecting the lives and interests of the American Nation. Make no mistake, this will not be easy. This will not be pleasant. This war has been thrust upon us when, on a beautiful morning a year and a month ago, innocent Americans were attacked and killed by a regime of terror, a regime that our Commander-in-Chief just informed us last night has had repeated contacts with the government of Iraq. The dictator of Iraq cares not a whit for the world community, and he certainly cares not for the welfare of American citizens, nor our interests. Mr. Speaker, it is reluctantly but with a sense of resolute faith that I stand in support of the resolution to protect the American people and to protect the American Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is my great and good fortune on behalf of the dean of our Arizona delegation, Bob Stump, chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services and the Member from the Third Congressional District of Arizona, to welcome his constituent and our guest chaplain, Robert G. Hobson, to the floor of the United States House of Representatives today. Reverend Hobson has served in the capacity of pastor, Bible teacher and evangelist; and he has spoken throughout our great Nation, Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, Japan, and the Philippines, ministering in countless churches, Bible colleges, youth conventions, and seminars. Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years, Reverend Hobson has been the international field representative for the Capernwray Missionary Fellowship of Torchbearers, whose headquarters are located near Lancaster, England. We are pleased that he brings his unique perspective on the good news to the floor of the House of Representatives today. Mr. Speaker, I know that you and our colleagues join us in thanking our guest chaplain, Robert G. Hobson, his lovely wife, family and friends who join us on this great occasion. Thanks again to our guest chaplain, Reverend Robert Hobson, of Sun City, Arizona.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time. He has done an outstanding job as chairman of the Committee on Resources and we shall miss him very much in that capacity. Mr. Speaker, the Education Land Grant Act set up a national mechanism to convey small parcels of U.S. Forest Service land to local educational agencies for the purpose of renovation, expansion, or construction of school facilities. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that this bill was signed into law on December 28 of the year 2000. Here is where the difficulty has arisen, Mr. Speaker. In implementing this law, Forest Service staff have administratively determined that schools that apply for a conveyance under this act would need to pay various administrative costs, analyses, and environmental compliance assessments. In fact, the interim directive that has now finally been distributed states various costs to be borne by the school districts. I quote: ``Nominal costs includes the nominal fee of $10 per acre conveyed, plus all costs directly associated with the project that the Forest Service may incur to evaluate and process at the school district's request to acquire national Forest Service lands under the Education Land Grant Act, such as costs associated with National Environmental Policy Act compliance, document preparations, surveys, posting of property monuments, markers, or posts, and recordation.'' In fact, another memo mentioned that even staff time, even staff time used to process requests will need to be paid by school districts. Mr. Speaker, here we have an example of bureaucrats trying to reinterpret what was very clear in the law. That is why we come to the floor today with H.R. 3802. This bill simply requires the Forest Service to bear the cost of environmental assessments and administrative costs associated with an exchange under the Education Land Grant Act. The purpose of the act in the first place was to help those cash-strapped districts to make sure their funds were going to help teachers teach and help children learn. Now we have a situation, through bureaucratic extrapolation, where the unelected are trying to reinterpret the will of the Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, we come here today to speak unequivocally to say that the Congress makes it very clear. Here are the instruments that will be utilized to help these cash-strapped districts realize the benefits of the Education Land Grant Act, and this legislation is the last step toward making school construction and expansion a reality for many rural schools across our country. So it is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I urge this House to adopt H.R. 3802.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning with a note of remembrance. Raymond Hall Hayworth, age 98, passed away peacefully yesterday. The last teammate of Ty Cobb has now left his earthly field. Ray Hayworth wore a major league uniform in parts of 3 decades. His career spanned 13 years in the major leagues, first called up in 1926 to the Tigers. For purposes of full disclosure, Madam Speaker, I should note that Ray Hayworth was my granddad; and the lessons he taught me, not only about sports, but about life, are lessons far more valuable than I can express on the floor of this House. Our founders said they moved to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. In much the same way, my grandfather has left a legacy of freedom, as an athlete, as a role model, but, most of all, as a man. I was blessed for having his example to guide me.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today about my bill, H.R. 4919, the Tonto and Coconino National Forests Land Exchange. This legislation authorizes two common-sense land exchanges that will benefit not only my constituents, but the U.S. Forest Service. Most importantly, this bill will authorize a land exchange that will allow the Town of Payson to purchase a portion of the conveyed property to create private sector business development and job opportunities. Payson is totally surrounded by national forest lands, virtually land-locking the community. Local officials feel that the lack of land for industry and affordable housing is the major obstacle to economic development in the region. The legislation also authorizes the Forest Service to acquire a 495- acre parcel known as the Q Ranch, which is currently owned by The Conservation Fund. In exchange, the Diamond Point Summer Homes Association will acquire 108 acres of federal land that has been occupied by the group's 45 residential cabins since the 1950's. The Tonto National Forest Plan has specifically recommended conveyance of the federal land. The exchange will transfer land of limited public use to the association in exchange for private lands that will increase management efficiency and enhance public access, use and enjoyment of the surrounding national forest lands. In summary, the bill contains common-sense legislation that accomplishes goals that the Forest Service has stated are a priority. These land exchanges are endorsed by the Gila County Board of Supervisors, the Rim County Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Town of Payson, the Payson Regional Economic Development Corporation, and the National Park Service, among others. I have been honored to serve the community of Payson in the House of Representatives for eight years. Due to redistricting, I will no longer have the opportunity to directly represent this beautiful part of Arizona. Nevertheless, even as congressional lines change, the issues remain the same, and I hope to convey to my friends in Payson that I will remain a strong advocate of their interests. With that, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 4919.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4946) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide health care incentives related to long-term care, as amended.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support this morning of this very important measure, H.R. 4946, the Improving Access to Long-Term Care Act. The need for long-term care is expected to grow substantially in the future, straining both public and private resources. Total spending on long-term care services for people of all ages approached $138 billion in fiscal year 2000, nearly $86 billion of which was for public programs. As 77 million baby-boomers approach retirement age, the need to address long-term care becomes ever-more important. Soaring costs and rising demand for long-term care services could deplete personal savings and exhaust government entitlement programs. It is essential that people are encouraged to plan and take some personal responsibility for their future needs. Therefore, it is my privilege to bring forward this legislation, the Improving Access to Long-Term Care Act of 2002 as a critical first step toward helping in the emerging long-term care crisis. First of all, this legislation provides immediate tax relief to assist individuals in acquiring and maintaining long-term care for themselves, especially health care, which is so vital, for themselves, their spouses and their dependents. H.R. 4946 would provide an above-the-line deduction for eligible long-term care insurance premiums. Under current law, individuals may claim an itemized deduction for the cost of eligible qualified long- term care insurance premiums, but only to the extent that such premiums, combined with the taxpayer's additional medical expenses, exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. This bill provides an above-the-line deduction for a percentage of eligible long-term care premiums for which the taxpayer pays at least 50 percent of the cost of coverage. The deduction is available for eligible long-term care insurance that covers the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse or the taxpayer's dependents. The deduction is available to individuals with adjusted gross income between $20,000 and $40,000, and twice that amount for married couples filing a joint return. This amount will be adjusted annually for inflation. This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides targeted relief for those taxpayers who really need it. Although financing is the cornerstone of the long-term care issue, we must also look at supporting family caregivers. H.R. 4946 would add an additional personal exemption for home caregivers of family members. This bill provides immediate tax relief to those taxpayers who assume the responsibility of providing for the care and support of individuals with long-term care needs. Under current law, individuals are entitled to a personal exemption deduction of $3,000 in 2002 for the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse and each dependent. This bill provides the taxpayer with an additional personal exemption for each qualified family member with long-term needs. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, has been updated to include additional consumer protections for long-term care insurance policies. A qualified long-term care insurance contract is one that meets certain consumer protection requirements promulgated by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC. This bill updates the consumer protection provisions to reflect changes made to the Long-Term Care Insurance Model Act by the NAIC. Groups that support the addition of the additional consumer protection provisions include AARP, the American Council of Life Insurers and the Health Insurance Association of America. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also includes other various tax provisions concerning health and health care. First, this legislation includes an orphan drug tax credit that would prevent drug manufacturers from delaying the important process of human clinical testing of orphan drugs until the time of Food and Drug Administration approval. This legislation would add any vaccine administered to prevent hepatitis A to the list of taxable vaccines. Finally, this legislation will provide retirees with additional flexibility in obtaining health care for the retirees and their families by permitting those individuals who have a Medicare+Choice Medical Savings Account to also have an Archer Medical Savings Account and allowing employees to make contributions to an Archer MSA on behalf of a Medicare eligible individual. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in dire need of comprehensive long-term care reform. By 2040, the number of Americans 64 and older will more than double. Without long-term care reform, these changing demographics will drive spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to consume nearly 75 percent of all Federal revenue by the year 2030. The Improving Access to Long-Term Care Act is a first critical step to focus immediate attention on long-term care before the crisis occurs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The question comes from the gentleman from California in a very interesting fashion in terms of public policy, why do this? Well, I think it is worth noting that in fiscal year 2000 Medicare and Medicaid provided $82.1 billion, 60 percent of the money spent, of the $123 billion, spent on long-term care services. We have a basic question here. If we do not put incentives in for individuals, our public resources will be depleted. It is in that spirit that we offer the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank the gentlewoman for her well-intentioned critique and also the work that she has done on a bipartisan basis with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). A couple of points I would make, first of all, based on some of the work we did in committee. Just to amplify again, we included in this legislation the consumer protections. The language is directly from the bipartisan bill H.R. 831, just to amplify that fact, so we tried to work in a constructive way, and we will continue to work in that constructive fashion. Given the budget parameters that we face, the bill advocated by the gentlewoman from Florida is six times the cost of this bill, so while this bill is a first step, it fits into some budgetary parameters and realities in which we had to deal.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) to discuss another important provision of this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, talk about faint praise. It is interesting to hear my colleague from North Dakota. Let me address, amidst all the rhetoric, a couple of concerns because it bears amplification in a bipartisan way, mindful of the gentleman's experience in the insurance industry. Precisely because of the concerns he shared with this body on suitability, precisely because of some of the challenges confronted, we specifically added the consumer protections offered in the Johnson bill. Specifically, section 24 of model regulation that deals precisely with the question of suitability. Now, undergirding all of this is the notion, Mr. Speaker, that the House has already put in place an incremental approach to long-term health care policy and insurance. One of the challenges we confront in a legislative body in a very real way is how to capture the ideal and move something that is real. With carte blanche, with a blank check certainly we could have embraced a bill six times more costly; and I champion the provisions, but the challenge we face is fitting this in to budget parameters. Again, the question comes up, who will this benefit? I would point out that a married couple filing jointly would find the economics of this to be between $40,000 and $80,000 a year. Not an inconsiderable sum. Mr. Speaker, we all know of families who fit within those parameters. I shared in committee my aunt and uncle, my cousin with Down syndrome. They fit precisely into this frame work. So I do not think we get anywhere by characterizing side steps, small steps. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we will take a positive step forward with approval of this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this debate; and it does point up some basic differences that exist between the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and many of us on the majority side. It is interesting to hear the call for nationalized insurance, and certainly that is one philosophical point of view that one can offer here. I think it is important not to lose sight of our goal. Indeed, this House has acted in incremental fashion before to put in place long-term care insurance. Indeed, already close to 5.5 million Americans have these policies. We expect them to grow in short time to 11.5 million Americans. That is a significant portion of our population. And we need to offer an opportunity for this to grow even larger because the question comes, who will be responsible as our society continues to age? Will we see up to 75 percent of funds coming into the government dealing with questions of health and old age for the American populace? Or commensurate with our national heritage and our primary philosophy in this country, does it not make sense to provide for self- sufficiency? The challenge has been noted. Budgetary restraints have kept us from the ideal, but we deal with the real here today. While we thank those who, on a bipartisan basis, have offered a long- term care model, this legislation is substantially less in cost, but can have a pronounced impact for working Americans in need of relief of long-term care and the ability to take advantage of these policies. Mindful of the critiques offered in committee, we reached out in this legislation incorporating the consumer protection language offered in a previous bill, in H.R. 831, and so we have been mindful of that and we will continue to work where we have the ability to expand this further as we deal with what may be contemplated in the other body. But, again, this is an important step. This House dare not ignore this or spurn this because we will send the wrong message to the American people if we choose to do this. So, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to join me in bipartisan support of H.R. 4946; and with this long-term care bill, we can take another important step forward.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4946, the bill just debated.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, from 1989 until now, there have been no fewer than one dozen studies dealing with the spectre of crime on Indian reservations. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the co-chairman of the Native American Caucus.

Mr. HAYWORTH. A further point of clarification. Again, this would be time divided between opponents and proponents, instead of along party lines?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends for the clarification on a bipartisan basis. Appreciate where we are headed.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for a simple reason: The current language in title I provides for yet another study of Native American gaming. Mr. Chairman, I am holding here in my hand a recitation of recent studies, most of them in the 1990s, a couple from the 1980s, but 73 studies in total dealing with Indian Country health, infrastructure, economic development, education and housing; and, more specifically, Mr. Chairman, to the question of the influence of organized crime on Indian gaming, no fewer than three studies already conducted by our Federal Government. So 73 studies total, six of them directly linked to my good friend from Virginia. Let me say in defense of the work he does, I understand his intent and his sincerity, but I come to this floor to say that we must strike section 141 because it offers yet another study of something we have studied before and we have studied time and again. The money involved here, I realize by Washington standards, does not even qualify as something to come out of Uncle Sam's change scoop. But, Mr. Chairman, a couple hundred thousand dollars would go a long way in Bylas, Arizona. A couple hundred thousand dollars would help my Native American constituents, who are dealing with fire and the aftermath of what went on in the White Mountains. This is real money. And to take this from programs of the BIA and apply it to yet another study, no matter how well intentioned, is exactly the wrong policy at the wrong time for what might be sincere reasons. Not only is it ill-advised policy, Mr. Chairman, but once again we are getting into a situation where this House could find itself in violation of rule XXI. No matter what mores or customs of the House have been observed here, the fact is, in the final analysis, by allowing this language to stay in the bill, this is a legislative rider on appropriations legislation. This takes from the purview of the authorizing committee the public policy that the authorizing committee should continue to control. The exact language of this proposal is already found in H.R. 2244, a bill that is pending before the Committee on Resources. So not only, in my opinion, do we have an ill-advised study, number 74 on the list, and not only is it spending money that could be better utilized, but again it is a usurpation of the prerogatives of the authorizing committee. For those reasons, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and join in striking section 141 of this title I. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.