J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the broad scope of this bill and how difficult it is to meet the challenges of funding on all the important programs. Let me take time to commend the chairman of the subcommittee and his expert and able staff. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment regarding the Social Security totalization agreement signed on June 29 by the Social Security Commissioner and her Mexican counterpart. Totalization agreements are bilateral agreements between the United States and another country to coordinate Social Security programs. Essentially, a totalization agreement eliminates the need to pay Social Security taxes in both countries when U.S. companies send workers to the other country and vice versa and it protects benefit eligibilities for workers who divide their careers between the two countries. In a general concept, totalization agreements are desirable, but I would ask my colleagues to carefully review what is at stake in this recent decision and agreement involving Mexico. By every account, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the Social Security Administration tried to slip Mexico totalization under the radar without coming to Congress, as the Social Security Administration had promised. This is a problem; and, therefore, it requires a response from this House. I personally met with Social Security Commissioner Barnhart. I believe she is very capable and, on balance, has done a fine job. But following our discussions, I continue to believe that serious problems remain with this totalization agreement with Mexico. The principal problem with the agreement is that our Social Security Administration assumes that only 50,000, only 50,000, Mexican workers will apply for Social Security benefits. But with estimates of over 4 million Mexican workers here illegally, I think the number in fact will be significantly higher. To be clear, Mr. Chairman, this is not an immigration issue. This is a Social Security solvency issue; and if a mere 25 percent above that estimate of 50,000 apply, and I will do the math for you, that would mean 60,000 people actually take up benefits, the GAO has found it will be a financially significant drain on the trust fund. Now, for purposes of full disclosure, obviously not every Mexican national working here illegally will suddenly qualify for Social Security. We passed and the President signed into law H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which keeps many illegal workers from assessing benefits. But, Mr. Chairman, a significant new population, perhaps hundreds of thousands, would have access to Social Security under this Mexico totalization agreement. Specifically, it would be three groups: number one, workers who were illegal at one time, such as those with temporary work visas, who have fallen into illegal worker status by overstaying their visas; number two, the dependents of these once legal workers; and, number three, these Mexican workers who have worked more than six quarters in the United States and less than 40. The 50,000 estimate that Social Security assumes will take advantage of these benefits are Mexicans working legally in the United States, and it does not account for these three groups I have detailed. Now, to give an idea of how large a group are unaccounted for here, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services' most recent data in 2002, 166,000 Mexicans changed their status to permanent resident from a variety of other classifications, for example, visitor, temporary worker, no status, et cetera. Again, Mr. Chairman, that is 166,000 in 1 year. The Social Security Administration assumes only 50,000 are here, when three times that received permanent resident status in 2002 alone; and that 50,000 will only grow at the rate of general population growth when hundreds of thousands more will move in and out of legal status each and every year. To assume that hundreds of thousands of these workers would pass up benefits is unrealistic. Mr. Chairman, let me make this very clear. If only fully legal workers were to collect benefits under this totalization plan, I would not oppose it. But, Mr. Chairman, I have serious doubts that this would be the case. The Social Security trust fund will begin spending more than it receives in the year 2018. In 2042, the trust fund will have spent up the surpluses it has built up. It will be totally bankrupt. Opening the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of illegal workers can only hasten the coming funding crisis facing Social Security. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I listened with interest to the comments of my subcommittee Chair, and I think it is worth noting in this debate, if there could be guarantees that a resolution of disapproval would be allowed to come to the floor, and one of my friends, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) has drafted it, there would be no need for this amendment, and we could withdraw it. We have made that clear. But that guarantee has not been forthcoming. Therefore, the appropriations process is our opportunity for a floor vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note again for my friend from Illinois this is not an immigration issue, it is a solvency of Social Security issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, to further demonstrate that this issue transcends normal partisanship, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, to close out advocacy on this amendment, I yield the remaining minute to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I listened with great interest to my friend from Indiana, and I rise asking this House to reject this motion to instruct because when we take a closer look at what is transpiring here, we do see really a distillation, a distinction, of two different philosophies. One is the notion that the highest and best use of the taxpayers' money is here by government. And that is fine. That is an intellectually defensible position; but those who offer that tonight, I believe, need to make very clear to the American public what, in fact, transpires if we embrace this motion to instruct. Essentially what will transpire, despite the best efforts of my friends on the other side, if this body fails to act to maintain the rate of tax relief, next year the $1,000 child tax credit shrinks. It shrinks to $700 per child. If we want to provide tax relief for working families, the desired goal that we hear from our friends here, we do not want, in essence, to increase taxes. But that will be what will happen. We will see the marriage penalty provision reduced. And it is fine to have a disagreement. My friends on the other side view this as a fundamental cost to government. Again, that is fine, and I will leave that position for them to stake out, and we could go back through a litany of history in deficit spending that in previous Congresses it seemed to matter not a whit. But we welcome this adherence that my friends now say they have for fiscal accountability, responsibility. We welcome it from any quarter. But the question becomes, What is the best way really long term to reduce deficits? And this argument, incidentally, is nothing really new. It has been part and parcel of our constitutional Republic since the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and others said, why do we not embrace a policy of growth? When we reduce taxation across the board, when we maintain the $1,000-per-child tax credit, when we maintain the alleviation of the marriage penalty that we have incorporated into current law, we actually grow the economy because people have more of their hard-earned money to spend. And so it is important to maintain the tax relief that we have already established, not to come back and fill under the notion that somehow by doing so, we are being more fiscally accountable and responsible. No, we are not to the families who depend on the tax relief. And if we reject across-the-board tax relief, we are hurting the very people who produce in our economy. Good people can disagree. And we appreciate the motion to instruct, and we appreciate the lectures that will be forthcoming, to be sure, on fiscal responsibility. But at the end of the day when we maintain a reduction of taxation across the board, we grow our economy. We have seen that happen. It is not partisan. Many of my friends on this side and, indeed, throughout the Chamber and across this country, Mr. Speaker, remember with great reverence Jack Kennedy's Presidency, remember his argument that a rising tide lifts all the boats, that when we cut taxes across the board, we invigorate the economy. We saw that happen, though, sadly, President Kennedy did not live to see the result. We saw it happen in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. We have seen a reinvigoration of our economy through the across-the-board tax relief that we have offered now that should be made permanent because that is the very thing that has gotten us out of the economic doldrums in the wake of 9/11. So, respectfully, not doubting the sincerity of my friend from Indiana, nor the speakers who will follow, we just have two different paths we need to follow. Either embrace pro-growth notions that in the fullness of time we know that long term we actually increase revenues to the government for more economic activity. And despite the best efforts of my friend, I do not want to see the per-child tax credit watered down to $700 a year. I do not want to see a decrease in the benefits we have offered married couples. I do not want to see an abridgement in what, in essence, in the long term will actually increase revenues to the government through increased economic activity. But two different points of view: either the money belongs to the folks, or it belongs to the government. If we vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct, what we are doing is saying the highest and best use of the people's money, Mr. Speaker, is here in Washington, D.C. I believe it is exactly the opposite. I believe the highest and best use of the money is not to ignore our obligations, but to understand the money belongs to the people. When the people keep more of it, when the families with children keep more of it, when married couples keep more of it, when small business owners have more of their money to save, spend, and invest, we indeed ignite the engines of economic prosperity. And in the long term, Mr. Speaker, we will see more revenue to the government, not through the heavy hand of castor oil economics, but through the real proven success, whether in the Kennedy years or in the Reagan years or more recently this Congress working with this President, we fire the engines of economic activity. So with all due respect to my friends on the other side, reject this motion to instruct. Stay the course. In the long term it will mean more economic prosperity and the very revenues to the government my friends on the other side purport to want to see.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in front of the grand edifice known as our National Archives, where this Nation's records and a good bit of its written history is kept, are these words: ``What is past is prologue.'' And yet today, in the wake of last night's wire service and subsequent press reports, perhaps that should be amended to read, ``What is past is purloined'' or ``What is secret is stolen.'' Mr. Speaker, press accounts today indicate that former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is the focus of a criminal investigation dealing with the theft of classified documents in the care of our National Archives. It seems that former National Security Adviser Berger, at the direction of former President Clinton, was sent to the National Archives to review documents that might be germane to the mission of the bipartisan 9/ll Commission examining the events of 9/11 and the security situation and intelligence situation which our country confronts. Mr. Speaker, according to press accounts, former National Security Adviser Berger took copies of some documents. By some accounts he stuffed them into his pants, into his pants pockets, and he left the National Archives with secret material. Now, Mr. Speaker, in a rather pathetic effort at defense, Mr. Berger's attorney said that his client's actions were inadvertent. I thank my colleague from Kansas for handing me the unabridged dictionary of the English language from which I will read today: ``Inadvertent: Unintentional, not attentive, heedless of, pertaining to, or characterized by a lack of attention.'' Inadvertent. That is curious. The former National Security Adviser inadvertently putting classified documents into his pockets; inadvertently leaving the archives with classified material? Oh yes, his legal counsel went on to say that our former National Security Adviser was sloppy. Sloppy? Inadvertent? No, Mr. Speaker, there was a purpose to what Mr. Berger did. What was Mr. Berger, Mr. Speaker, trying to keep from the American people and from the 9/11 Commission? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, before any report is released, we should find out exactly what documents were taken and exactly what those documents indicated. This is not an inadvertent act. This is not an act of sloppiness. It is an act that is criminal, and it carries with it not only consequences for Mr. Berger, I daresay it carries with it, sadly, perhaps even deadly consequences for the United States. It is not sloppiness that led to a lack of security. It is not an inadvertent act. There are purposes behind those who would attempt to shield the truth, and those purposes need to be determined and the American people need to be aware of what action was taken or what action was not taken by those who served in positions of trust, by those who purport to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And, even at this time of year, where inevitably the call from the left will be that this is some effort to politicize what has transpired, Mr. Speaker, this is too important for politics. This is national survival. No, what is past is prologue. And, Mr. Speaker, I pray it is not prologue to yet another attack.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I welcome many of the comments from my colleague from Texas. Homeland security and our national security, indeed, the survival and the continued success of the American people is what is at stake as we find ourselves engaged in this new type of warfare, this war on terror. I believe it is important, despite this time of year and the pending political season, to understand that it is important not to politicize but at the same time to point out genuine differences of opinion that may exist because, after all, that is the purpose of the House of Representatives. But, Mr. Speaker, to those who might misinterpret abroad, to those who perhaps fail to understand our tradition of vigorous debate and honest disagreement, Mr. Speaker, at this time in this place in the well of the people's House, let us reaffirm as a Nation our resolve to do, in the words of my constituents from the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona, ``whatever it takes'' to protect our homeland and to ensure that the American Nation not only survives but thrives. Good people can disagree; but on this point there should be no disagreement. There are those who are tempted to strike the homeland; severe consequences will follow those actions.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4115) to amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation.

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. 4115.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4115 is a bill I have sponsored along with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. Flake), to resolve a problem affecting an Indian tribe in my district. It is basically a technical correction to a provision in existing law pertaining to leases and contracts on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Reservation which is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Committee on Resources ordered the bill reported by unanimous consent on May 19, 2004. The need for this bill originates in the Act of November 2, 1966, and in subsequent amendments to related leasing laws affecting Indian lands. The Act of November 2, 1966, authorizes the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian community to put binding arbitration clauses into leases and contracts for business development on its reservation. Without such binding arbitration clauses, many investors would not be interested in doing business with the tribe because there would be no means of enforcing contracts. Unfortunately, an amendment to a related provision of law has made it unclear whether the tribe may put the binding arbitration clauses into all of its contracts and leases. This bill clarifies that the tribe may include binding arbitration clauses in all contracts for business developments on its reservation. There are sometimes concerns expressed over passing bills that affect tribal land rights without securing the consent of the affected tribe. In this case, H.R. 4115 was specifically requested by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community which has informed me and my colleagues who join me on the Committee on Resources that it stands to lose major economic development opportunities on its reservation unless this bill is enacted. According to the tribe's attorneys, the language of the bill will solve the tribe's problem. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community should be applauded for its aggressive pursuits of economic development and diversification. It is taking advantage of its location in a major metropolitan area to attract investors and create jobs and prosperity for the tribe, its members, and also for the surrounding communities. Enacting H.R. 4115 enables the tribe to execute leasing contracts that will benefit the tribe and its members far into the future. Mr. Speaker, this legislation may seem like just a minor fix to a technical leasing issue, but in fact there is much at stake for the tribe's economic future in the passage of the bill. I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4492) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 4492, the bill under consideration.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4492, introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), would amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain National Heritage Areas, and for other purposes. The bill was subsequently amended by the Committee on Resources where five additional titles were added. As amended, Title I would extend the existing authorities of six established National Heritage Areas. Titles II and VI would establish the National Aviation Heritage Area in Ohio and the Oil Region National Heritage Area in northwestern Pennsylvania, respectively. Titles III, IV, and V would make technical changes to two existing National Heritage Areas and one Heritage Trail Route. The existing Heritage Areas seek to transition their management authority to a nonprofit organization, which is in line with more recent Heritage Area management, and the Trail Route seeks to produce an economic feasibility plan in an effort to move away from Federal appropriations. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4492 is supported by the majority and minority of the committee. I urge adoption of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3874) to convey for public purposes certain Federal lands in Riverside County, California, that have been identified for disposal, as amended.

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. 3874, the bill under consideration.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3874, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), as amended by the Committee on Resources, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 44 acres of Federal land identified for disposal in Riverside County, California, to Father Joe's Villages, a successful nonprofit organization that assists the homeless in California. Father Joe's plans to develop a comprehensive operation that will address both housing and training needs for the homeless in the greater Coachella Valley. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3874 is supported by the majority and minority of the Committee on Resources and by the administration. I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1156) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project.

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. 1156, the bill under consideration.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1156, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), increases the authorized Federal cost ceiling of the phase I Regional Water Reclamation Project in Orange County, California, by $60 million. Local project sponsors have expressed a desire to expand the groundwater replenishment system, which injects highly treated wastewater blended with other sources of water into the local groundwater aquifer. This project will provide an additional water supply for future use and create a freshwater barrier to prevent seawater intrusion. The project reduces the region's dependency on imported water supplies and provides drought-proofing safeguards. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers; I yield back the remainder of my time.