J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to read something to my liberal colleagues on the other side of the aisle who profess so much compassion for America's children while defending the current welfare system. This is from Bill Bennett's article in the current Commentary magazine, which I would recommend that all my colleagues read, Bennett writes: Between 1962 and 1992, welfare spending in the United States increased by over 900 percent in 1992 dollars. At the same time the poverty rate dropped by less than 5 percent-- and illegitimacy rates increased over 400 percent. Children are the real victims of this national tragedy. They are being conditioned into the same habits of dependency they are surrounded by, resulting in an almost unbreakable cycle of welfare. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we get one liberal Democrat after another parading to the well to tell us how wonderful the current system is and how much the children need it. The liberal Democrats may need it, but the children do not.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the remarks of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] and in strong opposition to the amendment as offered. I think we have seen here today, those who happen to be viewing across the Nation, we have seen good, strong bipartisan support for a reasonable action to be taken. I could not help but note with interest today's headlines. In fact, I just came from the other side of this building where a Member of the new minority party has decided to join the new majority party on the very issue that has been characterized, at least in my portion of the country, as a war on the West. And as my friend from Louisiana points out, although we may call it the war on the West, the gentlewoman from Idaho would certainly concur, in essence, what we have here is a fundamental conflict on the notion of private property and what the government can demand from us. As the gentleman from Oregon said so clearly, without just compensation, remembering that clause, that provision of the fifth amendment, we are tearing asunder the original intent of the Founding Fathers. It is indeed unfortunate we have to bring this to the floor in the first place. What should be a fundamental tenet of American rights an liberties somehow are being stripped away. But as emblematic, as systematic of the new approach by the new majority, we are engaged in a new partnership with America and we move to address those rights. So I oppose the amendment as offered by my friend from California on the grounds mentioned so eloquently by the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Oregon. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this and let us restore the nature of property rights. My. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman stands and points out with eloquence the entire mission here. I cannot help but note the irony that the current administration, which campaigned on the notion of putting people first, would instead relegate people to the back benches, if you would, or at least take away from people their essential constitutional rights. It is the mission of this body, as we stand in check with both the executive and judicial branches to right the wrong, to legislate for the people of this country, and to legislate effectively. It is in that spirit that I oppose the amendment but endorse wholeheartedly the concept of real property rights for the citizens of the United States.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the author of the amendment from the great State of Louisiana.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, before leading the Continental Army into the Battle of Long Island in 1776, Gen. George Washington told his troops: The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property that they can call their own; whether their houses and their farms are to be pillaged and destroyed * * * Two hundred and eighteen years later, Americans are again fighting for the right to have property they can call their own. Their enemy? Ironically, the same Government originally created to give people the freedom to own property. Government bureaucrats, acting without accountability, make decisions which, in effect, destroy households, farms, and businesses. Currently, all landowners are unwillingly entered into a random sweepstakes drawing to select who will foot the bill for intrusive Government regulations. In this sweepstakes there are no letters from Ed McMahon informing them they have won a million bucks. Instead, landowners receive nasty grams from the likes of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Environmental Protection Agency informing them that they own Mexican spotted owl habitat, and if they use it they could go to jail. When Michael Rowe had finally saved up enough money to add an extension to his one-bedroom home on his 20-acre ranch in Winchester, CA, he was informed that his permit could not be approved because his property was in a kangaroo-rat study area. His only option would to hire a biologist at a cost of almost $5,000. If the biologist found a single rat, development of the property would be illegal and could result in a Federal prison sentence and up to $100,000 in fines. The good news? If the biologist did not find a single rat, the Rowe family could develop their property if they paid the Federal Government nearly $40,000 to purchase a rat reserve elsewhere. In essence, the home was destroyed by Federal regulators before it even left the drawing board. In supporting this legislation, we in Congress have the opportunity to reaffirm what Locke referred to as the ``root of all liberty''--the right to own property. This legislation requires the Federal Government to compensate landowners for an action by a Federal agency that reduces the value of their property. In simple terms, this legislation means: If the Federal Government deems it in the national interest to curtail a landowners use of his property then the Government, not an individual landowner, should pick up the tab. Opponents claim that with the passage of this legislation we will see the end of 25 years of important health, safety, and environmental legislation. As we heard in a preceding speech, in a hypothetical, my colleagues on the other side know that the only thing that will end is decades of casting easy votes that might appease their special interest constituencies without having to consider the consequences. Some of these folks truly tremble at having to make the choice between what is truly in the national interest, and what is only in their narrow best interest. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support a return to the constitutional protections of private property.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am happy to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for letting me clear this up. I will end my remarks by saying I rise in strong support of the Tauzin amendment, and in strong support of the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the old, tired party-line from the liberal Democrats is that Republicans want to take food from the mouths of children. Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the liberals. It is pathetic, but predictable. Mr. Speaker, these liberal Democrats really have no choice but to come out here and distort the truth. They know as well as anybody that the liberal message and these old, tired attempts at solving the problems from the liberal side of the aisle have been rejected. The American people have seen the consequences of these policies. They know that the only people who have benefited from 40 years of one- party control by my friends on the other side have been bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and Federal regulators. For the liberals to come here and suggest that the new majority wants to steal food from babies is lower than a gross distortion, it is absolutely and patently false. Mr. Speaker, with a generous increase in allowances for food lunch programs, Republicans are not taking food from kids. We are, however, taking power from the Federal Government and returning it to the front lines in this war on these problems. If my friends on the other side want to come to this well and distort the facts, and tell us something else about the numbers, other than what is factual, that is their choice. However, we are not going away. This new majority is not mean-spirited, it is public-spirited.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, my friends from California tell me the swallows return to Capistrano. My friends from Ohio tell me the buzzards return to Hinkly. And, Madam Speaker, as you and I have come to discover during our brief time here in the Congress of the United States, and indeed as the people of this Nation are discovering, Madam Speaker, liberal Democrats again and again come to the well of this House and distort and exaggerate and basically tell falsehoods about the aims of this new Republican majority with reference to our Contract With America, and especially when it comes to nutrition programs in the public schools. It is amazing as we take a look at the publications from around the country, and I would simply point out to those assembled here, Madam Speaker, a very interesting article penned by Nancy Roman in today's Washington Times. I hesitate to read the headline because it contains a three-letter word that I really do not want to use in the course of this discourse, and yet it is part of the Record. The headline reads ``Democrats Lie About Lunch.'' And the thrust of this article, to read the subhead line really sums it up. Madam Speaker, it is worth repeating and articulating so that the people of this Nation will really know the facts behind this debate. Quoting from the subhead line in today's Washington Times: ``The GOP's school lunch program will grow by $203 million. The government spends $4.5 billion. The GOP would spend $4.7 billion.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, according to simple mathematics, we see an actual increase in this school lunch program of $200 million. Simply stated, Madam Speaker, there is no cut, there is no cut. There is an increase in spending. Now, in fairness to the way this town works, to the way the guardians of the old order have done their accounting for the past four decades, we should point out that there is some form of reduction, but it is only a reduction in the overall increase. Only in Washington would you call an increase reduced in some way, shape, fashion or form, acute. Indeed, as we have looked at the challenge we face in putting our fiscal house in order, I believe that fair minded people, Madam Speaker, from both sides of the aisle realize that one of the problems we have had continually is in this creative form of accounting, which would call that increase acute. I listened with great interest to my good friend from Connecticut, who stood before this House moments ago and talked about a cooperative effort to change the spending habits in this Nation. And I respect my good friend from Connecticut because he authored what again inside this beltway was a revolutionary concept, but to the rest of us throughout the country, Madam Speaker, was a very simple, rational, logical concept. And that is that the people who serve in this House, which we call the people's House, should live under the same laws as everyone else in this country. I salute my friend from Connecticut for spearheading that fundamental tenet of self-government so vital to this House and so dominant, indeed being the cornerstone of reform as adopted in our rules package when we were sworn in here earlier this year. I applaud his cooperative spirit. In fact, I would say that that cooperative spirit is what we hope to build upon in the days ahead, and we call on our good friends across the aisle to end the discourse and move forward in the constructive debate.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to rescind the 1-hour special order granted earlier this evening to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] for March 3.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office in Scottsdale, AZ, the top 10 excuses liberal Democrats have for not voting for the balanced budget amendment. No. 10, we might really have to slow spending. No. 9, the dog ate my homework. No. 8, fiscal responsibility phobia. No. 7, the devil made me do it. No. 6, if so many of the American people want it, it cannot be any good. No. 5, contract-envy. No. 4, it wasn't me, it was a space alien with a remarkable resemblance to me. No. 3, I did what? No. 2, let's feed big government bureaucrats instead of little school children. And the No. 1 excuse liberal Democrats have for not voting for the balanced budget amendment, they want early retirement in the next election.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as we have just heard, some overmodulated liberals in the new minority have taken to calling our new Republican majority mean spirited. By their curious standards, our attempt to cut Federal bureaucrats is mean spirited. Our efforts to reform welfare are mean spirited. But, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask, what is the real definition of mean spirited? Is defending a system that wastes the taxpayers' money not mean spirited? Is fighting an effort to instill some fiscal responsibility not mean spirited? Is continuing a welfare mentality that kills opportunity and creates hopelessness not mean spirited? Is taking money from future generations to pay interest on our debt today not mean spirited? That is why we need the balanced budget amendment. Mr. Speaker, defenders of the old order have always accused those of us who want to bring change of being mean spirited. I urge those so quick to judge us to look in the mirror to see if they can find the true culprits.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this amendment. This amendment provides Americans temporary relief from the onerous and intrusive provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. When residents of Greenlee County, AZ attempted to repair a dirt road after flooding wiped it out last November, heavy handed bureaucrats from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened a daily fine of $20,000 if the work wasn't halted. The dirt road in question is near the Blue River designated as habitat for the loach minnow which the Fish and Wildlife Service has listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Elsewhere on the Blue River, in Pinal County, AZ, the county is seeking to replace a bridge which washed out during a flood in 1993. The county has two alternatives: Spend $4 million to replace the washed out bridge in the same high risk location, or build a bridge upstream out of harms way for half the cost. Common sense would dictate building the cheaper, safer bridge. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I've learned that nothing makes sense about the ESA and the only thing common is for the Fish and Wildlife Service to trample on the rights of people. The ESA has allowed bureaucrats to make decisions having serious negative economic consequences throughout regions of the United States. These decisions are made without benefit of comprehensive economic analysis or without public accountability. Let me mention an example of just one area of the ESA in desperate need of reform. The Fish and Wildlife Service views State borders as a division of species habitat. For example, if you have a population of birds that crosses a State border, it could be considered as two different species. One could be listed, while a plentiful amount lived on the other side of the stateline. Again, common sense is lacking from the process. Of the 853 species placed on the endangered or threatened lists in the law's 22 year history, only 24 have come off. Of this 24, over half should not have been listed in the first place. In some cases the courts have forced the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove species from the list. With regards to recovery programs it is estimated that each species cost an average of $3 million to recover. I should also note, Mr. Chairman, that another 3,600 are being considered for listing. Unless we reform the ESA, beginning with this temporary moratorium, expect to see the problems faced by those in Greenlee and Pinal County coming soon to a city, county, or backyard near you. As a member of the Endangered Species Task Force, I believe that we must address these concerns immediately. In the interim, however, the Condit amendment halts further listings until Congress can properly reauthorize the ESA. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] makes a very important point that can be restated in the following way: Certainly the gentleman from Georgia has also seen the figures, and according to some estimates, if we fail to rein in this runaway government spending, if we fail with a balanced budget amendment or some other mechanism to restore fiscal sanity at the Federal level, or children unfortunately will not be as simple an example as the drugstore charge account, but our children and their children may end up paying in excess of 80 percent of their income for governmental projects and governmental services. That should not be the goal of this country, and indeed other figures show us that government at all levels, at the State, local and, most notably, at the Federal levels now outstrips manufacturing as the Nation's No. 1 employer by 600,000 jobs. It is a fair question to ask, ``Does the Federal Government need to operate in such a pervasive fashion?'' I believe not, and I believe that is why we are taking the important steps.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is a very interesting question. During the course of this debate as we continue along, certainly that amendment may come up in committee, no doubt. Who knows, it may come up here on the floor. That is a very good question you are asking.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I will be happy to yield. I know our time is almost up. I know you are here to be part of a special order, in keeping with the spirit of this open time, if you just have a question.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas and his point of view, and in fact welcome him to this special order, as we did the gentleman from Wisconsin preceding him. If the intent is to decry the theatrics and the hyperbole of politics, let me assure the gentleman from Texas that certainly those of us involved in the campaign in 1994 were subjected to the same unfair scare tactics, and I guess it is a simple situation that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but I think it is only a small part of the larger questions that delivered the mandate on November 8. I welcome the gentleman from Texas, who was elected November 8 as well. But what we see nationwide is a concept of accountability and responsibility, while at the same time we move to ensure constitutional rights and establish this new dialog with the American public.

Mr. HAYWORTH. You were in the real world?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think we are all in agreement that it is marvelous to have this time together, even under the guise of a special order, to actually engage in this meaningful, I believe, debate, because I believe this Nation is better for it. To be certain, we may be of two minds, we may be of 435 minds in this august Chamber, as to how to redress the problems of our society, but it is helpful to have a chance to represent our districts.

Mr. HAYWORTH. You have passed the truth-in-sentencing provision out of both houses?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I have a couple of questions for my good friend, the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate the gentleman being here, but I think the point is very valid that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] makes. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] outlined what I believe to be in one sense the worst case scenario, and yet even with that type of construct that he offers us, should it not really be left up to local governments in that regard if law enforcement officials who ultimately are accountable, I would imagine, to the voters, or to the city councils and city managers of respective localities in Texas? If they were to spend that money in an ill-advised way, from my point of view, I believe they would be directly accountable to the people of those areas. I do not believe it should really be under my purview to make that change. With reference to the prison system in Texas, and I will defer to my friend's knowledge of Texas politics, and what transpires at the State capitol in Austin, but let me ask this simple question: is there a truth-in-sentencing provision under Texas State law?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.