J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased and proud to rise in strong support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). Mr. Chairman, it is a curious process here, because actually, through the amendment process, we are trying to restore first amendment rights. Think about what was done earlier today. It was bad enough that we established a new and, really, the ultimate loophole with this bill, allegedly taking effect or going to take effect the day after Election Day. Curious timing. Congratulations if it helps the fine folks in a partisan manner and allows them to take soft money, use it as collateral, turn it into hard money and presto-chango, the day after the election, pay off the loan. It is very crafty. But the American people see through it. Now, tonight we are in the ironic position of trying to restore first amendment rights piece by piece, group by group, to American citizens. To the very people who fought to defend the first amendment, we have to say tonight, could we possibly restore those rights? What should be beyond debate, beyond dispute is now suddenly put in contention. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, that is the very problem with the legislation, and that leads us to the irony of tonight where we seek to restore the first amendment. Now, you are going to hear under the misguided label of reform, that oh, no, no, there is no intention to in any way diminish the rights of Americans. Why, this notion of reform, the same misguided notion of reform that leads to a loophole, that is obscene, a loophole that takes something that is illegal today, makes it legal for a certain amount of time. This is what is labeled in this almost Orwellian legislation as reform. And now our friends tell us, oh, no, no, it is not their intent to in any way abridge the first amendment. It is not their intent to in any way stop free debate. Yet here we are tonight trying to thaw the chilling effect of abridging the first amendment, of abridging debate on the part of everyday Americans who, yes, have the right and the franchise to vote, but should not lose their voice in the process. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. It is sad to see this deliberative body put behind the looking glass.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend would yield, I want to thank him for putting the proper perspective on this, Mr. Speaker, because from time to time there are those who will portray any instance of wrongdoing as being somehow an issue decided because of the person's naivete or confusion and that there would be no harm. My colleague from Colorado points out quite correctly that while public land is important in all of our 50 States, public land is such a fact of life west of the Mississippi, and particularly in the Southwest, where in my Congressional district, the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, we have some counties that the land mass is 95 percent government-controlled. Indeed, one county, Gila County, Arizona, less than 3 percent of the land is private land. And this is not some esoteric imagining. This is a reality for the people of the West who, time and again, have proven to be good stewards of the land, who, because of a unique circumstance in applying for statehood, had to confer to the Federal Government over half of their lands as a dowry, if you will, or as a condition for statehood. It sets up a different dynamic than we see here on the eastern seaboard. It sets up a dynamic with which many Americans in major cities in the East or the Midwest may not be familiar, indeed, a dynamic that some in fact in western major cities may not be familiar with. But this has a direct harm on American citizens, particularly in the rural West, and it is not a noble and misguided action. Indeed, we see that in the newspapers today with the arrival of the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh, and the spin that somehow a young person meant well, but they were naive, ignoring the fact that young Americans younger than John Walker Lindh put on the uniform of this country to defend this country, and yet in the popular culture with the defeatist notions blaming America first, you get this incredible spin, and, quite frankly, this deviant public psychology that will explain away any and all crimes. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado and I and other members of this subcommittee will get to the bottom of these crimes that have been committed against the American people. And, no, this was not a naive misjudgment deserving of counseling, any more than the actions of the so-called American Taliban are things to be excused. They are both crimes against this country. And how horrible it is that the perpetrators of this crime were ostensibly working on behalf of the American people and to this day are paid with the hard-earned tax money of the American citizens. We will make it clear that sound science must be restored and a new sense of ethics must come to our pursuit of conservation and our preservation of our environment. In that way, people of good will, even though there may be disagreements on public policy, can at least work from sound scientific data, and in the public arena and in this Chamber and in the give and take of community control can come up with sound solutions, rather than having the misguided folks who believe the ends absolutely justify the means, who would even take criminal action to appeal to their misguided notion of what the greater good might be. It has been said, Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of laws and not of men, but men must faithfully execute the laws of this country. And in their wisdom our founders gave this branch of government, the legislative branch, legitimate oversight of those executive agencies who from time to time might forget their scope and mission, might engage in misfeasance and malfeasance. With my colleague from Colorado at the helm our subcommittee, I have every confidence that we will get to the bottom of this, and it will make a difference on behalf of the American people. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend for the time. I would simply say I look forward to joining my colleague from Colorado for those subcommittee hearings. But I also think it is important for purposes of full disclosure to the American people, it is interesting, political scientists put a word on what my friend describes, where you may have a philosophical and cultural change at the top, but those at the different levels of bureaucracy are somewhat reluctant to help deal with these policy solutions or even feel that they are accountable for helping in that regard. The political scientists call it bureaucratic inertia. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues today on the floor, let us take away that value-neutral title. Anyone who withholds information, as far as I am concerned, is complicit in a crime and part of a coverup, and it is the duty of our subcommittee and the full committee and this entire House in legitimate government oversight to work with my colleague from Colorado. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, to any employee who believes they have a higher calling than sound science or accountability to the taxpayers of this country and the citizens of this Nation and duly elected constitutional officers, they should go on notice: Their days are numbered and we will get to the bottom of this on behalf of all the American people, because the people have the right to know.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I appreciate the gentleman's knowledge, and we should note that investigators continue to work on this case. Let me just ask, are the perpetrators still in the employ of the Forest Service, receiving salaries from tax dollars, to the gentleman's knowledge?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As we were hearing a recitation of different analogies and actual events, whether it be the Los Angeles cop gone bad, or a variety of other stories, I thought about the conduct of those who have come in this institution before; and when my colleague and I were still in private life, I can remember reading as an American citizen of the Abscam investigation and, indeed, a Member of this House, who was caught red-handed on videotape pocketing proceeds, ill-gotten gains, held a press conference and said, I was just conducting my own investigation. As absurd as that denial was then, it is equally absurd to have these bio-frauds claiming the same thing and, worse still, the management of the agency saying, well, you need some counseling. You can continue to work here in good standing, but you need some counseling. No. What needs to happen is that the rule of law must be maintained and the sacred trust of those who would work on behalf of the taxpayers must be restored. I salute my colleague for taking the lead on this. I pledge to him and, Mr. Speaker, to this House, and to those I represent, that we will find out what has transpired and we will make the changes necessary.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I appreciate the encyclopedic nature of the letter to the Forest Service. I would just reiterate, it is a question of sound science; but even more basic than that, it is a question of trust. We will work at the subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and, indeed, in this House of Representatives to ensure that the American people can trust those who are in the service of this government to rely on sound science and to understand their fiduciary role to the American people and to our public lands.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado who has taken a leading role in this, and this should be of concern to every American, for what has been perpetrated on the American people can accurately be called biofraud. People of good will can disagree on land use policy. People of good will can have different approaches to conservation and the environment. But always and forever, Mr. Speaker, the standard should be sound science. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for leading our subcommittee and as we serve together on the Committee on Resources, I look forward to hearings, but I think it only fair to put on notice those who would coddle a criminal element. This is not misguided behavior simply cured by counseling. This is not something that should remain confidential. Indeed, if there is another lament I have, it is a curious concern that some in government do not believe they are accountable to constitutional officers who are sent here to do the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I would put those people with those misguided notions on notice today that I will work with my subcommittee chairman and I will work with the chairman of the full committee and I will work with this full House, if need be, if there are those who continue to stonewall the truth, I believe, quite reasonably, quite rationally, that we should bring people in under oath to the committee and if they continue to stonewall, this Congress should hold those people in contempt. I say that not in a reflex of rage but in a calm, sober-minded fashion, because if we allow this kind of abuse to continue in our system, even as we lament what happens in stories of high finance, to pension funds, even as we attempt with the various committees of jurisdiction in this Congress to get to the bottom of business and accounting corruption, so too does this Congress have a responsibility to the American people, for their quality of life, for the true ascertainment of the biological integrity of the flora and fauna in our various national forests and the people of Colorado and Arizona and all of our States who love the land and make a living off the land as true stewards and true conservationists. This crime of biofraud should not go unnoticed, should not go unpunished. I salute my colleague from Colorado because he understands with his background in law enforcement and the law and with a good dose of western, and let me enlarge that, American common sense and Yankee ingenuity, that we need to get to the bottom of this on behalf of all the American people, put a stop to biofraud, again amplify and adopt a notion of sound science and its application when it comes to something as crucial and as precious as our environment. I appreciate the presumption of innocence for those who it is believed have committed a crime, but, again, I would reiterate to this House, to cover this up in some sort of victimology and saying there, there, counseling is fine, is in itself misfeasance and malfeasance of the stewardship of the land and the basic trust this government and its citizens deserve.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield further for a question, we have had a chance to discuss this off the House floor, but to make it a part of the record here today, in this House Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Colorado, how he would characterize the response of the Forest Service? Has it been forthcoming, has it been begrudging, have we seen the type of attitude of how dare we question their disciplinary procedures? How would the gentleman characterize the ambiance or the governmental philosophy of the response of those at the Forest Service?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado. I know, Mr. Speaker, that I am honored to join my colleague not only in membership on the Committee on Resources but also on the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee with jurisdiction over the tax code, the committee that shepherded through the tax relief plan that our President asked for and the American people received earlier this year, and then worked hard, not once, but twice, to deliver an economic security package that, sadly, in the other Chamber has yet to see the light of day. And I appreciate my colleague commenting on it. I think this is important, too, because it seems that some leaders on the other side, regardless of Chamber, have a problem not so much with the Republican Party but with members of their own party. We have heard of many Democrats joining with us in a bipartisan fashion regardless of their economic philosophy, whether they adhere to the notion of John Maynard Keynes or whether they join us in the supply-side notion that at a time of economic downturn taxes must be reduced. Why? Because the economy needs to grow and people need more of their own money to save, spend, and invest. And the American people, Mr. Speaker, have gotten wise to the tired old argument that tax relief only benefits the rich. Indeed, if you look more closely, the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States shoulder 36 percent of the tax burden. The top 5 percent take over 70 percent of the collective tax burden. The fact is, as our friend from Florida pointed out earlier today, as a Democratic chief executive, the late President Kennedy said, a rising tide lifts all boats. Economic opportunity is important for all the American people. And so I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that the President of the United States has come and insisted on trying to change the tone in Washington. It resulted in a bipartisan education bill. Some people remain tone deaf when it comes to the question of taxation. But I take heart from the fact that those who have seen to oppose us and whose inaction lead unneccessarily, I believe, to holiday season of suffering, and how is this for irony? The very people who some on this Hill claim to champion suffered at their hands because of inaction on an economic security package brought to this floor not once, but twice, a compromise worked out with interests of the other party. And yet, hope springs eternal, and we will come back again. But the American people understand, as my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Mcinnis), understands, as Members of both Houses, from both parties understand, the key to economic vitality is growth, and that growth is expressed by people having their own money to save, spend and invest, making their own decisions to fuel the economic engine so vital to not only our economic security but also to our national security. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because we need to make comments on this, especially the notion that we would designate these illegal combatants, to whom we refer now as detainees, as prisoners of war. Understand an even more diabolical implication, if they were regarded as prisoners of war. That would mean eventual repatriation to their various nations. Our Commander in Chief stood at this podium in the well of this House, in the wake of the attacks of September 11 and made clear to us, this is a new kind of war. Yes, there are categories which we can recognize in terms of international law. There are illegal combatants involved in this war, as my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), pointed out, as was brought home to us with crystal clarity on September 11. Law-abiding citizens going about their daily activities were wantonly and brutally attacked at the cost of at least 3,000 American lives in New York, civilian personnel. With the cost of combined military and civilian personnel in the hundreds here, within 5 miles of this location at the Pentagon. For the left wing media, I should also note for fairness, I received an e-mail from a British couple. I jokingly call them my British cousins because they take an interest in our constitutional Republic, and they come to visit quite often. They e-mailed my office today saying, Congressman, do not believe the prattle of the leftist press and the British tabloids. John Bull, the British citizenry, is with you. And how sad it is that the whole notion of the media culture has turned from keeping a journal, a chronicle of events to a realm of advocacy where opinions, no matter how aberrant, no matter how ultimately harmful are entertained and given quarter as if they have intellectual integrity. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, to those who would champion the rights of the butchers who oppose this country, the detainees who have told their guards when they have a chance they will kill more Americans, the detainees who have attempted to bite and with whatever weapons they have, their own hands, their own guile, try to harm American citizens, let me ask those who would champion in misguided notion their rights as if they were American citizens, how do you explain it to the orphans of September 11? I mentioned earlier an attack occurred in close proximity to this citadel of freedom, this Capitol dome, at the Pentagon on that same horrible date. I have heard stories of elementary children who lost their fathers, who today are affected with conditions that will follow them the rest of their lives. And as our Secretary of Defense has pointed out, as my colleague from Colorado has pointed out, we are treating these detainees who have vowed death to America, we have treated them more humanely than they would ever consider treating us. They have given them balanced meals. We have taken care of hygienic needs, and yes we have even entitled them to worship and assembly, which in some free nations where Americans now find themselves, in terms of military personnel, their right to freely worship according to the dictates of their own conscience is prohibited. And let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, to that group of misguided miscreants so enveloped in a doctrine of defeatism that they once again would blame America first, do you not remember what transpired on September 11? Let me put it in some perspective for you. For the first time in modern history, for the first time in 200 years, our Nation was attacked by a foreign power within the continental United States resulting in the death of innocents in an act of war. And this new type of war does not need the culture of victimology or the plaintive plea, why do they hate us, or all the other pop psychology and social, pathological causation reasons that those in the parlors or in the opinion journals should state. We have a right to civil defense. We have a right to national survival, and those who are enemies of this Nation will pay a price. And, if necessary, if public opinion in Europe goes so awry, if the culture has changed so greatly on behalf of some of our so-called allies, then, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain the American Nation is willing to go it alone. And to those who think that we are somehow to blame, perhaps they should pay a visit to some of the terrorist states, see what freedom of worship, what freedom of assembly, what freedom of speech they would enjoy in those environments and then report back to the United States if they survive.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to a great American and great Arizonan. It is my sad duty, Mr. Speaker, to report to the House of Representatives that former United States Senator and former Arizona Governor Paul Fannin passed away during our district work period and holiday recess. We laid him to rest in Arizona last week. Mr. Speaker, Paul Fannin, a native of Arizona, a success in business, chose to move from the arena of business to elected office in the year of my birth, 1958. Sworn in as Governor in 1959, he served 3 terms; and then upon ascension of our favorite son, Barry M. Goldwater, to the nomination of his party for President of the United States, Paul Fannin ran and was elected to the United States Senate. In our history of Arizona only two have served our State both as Governor and United States Senator. Paul Fannin's place in history is assured. And yet when people think of Arizona and think of Goldwater and Udall and John Rhodes, they would be wise to add the name of Paul Fannin to the pantheon of political giants from our State. It was Paul Fannin in the late 1950s, before it was politically correct to understand the role of international cooperation and cross border cooperation and to reach out to the Mexican State of Sonora for the Sonora Arizona conference, which is now more than 40 years old, not in a diminution of sovereignty for either State or their respective Nations, but for the Nation, that people can understand and coexist and prosper through trade and cooperation. And, indeed, during his time as governor, that may remain as Paul Fannin's greatest contribution to the State of Arizona. As United States Senator, coming here to Washington, it was the tenacity of Paul Fannin, working with, at that time, the Senate President pro tempore Carl Hayden and Barry Goldwater and John Rhodes and Mo Udall to bring the Central Arizona Project from the drawing board to life, the reality that water is necessary to make the desert bloom would be there, for jobs and for quality of life. Paul Fannin worked tirelessly to see that that was done. Senator Fannin also worked tirelessly on behalf of the first Americans. So often the first Americans, our American Indians, become the forgotten Americans. Paul Fannin worked to maintain their sovereignty, to maintain their treaty rights. In fact, Paul Fannin worked in a bipartisan way for the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York. Indeed, stories recount how Senator Kennedy would come in unannounced into the back of Paul Fannin's suite of offices and work on Native American issues. His is a living legacy for the State of Arizona and for this Nation; and though we say good-bye to him at age 94, we will not forget his contributions to our way of life, and encompassing all of that was Paul Fannin the person. As a private citizen, I had the privilege of being involved in Rotary International and being in the same club, Phoenix 100, as Paul Fannin. And upon our first meeting I said, sir, please help me with the protocol. I am confused. How should I properly address you? Should I call you Senator? Should I call you Governor? He answered, oh, JD, just call me Paul. In an endeavor where many of us have an excessive dose of self-esteem, where the people's business can often take a back seat to headlines and photo opportunities and press conferences, the living legacy of Paul Fannin is that of a humble public servant; and though we bid him farewell at age 94, his contributions to this country and to the State of Arizona will last forever.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would caution us all, with the severity of the challenge our Nation faces, with the fact that we are a people at war who were wantonly and brutally attacked on September 11, to continue to preen and posture and play games in the hopes of providing what in some twisted way must be thought of as a clever soundbite does a disservice to people who are out of work, to people who are hurting, to people who need health insurance, to people who need this unemployment, money that has been set aside where we have tried to work in good faith. People can talk about the lateness of the hour. People can try to use misguided tales of Scrooge. The tragedy is for all the talk of compassion, my friends, if you set aside this last best opportunity to help these people, then you have turned your back on them. And then you have taken on the mantle of those you claim to attack and not to support. You have taken on the mantle of Scrooge. We cannot have that tonight. We cannot have this type of posturing and preening. Let us put the people in front of the politics. You may disagree with us on many matters. We have tried to come halfway and find a plan that can work at the behest of our President. The American people deserve this opportunity. Do not turn your back on the people, for if you do so, you will ensure that this holiday is one that lacks prosperity and you will ensure that you are not doing your part to add to goodwill and a constructive, united front in the face of a massive war effort.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act. I am a cosponsor of this important legislation that would make a simple but extremely technical change to the ``Breast Cancer and Cervical Treatment and Prevention Act'' (P.L. 106-354). The legislation would improve the coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment for American Indian and Alaska Native women. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, which Congress passed last year, gives states the option to extend coverage to certain women who have been screened by programs operated under title XV of the Public Health Service Act (the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program) and who have no ``creditable coverage.'' The term ``creditable coverage'' was established by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Under the HIPAA definition, creditable coverage includes a reference to the medical care program of the Indian Health Service (IHS). In short, the reference to ``creditable coverage'' in the law effectively excludes Native American women from receiving Medicaid breast and cervical cancer treatment as provided for under this act. The Native American health reference to IHS/tribal care was originally included in HIPAA so that members of Indian tribes eligible for IHS would not be treated as having a break in coverage (and thus subject to pre-existing exclusions and waiting periods when seeking health insurance) simply because they had received care through Indian health programs, rather than through a conventional health insurance program. Thus, in the HIPAA context, the inclusion of the IHS/tribal provision was intended to benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives, not penalize them. However, use of the HIPAA definition in the recent ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act'' has the exact opposite effect. In fact, the many Indian women who rely on IHS/tribal programs for basic health care are excluded form the new law's eligibility for Medicaid. Not only does the definition deny coverage to Indian women, but the provision also runs counter to the general Medicaid rule treating IHS facilities as full Medicaid providers. This legislation would resolve these problems by clarifying that, for purposes of the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act,'' the term ``creditable coverage'' shall not include IHS-funded care so that American Indian and Alaska Native women can be covered by Medicaid for breast and cervical cancer treatment. Since a number of States are currently moving forward to provide Medicaid coverage under the state option, the need of this legislation is immediate to ensure that American Indian and Alaska Native women are not denied life-saving breast and cervical cancer treatment. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act that is critically important to many American Indian and Native Alaskan Women.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, tonight one can only imagine the response of the American people as they listen to their holiday songs and Christmas carols. One can almost see in their mind's eye, based on the unfortunate but predictable reaction of my friends on the left, that it is the ``most cynical time of the year.'' If we want to go back and engage in instant revisionism of history, I suppose that can feed the hour's time; to pose for sufficient outrage, to concentrate on ingenious insults, to try to claim what has gone before. But the fact is tonight, and this point I will agree with my colleague from Indiana who preceded me in the well, people are hurting. People need help. We have reached out in a sense of compromise and consensus to offer health plans now for people who are hurting. So let me see if I follow the logic. No, we are not going to vote for the rule. No, we are not going to vote for the bill. We will do nothing, and that way we will help our constituents. We will do nothing to expand health benefits. We will do nothing to reinvigorate the economy. We will stand here with our arms crossed and affect poses of outrage, but in fact be apathetic, disinterested, and play a game of power rather than putting people ahead of politics. That is basically the choice tonight. When we strip away all the rhetoric and strip away all the revisionist history and take the finger that points and curl it back and put it into our pockets, the question remains: Are my Democrat colleagues willing to meet us halfway; or is this a give-and-take where we give and give and give and you take and take and take? We have a chance to move forward. We have a chance this evening, Mr. Speaker, to get something done for the American people. It will require special rules, but the time grows late and the need is real. And to say we will respond with nothing at all, or name calling, or inaccurate, deliberately inaccurate, representations of the consensus plan that has been drafted, small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that those who look in will call this ``the most cynical time of the year.'' For once, Mr. Speaker, let me appeal to my friends on the left. I understand what happens in terms of the pursuit of power. I understand the frustrations. But tonight cast a vote on behalf of constituents who are out of work. Let us get this economy moving again. The American people face challenges, but they are not insurmountable if we work together. Support the rule, support the legislation. Let us get people back to work, and let us help those who are hurting.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from California. It is good to be here on the floor of the People's House with my neighbor from New Mexico and my festively decorated friend from Georgia. Mindful of the admonition of our good friend from South Carolina, the Speaker pro tem this evening, let me try to set this up perhaps in the abstract. But before I do, let me amplify a point made by my good friend from New Mexico. Let me salute the efforts of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means who, in a good faith effort, has really worked to find common ground and some form of agreement. But especially since the rhetoric in this town is filled with talk of compassion for those who are out of work, Mr. Speaker, as we note in the wake of September 11, at least three-quarters of a million people in the workforce, perhaps now the number exceeds 1 million people in the workforce, are now without jobs that they had prior to the attacks on September 11, I believe we should especially emphasize the ground- breaking work done this weekend by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to expand the opportunity for health insurance for those who find themselves out of work. The choice we have is this, and it applies to what my friend from Georgia said earlier: Are we only going to use a government framework to reach some of the people out of work? Or are we willing to expand the universe through refundable credits in advance for the purchase of health insurance, whether you are self-employed or working for a small business? I appreciate the gentlewoman pointing out that three out of every four jobs comes from small business. Mr. Speaker, it leads me to believe we, perhaps, ought to change the name from small business to essential business, because that is where most of the jobs are here in America. And, yes, also be mindful of those about whom we read in the paper who may be employed by larger corporations where the layoffs in magnitude seem to be great, but to have the versatility to apply to everyone so that they may, in fact, purchase health insurance and to make the Tax Code work for them so that they can go into the marketplace, not dependent on a corporation or a larger business with 50 or more employees that must adhere to the COBRA policy, noble in its intent, though restrictive on the number of people it can cover, what we will pass on the floor of this House tomorrow will expand insurance benefits for the very people that many in this town, some of them located on this Hill, say they want to help. That opportunity will come tomorrow. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, mindful of your admonition, I am somewhat perplexed, and let me take this in the abstract. When two groups come together to negotiate in good faith and reach a compromise, typically they follow time-honored traditions. Typically those involved in the negotiations are those with the power of, let us say, for instance, speaking hypothetically, committee chair, and with other members of leadership, and this is any organization, Mr. Speaker, I am not confining my comments to the legislative process in the United States, but typically there is a small group that works to try to achieve common ground. How, to use a term that seems to be very relevant, used by some on this Hill, how disappointing it is to see some add a new level, where they say, oh, no, before there can be meaningful policy changes, it must be approved by a supermajority of like-minded individuals. Again speaking in the abstract, not referring to the other body but speaking in the abstract, when you set up that type of limitation, you set up, in essence, a small group of people who can serve as obstructionists. The question is this: Are we willing to move forward to help the people always mentioned who are out there hurting, Mr. Speaker? Or will we see the temptation to succumb to machinations and politics supersede the public good? That is the choice every elected official must make and that is the choice the American people must make, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California. To hear my colleagues express really a point of view that has been amplified by our President, to try and change the culture of Washington, and people can have different political philosophies, and we certainly champion that, and we champion the notion of debate, but at this point, on this night in December, in the year 2001, as Christmas fast approaches, to know that there are 1 million workers out of their jobs because of an economic slowdown that was exacerbated by the heinous attacks on our country, to not move to offer economic security and hope, is to deprive those people of the very compassion that so many claim to champion. It is especially callous at this time of year. Mr. Speaker, I am fond of the observation Mark Twain offered. ``History,'' wrote Twain, ``history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.'' As I read the new biography of Theodore Roosevelt, I am reminded that a century ago a body in this institution, one of the two Houses, Mr. Speaker, I will leave that up to a guess so that I am not admonished, one of the two Houses failed to act. President Theodore Roosevelt called that body, what some refer to as the world's most exclusive club, back into session. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the President of the United States, if for reason of simple inertia and inaction a certain group on this Hill fails to act, I would hope the President of the United States would call that body into special session the day after Christmas to deal with the slowdown and to help Americans who are hurting. Because now is the time to move past playing politics. It is time to put people ahead of politics. We are in a war, we are faced with economic slowdown, and now is the time for all Americans, especially those of us vested with the public trust, having sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, now is the chance for our Commander in Chief on the domestic front to signal the seriousness of his intentions, should there be continued inertia and inaction from whatever quarter on Capitol Hill.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from California, and I appreciate the insights of my colleagues here tonight. Mr. Speaker, just another cautionary note. Sometimes we get caught up in the slang of Washington, and we have spoken about this in the inevitable legislative and policy shorthand that somehow tends to lose what this is about when we talk about an economic stimulus package, as if this is some sort of theory that is subjected to a graph and a curve and all of the trappings of theoreticians. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest nothing could be further from that. We are talking about real people with real families facing real problems. And in the give and take of different ideas, honestly expressed, we are gathered on the eve of bringing back to the floor a piece of legislation incorporating many ideas from many different sources in the truest spirit of compromise and consensus in a groundbreaking way, in terms of health care, to expand opportunities for those who find themselves without jobs. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is economic security and future opportunity. Mindful that people are hurting, we understand the need to expand unemployment benefits, but as surely as we do that, Mr. Speaker, we also understand this, that I hear in the sixth district of Arizona, and I know my colleagues hear in California and Georgia and New Mexico, that we hear from across the country, when given a choice, the American people appreciate the safety net of an unemployment check, but they would much rather have a paycheck. And what the gentleman from Georgia refers to is something we have seen time and again with presidents of both parties, whether it was John F. Kennedy in the outset of the 1960s or Ronald Wilson Reagan in the outset of the 1980s: when we reduce the tax burden on the American people, whether on Wall Street or on Main Street on our Your Street, when we open up opportunities to save, spend, and invest, there is growth. There is opportunity. There is hope. And there are paychecks and economic prosperity that comes into being for the American people. So what we talk about is not some stimulus in almost a Boris Karlof- like laboratory in a black and white film; it is not an abstraction. It is real help for real people and a real opportunity to come together, if those who seek to stultify and strangle the process will but step away from the cynical games of Washington and put people in front of politics.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I will just make a quick point. Very quickly, picking up on what the gentlewoman from New Mexico said, this bill incorporates a variety of different opportunities in what we call tax-slaying extensions, taking advantage of opportunities and credits already existing in terms of research and development. The gentleman mentioned welfare to work and work opportunity tax credit. I would be remiss on behalf of my constituency if I did not mention the extension for the first Americans, for native Americans, who find themselves, as we understand, so often left behind. Now, as we seek to revitalize tribal economies and economic opportunities there, there are provisions that have been included in this bill that are good for Oklahoma, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) has been an unfailing champion on this. We are pleased to include that in this bill so that no American is left behind. Opportunities are there for all. I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a valued constituent, Michael A. Pollack, president and founder of Michael A. Pollack Real Estate Investments in Mesa, Arizona and a man who is devoted to improving the lives of those living in the communities surrounding his housing developments. Michael Pollack's involvement with the community is well known and the list of causes to which he contributes is lengthy. Operating on the philosophy that corporate philanthropy begins at home, Michael has contributed generously to numerous local causes, including the Chandler Service Club, the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Chandler Regional Hospital, several local high schools, various churches, synagogues and rescue missions, as well as the D.A.R.E. program. He also supports national charities, including Special Olympics, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and the American Cancer Society, to name just a few. Earlier this year, Michael arranged for famed Notre Dame football player Daniel ``Rudy'' Ruettiger, the subject of the 1993 movie Rudy, to deliver an inspirational pep-talk to the Dobson High School football team, which hadn't posted a winning season since 1994. Following Rudy's message and a private viewing of the Rudy film at Michael's Tempe movie theatre, the team went on to win the first four games of the season. Michael is a business person who leads by example and his personal contributions to the community are many. The end result is that Michael epitomizes the principles that make America great: hard work, integrity and giving back to the community. I join others, such as former Congressman and current Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta; former State Senator John Huppenthal; Arizona Governor Jane D. Hull; Glendale, Arizona Mayor Elaine Scruggs; Mesa, Arizona Mayor Keno Hawker; Chandler, Arizona Mayor Jay Tibshraeny; Tempe, Arizona Mayor Neil Giuliano; Tucson, Arizona Mayor Robert Walkup and many other city, county and industry leaders in saluting Michael Pollack for his efforts and his contributions to the business community. I wish him well in the years to come.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from American Samoa, who is no stranger to the good people of Arizona and has accompanied me there to work on various Native American housing issues. I thank him for that even as I yield 3 minutes to another good friend who joins me on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). (Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 270) expressing the sense of Congress that Americans should take time during Native American Heritage Month to recognize the many accomplishments and contributions made by native peoples.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we gather here, returning from our Thanksgiving recess, I think it is especially important to pause and consider the contributions made by native peoples, by the first Americans, to our unique constitutional Republic. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. At the outset of the formulation of this sixth district, nearly one quarter of the constituency is Native American. Especially at this time in our history, when once again the winds of war blow across our planet, and our Nation is involved in protecting our constitutional Republic, it is worth noting that more than any other ethnic or racial group, Native Americans answer the call to duty in our Nation's Armed Forces. Indeed, the contributions of many have been highlighted. Just a few months ago, our Commander in Chief joined us here at the Rotunda of the Capitol to memorialize and recognize the Navajo code talkers, those so vital to our victory in the Pacific theater. I think of Ira Hayes, and what would now be the Gila River Indian community, then simply noted as a Pima Indian, one of those proud Marines who raised our Nation's flag during the battle of Iwo Jima, forever memorialized in the Marine Memorial. It is incumbent on each of us to recall not only the actions of today but what has transpired in our past, all of it, including what every schoolchild learns of the first Thanksgiving, and the real contribution of the first Americans to those European settlers and their survival and their recognition of a new start in a new land. In passing this legislation, the House of Representatives will encourage Federal, State, local and tribal governments, as well as all the American people, to join us in honoring and recognizing the accomplishments, contributions, and heritage of our Nation's Native Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from West Virginia, Mr. Speaker, encapsulates a problem with which this government has been dealing for nearly a century. Indeed, my good friend from Michigan joined me in cochairing a task force dealing with the disposition of these trust funds; and I would hope that, for the record, we would show, as we articulated some years ago, that this problem has been one sadly of bipartisan neglect. Indeed, a circuit court judge found a previous Secretary of the Interior in contempt as well as a Secretary of Treasury, and I think that has extended to other administrations. So, yes, we welcome the opportunity in a nonpartisan fashion to solve this legitimate problem. As I have often reflected, Mr. Speaker, when we come to this floor, we may line up on different sides of the aisle, we may have an R or a D beside our names, but there are really only two types of people who serve in the Congress of the United States, those who represent what we now call Indian country, and those who represent what was once Indian country. So in that nonpartisan spirit, I look forward to working with the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who occupies one quarter of the Four Corners area.