J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, to draw the proper analogy, and I thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding, but it would seem to me these FBI files contain very personal information. And it would be akin to someone, a pickpocket, having hundreds of wallets that he had purloined from different folks. Now, maybe the pickpocket never used the credit cards in the wallet, maybe the pickpocket never took the currency out of the wallet to spend, but yet that wallet, something very close to someone, personal possessions, were taken away and in the possession of someone else who could have used that information, that currency, if you will, in this information age, in a very disparaging way. Sadly, again, it seems that was another example of some folks in the executive branch running roughshod over constitutional rights and, indeed, our traditions of law in this country.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If my colleague from Indiana would yield for just a second, if I am fully cognizant of the reports and our recent history, we are not talking about a few files. We are not talking about a dozen files. Could the gentleman from Indiana provide for the record how many files are we talking about?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, likewise, I thank those who preceded us this evening in this Chamber for discussing the issue of education. I think the gentleman from Indiana makes a very salient point when he distinguishes part of the difference of how best to deal with schools, how best to deal with this precious notion of educating our children and what is at stake in the future. I was pleased to hear many of our friends on the other side talk about local initiatives but this, I believe, is the key. That is that initiatives can develop at home rather than be Washington-based, with a Washington community then trying to send those notions down to the schools, if you will. Things can happen at home on the front lines with volunteerism, with innovative teaching, with people taking time in their respective communities to adopt a school. But my colleague from Indiana is quite right when he mentions that there are ways for government to fill in the blanks. I would take this time, Mr. Speaker, to inform my colleagues on the other side, as I have through many interoffice letters, of a couple of pieces of legislation that I think are vitally important, both of which are drawn on a rich history of bipartisan cooperation. The first I would commend to everyone in terms of attention is the Education Land Grant Act of 1997, a bill I developed for those rural school districts that live adjacent to federally controlled land. It is based on what happened in the Sixth District of Arizona in the 104th Congress, where the small town of Alpine, Arizona did not really have any resources to build a new school. Its tax base had been eviscerated because the folks there were not really allowed to ranch or to harvest timber any longer because of some court orders. So they came to me and said, ``Do you think we could get a conveyance of 30 acres of Forest Service land, so that we could save what scarce resources we have on books and bricks and mortar and teachers and students and building a new school?'' I was pleased that during the 104th Congress we passed a conveyance of land of 30 acres to the Alpine School District. I got to thinking, based on our history, is there something else we could do. I looked back to the Morrill Act of the 1800s during the Lincoln administration where through land grant opportunities, Federal land was given back to the States for the creation of institutions of higher learning. Out of that grew the notion of the Education Land Grant Act where we can go and convey acres, up to 30 acres at a time to those school districts adjacent to Federal lands, so that they can save their precious resources for school construction and for improving the quality of instruction within those schools. I would commend that to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And also a bipartisan bill I coauthored and cosponsored with my friend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. We do not agree on a lot, but one thing that we think is important has to do with mathematics rather than philosophy. It is the notion of raising the ceiling for private bonding authority for local school districts working with banks and financial houses that are private. Right now Congress has a ceiling of $10 million there. When we checked, we have seen that banks and other financial houses say we can raise that level to $25 million with no problem whatsoever and that can help school districts across the country as well. One other note on the Education Land Grant Act, or as some have come to calling it, with an acronym, HELGA, the Hayworth Education Land Grant Act, we should stipulate, Mr. Speaker, that the lands we are talking about are not Park Service lands nor wildlife refuges. Those areas would not be available for conveyance to local school districts. But so much other land is federally controlled from coast to coast, and specifically in the American West, that there is a variety of land that could be available that is not Park Service land nor wildlife refuges that could make a real difference for many different school districts. So I am pleased to join my friend from Indiana, and based on what we heard in the previous hour, in offering other approaches to education, which we believe may be more practical and certainly can have profound effects for all congressional districts, for all school districts from coast to coast. But, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in joining my friend from Indiana if we were to neglect the reason we are primarily here tonight, and it is something as basic as education and, indeed, one of the first things we learn, and that is the notion of what is right and what is wrong. And, sadly, recent events in Washington force us, really compel us to come to this floor to discuss inaccuracies, discrepancies and what, sadly, may in fact be widespread breaking of laws. I yield to my colleague from Indiana, because I know in his role on the committee overseeing this, he has had firsthand experience on this legislative day.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. With respect to the civility of the House and with the knowledge that I control the time, I will withdraw the request. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, good people may disagree. It is sad when people cannot allow free and open debate. What I am simply saying to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and to all my colleagues who may disagree with me on a myriad of issues, is that there is nothing wrong with parental choice, there is nothing wrong with giving parents of every race and political persuasion and every ethnic group a chance to decide how best to educate their children. And for those who want to join with me to help educate in the public sector, as we should, I would invite them to cosponsor the Education Land Grant Act that I am working on for public schools and to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], and me in raising the private bonding authority through private banks and financial houses from $10 million to $25 million so we can get a handle on education. The fact is, education is too big a problem to ignore and we will all do better when we quit impugning each other's motives.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I have 1 minute, ma'am, and I will use my 1 minute.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listen with sadness to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], because good people can disagree, and to impugn the motives of those who simply want to give parents parental choice, all parents parental choice.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentlewoman's words be taken down.

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, Mr. Speaker. If I can indeed control the time and offer my point of view, I will be glad to do it.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I regret to ask that the gentlewoman's words be taken down. She just issued a false statement. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to withdraw the request in the spirit of civility.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the time. With all due respect to my colleague from Wisconsin, putting personalities aside, dealing strictly with law, if this House of Representatives fails to take action to live up to the Constitution and the letter of the law, then shame, shame, shame, shame on this House and this process.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Linda Smith], for yielding me the time. I would like to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], for again bringing our attention to this vital issue. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is important to reiterate that we agree on making sure that resources are there to make sure that we reach out to find those children who are missing, who are abducted. But there is another question dealing with resource allocation, dealing with the finances of this country, which we must deal with in this very House, and it has to do with pay for Members who serve here in the Congress of the United States. It is a vexing question and a unique question for those of us who sit in this Chamber who are charged, if you will, with the country's bank account, who have seen time and again overdrafts on that account, overdrafts that would not be countenanced for a single nanosecond outside the halls of Government. But because Government can make the rules, Government can engage in creative accounting. Sadly, that has been the case all too often. Members here work hard. That is not the issue. But public service is a privilege rather than a career. Many Members of this institution have made financial sacrifices. That is something that at times is the price of freedom. Another real world standard that seems to have left this debate is the notion of performance. In education, in business, in athletics, indeed in every endeavor in life, work or play, there is a performance criteria that must be accepted. Speaking for myself and the people I represent in the Sixth District of Arizona, my constituents have made it crystal clear to me, and indeed I believe people from coast to coast and in Alaska and Hawaii as well, wanted those of us who serve in this Congress to work for fiscal accountability, to balance the budget, just as families around the kitchen table are forced to do. And at the very least, my colleagues, at the very least, Mr. Speaker, any increase in pay should be tied to performance. I do not believe, in good conscience, that we who serve representing the citizens of the United States from a variety of walks of life, that we in good conscience can accept a cost of living adjustment or a pay hike, or whatever we want to call it, so long as we fail to balance the budget. That is the sole requirement I believe necessary for the American people to reward us, in their judgment, with a pay increase. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we look from coast to coast and beyond to those who wear the uniforms of this Nation, who would put themselves in harm's way, we have read the accounts, we have heard the situation where some of those who defend America are forced to apply for food stamps to feed their families. How in good conscience can we rise even for a minimal cost of living adjustment when those needs still exist for those who would put their lives on the line? Mr. Speaker, those who gathered at the structure we now call Independence Hall in Philadelphia, in drafting that remarkable document that declared our independence from England in the Declaration of Independence, in those final key lines, our Founders said, ``and to this we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we can do no less. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this time. I listened with great interest to the debate. I do respect the gentleman from Ohio a great deal, the minority member who is managing his side's debate on this rule. I have just one point to clear up with the gentleman from California. Rather than some sort of sports tactic involving basketball, sadly what we are seeing from some intense partisans on the other side is more of a football technique called the misdirection play, where you try to draw attention away from misdeeds and causes of concern. I believe it is especially important for us to go on record in this Congress as saying that everyone who runs for political office, including those in the executive branch, should obey existing law. There is the point from whence the problem stems, not any far-flung notion or vision of new campaign reform. And the question comes, sadly, as questions develop as relevant as today's headlines, what type of influences are out there? We should answer those questions with existing law.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be honored.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia for pointing that out, and let me indeed read the Preamble. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, after that beautiful Preamble comes Article I, section 1 of the Constitution. And I believe that is something where we need to remember and restore the intent of our Founders of the past. ``All legislative powers herein grant,'' it reads in Article I section 1, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,'' and yet one of the historically seismic shifts, if you will, in our opinion, constitutional republic has come in this century as this institution has ceded its power to a branch of government not articulated in this document but one, Mr. Speaker, that I believe historians will comment on, a fourth branch of government, the regulatory state. With that in mind, I believe we should heed what Article I, section 1 of the Constitution says, and that is why I have introduced in the House and in the other body Senator Brownback of Kansas has introduced the Congressional Responsibility Act; understanding that as industries have developed; that as life in these United States has changed over the years, that there must be a modicum of regulation; that as Theodore Roosevelt pointed out earlier in this century, it was good to involve experts, men of science in government, helping us draft regulations to ensure the safety of food product, to ensure transportation safety, to ensure cosmetic safety, and as we have seen with many different industries that have literally been born in this century, aviation, broadcasting, a variety of different endeavors, there needs to be regulation but, again, we should remember Article I, section 1 of this document. So what the Congressional Responsibility Act would do would be to simply say that when regulations are promulgated by these executive agencies within the Executive Branch, that in addition to a time of public comment; that before these regulations, these proposed regulations, are published pell-mell in the Federal Register, that those proposed regulations be returned to the Congress for an up or down vote in expedited fashion. And if voted down, well, then those proposed regulations would be sent to a respective committee of jurisdiction and those regulations, proposed regulations, would be treated as any other proposed law. Because here is the curious occurrence that exists today, and it is this. What we have done unintentionally, what we have done, born with the best of intentions, has been to transfer power not only from the people to their elected officials but ofttimes now to bypass elected officials and put the power in the hands of the unelected.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleagues for this opportunity and also to point out that this is a living document that we need to restore. That is our mission here in the 105th Congress as we work to honestly engage each other in debate and problem solving; as we work within this constitutional republic. I mentioned earlier the work of Catherine Drinker Bowen and her book ``Miracle at Philadelphia.'' Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the miracle that should continue to astound the world is that we, as human beings, for all our failings and frailties and disagreements and challenges, have been able to preserve this constitutional republic for two centuries and a decade. Indeed, the miracle occurred not in Philadelphia two centuries ago, although that was important, the miracle occurs in Phoenix, AZ; in Phoenix city, AL; in Flagstaff, AZ; in Savannah, GA. The miracle endures, and our challenge is to preserve it, to protect it, to defend it and to represent those who sent us here to the best of our abilities. And it is my privilege to yield to my colleague from Georgia for his closing thoughts.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia. Indeed, as he recalls those who signed the document that was ratified as the Constitution of the United States, I am reminded that in just a few hours, in the Valley of the Sun in the Sixth District of Arizona, many who reference this Constitution will gather to celebrate the vibrancy of this document and its importance. As the chairman of the Congressional Caucus founded during the 104th Congress, I would say to my colleagues in this institution, and Mr. Speaker, to those who watch throughout our Nation and around the world, that it is this document that we swear to uphold and defend when we take the oath of office. The challenge for us, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is not one that can be summed up with some sort of political phraseology. There are those here in this body and elsewhere in this town who talk about reinventing government. There are others who have written, part of the Fourth Estate who have written, as journalists, that this new conservative majority in Congress is here for a revolution. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I do not believe what we are all about is a reinvention or a revolution. I think, instead, that we would be better off as a country and as a Congress representing those in our country to really try to work for a restoration, a restoration of what this document intends, enumerated powers specified in the Constitution of the United States. Sadly, what we have seen over the years is that many have taken this document, and they have put it up on the shelf. It is dusted off from time to time in commemorative weeks for historical observance, but our challenge is to live the Constitution. It is a remarkable document, founding this great Republic. If we remember, if we restore what this document means, with its limited and enumerated powers, then we will serve the American people well. I would say that certainly there are differences of opinion. We champion those differences of opinion. There are those who claim that this document has great implied powers. That debate should continue. That is the essence of our constitutional republic. But I think it would be important to remember that as one author put it, Catherine Drinker Bowen, in that remarkable title that reviews the history of the Constitutional Convention, that what our founders were about was putting together what she titled in her book ``The Miracle at Philadelphia''; the fact that people from different walks of life, enduring hardship, covering great distances, would embrace a notion that has continued to thrive over two centuries, the notion that here in this Nation, the people are sovereign, a thought that was groundbreaking 2 centuries ago, where, in the kingdoms of Europe, and indeed throughout the world, the notion was that power was conferred from God on a sovereign, someone sitting upon a throne. Here, our notion of governance is that God confers rights on people first, and then people confer power on the government. Small wonder, then, that the document starts with the three words, ``We, the people.'' And to understand the eloquence and the miracle of that accomplishment in Philadelphia is something that I think all too often we perhaps minimize or perhaps try to put in a special relationship. These were very human people with very human failings. The book, ``Miracle at Philadelphia'' encapsulates some debates that, quite candidly, Mr. Speaker, were less than civil, emotional outpourings, honest disagreements; and yes, from time to time, dare I say it, personal attacks. But even through the midst of that type of strife came this remarkable document. It would be my hope that as we continue to work through this 105th Congress, that we work together, acknowledging differences, coming to the floor in this remarkable Chamber, where 435 of us have been chosen by our fellow citizens to represent them. It would be my hope that we would do more than simply take this document out and dust it off and speak of it eloquently in commemorative fashion, but to remember that this is a living document, a Constitution of enumerated powers that, if we remember and restore that intent, we will have what Thomas Jefferson spoke of when he talked about a limited but effective government. That is what we should rejoice in and that is what we remember tonight. Mr. Speaker, as pleased as I am to join my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, I am also very pleased to join one of the newcomers to the people's House who joined us here in the 105th Congress, our good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, I thank my colleagues from Georgia and New Jersey, and I think about those who helped to write our Constitution but also those blessed in history to help draft the Declaration of Independence. I think of so many who gave so much, and indeed history has well-chronicled the hardships of many of those who signed our Declaration. As eloquent as the first few words in the Constitution of the United States are, that wonderful, beautiful Preamble, I am also struck by the faith and the determination of our Nation's Founders in the final words in the Declaration. Those words we should remember. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that for some reason, as years pass, we tend to view these events perhaps not through rose colored glass but with an unwillingness or, dare I say, ignorance of the hardships many of these people faced. Several signers of the Declaration saw their personal fortunes fall as the cause of this Nation rose. Others gave their lives. Others saw their families destroyed. It was not some small, some item done without consequence. For as great as the impact was on the world, it can be argued the impact was felt also in a much more personal way by those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that this is a living document, our Constitution now, which we celebrate this week, over two centuries and a decade being applied, being the foundation of our constitutional republic, and after that beautiful Preamble----

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentleman misunderstands the argument. That is not the theory I posited. What I am saying is that when we come to this floor through the amendments process, as my colleague from North Carolina who has served ably in this Chamber for many years understands, this is the chance for us as a collective body to sit down and say, let us review the priorities and the work done by the various committees. With reference to the ranking member's historical observation about the Bush administration and moving the NLRB into that rather exorbitant headquarters, and that is fine, I am not here to retrace partisan history, if something is wrong, then it is wrong. We ought to take a look at making sure that the NLRB can operate effectively but more economically in other areas.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I think it is very important. It may be different work, but certainly an entirely separate branch of Government in the Supreme Court has work of no less importance. And yet to see the numbers of folks employed at the NLRB and to see the extravagance I think is a great concern, especially when we contrast it with the blight and the poverty on many Indian reservations and the needs on many military bases and in the schools there.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, each board member of the NLRB has anywhere from 18 to 22 lawyers on his staff and yet, as I understand it, here across the street in our third branch of Government at the Supreme Court, the Justices of the Supreme Court have anywhere from two to three, maybe at the most five lawyers on their staffs as law clerks.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering a bipartisan amendment with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Gene Taylor, that will benefit some of the poorest children in America. The amendment will increase funding for the section 8007 program of the Impact Aid Program which funds school construction, and it will increase that aid from $7 million to $25 million. To offset this increase, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] and I propose to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, by $18 million. Mr. Chairman, as many Members know, Impact Aid funds children's education on military bases and on Indian lands. Because these areas lack an adequate tax base or bonding capacity, they often cannot meet the educational needs of their children, and that is just wrong. The Federal Government has an obligation to educate children who reside on Federal land. Indeed, helping to meet those needs is the purpose of the Impact Aid Program. Yet, the funding level in this bill will bring this vitally important program only to its fiscal year 1979 level. One section of Impact Aid that has received woefully inadequate funding is the school construction program or section 8007. While the bill does increase construction funding from $4 million to $7 million, and let me thank my colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for that, the fact remains this will hardly make a dent in the sad state of federally impacted schools in my district and in other districts across the United States. As the chairman knows, I represent the Sixth District of Arizona, a unique district because it has the distinction of being the most federally impacted congressional district. Indeed, it also is unique because it has the largest Native American population in the 48 contiguous States. The Navajo Nation, which stretches across portions of four States and is roughly the size of the State of West Virginia, is the largest and one of the poorest sovereign Indian nations, with staggering unemployment rates, which can be as high as 50 percent, depending on the season. It is apparent that education is the only way for the children of the Navajo Nation to build economic empowerment and escape a life of poverty. Moreover, educating the children on our reservations is a moral obligation we simply cannot ignore. The other seven tribes I represent in my sprawling district face similar hardships and depend on Impact Aid to help educate their youth. The sad fact is that many of the schools on military bases and Indian lands are in decrepit condition. Many school buildings on the Navajo Nation are cracking, leaking, or falling apart and would be condemned if it were not for the fact that students need to be educated and are required by law to attend classes. Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the construction budget for schools that desperately need to be replaced or renovated. I would note that the average school in the United States costs nearly $6 million to build. This bill's funding for school construction of $7 million would only allow us to build the equivalent of one school each year. Mr. Chairman, there is need for more than one school a year in my district alone. Section 8007 must be increased substantially if we are to effectively educate our children on Federal lands in a safe and healthy environment. Indeed, when Congress reauthorized the Impact Aid law in 1994 and created section 8007, it envisioned this part of the Impact Aid Program to be funded at a minimum of $25 million each year. Section 8007 has only been appropriated to $5 million in each of the last few years, and the money has yet to be distributed to any school districts. Not only that, but a study by the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, or NAFIS, recently concluded that $25 million is the amount needed to help address the construction needs of federally impacted school districts. So full funding of section 8007 would compensate for the inability of heavily impacted districts to raise construction funds on their own. Now, Mr. Chairman, let us compare the situation of these federally impacted schoolchildren with the bureaucracy of the NLRB from which we propose to offset the funding increase for school construction. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, on the Navajo reservation in my district, school buildings are literally falling down around students. I am sure that many of my colleagues from other federally impacted districts could make similar claims. The NLRB, on the other hand, occupies a posh building in one of the most prestigious parts of Washington, DC, at a cost of $21 million a year. Children on the reservation are often underfed and malnourished.