J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the chairman emeritus, in fact, vice chairman of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this bipartisan amendment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Resources.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, sometimes studies of the obvious are important. But it is obvious that across the width and breadth of the country we have the first Americans, quite candidly, oftentimes dealing with Third World conditions. Economic opportunity should know no bounds. If there are those who dispute some endeavors, God bless them. They have that right. But to again study, to add now to the grand total study number 74 of what we know to be problematic, I think is wrong. Support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a fellow member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as the House is in the Committee of the Whole House to consider this, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, acknowledging what I believe to be good-faith efforts of the appropriators for what is a very difficult problem. Indeed, simply to call this a very difficult problem may be the understatement of this new century, and maybe the understatement, quite candidly, Mr. Chairman, of almost 3 centuries. I was honored, upon first arriving in this House, to join my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, in a bipartisan fashion co- chairing a task force dealing with this very problem. In 1994, this Congress required the Secretary of the Interior to provide an accounting of all funds held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indians. There is a body of law, ratified treaties, the long-standing tribal trust relationship, the sacred trust, that this government must exercise. And there are larger questions, not only from an institutional perspective, where, despite the good faith of our friends, the appropriators, they are actually stepping in to what the authorizing committee, my colleagues and I who serve on the Committee on Resources, should be working out. We have taken steps, and I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan. We have held some hearings. My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, quite correctly pointed out that the tribes themselves, working with the Department of the Interior, and let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the current Secretary of the Interior takes this seriously. She has worked on this every day. The contempt citation offered by Judge Lambert is something that she takes seriously. Good people can disagree; but it seems to me if we are involved in forensic accounting, the point has been made in a variety of news analyses that when we look at the hocus-pocus of either maladroit or unethical accounting, whatever the corporate world has done cannot eclipse, for whatever reason, what has gone on for a long time in the halls of government. So, Mr. Chairman, let it begin here. Our first genuine efforts at accounting reform, let it begin with the first Americans, the first Americans, who have taken steps in good faith with the Secretary of the Interior, who has taken steps in good faith with an authorizing committee that wants to work together in good faith to address this problem. It is a challenge, to say the least. But the remedy offered, however well-intentioned, by the Committee on Appropriations today is something we should thank them for, but ultimately reject. That is why I support this bipartisan amendment. We will work this in good order and move to accept this amendment. I thank my friends who have spoken on behalf of it.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a genuine American hero.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), continuing with the bipartisan support for this amendment.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not aware of any formal requests for this particular provision. I think it offers another compelling reason why we thank the appropriators, given the magnitude of the task, but reassert the role of the authorizing committee, and recognize the good but challenging work that has been done thus far to try and deal with this problem. So again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for the time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank my good friend from New Mexico for the recognition and for all the work he has done in this House and the work that he has done on this bill. I appreciated the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and though from time to time we have disagreements, we are in unanimity for our affection toward the affection of the subcommittee and my neighbor from New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise and come to the well for this time of general debate to make note of the fact that we have some differences in this, and indeed, there will be an amendment process, but I felt it incumbent upon this Member, Mr. Chairman, to come to the well to offer my thinking overall in terms of this appropriations bill and to clear up any misconceptions that may have been reported by assumption and/or innuendo. The West has been ravaged by wildfire and the people of the 6th District of Arizona and the White Mountains have suffered the worst fire disaster in our history, hundreds of homes demolished, thousands of jobs lost. I thank my friend from Washington State for offering some changes that have been added here. In a bipartisan basis, this legislation deals with those challenges and problems. Mr. Chairman, in a perfect world, I would love to see it in an emergency supplemental, but there are several hurdles that may preclude that fact. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the efforts of the administration to offer reprogramming of funds, but I do not want to see fire suppression or further fire prevention jeopardized. As I look around this Chamber, I see my good friend from Michigan and others who share my concern for the rights of the first Americans, and there will be amendments we will offer to try and perfect some things that we have a disagreement on, but Mr. Chairman, for my people who have suffered, this legislation at the end of the day offers me help with that problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for the time. I think, Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing on the floor is the process at work to help solve the problems. I have sat down with the administration. We do need to have the funds, whether in this bill or via supplemental. I pledge to work with the gentleman. I appreciate the collaborative efforts here to solve a problem, and it is in that spirit I come to the well looking forward to the amendment process and ultimately getting the money to the people who need it most.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, there is much that my friend from Wisconsin had to say with which I agree. Now let us get to the rest of the story. My friend from Indiana made it clear: On April 24, this House, the Republican majority, with 119 of our friends across the aisle in the Democratic Party, a strong bipartisan majority, came together to reaffirm accounting reforms, investor transparency, and to end the deception. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that we cannot characterize action or inaction on the part of the other body, so, Mr. Speaker, let me say it this way: What are some on this Hill waiting for? The President made it clear yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Whether an individual sits in a board room or is a common street thug, if they try to rob an American citizen, they will be convicted by a jury of their peers and they will go to jail. Mr. Speaker, we put the robber barons of the 21st century on notice today that we will not stand for fraud and deception and deceit and theft from the American people. The House has acted, others on this Hill need to follow suit.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time and who has worked so hard on this legislation. It is important for citizens of my home State, Arizona, the seniors there who are still awake at what is 20 until 9, prime time in the State of Arizona, to understand exactly what we are doing in this legislation. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth about process, we ought to focus on results. Here are the simple facts, Mr. Speaker: Under our plan, prescription drug coverage under Medicare is available to every senior who wants it. Every senior who wants this plan will be eligible for coverage. We will leave no senior behind. That is especially important when we look at the people who need the most help. The 44 percent of seniors nationwide below 175 percent of poverty, their benefit is paid for. Over $40 billion in savings to Medicaid. Real money for real people with a real prescription drug benefit. And this is the most compelling argument, Mr. Speaker. When we cut through all the smoke and mirrors and all the rhetoric, what seniors want, what I heard at the Mesa Senior Center a couple of weeks ago, was that seniors want prescription drug savings now. When we pass this, when the other body takes its action, our plan begins covering seniors and lowering costs as soon as 50 days after the President signs the bill into law. Mr. Speaker, the time is now to act. If this can be moved, if this bill can become law, seniors can start realizing savings before Christmas. The perfect present to give our mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers. Support this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on the gentleman's own time he can get the time to explain the disconnect. Here is the point I would like to make today, and this is the point that I think we all need to keep in mind. If, in fact, they are offering marriage relief, we say welcome. But there is a problem here in what they have done. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution reads, ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' What the substitute does is empower the director of the Office of Management and Budget to make a determination. So let us get this straight. We are going to take and ignore the powers given to this House to make the czar of revenue the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and that person will decide when and if tax relief will be enacted or put into practice. It defies the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a couple of major issues here today that involve the notion of trust and what is sacred. The marriage vow is sacred, and I believe that, and writings in the Constitution are likewise. We dare not mortgage the rights of elected people in a free society, elected representatives, described in this document of limited and enumerated powers, for a gimmick empowering a bureaucrat in the executive branch to decide on taxation. Yes, on marriage penalty relief; no on a clever, but flawed, substitute.