J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful Arizona family on the very happy occasion of the 40th anniversary of William and Catherine Upchruch. From this marriage came two beautiful daughters who have always been a source of pride and joy to their parents. Susan Upchurch was born on May 1, 1962, and Sharon Upchurch was born on November 5, 1963, The marriage of Sharon Upchurch to Michael Maita has been blessed with two children. William and Catherine are the proud grandparents of Alyssa Morgan Maita, born on January 5, 1998, and Andrew Jordan Maita, born on October 1, 1999. I am pleased to help honor the Upchurches, their strong and enduring marriage, and the wonderful family they have raised. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing the Upchurches all the best in the years to come.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we return to Washington to be about the business of the American people. During our district work period, in the 6th Congressional District of Arizona, an area in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, one of the largest districts in the country, not only geographically, but also now as we do the estimates on representing close to 1 million people, I was pleased that close to 1,000 people joined my family and me at a tax relief rally April 15. Despite the talk of the pundits here on the banks of the Potomac, the American people understand, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) alluded to it earlier, it is not the other people's money, it is not the government's money, the money belongs to the hard- working taxpayers of the United States. We owe it to the people who work hard and play by the rules to make sure that their money, our money is spent the right way. The best way to spend it is to put it back in the hands of people who earned it. Meaningful tax relief, we have offered it in terms of ending the earnings penalty for seniors. We hope that others will act on the marriage penalty as this body has done. The American people deserve more of their hard-earned money.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio and fellow member of the Committee on Ways and Means for the yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) a typical lament that is really based in the realm of political science fiction, because typical of the motions to recommit, it basically says, golly, gee, there really should be some tax reform. But rather than commit to it, we will throw out a variety of ideas, a grab bag for you and say that, oh, yeah, us, too. We really want to see reform in the code. But not now. The gentleman from New York laments what he says is a lack of cooperation and communication between the sides of the Committee on Ways and Means. Yet, in this tax summit, when the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader, was invited to offer his plan for a 10 percent code, he declined. How can we have honest communication? Reject the motion to recommit. Vote for the bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to me to watch how the people's work is set aside. I understand the political principle at work. Why go on the defensive? Always be on the offense. Always be involved in misdirection. I guess if I had to defend the legacy of shame that has been brought and heaped upon this country by those who willingly, knowingly took campaign donations from the Communist Chinese, then I guess I would scramble and profess shock and dismay about the current campaign finance structure. Mr. Chairman, I have said it before; I will say it again: for this crowd to stand in this Chamber and lecture us and the American people on campaign finance reform is akin to Bonnie and Clyde, at the height of their crime spree, holding a press conference to call for tougher penalties on bank robbery. It is sad. It is despicable. The true search for truth would demand that we look at those who would willingly solicit campaign donations from foreign powers.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the subcommittee chairman, for yielding me the time. I will admit the fact that the gentleman from Texas comes to the floor, taking what is a positive piece of legislation, and tearing it asunder, because if there is genuine concern on the part of those who represent all 435 districts in this House about campaign finance abuses, Mr. Speaker, the first place we should look is down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) just mentioned China. It is a sad fact that the President of the United States, on numerous occasions, sought the help of the Chinese Communists in his reelection campaign. It is a sadder fact that the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party was active in soliciting funds from the Chinese Government. I would just ask Members of this body, if we want to have a real political donnybrook and tug-of-war, we can do that. Never mind the recent amnesia about the fact that every tax bill debate here comes under a closed rule. So we debate the merits of the tax bill. If my friends were interested in genuine reform, how curious it is that no action was taken in the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) in the chair. How curious it is that no one reached out to a Member of this body on the committee of jurisdiction, allegedly. I received no communication from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) to take up this alleged reform. But how much more important it would be to do the substantive work to help people.

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, I will not yield.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this proposal, but I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues for bringing this to the floor to really show the American people what is at work here. It is true there are two different philosophies and it is not a matter of breaking a code or, shoot, even listening to cellular telephone conversations, it is just simply a chance to lay out for the people what is clear. Those on the left are committed to taking more of your hard-earned money to spend on more and more wasteful Washington programs. It is fine. It is a legitimate difference of opinion. But, Mr. Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues to focus on the teacher who visited me this morning with kids from the northern part of my district. I know it will shock the pundits and the spinmeisters who tell us people do not care about the money they send to the Federal Government, but not only the students but the teacher was very interested in taxation. The teacher shared with us the story that he and his spouse will have to write a check close to $600, a good portion of a paycheck for their salary, to the Federal Government this week begging the question, why do those who work hard and play by the rules always find themselves penalized? Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the President's multibillion- dollar tax increase. The simple fact that I understand the money belongs to the people, not to the Washington bureaucrats, and that for years there have been those denizens of the left who tell us again and again and again that families ought to sacrifice so that Washington can do more. Mr. Speaker, I think the opposite is true. I think that Washington bureaucrats ought to sacrifice so that families can have more. Again not out of embarrassment but out of courtesy, since my friends on the left did not want to offer the current President of the United States a chance to have his tax increases debated, we brought this to the floor as a courtesy. They now have the opportunity to embrace the tax increases. Because, Mr. Speaker, the money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the hardworking people like the teacher who visited with me this morning who works hard and plays by the rules and wonders where his money goes.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I thank my colleague from across the aisle from Texas also for joining us here tonight. Mr. Speaker, observers could not help but note the differing tone of those who preceded us in this Chamber this evening. Mr. Speaker, I was astounded, but I guess not really surprised, at the level of bile, the venom, the mean-spiritedness and deliberate mischaracterizations that preceded us in this Chamber, and I could not help but notice the difference, Mr. Speaker, as we come here on a bipartisan basis. Our good friend from Texas asked, what would the people at home say? And, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I hear repeatedly is how sick and tired they are of the endless partisan haranguing and insults and deliberate mischaracterizations of matters of public policy, because, Mr. Speaker, we are involved in dealing with the public trust. All 435 of us in this Chamber are entrusted with an awesome responsibility, to represent the peoples of our districts to the best of our ability, commensurate with full allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, I would just appeal to the American people to understand that we are talking about a bipartisan amendment, and, in the words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), it really should not be liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat. It is quintessentially American, because what will take place on this floor, through the leadership of my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and many of others of us, we will come to this floor and ask for a supermajority vote, ask for 290 of us to line up to say that it should be harder for Congress to raise taxes on the American people. We were talking about what folks say at home. The 6th Congressional District of Arizona, in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. From the small hamlet of Franklin in southern Greenlee County, north to Four Corners, west to Flagstaff, south again to Florence, encompassing parts of Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, a fast growing area, where people come from all over the country, a near universal lament has been well, you common sense folks can get some things done, but that is no guarantee that in 2 years if there is a change in the composition of the Congress, if something happens, that your hard work will not be reversed. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, that is precisely why we are bringing this amendment to the floor of the House again, this proposed amendment, because we believe, just as important, just as challenging as it is to amend the Constitution of the United States, to deal with questions such as impeaching a chief executive, or, in the other body, ratifying international treaties, we believe the same standard should apply to the Government reaching into the pockets of everyday, hard- working Americans. That is the key to this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, as is often the case, many of our States, often characterized as laboratories of democracy, the places where we apply with our dynamic system of Federalism the principles of our constitutional Republic, 14 of our 50 states have already adopted State tax limitation provisions, including my home State of Arizona, when in 1992 the legislature and the people decided that a two-thirds vote would be required for any, any, increase in taxation. Now, it is important, Mr. Speaker, to make this distinction: this does not prohibit tax increases, but it does say to the American people we understand a simple truth. The money does not belong to the Washington bureaucrats; it belongs to you. And we believe that if you work hard, play by the rules, want to provide for your family, want to provide for your children, have an obligation to your parents and other seniors in your community, are glad to shoulder that obligation, since it is your money, it should be tougher for Washington to get to it. It should be a question every bit as important as amending the Constitution of the United States. So we will come here again seeking a supermajority to enact this notion of a higher standard for tax increases. We are reminded over the last 2 decades, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1990, and, of course, the largest tax increase in American history, which passed in this Chamber and the other body by one vote, which was characterized by some in this town, principally those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, as an ``investment on our future,'' when in fact it really was an assault on seniors, on children, on Americans who had even left the here-and-now to go to the hereafter, so excessive was that tax increase it was retroactive to the first of the year in the grave, if the Congress or a future administration is tempted again to take the easy way out, to pickpocket hard-working American citizens, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would say, whoa, not so fast. Because we are a government of laws, because we are a government where the first three words of the Constitution talk about ``We the people.'' We are accountable to the people, and we want to make it more difficult, we want to raise the standard, so that the same Americans, whether they are in the 5th or 4th Congressional District of Texas, or the 6th Congressional District of Arizona, or any district across the country, will understand that we are going to think long and hard and have compelling reasons to make a change, should we decide to do so collectively in this body with the support of the American people. But that will take away a temptation that has been too often easily employed. Let us raise the standard and return to the notion that the money belongs to the people, not to Washington. I know my friend from Texas has a few things to say.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Texas, was relating not only the recent history but also the facts and figures amidst the flowery rhetoric that is so often part of what transpires in Washington, I could not help but note the successes that we have had as a commonsense conservative majority, and point out, Mr. Speaker, to the American people that it is very interesting the way Washington has worked heretofore. We have had some success here, and indeed, we have rolled back taxes, as we were able to enact in the 105th Congress the $500 per child tax credit; as we were able to work to make sure that there was a higher level of tax fairness; when in fact just this past week we were able to procure at long last the signature of the President of the United States on legislation to end the unfair penalty confronting senior citizens who chose to work beyond their assigned retirement age; seniors who, if they were making in excess of $17,000 a year, were taxed to the tune of $1 out of every $3 of their social security benefit, lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, that was finally changed. But I would note for the record that piece of legislation was first introduced well nigh in excess of two decades ago by the current chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer); that our current speaker, when he first arrived here in 1987, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), introduced the self- same legislation. While we welcome epiphanies, whether they come in election years or at other times, we are so pleased that at long last those who resisted that fundamental act of fairness finally saw the wisdom in letting seniors hang onto more of their own hard-earned money. Because I think, Mr. Speaker, that truly defines compassion. The reason I mention it is because it took so long. The anachronistic policies of the mid 1930s that accompanied what at that point was a labor shortage, it took all the way to the dawn of a new century, 70 years, to make that change, the modest but important tax relief we offered in 1997, which came a decade and a half after the tax relief offered in the Reagan years. So it is extremely difficult here to get this institution, to get those denizens of Washington and those folks in the bureaucracy, focused on actually letting people hang onto more of their own money. We have made some progress, as I have just documented. One of the reasons is institutionally it has been so easy to raise taxes: A simple majority vote; a chief executive who is of a mind to do that because of previous Congresses and free-spending ways. Again, this is not a partisan argument. Our friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), was talking about the days of former Speaker Rayburn and the balanced budgets that were formulated with a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and a previous majority in Congress of the other party. But following that time, whether the days of Speaker Martin or the days of Speaker Rayburn, that was then and what followed later was a complete role reversal. Always, always, always, Mr. Speaker, the notion was, we just need to raise taxes a little bit more. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to think of what that says to the family in Payson, Arizona, in my district where the husband and wife are doing all they can to establish a fledgling printing business. They are working hard to make that business work, they are creating jobs in their small communities, they are providing a service, and more importantly, they are providing for their children. I think, Mr. Speaker, one of the key problems we have faced as a people is as follows. For years folks came to this Chamber and asked or told the American people, you have to sacrifice so Washington can supposedly do more. That premise, we understand, in the fullness of time is exactly turned around: Washington bureaucrats should sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, so that American families can have more. This tax limitation amendment is the right thing to do because it changes constitutionally and institutionally the bias toward always picking the pockets of hard-working Americans. It raises the standard even as we, in a signal both to Wall Street and to Main Street, in a new commonsense conservative Congress have at long last instituted policies of fiscal sanity. The risky scheme, Mr. Speaker, is to always dip into the pockets of hard-working citizens. The real test of trust and responsibility is to make government more responsive, to make governmental decisions more rational, to reduce the debt and empower everyday hard-working Americans to keep more of what they earn and send less here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman has heard it in his district. One of the first things I heard, when I was honored and entrusted with this responsibility of service in the Congress of the United States, at innumerable townhall meetings across the width and breadth of my district, was a concern that funds were commingled. There was a fancy Washington term for it, of course there always is; the bureaucrats spoke of a unified budget. Well, that is a nice word, but what we really should have called it, Mr. Speaker, was a commingled budget, where Social Security money was not set aside and preserved for Social Security and to the point even now would we have those who lead the executive branch always talk about these plans for spending and trusting government more, it is very interesting that they forget about the basics. Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, that a common sense Congress reminds Washington's bureaucrats and big spenders, no, we need to restore that firewall. It has been our intent since day one and now we have done it in our budgetary plans, not a single dime, not a single cent of Social Security money spent on any other program; all of it, all of it, going to save and strengthen Social Security. That is the difference, is it not, Mr. Speaker? Because as I mentioned at the outset, we are entrusted with this constitutional responsibility. We take an oath of office and we are given a responsibility, a role, a mandate, an oath, not to deceive the American people, either by pandering to foreign governments to solicit campaign donations in what is a cynical, sad and macabre twist on the notion of having political opponents, and somehow confusing political opponents with enemies to the point where in a free society those in the highest offices in our land, who took, presumably the same oaths of office, entrusted with those responsibilities, would live up to them. In the same sort of rhetoric here on this House floor, in a speech two years ago, it was said, let us set aside 62 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. What was left unsaid, when we do the math as my colleague pointed out, 38 percent of that money is set aside for Social Security to go to new government programs. Mr. Speaker, it has been said of those who head up the other branch of government by columnists from their own State, do not listen so much to what they say; watch what they do. We best secure America's future by restoring trust, by resurrecting that firewall, by putting Social Security funds in a lockbox to be used exclusively for Social Security, by making it more difficult to raise taxes. Rather than having Washington succumb always to the siren song of picking the pockets of hard working Americans, we reaffirm the truth that the money, when all is said and done, does not belong to the Federal Government or the Washington bureaucrats. It belongs to hard working Americans and they ought to hang on to more of it and send less of it here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for again very eloquently and practically pointing out the difference. There is something else we should note. Even as we turn to the subjects of Medicare and Social Security, the institutional bias that always asks for tax increases, even as we celebrate in bipartisan fashion the fact that the President signed into law the end of the earnings penalty on seniors who chose to work past retirement age and we restored fairness that had been 70 years in the making, or should I say 70 years in the waiting, it is worth noting, the gentleman spoke about the largest tax increase in American history, it disproportionately affected seniors. It jacked up Social Security taxes. It hit Americans all across the board but it nailed seniors, and while we have taken this first step to restore tax fairness, it was born of another important step that was taken as the President of the United States was kind enough to come down a couple of years ago and stand at the podium behind my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and he said something that was a wonderful rhetorical flourish, but once we took away the bells and the whistles and the theatrics it was a shot across the bow and a warning to all American seniors, and my colleague from Texas I think he has more on that topic right here as we look at this chart.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from Texas, for yielding to me. In listening to the people of Arizona, as the gentleman so eloquently stated some of the goals there, we look at prescription coverage for seniors as we try to strengthen Medicare. I think it is important to make this distinction. Almost two-thirds of the senior community currently enjoys some prescription drug benefit through current insurance plans. But I think of the lady in Apache Junction, Arizona, who works not by choice but out of necessity at a fast food restaurant because she and her husband are not in a financial circumstance that enables them to have a complete insurance plan. So what we say is for the truly needy seniors, for those one-third of the senior community that have somehow eluded this opportunity at prescription drug benefits, we want to provide them. But we are being very careful, because as another one of my constituents reminded me, she came up one day, Mr. Speaker, and said, J.D., I don't want to end up seeing my Medicare premiums rise so that I have the honor and opportunity to pay the prescription bills of Ross Perot. I think that is a valid point. We want reasonable, rational reforms that strengthen Medicare and help those truly needy seniors.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is even more profound than that. In doing our research, we have crafted, again, bipartisan legislation to end this. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the American people will note with interest that a luxury tax was imposed on the telephone really before the advent of the 20th Century. It came in the Spanish American War. So, Mr. Speaker, Teddy Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill, and patrons of this new technology of the telephone, I guess at that time it was fairly called a luxury, we are paying a luxury tax. Telephone users since that time up until the present day at the advent of the Internet is still paying a luxury tax on telephones instituted in the Spanish American War. We are taking steps to roll that back. Perhaps that is the most graphic example of the institutional bias in Washington, D.C. toward taxes. Let us not forget that, in fact, what paved the way for the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that allowed for the direct taxation of personal income was a Supreme Court opinion that said direct taxation of personal income would be constitutional provided it was a temporary measure. That leads to what will transpire in our Committee on Ways and Means this week, hearings on changing our tax system, on offering real reform. But, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for shouldering the burden of responsibility and leadership and bringing to the floor the tax limitation amendment. Because real reform starts with this institutional change where we say, if raising taxes is so important to us as a people, let us at least raise the standard, make it difficult, make it more difficult, require a two-thirds majority, a supermajority, as we do on questions of constitutional amendments, as we do on questions of impeachment, of constitutional issues. If we are willing to take these steps, there should be a standard of accountability and a lack of institutional bias that always favors the bureaucrat. There should be a leveling of responsibility and a higher standard to protect the taxpayer. That is the key, the measure that will be offered by the gentleman from Texas on this floor in the days ahead. It is an important first step. Mr. Speaker, as I think about Americans who may be within the sound of my voice electronically, who may be there pouring over that Form 1040, maybe succumbing to the EZ Form because the hour grows late or the deadline of April 15, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that those Americans would take time to write, call, and fax their Members of Congress to let them know where they stand, to let them say to their advocates on Capitol Hill, you should advocate the notion that we should raise the standard and eliminate the institutional bias toward more and more and more taxation and higher and higher spending. Just one final amendment to the amendment offered, in a friendly rhetorical fashion, to the gentleman from Texas. There is really a better word to use for surplus. Really what we have right now that is widely referred to as a surplus is, in fact, an overcharge of the American people who are now taxed at the highest level in our history parallel only by a period of grave crisis in World War II. There is no excuse in a time of relative peace, to be assured there are challenges that confront us internationally, and we must provide for the common defense, and we are willing to take those steps to rebuild and restore our national defense, but having said that, there is no excuse for the American people to be taxed at the same level at which they found themselves taxed in World War II. So with this tremendous overcharge, after setting aside a massive portion for what it was designated for to begin with, strengthening Social Security, strengthening Medicare, we owe it to the people who have placed their trust in us to give that overcharge back. When one pays for something at a store, if one gives a greater amount of money in that retail exchange, one expects a return, one expects cash back. With this overcharge, we are saying it is time to give that money back to the people to whom it belongs. That is why I applaud the gentleman from Texas, and that is why I hope Americans, Mr. Speaker, within the sound of my voice will call, write, fax, e-mail, phone their Congressional Representatives and ask them to support this tax limitation amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting as so many come to the well to try and make sense of the senseless. But it is extremely difficult to understand how we can undue senseless acts when current laws are not enforced. Penalizing law abiding Americans who freely exercise their rights under the Second Amendment does not improve anyone's safety. Indeed, the tragedy in Michigan that so many of us mourn could not have been reversed by expecting a 19-year-old criminal to put a lock on a loaded gun in a shoe box, preventing a 6 year old from getting the gun. Laws do not make the difference. Enforcing the current laws do. While we have an administration that refuses to enforce current laws and in some cases refuses to obey current laws, we have the crux of the problem confronting America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague Congressman Don Young, Chairman of the Resources Committee, is introducing the ``Tribal Contract Support Costs Technical Amendments of 2000.'' I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which would make technical amendments to the contract support costs provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Over the past two years, the House Resources Committee has focused substantial attention on the problems associated with ongoing shortfalls in payments to tribes for contract support costs. The committee has not taken on this task without assistance. The National Congress of American Indians, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), and many tribes have reviewed the matter and have assisted in developing a long-term solution. In 1975, Congress firmly launched the nation on a course of Indian self-determination by enacting the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. An important goal was to begin dismantling part of our highly inefficient federal bureaucracy by turning over the daily operation of Native American programs to the tribes and tribal organizations. Twenty-five years later this Act has proven to be a resounding success. All across the country, tribes and tribal organizations are administering contracts to operate the federal government's hospitals, clinics, and many other programs. Despite its successes, the policy of self-determination has been consistently plagued by problems, with the most severe being the failure of the IHS and BIA to fully pay contract support costs associated with carrying out these federal government programs under duly-executed contracts. A recent study by the IHS shows that IHS programs, which are currently funded at roughly $2 billion, are still $13 billion short of meeting the health care needs of Indian and Alaska Native people. BIA funding is not much better. The net effect is that there is even less available in these woefully underfunded programs to meet local needs. This is not right. The ``Tribal Contract Support Costs Technical Amendments of 2000'' will clarify the rules governing the expenditure of contract funds, initiate a new measure to maximize efficiency in tribal program operations, improve federal administration of the Act; clarify the rules governing the computation of contract support costs; provide federal agencies more time to plan for the transfer of federal programs to tribal operation; and strengthen the Act's enforcement measures. I urge swift consideration of this proposal to ensure that Congress' support for Indian self-determination continues.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security from our Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) lamenting a long-term solution to the Social Security challenges that we face. But I think a word is in order to put this debate and this challenge in context. One of the elemental lessons we learn in civics class is that the President proposes; the Congress disposes. Sadly, executive leadership has been lacking and, indeed, missing when it comes to a serious, long-term solution of Social Security challenges we face. Now it is true the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), along with the gentleman from Arizona, have one remedy that they have proposed. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the full committee, likewise, have a long-term solution. But, again, the missing ingredient, sadly, is effective leadership from the administration; and it looks like it will take a verdict of the people on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November to make that change. However, Madam Speaker, it is well worth asking the question, what took us so long to correct the injustice that at long last this House will correct tonight? Since the mid-1930s, since the advent of the Social Security program, those seniors who chose to work past retirement age have been penalized to the tune of $1 out of every $3 of benefits earned, simply because they chose to work. Now, with a labor shortage, with so many senior Americans, healthy, willing and able to work, at long last, this House has moved to correct this inequity. Again, Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleagues on the left who join with us at long last in this bipartisan effort. But, again, Madam Speaker, the question that so many Americans will continue to ask is, why did it take so long? Even as we deal with the responsible question of a long-term remedy for Social Security, the question remains, why did it take the denizens of the left so long to join with us? Even as we extend the hand of bipartisanship, we welcome now this new-found coalition. We hope that it will result in other moves to restore tax fairness and balance for all Americans. But this important step we take, and we welcome the newcomers to this endeavor with the hand of bipartisanship.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. Just exactly who is subservient to whom? The Vice President of the United States had as one of his principal campaign fund raisers an agent of the Chinese government. My colleagues, it is true that our children are vulnerable, but not to law-abiding citizens who obey existing laws. They are vulnerable to those who refuse to enforce existing laws and those who would break campaign laws. Yet our friends from the left will get up and talk about campaign finance reform. I would remind this body again, to have the Clinton-Gore gang talk about campaign finance reform is akin to Bonnie and Clyde at the height of their crime spree holding a press conference demanding tougher penalties for bank robbers. It is absurd. We embrace the Constitution, we embrace enforcing and abiding by existing law, and all the laws in the world make no difference if they are not obeyed.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank all those who join us this evening to assess where we are headed with the majority budget plan which we will pass shortly from the Committee on the Budget for the American people to offer a roadmap that means continued prosperity for the American family for Main Street as well as Wall Street and all those avenues in between, for those who make their living from the soil in terms of farming and resource-based industries, and for those quite simply, Mr. Speaker, who work hard and play by the rules. In the 1960s, there was talk of a credibility gap. Sadly, in this town at this time with the current administration there exists a credibility canyon that, quite frankly, eclipses for its sheer magnitude the dimensions of that incredible wonder that is found in the State of Arizona, Grand Canyon National Park. And sadly, it is not beautiful. Because the ugly truth of this credibility canyon is beautiful rhetoric, notwithstanding, sadly, when it comes to the administration and those who, Mr. Speaker, some have dubbed the Clinton-Gore gang, we cannot listen to what they say, we must watch what they do. And even as we have seen the spectacle of our Vice President coming out for campaign finance reform saying he will renounce soft money, even on the same day when he directs his party to raise some $35 million in the same soft money, he stands and says he does not want to have happen, even when he talks about campaign finance reform while his former campaign aid Maria Hsai is convicted of campaign finance abuses over an appearance at a Buddhist temple, the Vice President tells us he did not realize was a fund-raising event, even as we see these different words and actions and contradictions, not limited to the campaign trail, not limited to one's conduct in office, but part of the budget process, again, my friend from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) pointed out the gulf between the rhetoric of the administration, the reporting of those Washington journalists and the reality of what has been done here. And our colleague from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is quite right, the responsible, common sense, conservative majority understands that true compassion is not reflected with endless promises and pronouncements and phrases for focus groups and sound bites. We understand that governing is hard work; and, accordingly, we have fashioned a budget that emphasizes education not simply with dollars but understanding who controls or who should control the priorities of education: parents in the home, teachers in the classroom, and locally elected leaders who can reflect a community's priorities. We have also stepped into the breach, as our colleague from New Mexico pointed out. A point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago I was honored with a visit from my cousin, who is a very special person. She has Downs syndrome. She is now 32. And I think about her years in different programs living at home with her aunt and uncle, working hard, always learning even with the challenges she confronted; and I think about the local school district in which she lived where there were empty promises made by a so-called compassionate group in Washington that left the funding to local leaders even when they had promised to pay for those programs. This Congress has stepped up. In terms of national defense, this Congress has stepped up. Even as our President would strip those great funds and send them to Kosovo and the Baltic for misadventures, we have stepped up. We want to do what is responsible for people who play by the rules, for people who need a helping hand. And just as people have left welfare and gone to work, and just as the American people have more of their hard-earned money to spend on themselves and their families, to save and invest as they see fit, we present a budget that reflects those priorities. I am honored tonight to join now my two colleagues from Colorado to review that process, with the closing words, Do not listen to what is said. Watch what is done. Actions speak louder than words. This Congress is prepared to take the right kind of actions.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) will yield, I would like to reiterate the point about impact aid, because we talk so much about education. Certainly it is our philosophy within this common sense majority, as the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has outlined, to transfer dollars and decisions back home, home to the family, home to the local school boards, home to the teachers. But there are three clear and compelling places where the true Federal involvement in education cannot be disputed. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico reiterated, for children, dependents of men and women who have worn the uniform of our country, who are on active duty. So military dependents. For Native American children, because of the tribal trust treaty obligations ratified by the United States Senate and part of our law. Also for children within the District of Columbia. We have clear unassailable constitutionally mandated Federal involvement in education. Impact aid really affects, more than anyone else, children of military dependents and Native American children. I watch with curiosity many things that go on here in Washington. I can remember before my colleagues on this floor joined me in this endeavor, relatively early in my time here, I introduced an amendment to add some $18 million to impact aid funding that would come out of the National Labor Relations Board. That is the Taj Mahal down the street encased in marble where each of the five commissioners has a private shower, a private dining room, and a private car, and, oh, yes, up to 22 lawyers working under his or her supervision. To put that into perspective, across the street at the Supreme Court, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court can have three clerks, three lawyers in his or her employ. The Chief Justice of the United States is only given five attorneys. But when I came here and offered that modest amendment, the hue and cry from those who claim to be friends of Native Americans and who claim to want to add money to school funding for construction was resounding. Sadly, the modest amendment was defeated. Yet, here we have again ample evidence, as the gentlewoman from New Mexico points out. We all are certainly enthralled in hearing our President come and stand at that podium and offer a masterful, empathetic, sympathetic oratorical review. But the advice we learned long ago is not to listen necessarily to what is said; watch, instead, what is done. Plenty of folks can come and talk the talk. But can they walk the walk? The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) provides the evidence, the promise of the President in meager requests, the reality of Congress stepping forward with those funds for those schools where there is a clear and compelling and, ofttimes, described as a constitutional role to provide dollars for education. It has been very interesting for our time here in Washington. We understand the notion of three separate and co-equal branches of government. But promises made by the executive are seldom followed up unless the responsible actions are taken here by a common sense majority. The gentlewoman from New Mexico offers that ample evidence.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let us speak from the heart. Let us engage in this debate. With the American people watching, Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at who benefits from tax reductions. It is sad to hear my friends on the left reminiscent of that scene in motion pictures. ``No tax relief, not for nobody, not for no how, not for no reason'' seems to be the canard of the day. Who do they think is helped by reducing the death tax? It is the family farmer. It is the small business person in rural communities throughout Arizona and throughout America. Because time after time we have seen it. Gene Stenson, for example. His dad founded a railroad track manufacturing company down in Florida in 1967. But after his dad's death in 1976, the Stensons had to shut down a facility not in Florida but in North Carolina, laying off two-thirds of their 110 employees to pay the death tax. Is that compassion? Is that a tax cut only for the wealthy? No. It exposes the canard of the left and their philosophy that was bent on bankrupting this country with deficit budget after deficit budget. Now that we are putting our House in order for Main Street and Wall Street, Mr. Speaker, we want to put it in order for every street. Is it not compassionate to offer 100 percent health insurance deductibility for the self-employed? Of course it is compassionate. Again, we heard from my friend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) just a few minutes ago, saying, oh, listen, we need to get to work on these vital issues. I hear from my friends on the left how important it is to have health insurance coverage. This is a major step forward. Time and again I hear from my constituents, why can we not enjoy what major corporations enjoy, 100 percent deductibility of health insurance? This tax relief is offered. The community renewal portion of this tax relief legislation is something that is bipartisan in nature. It helps America's most low-income areas. Family development accounts help the working poor save for lifetime needs. The working poor, the family with two children earning just a little bit over $12,000. Nineteen million Americans qualified for the EIC in 1999, low-income housing tax credit. Pension reform that my colleague from Ohio has worked on, that the ranking member talked about being so important in a bipartisan fashion, the portability to take your benefits in your personal retirement and move them from job to job. Mr. Speaker, we have a fundamental choice here. We can embrace the canards and the class warfare of the left to have issues to squabble about in the campaign, or we can embrace common sense tax relief, pension reform, health insurance deductibility for all Americans. That is the true measure of compassion, not the subjugation to the lowest rung of the economic ladder but the empowerment of all Americans. That is what we will do with this legislation.

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

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. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to some of the rhetorical fireworks in the past couple of minutes. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I am sorry that he felt it necessary to offer a personal attack by way of rhetoric, but we will look past that and go to the facts because as we know facts are stubborn things. When we examine the alternative offered by the minority, it is actually cruel because it offers tax relief with one hand and takes it away with the other. I point specifically to two increases, two estate tax increases, in the Democratic alternative; and I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that Americans for Tax Reform have sent a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means where they state specifically the Democratic alternative would result in new taxes on estates, corporate income, and capital gains alone. So I think that is important to remember.

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.