J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I apologize, but I was visiting with constituents from the great State of Arizona, so I hope I can be forgiven my tardiness. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. Indeed, the only criticism I would have would be with its name, Taxpayer Browsing, because I believe that is far too mild a term for what has transpired. As Americans, if we truly champion the notion of privacy, then we should react as we are reacting today, in a bipartisan fashion, to put an end to this obscenity, this voyeurism in the vault that allows bureaucrats to take a look at the most sensitive financial information supplied by any citizen. What we will do today, Mr. Speaker, is to rise collectively, as a body, to end this obscenity, for it is totally at odds with our notion of a right to privacy. It is totally at odds with the notion of fairness and, indeed, I champion the fact that this legislation now prescribes exact penalties so that those voyeurs of people's records will be punished when they are caught and that taxpayers, whose records have been violated, will be notified of such violation. Mr. Speaker, the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when talking about obscenity said, ``I can't define it. I know what it is when I see it.'' Mr. Speaker, what has occurred in the past has been an obscenity the American people can do without. Punishment will be swift and sure. This is a positive action we take together on a bipartisan basis to say let us rein in those who would abuse our rights to privacy.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for the time, and I welcome the gentleman from Massachusetts to this body. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I think it is great for us to be able to debate these issues and to take a look at some different perspectives. I appreciated the citation of a quotation from James Madison, who perhaps more than any one individual is responsible for the Constitution of the United States. I would also try to put at ease the mind of my good friend from Ohio who rose in support of this amendment who said he was not that fond of voting for constitutional amendments. He was somewhat reluctant. Certainly our friends in opposition to this amendment will readily note the veracity of article V of the Constitution, which gives us as the people of the United States the ability from time to time to amend this Constitution. Indeed I would only take issue with one observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts when he quoted James Madison, and that would be this: that when James Madison penned those words at the outset of this Nation, he did not have to deal with the 16th amendment to the Constitution that led to the direct taxation of personal income. Indeed those who would wrap themselves in the Constitution and talk glowingly about preserving the integrity of this document have to deal with that essential fact. For if it were such a great and good idea, if it were the intent of the founders to directly tax income, then they would have included that in the body of the Constitution or in those first few amendments known as the Bill of Rights. No, Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of our Founders comes from the fact that they realized from time to time because governments are constituted of men who attempt to make laws that there would be abuse, there would be abuse of the electorate, there would be abuse of the citizenry. The gentleman from Massachusetts used the term extortion when he talked about minorities. No, Mr. Speaker, the extortion has taken place when this Government has stuck its hands into the collective wallets of hard-working American taxpayers and always, always, and again always ratcheted up their taxes, taking more and more to the point now where the average American family spends more in taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined, when the average American family who in 1948 sent only 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government, at a time last year sent almost one-quarter of its income. No, the wisdom is found in article V of the Constitution, which gives us the right, indeed the responsibility, to move against those procedures in government which have proved troublesome, to say the least, more than bothersome, which had proven to be real problems for real Americans. That is the wisdom of our Founders found in article V and in the wake of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, which allowed for the direct taxation of income, which allowed for Washington to reach into pockets of average hard-working Americans. We must find a counterbalance, and the wisdom is found in this amendment that would require a supermajority, as occurs now in my home State of Arizona, to restrain the rate of growth of government because, as history has shown us, the easiest thing in the world to do is raise taxes. The toughest thing in the world to do is to teach this Government to live within its limits to allow the American people to hold onto more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington. So, Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that I wholeheartedly endorse this amendment to the Constitution, and I rise in strong support, and I fervently hope for its adoption in this body today.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Maryland for organizing this special order this evening, Mr. Speaker. I would simply point out another real life example that reaffirms the fact that this even affects working families. Once on national television, on C-SPAN I, one morning one of my constituents called in discussing his situation in Pinetop/Lakeside, the fact that he was a working man, and as my colleague from California pointed out, because of inflation involving some of his land holdings, land that he had invested in, pinching pennies, if you will, trying to take care of his family and also provide for them. When he chose to sell that land, he was penalized; he remained in essence cash poor. That is the unfairness of the success and inflation tax otherwise known as the capital gains tax. I thank my colleague from California for giving us a real life example of what happens when a group of people say death to the death tax. It can provide new economic life and vitality for scores of Americans. It offers true compassion not through the radical redistribution of wealth, executed by Washington bureaucrats, but through the drive, energy, tenacity, and ingenuity of the American people who are willing to save, spend, and invest in their own families, give of their own hearts to charity and in essence help provide for the next generation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, I thank my colleague from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my two colleagues from California, I thought some incredibly valid points were made this evening in this Chamber to the rest of the American people. My colleague from Orange County pointing out in a very poignant fashion the human toll, the emotional equation that was sacrificed in the name of accounting brought about by this radical redistribution of wealth, this success tax, this death tax, and my colleague from northern California, the first vintner to work in elective office as a constitutional officer since the third President of the United States, Mr. Jefferson, history will provide us the answer whether or not my colleague from northern California will follow Mr. Jefferson as time passes, but you ask the question historically, what would our founders say, not only explorers such as Meriwether Lewis, not only figures such as Thomas Jefferson, but one of those great men who really had a life that in many ways paralleled Jefferson's, overlapped, Jefferson's indeed one of the other founders of this Nation, Dr. Franklin of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, not only one of our founders but, at the time of this emergence on the American scene, one of our great humorists and philosophers. And I believe it was Dr. Franklin, in his writings for Poor Richard's Almanac, who said there were two certainties in this life: death and taxes. But I do not believe even Dr. Franklin, with his prescience, could have told us that today this constitutional republic would tax people upon their death. Of course, in the wake of the largest tax increase in American history visited upon the American Nation of the 103d Congress, when our current majority was in the minority, when three of us amongst the four were private citizens, a retroactive tax increase at that. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have been across the width and breadth of the Sixth District of Arizona, visiting with a variety of constituents in a variety of town hall settings. And from retirement communities in Sun Lakes to high school classes in Fountain Hills to gatherings in Flagstaff and, indeed, this Saturday in Payson, AZ, on topic continues to come up. It is this death tax so onerous, so oppressive that we pay with a human toll that even as eloquent as the numbers my colleague from Maryland offered tonight, takes a human toll not only on the families affected, as my colleague from Orange County, CA pointed out, but also upon what could be the creation of new jobs, the expansion of wealth, the preservation of small businesses. That is why I am so pleased that my colleague, Mr. Cox, has introduced his legislation. That is why I am honored, as the first Arizonan to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means, where we have jurisdiction over these issues of taxation. While I am so enthralled with the majority on that committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Archer, and many others, who want to throw off the yoke of oppressive taxation to offer true compassion to the American people, not some formula for the radical redistribution of wealth that would tell the American public that Washington knows best, but a notion that people could truly put their families first and in so doing could provide for others through the virtues of our free market, that is the challenge that confronts us today. From Fountain Hill to Sun Lakes to Flagstaff, I am hearing from constituents of all ages of their very genuine concern about the death tax, their very real reservations about our entire system of taxation, and a notion that, yes, some tax must be paid, of course, but why would we punish success? Why would we punish people who have taken risk, who have provided jobs, who have helped to build the economy? What is inherently selfish about that? For it is not greed; it is, instead, benevolence and true compassion through the free market to offer jobs. While many in this Chamber may disagree, and if there is a major philosophical divide in this 105th Congress amidst this era of good feelings and bipartisanship, it is of course the notion that our opponents believe, many of them, that a centralized government redistributing the wealth knows what is best. We say the contrary is true; that the American people, working families, since this tax extends now not to the super wealthy but to those of moderate means, who have worked all their lives, to, yes indeed, working families, by allowing those families to provide for themselves, by allowing the fruits of their labor to be invested, we will in fact continue to build this economy and continue to be the envy of the world. So I am honored to be here. I certainly appreciate the efforts of my colleague from southern California, and I thank the gentleman from northern California, and my good friend, who makes, in essence, a half an hour or 45-minute commute from his district in Maryland, and we invite him out West to catch up on his reading from time to time and also visit with some of our constituents. I think we understand what is a truth which stretches from coast to coast and, indeed, to the 49th and 50th States of our Union as well.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. To answer his question, what I hear from people of various political persuasions, indeed if we return briefly to the political season, one of the areas of discussion was the notion of helping working families. As our colleague from southern California has pointed out, as our colleague the gentleman from Georgia has recounted with real-life experiences, as I hear in town hall meeting after town hall meeting, there is an insistence, not born of greed but of genuine compassion and old- fashioned Yankee ingenuity, that people want to hang on to more of their money to save, spend and invest as they see fit on their families, not rejecting the notion of compassion but to truly be compassionate. And so what I hear, to answer my colleague's question, is widespread interest in changing, repealing as my colleague from southern California says, death to the death tax, and rethinking and reducing the capital gains taxes. Indeed, we might point out, Mr. Speaker, for some of the American people who join us here, as my colleagues from Maryland, California, and Georgia have been talking tonight, just a brief lapse into previous terminology. When we talk about the death tax, it is truth in labeling, because under the current scheme, in the current lexicon, people talk about estate taxes as if this were some sort of palatial gains. It does not tell us the truth. It is a tax literally upon people who die, there is a penalty for dying, and my colleague from California pointed it out. I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we should also come up with a new term for the capital gains tax. As my colleague from Maryland pointed out, since people want to see a reduction in those rates, should we then rename that the success tax, because you are taxing and penalizing success.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, the other thing we need to do, as I talked about, in terms of penalizing people for succeeding, is the excessive taxation, and I really call it the success and prosperity tax. We have come to call it the capital gains tax, and we welcome the initiative the President has put forth in terms of wanting very tightly targeted tax relief in terms of capital gains taxes. His plan limits it only to homeowners. There are many small business owners across the country who have worked hard, who have succeeded, who will have more money to save, spend, and invest in job creation and in the economy if they have more of their money to hang onto.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is a very important first step that we take these important steps, even as we look at broad based tax reform, that we offer tax relief and tax cuts. This is another area where there are some honest disagreements. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin came to testify in front of the Committee on Ways and Means a couple of weeks ago. The administration has a limited plan for a $500 per child tax credit. I asked Secretary Rubin about that single mom in the sixth district of Arizona, and there are many of them, who may not be receiving child support payments from their former spouse, who may be working very hard to stay above the poverty level and therefore not qualifying for the earned income tax credit and let us say the single mom has two children, ages 13 and 15. Under the administration's plan, that family would receive no tax credit for those children because, you see, the President's plan only goes to age 12. Those of us who are parents, and the gentleman from Georgia and I, the gentleman from Georgia's daughter is just entering her teenage years, our eldest daughter is just leaving her teenage years. There is one basic principle: Children grow more expensive as they grow up.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, because he asks a question that far exceeds the $64,000 question. Indeed, it is a question that deals with trillions of dollars and is fraught with many challenges to our Nation. I think it is important, in the spirit of simplifying, to first define our goal. I believe, quite candidly, Mr. Speaker, that the American people will accept nothing less than our pledge to end the IRS as we know it. One way that I think my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, would certainly champion is to put the service back into the final word in the name Internal Revenue Service; to the extent possible, to end the adversarial relationships that have grown up between the IRS and the citizenry. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that we have the highest voluntary compliance rate of any Nation in the world when it comes to accruing revenue. But let us also understand this: that since this Nation ratified the 16th amendment, and the first direct tax on income came about in 1913, the cost of government, the cost of the Federal Government, even taking into account inflation, has increased in excess of 113,000 percent. So there are many questions we have to deal with. I thank my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for holding hearings about tax simplification, for working to get to the bottom of many of these issues that confront us: for example, the notion that the new computer system at the Internal Revenue Service, with an expenditure in excess of $4 billion, is not working; and still, Mr. Speaker, the confounding notion that within our Tax Code we penalize people for succeeding, we penalize people for getting married, and finally, we penalize people for dying. For although some refer to it as an estate tax, the fact is that we have, in essence, a death tax, where people who work hard, like the seniors who live in the Sixth District of Arizona in and around the Sun Lakes Retirement Community in my district, have worked hard, have achieved, would like to pass on, quite frankly, their prosperity to their children, pass on their businesses, and such is the excessive tax rate that these people are hurt.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the point is well made. Again the message we want to share, Mr. Speaker, with those who join us via television is the notion that we can do a better job, use our resources in a more intelligent fashion when we focus on having children learn in a safe environment, when we assure equality of opportunity for every schoolchild from the inner city to the most rural regions of this country, to places in between, where they have an opportunity to have a quality educational experience, and where we focus resources on helping teachers teach, helping children learn, and empowering parents to make sure their children have an education worthy of their goals and worthy of this Nation's future. That is the challenge before us. That is why I look forward to working with the gentleman from California. That is why I look forward to working with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] who is preparing legislation that would say that we should direct 90 percent of the money raised at the Federal level for education, we should work to ensure that 90 percent of that money gets back into the classrooms locally to help teachers teach and help students learn, and quit empire-building with the Washington bureaucracies; because this redistribution of wealth, as my colleague the gentleman from California has pointed out, and I have seen statistics that are even more dire, where according to some studies only 8 cents of every dollar ends up in some classroom settings. The answer is more than dollars and cents, C-E-N-T-S; it is common sense, S-E-N-S-E, that we must work to preserve, to empower students, teachers, and parents in this educational endeavor.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there is one central point that should be our guide. Every dime appropriated at the Federal level should go to help teachers teach and help children learn. That is our challenge, that is our mission, and that is one of the things I will work on in this 105th Congress.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to thank my colleague from California, because not only has he outlined the parameters of the problem, but he has offered a solution. Mr. Speaker, just simply to bring this home to Arizona, the Sixth Congressional District and indeed throughout the State of Arizona, there are real problems with inequities in school funding. There are real challenges for rural school districts who, through the evisceration of resource-based industries, have seen their tax bases decline exponentially. Indeed, I think of Superior High School in the town of Superior, AZ, in the Sixth Congressional District, where the high school is anything but superior in terms of the building. Now, the students that go there are truly superior, fine young people working hard, but they are in a situation where their school has fallen into disrepair and the tax base has been eradicated. So we have to look for other ways to end these funding inequities, and that is why I am so pleased that my colleague from California wants to step forward with a plan that would call on private enterprise to step forward, and now with a seat on Ways and Means I look forward to working with the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of that committee, to find a way to deal with the Tax Code to help business help schools.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not conjecture.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia for illuminating the sheer volume of $1 trillion--$1.6 trillion because the danger, Mr. Speaker, is that we become numb, or we are numbed, to these totals and these figures as they are bandied about, but we are talking real money, and we are talking real people, and we are talking about a real debt that will hang over the heads of our children, a debt that as we have seen with yearly deficits actually adds to our spending a debt tax, if you will, in terms of higher interest rates. I often have occasion to visit high schools across the width and breadth of the Sixth District of Arizona, and I was at the new Fountain Hills High School last Friday morning for a townhall meeting listening to the perspective of these young people, some of whom have already gained their franchise to vote having celebrated their 18th birthdays, others looking forward eagerly to the opportunity to engage in the national debate and have a voice at the ballot box, and we talked about what this deficit tax, if you will, actually means with the higher interest rates when they want to get a student loan, when they want to have a car loan. The fact is that they are paying more and more money on that loan because of higher interest rates, and that is money that is likewise taken out of their pocket in addition to the taxes they encounter and the taxes their parents encounter and the taxes that now on average working families in America actually account for more of the family budget than food, shelter, and clothing combined.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And the other disturbing fact about this, and first of all let us thank the President for putting a budget on the table as a starting point, but there is a long way to go, the other disturbing fact about this, Mr. Speaker, is that 98 percent of the cost savings, 98 percent of the hard work would have to come in the final 2 years of that cycle. Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I can put this into everyday language in terms of going on a diet. I think it is safe to say that people can take a look at me and, as the attorneys would say, there is a preponderance of physical evidence to indicate that I need to change my eating habits, I have to slim down; I would be the first to admit that. But you do not slim down by losing maybe a gram a week, or saying you are going to lose 50 pounds and saying you are going to lose a gram a week for 4 years time, and then in the final 2 weeks of the diet lose 48 pounds or 49 pounds to get to that level of loss. It does not work that way, and I insist even as we try to tighten our belts, so to speak, and act in a fiscally responsible way to help future generations to help this Nation, we have to get on a process that is very simple: Where we do not spend any more this year than we did the preceding year, where we move with fiscal sanity and responsibility to address these problems.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If we fail to balance the budget, that generation of taxpayers would have to surrender in excess of 80 percent of their incomes. I would gladly yield.

Mr. HAYWORTH. In addition, as my colleague from Georgia points out, Mr. Speaker, in the process what we have done is something that is remarkably reckless and fundamentally unhelpful and unhealthful to generations yet to come, to generations who have yet to exercise their franchise as voters, to young people who have no voice at the ballot box, and it is this: What I hold here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, is the voting card given to me as a Member of Congress, and, Mr. Speaker, some folks around this institution, in an effort I suppose to laugh to keep from crying, have taken to calling this card the world's most expensive credit card, and there is a reason for that nickname for this card. It is because when I received this copy, it came with a debt of $5 trillion, and to put that on our children is one of the greatest tragedies and one of the greatest derelictions of duty that this, the world's greatest deliberative body, could fail to act on. And of course we are indebted to our President, to his own budgeteers who a couple of years ago in laying out the administration's budget offered a page in their preamble to those numbers called generational accounting, where the President asked his budgeteers to try to calculate for the next generation of taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, for kids like John Michael Hayworth who is now 3 years old, 25 years from now when he enters the working world, by that time at age 28 moving toward what we hope is a steadily increasing paycheck, heading toward his prime as a working adult. The President's own budgeteers, forecasting what those average taxpayers would have to surrender a quarter of a century hence, found these disturbing numbers. The President's own budgeteers tell us that if we do nothing to change the rate of spending in Washington, DC, if we fail to balance it--

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding. I have listened with great interest to so many points of view, but one thing, Mr. Speaker, that comes through loudly and clearly from the American people is the notion that we must move to put our fiscal house in order. Regrettably administrations of both parties, and indeed this institution in previous years have failed to live up to the responsibility that every American family must follow, and, that is, to live within our means. It is an exercise every family practices sitting around the kitchen table. When families are outspending their rate of income, they have to make changes. What we talk about here is not shrouded by mysteries of micro or macro economics. There are no hidden agendas or anything that should stunt or scare us as a people. No, simply what we must do is live within our means. As my colleague from Georgia pointed out, many of the respective State constitutions in this union of 50 sovereign States mandate that those States operate within the parameters of a balanced budget. Indeed, it is unconstitutional according to those State constitutions for those States to do otherwise. What we are saying is that that measure of fiscal sanity, simply living within our means, be done here at the Federal level. It has been 28 years since Congress, working with the President, has balanced the budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Again, he points out so many facts that are pertinent in this debate and in this endeavor. A couple of thoughts come to mind in the wake of the President's State of the Union Message. I talked to one of my most important constituents, indeed, my most important constituent, my wife Mary. Ms. Mary's first question was this: ``How do we pay for all these programs?'' Will this lead to a greater deficit? And that is a question that is one that is filled with compassion and with common sense. Let us work to rein in spending, to allow working families to hold on to more of their hard-earned money, to look for what is reasonable and rational. That is the key in this Congress and in the years ahead.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is what we want to work to change. We need to change drastically and, yes, even work to repeal this death tax. We need to work to change the system of taxation where people are penalized for succeeding in our economy. We need to hold hearings, as we will, to take a look at alternative notions to the income tax. Our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] champions the flat tax. Our chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] champions the notion of a consumption tax, most often reflected in a national retail sales tax. What is very important for us, both in the Committee on Ways and Means and as a Congress, and indeed as a country, is to examine very carefully all the implications, the benefits, the challenges of these different alternatives and then move forward, once we achieve a consensus, to have that type of tax reform that will indeed end the IRS as we know it.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is important that that single mom and single moms like her across the country have the chance to experience that same type of tax relief. The secretary in response, it is not my intent to put words in his mouth, to paraphrase his comment in response was, well, we had to make tough choices and tightly target these tax cuts. And therein lies a philosophical difference. Good people can disagree. We believe you can expand that opportunity. You can help those single moms. You can help those families who are having a difficult time and at the same time, with the infusion of capital into our economy, you can actually increase jobs, increase prosperity and move toward fiscal responsibility. The two goals are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to move to be more fiscally responsible and to allow working Americans to hold on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington. That is the challenge that still confronts us.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to honor the memory of one from my home State who qualifies as a legislative legend. His name was Burton Barr, and for more than 20 years he served with distinction in the Arizona House of Representatives. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we embark in this 105th Congress to do the people's business, we are confronted by a curious paradox. It is one that surrounds every legislative body, and it principally centers on this challenge: How do we, in the spirit of bipartisanship, at the same time recognize legitimate differences of opinion and work for the common good? Mr. Speaker, I submit that for a sterling example of how to move forward in a bipartisan way, we need look only so far as to the legislative career of the late Burton Barr. Burton Barr in his role as Speaker of the Arizona statehouse worked effectively with members of that body from all different walks of life and from both major political parties. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, no less a person than the current Secretary of the Interior and former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt attests to the legislative ability of Burton Barr. There were those who were cynics and critics who referred to Mr. Barr as the great salesman, but he was more than that. For in recognizing legitimate differences, and yet trying to achieve a consensus, Burton Barr went about the people's business. He was a public servant in the truest sense of the word. To his family and to the people of Arizona, this House should offer our condolences and sympathy. And, again, for a sterling example, we should turn to this legislative leader who showed by example that the people's business can be done, that we can work together constructively, at times championing our differences, at times legitimately discussing those challenges at hand. Burton Barr was more than simply a legislative leader. He was a husband and devoted father, and he was a hero of World War II. He earned two Silver Stars for gallantry. But for the people of Arizona, his star in the firmament will be his dedication to the people of the Grand Canyon State and his record of accomplishment in leading a legislative body to success in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to the Casa Malpais National Historic Landmark in Springerville, AZ. The Casa Malpais National Historic Landmark is a 14.5 acre archeological site located near the towns of Springerville and Eager in northeastern Arizona. The site was occupied around A.D. 1250 by one of the largest and most sophisticated Mogollon communities in the United States. Casa Malpais is an extraordinarily rich archeological site. Stairways, a Great Kiva complex, a fortification wall, a prehistoric trail, catacombs, sacred chambers, and rock panels are just some of the features of this large masonry pueblo. Due to its size, condition, and complexity, the site offers an unparalleled opportunity to study ancient society in the Southwest and, as such, is of national significance. My legislation would establish the Casa Malpais National Historic Landmark as an affiliated unit of the National Park Service. Affiliated status would authorize the resources and protection necessary to preserve this treasure. As a member of the family of affiliated national landmarks, the public would also have greater exposure to the Casa Malpais site. The communities in the area support this legislation. Local officials have taken steps to ensure that all research and development of the site is conducted in consultation with local native American tribes. I ask my colleagues to support this measure. It will enhance the landmark's attributes for the enjoyment and education of local communities, the State of Arizona and the Nation. By supporting this legislation, we can help open this unique window of history through which we can study and learn about our rich heritage.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would thank my good friend from New York, Mr. Lazio, for recognizing me and allowing me to take this time to discuss this legislation, and I would thank those on the minority side who have worked with us in this regard. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of this House today to voice my strong support for H.R. 3219. Washington has changed in a great many ways since many of us came to the Congress of the United States in January 1995. Chief in those changes has been this recognition, that one size does not fit all. Nowhere do we have greater evidence of this truth than when it comes to the challenge of housing for native Americans. I represent the Sixth District of Arizona. More Indians live on reservation land in the Sixth District of Arizona than in any other district in the contiguous United States. We could use the bureaucratic euphemism that their housing is substandard, and yet that description in itself is sorely lacking; it indeed is substandard. But with this legislation today, we acknowledge the fact that Indian housing, based on the solemn and, dare I say, sacred trust obligations of the treaties, which my good friend from Alaska mentioned minutes ago, will be recognized to be profoundly different than the public housing programs in metropolitan areas. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, with this legislation we do something that almost all of Indian country has called for time and again on a variety of programs. We block-grant that money directly to the Indian tribes so they do not have to come through the Washington bureaucracy, so they do not have to wait for set-asides from respective State governments. We say to the first Americans in this instance, ``You are not the forgotten Americans, and moreover, you have the right to self- determination, to self-governance, to decide how best to spend this money.'' I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, not only for seeking the advice and the input of our colleagues in the minority in this body, but for traveling throughout this country, indeed for coming to the great State of Arizona and hearing directly from the people who will be most affected by this legislation, for if there is another lesson of this 104th Congress, it is this: The best solutions are not fashioned by those who reside here inside this Beltway. Ofttimes the best solutions come from the people directly affected who stand to have their own lives improved, who stand to make more of their lives, who must confront this problem every single day. So we provide the flexibility, we provide the funds directly to the tribes, and we recognize that in this country once again in solving problems one size does not fit all. Join us in supporting this legislation.