J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for his hard work on the Committee on Ways and Means. I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that in the midst of this triumph for all of the American people, and especially the disabled, there are those on this floor who would come to deal with jurisdictional issues and inside baseball issues that at this point seem, quite frankly, rather petty. I have heard from many of my constituents. A dear lady in Apache Junction, Arizona at our town hall meeting who came to point out to me that she wants to work, but that there have been disincentives that eventually barred her from the opportunity to work. This legislation deals with that problem. It allows her to get back to work. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of working-age adults with disabilities are out of work. That is the unemployment rate. That is what we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker, not jurisdictional issues, but a chance to give those people an opportunity to work, for the limits they have confronted are not physical, they are financial. I rise in strong support of the legislation and I am pleased to urge its passage.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), for yielding me the time. And I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). Because instead of categorizing this with a unique historical perspective that is revisionist, to say the least, let us engage in some recent history. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States came here about 10 months ago, and in his message to a joint session of Congress, in his State of the Union address, he said it was up to us to save Social Security first. But with his veto today, the President is telling all Americans, Mr. Speaker, that they should surrender a portion of their Social Security Trust Fund to go not for their retirement but to a scheme of bigger spending not on Americans but on other folks around the world.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is exactly the case. The President is taking the hard-earned money of Americans and wanting to spend more and more and more and jeopardize the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from California. It seems that mediscare and school lunches are back. My colleagues remember that from 1996, do they not? The spurious threat and the out and out untruths propagated by the left in their sole attempt, in their desperate attempt, to regain political power. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that there is enough waste, fraud and abuse in these Washington-run programs that government can be run more efficiently and dare I say more compassionately, not by kowtowing to the interests of the labor bosses within government, but instead looking for true limited and effective government as Thomas Jefferson sought. While facts are stubborn things, we would simply point out to my friends on the left that throughout their time and the last time they were in control of this House they spent all of the Social Security surplus, they gave us the largest tax increase in American history, and they sunk us deeper into debt. My, what a difference a common sense, conservative Congress makes.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montana. Just one final point. Again, the gulf between rhetoric and reality. In the 1960s, critics of Lyndon Johnson spoke of a credibility gap. With this administration, sadly, we have a credibility canyon such as the gulf between rhetoric and reality, and as my friend from Montana was making this point, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but think of the slogan of the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign: Putting People First. How falsely that rings in the years of western Americans. I yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Montana and my colleague from Colorado for taking this time on the House Floor to really address these issues of vital concern. I listened to my friend from Montana talk about the counties. As he explained his own situation, I thought about Gila County, Arizona. Ninety-seven percent of the land in Gila County, Arizona is under some governmental control. The bulk of it is under Federal control. And, there is a misnomer at work. My colleague from Colorado mentioned the designation of wilderness, but there is a far more misleading moniker given to these federally controlled lands. Mr. Speaker, for our friends in the east and indeed in the Bay Area of San Francisco and other major metropolitan areas, when we hear the term ``public land,'' that suggests in the mind's eye a public library, a public park, a public facility. But in essence, Mr. Speaker, a far more accurate moniker is federally controlled land. So many of our colleagues from the east fail to understand the distinction. The State of Arizona, the youngest of the 48 contiguous States, not becoming a State until Valentine's Day of 1912 under President William Taft, Arizona, as a condition of its Statehood had to offer, in essence, a dowry to the Federal Government. And that dowry, if you will, was over half the landmass of the State of Arizona given to the Federal Government. Now, our friends in the east, our friends in the inner city fail to understand what that means. Because the fact is, vast holdings of land as personal property are not found in the State of Arizona or in the American west. But I must tell my colleagues, I get a kick out of those in the think tanks who talk about welfare or socialist cowboys, as if applying for grazing permits is somehow pledging one's trough to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, my constituents have no choice. They do not own the land. And yet, time and again they are good stewards of the land that they lease from the Federal Government. But what we see here is really yet another gulf between rhetoric and reality. My colleague from Montana mentioned the contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign. Let the record show, and I say this unapologetically and clearly to the American people, Mr. Speaker, vast sums of money came from the Communist Chinese to those coffers, and yet the partisan press wants to ignore that inconvenient fact. Yet, we also see, even as the Clinton-Gore gang extols the virtues of campaign finance reform which, for that crowd, is akin to Bonnie and Clyde at the height of their crime spree holding a press conference calling for tougher penalties on bank robbers, they also wrap up rhetoric about the children. Mr. Speaker, I would note for this House the vote that took place earlier this summer on the new Education Land Grant Act, what my staff has nicknamed HELGA, the Hayworth Education Land Grant Act, which deals with public land, federally controlled land and sets up a uniform method of conveyance at a minimal cost to rural school districts in 44 of our States, but especially in the American west. And, Mr. Speaker, even though the left insisted on a rule to bring that to the floor and debate, in the final analysis, even the left could not abandon the logic of that common sense approach, and all 421 Members of the Congress who were here on that day voted in the affirmative for the new Education Land Grant Act. How sad it is, Mr. Speaker, that the President, who rhetorically embraces the cause of children, has asked a liberal Senator in the other body to put a hold on that legislation. The gulf between rhetoric and reality is profound. I yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would echo the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, and would call to the attention of this House, and by extension, the American people, the headline which appears in the New York Times today. I quote it: ``Budget Balances Without Customary Raid on Social Security.'' Granted, Mr. Speaker, the Times tried to bury this on page A-18, but even the writer of the article says that this is enormous, this is of enormous import. Here is the reason why, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in 40 years, this Congress has balanced the budget without using social security funds. Indeed, there is a surplus of $1 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us take a walk down memory lane. For those 40 years, we had four Republicans in the White House and four Democrats, but also, for those 40 years, we had the liberals in control who spent 100 percent of the social security surplus on an annual basis and drove us further into debt. Mr. Speaker, this is enormous news. We have balanced the budget, we have generated a surplus, and we have stopped the raid on social security trust funds.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from my colleague from Connecticut, especially her description of a poison pill involving legislation. Madam Speaker, let me suggest to my colleagues the only poison pill is that which would seek to enrich and empower trial lawyers and courtrooms over clinics. There is much we can agree on in truly a bipartisan fashion. I believe, as I think every Member of this House does, that when it comes to health care decisions, those decisions should not be made by an insurance company bureaucrat any more than they should be made by a Washington bureaucrat. The power should be in the hands of the patients. The patients I know in the Sixth District of Arizona want to see a doctor, not a lawyer. They want access to a clinic, not a courtroom. And they do not want their estates to sue; they want to live long, productive lives and seek help. That is the essence of what happens today, not demonization of the insurance companies nor a poison pill of freedom for patients. Let us have a true patients' bill of rights, not a lawyer's right to bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the outlook of my colleague from Connecticut, and it is unique in her interpretation of what transpires. For example, the silence is deafening from my friends on the left when it comes to Communist Chinese contributions to their political party and the President of the United States. Very interesting that they do not have a word to say about that. Oh, they do talk about campaign finance reform. But that is akin to Bonnie and Clyde, at the height of their crime spree, calling for a press conference for tougher penalties against bank robbery. Make no mistake, my friends on the left love trial lawyers, and what they want instead of a true patients' bill of rights is a lawyers' right to bill. The Wall Street Journal opined yesterday that the left has been held hostage by the trial lawyers' lobby. I know they will get up and be very clever today, but remember the facts: We need a true patients' bill of rights, not a lawyers' right to bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding the time, and I thank my friends on the left for offering a clear choice today, because really this comes down to a simple question: Who do you trust in terms of health care? One of the reasons I left private life and ran for public office is because those on the left favored big government to run health care, take power out of the hands of patients, put that power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, and that is being reaffirmed, Mr. Speaker, even while those on the left offer their incisive legislative analyses of why there is a poison pill attached to this. Mr. Speaker, how on earth can putting power in the hands of patients to choose the doctors they want through medical savings accounts, how on earth can that freedom be regarded as a poison pill? I rise in strong support of this legislation, mindful of the fact that nearly one-quarter of the population of Arizona is uninsured, and I wish my friends in the minority would come with me to Show-Low, Arizona, to hear the people of that town say give us medical savings accounts, give us the ability to choose health care for ourselves, we need that help; and I wish they could hear the pleas in the town hall meetings I attend where the self-employed say give us 100 percent deductibility on health insurance, the same provisions the big boys have. That is what this legislation does, and association plans, it is interesting to hear my friend from Maryland, they cannot have it both ways. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues want to federalize health care in one arena and then criticize accessibility to insurance through Association Health Plans, there is something there that cannot be reconciled. Stand for the people, stand for freedom, stand in favor of this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my colleague on the left from the State of Texas. And indeed he is making news today. Because, apparently, he is endorsing the candidacy of his governor, Governor Bush. And we certainly appreciate that act of bipartisanship. But in all sincerity and in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we do this as we defend patients' rights. The key on this House floor and in the hospitals and clinics and homes of America is this: We must make sure that we have a true Patients' Bill of Rights instead of a lawyer's right to bill. And as we see this morning in one of our national publications, Mr. Speaker, sadly this is true. I quote now, ``Yet trial lawyer money talks loudest of all now to many Democrats.'' And indeed it is increasingly clear the Democrat Party, with no ideological link to the private economy, is now reduced to redistributing income through litigation. We do not want a lawyer's right to bill. We want a patients' bill of rights.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it was with great interest that I listened to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from my friends on the left this morning. I thought it might be important to offer a few historical notes to put this House in perspective and to help the American people in the process. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I left private life to run for public office is because a previous liberal majority in this House, with the complicity of the President of the United States, raided 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for the upcoming fiscal year, even as they gave us the largest tax increase in American history and drove us still further into debt. Now, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this new-found accountability for fiscal responsibility; and to that extent, I welcome my friends from the left. But when it comes to false letters based on false assumptions sent to produce false newspaper articles, there I must draw the line, Mr. Speaker, because the left has told us what? Medicare was going to go away. School lunches were going to go away. None of that happened. Remember the facts.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I note with interest the recitation of names by my colleagues on the left. I think it is a tragedy when any child dies. I think it is likewise a tragedy when we can add to the rollcall the names of the living. Nicole Irene Hayworth, Scottsdale, Arizona; Hannah Lynn Hayworth, Scottsdale, Arizona; John Mica Hayworth, Scottsdale, Arizona; and every child in America now sadly a target of Chinese missiles, courtesy of transfers of technology, curiously supported by campaign donations from Chinese interests to the Democratic National Committee. Yes, it is a tragedy when any child dies, but the answer is not in abridging constitutional rights. It is in enforcing existing laws on the books. Just as current laws for campaign finance have not been enforced, just as current laws for firearms have not been enforced, the lawlessness, Mr. Speaker, comes from those who are elected to faithfully execute the laws.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I thank the ranking member for offering a very interesting illustration: When one cannot talk facts and policy, let us return to process, and I welcome that attempt at rhetorical subterfuge. I would say to the gentleman from New York, and to my colleagues on the left, we stand ready. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would remind this House that we have reserved H.R. 1 for a plan from the President of the United States to help save and strengthen Social Security, but a funny thing, and really a tragic thing, has happened down Pennsylvania Avenue. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remind this House that aside from certain budgetary measures required under the Budget Act, this administration has failed to send up any of its proposals in legislative language since the attempt to socialize medicine. Perhaps that is the reason why they have never sent anything back to us in detail. So let me say to my colleague, in the best spirit of bipartisanship, we welcome you putting your plans on the table. We encourage you, as did our Democratic colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) to then Under Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, to have the President bring forth his plan to save Social Security; not rhetoric from the rostrum in a State of the Union message, but a true legislative plan. So let me first respond to that. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me explain why I must object in the strongest terms possible to the veto of our tax relief and tax fairness legislation by the President of the United States. First, Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House and every American should know that in wielding his veto pen, President Clinton today extinguished the hopes and dreams of small business owners for quality health insurance for themselves and their employees in terms of 100 percent tax deductibility. Had this President signed the legislation into law, that would have taken effect. The President said no. And in essence, I say to my colleagues, what transpired, not content with the largest tax increase in American history foisted upon the American people in the 103d Congress when those who would claim to be such intrepid policymakers on this floor, gave us the largest tax increase in American history. Not content with that, today the President of the United States has, in essence, raised our taxes in excess of $790 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, he said ``yes'' to a tax increase, ``no'' to health care deductibility for small business. He said ``yes'' to a tax increase, ``no'' to reducing the marriage penalty. He said ``yes'' to a tax increase and more spending, and ``no'' to an end to the death tax. He said ``yes'' to a tax increase and ``no'' to families who sought tax relief to care for an elderly member of the family in their home. He said ``yes'' to higher taxes, and he said ``no'' to the American people. No, you should be punished for succeeding, for investing. How dare we reduce the rate of capital gains taxation, even though a noted Democratic President earlier in this century said that a rising tide lifts all boats in terms of tax relief. This President said no to the American people. He said no to the people of rural America and the inner city. Mr. Speaker, he said ``no'' to the people of the inner city, with our American renewal package, incidentally, a bipartisan piece of legislation in stand-alone form that curiously was opposed once it became part of this overall plan. The bottom line is, the President of the United States has again said ``no'' to the American people, ``no'' to their hopes and dreams and aspirations, and a resounding ``yes'' to what is, sadly, flawed logic. There are many honest disagreements we have in this chamber, and I delight and revel in the fact that as free people, we have a chance to continue to thoughtfully debate the different philosophical dispensations we may have. But one thing that cannot seem to be accepted as fact by the liberal minority on the Hill or by the President of the United States is the notion that the money belongs to the people who earn it, not to the Government itself, not to the Washington bureaucrats. The money belongs to the people. That is the message we reaffirm today, and as we went through a litany where the President of the United States had a choice to empower the people who work and earn and pay taxes, and to use the terminology, Mr. Speaker, of the President of the United States, who often says he wants to help people who work hard and play by the rules, there was no better opportunity to do so than in signing this legislation into law. But now, the President says he wants to veto the legislation. So, again it sets up this choice, and as he has enacted this veto he, in essence, has again raised our taxes. It is worth noting that we have two divergent paths here; and indeed, we can harken back to the State of the Union address by the President when we welcomed him into this chamber, again to hear his legislative priorities, although as we noted earlier, Mr. Speaker, curiously, words that come forth in a speech are never followed through with legislative language, for whatever reason. We again await some sort of tangible product from the administration. Every school child learns in civics class: the President proposes, the Congress disposes. And we still look for some meaningful relationship, some meaningful leadership from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. So it is in that spirit today, on behalf of the American people who work hard, who play by the rules, who understand inherently that the money they earn belongs to them and not to the Washington bureaucrats, that we say in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States was wrong to veto this legislation. We object to that veto in the strongest possible terms, and even as we object to this veto, we eagerly await tangible legislation offered in a truly bipartisan sense from the President of the United States to this body with the active help of those members of his party; and together, we will move to work out a credible, tangible, productive legislative program that will benefit the American people. But we fail to benefit the American people, Mr. Speaker, when we hear the rhetoric that we heard from this President one day after he spoke here in his State of the Union message. He went the Buffalo, New York, and there was a statement there that was actually quite candid. The President of the United States quoted in the press, saying, and I quote now, ``We could give it,'' referring to the surplus that exists, ``We could give it back to you and hope that you spend it right. But,'' close quote. Well, the ``but,'' Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there is an inherent distrust, sadly, that this President has for the American people and their ability to spend their own money. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I have heard my friend, the ranking member on many national broadcasts in recent days even attempt to defend a recent action by this President, I find it curious that in the fullness of time, it has been exposed that this President not only, not only cannot trust the American people with their own money, but yet, he would trust the promises of convicted terrorists from Puerto Rico to whom he granted clemency. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, as we hear on the other side derisive laughter. How sad and how shameful that our Commander in Chief would trust the word of convicted terrorists over the ability of the American people to save, spend, and invest their money themselves. This may be honest disagreement, and we come to this chamber expressing that honest disagreement, and again, it is in that spirit when I state in the strongest possible terms that I must object to the veto of this tax fairness legislation by the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), and I thank my colleague from Colorado for the comments that he made earlier this evening, and I welcome my colleague from Colorado to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, I would note for our dedicated staff and those who join us tonight that I do not intend on taking much time; however, I thought it was important to come down and offer a perspective, based on the labors of my colleague from Colorado and others who serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means and, indeed, the work of this body and the other body, in attempting to restore to the American people tax relief and tax fairness. Mr. Speaker, much has been made in the media from the punditocracy about how our President stands foursquare against tax relief for the American people, how he is poised to reject almost $800 billion in tax relief, and I think a couple of points are worth noting. First of all, we should reaffirm in this place at this time that the money we are talking about does not belong to the United States Government, is not locked away in some secret account in some Federal vault; the revenue which runs this government, the money utilized to operate this Federal Government comes from the people, Mr. Speaker. And, by flourishing a veto pen, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, in essence, is once again adding to the tax burden of the American people; over the next 10 years, adding almost $1 trillion in taxes. To be technical about it, in excess of $790 billion in taxes, taxes that this body and the other body reduced; taxes that would have provided full deductibility of health insurance for small business, that would have put an end over the next 10 years to the death tax, that would have cut taxes across the board some 1 percent, that would have reduced the capital gains rate because Americans should not be punished for investing and succeeding. We also note, Mr. Speaker, that in the news today, even as we discuss the domestic concerns that we have, there are international concerns as well. News comes from the other body of a General Accounting Office report showing that our President, Mr. Speaker, in three trips alone, has spent in excess of $70 million. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one trip to the continent of Africa cost the American people some $40 million with staff attendance numbering in excess of 1,000, and with the money, Mr. Speaker, coming from accounts belonging to the Defense Department. Here is the grand paradox: At a time when we are threatened with returning to the days of the hollow force which has haunted the Clinton administration and this Nation some 20 years ago, this administration is using money that could go to help our men and women in uniform for the arrival of Air Force One on another continent and for the ruffles and flourishes, in addition to the customary security, which no one would deny our Commander in Chief. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be once again a dereliction of duty and indeed, sadly, so often has this been the case, in recent weeks, the clemency granted to over one dozen Puerto Rican terrorists who were luke warm in their denunciation of violence, to the curious conduct in an election year with funds supplied by Communist China, and the curious transfer of technology by American firms to the People's Republic of China, to reports last week of, Mr. Speaker, what can only be called appeasement of the outlaw Nation of North Korea. Indeed, characterized by some in the press, and I hesitate to use the term, for it is strong, but I believe it is accurate, that this great Nation, our great Nation may have succumbed to nuclear blackmail. Then we go down the list. The pilfering of 900 FBI files of political opponents; the sacking of dedicated civil servants at the White House Travel Office, and the despair and tragedy that met American citizens six years ago in Waco, Texas. It reaches a point, Mr. Speaker, when the American people say, is there no end? Is there no justice? Is there, in fact, a case to be made for one who would willingly commit perjury and obstruction of justice? For if one is derelict in small things, what happens when the greater questions arise? What happens with the greater questions of national security? What happens with the stewardship of the hard-earned dollars of the American men and women who offer their funds, freely and voluntarily, through taxation? We believe, Mr. Speaker, in our common sense majority that there are four goals that confront us. One is to bolster and strengthen our national security. We have done so in this chamber by working, at long last, after a six-year absence, to regain the technological edge in terms of a missile defense system for this country, concurrently increasing salaries for our military personnel. We have also moved, Mr. Speaker, even as we try to improve the lot in life for those men and women in uniform, we also recognize that a national priority should be education. But, even as it is a national priority, Mr. Speaker, it remains a local concern. And, we in this common sense conservative majority in this chamber have passed two bills that reflect that. One has been nicknamed Ed Flex, educational flexibility in terms of block granting a piece of legislation endorsed by all 50 of the Nation's governors, whether they were Republican or Democrat, to provide flexibility at the State level and ultimately at the local level, so that we can return power to the people who are duly elected to local school boards, and more importantly, Mr. Speaker, to teachers who seek to educate those young people in their classrooms, in their individual communities day in and day out. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I was honored that our new Education Land Grant Act passed this House by unanimous vote, a procedure calling on the great work done by those who have gone before. Justice Smith Morrell of Vermont, to be specific, with the Morrell Land Grant Act of the 1860s, where we update that to apply that to public and secondary school for a conveyance procedure, a uniform procedure for the conveyance of Federal land, nonenvironmental sensitive Federal land, for the construction of new educational facilities. Again, a tool to empower local communities because we understand ultimately that people on the front lines at home understand how best to educate our children instead of the theories and the spending programs exercised by Washington bureaucrats. So those are two of our priorities. The third, of course, is to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I look to the work done by my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer); the Subcommittee on Social Security chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), trying to work out a plan that will not only save Social Security for today's retirees, but for baby boomers who will age into that category, and more importantly, for the generations yet to come, generations who grow more skeptical about that program as years pass, and to put the emphasis on personalization of accounts, so that future retirees can have some discretion and some personalization of the way in which they would spend their pension funds. We also will work on the Committee on Ways and Means of course to strengthen Medicare as we again seek to maximize choice and to offer prescription drugs to the truly needy among the elderly, rather than a government handout, characterized by one of my constituents as an effort to raise her Social Security premiums to pay prescription drug benefits for the likes of Ross Perot. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we return to the topic that I mentioned at the outset and that is tax relief and tax fairness for all Americans. Again, make no mistake. With a veto of the tax bill, the President of the United States has, in essence, increased taxes on the American people in excess of $700 billion, close to $800 billion. I think it amounts to a $1 trillion mistake. But ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the American people will be the judge. We will continue to work in this chamber in a constructive way to defend the rights of Americans and to embrace the notion that the American people work hard for the money they earn, and that they should keep more of it and send less of it here to Washington.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has offered another textbook example of the politics of envy, because it comes down to this question, who do you trust more? My friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, places her trust in Washington bureaucrats. She believes Uncle Sam should be Big Brother, take our money, and invest it in government programs. She defines security by increased Washington spending. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at 2 o'clock we will enroll the bill from the legislative branch that offers tax relief and tax fairness for all Americans, reducing the marriage penalty, ending the inheritance tax, working for commonsense policies because, Mr. Speaker, our commonsense conservative majority rejects the politics of envy and fear and embraces the policies of opportunity. One fundamental truth we understand in this majority, Mr. Speaker, the money belongs to the American people, not to the Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, to hear my colleagues on the left talk about it in concert with other folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it is very interesting to hear all of these calls for campaign finance reform, because, in fact, mindful of these pleas at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue I would equate them, Mr. Speaker, with Bonnie and Clyde in the midst of their crime spree calling a press conference to call for tougher penalties on bank robbery. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, real reform first comes by obeying existing law. That is the problem this administration has never come to grips with in a variety of different areas. It would be good to obey existing laws. That is why they are already on the books. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President enjoyed his round of golf today in the South Pacific. He came here in January and gave a State of the Union message and the next day went to Buffalo, New York and told the American people they could not be trusted with their money, and yet last week, he said he would trust the word of Puerto Rican terrorists and grant them clemency. How curious, Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United States will not trust the American people with their own money and yet trust the word of terrorists.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the T-38 Avionics Upgrade Program (AUP) to the attention of my colleagues and the American people. The T-38 program is an essential aircraft system for training Air Force pilots. Recently, during OPERATION ALLIED FORCES, we became acutely aware of the critical shortage of pilots in the Air Force and the other services. The T-38 AUP is a key asset in helping the Air Force to reduce this pilot shortage. I am pleased to report that, following some early hardware-software developmental problems, this week the Air Force gave the go-ahead for Low Rate Initial Production for the T-38 AUP. Earlier this month, the House Appropriations Committee recommended substantial reductions in production funding for the T-38 AUP for both fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The rationale was to give more time for development and testing to correct hardware and software deficiencies and to meet the ``fly before buy'' criteria established by the Air Force. This action will delay the program by a year or more and consequently delay the delivery of state-of-the-art advanced training aircraft to the Air Force. The T-38 AUP is an Air Force modernization program to update obsolete avionics, controls, and cockpit displays in 509 T-38 trainer aircraft. it also provides 36 new ground-based trainers that reflect the new T-38 cockpits, and provides logistics support at six Air Force bases around the country. I am proud of the work that is being done in my district at Williams Gateway Airport to provide a modernized trainer for America's future fighter and bomber pilots. Over the past year, the Williams Gateway team has been hard at work to bring the T-38 trainer up to the level necessary to produce pilots who are ready to step into our current fighters and bombers. However, as stated in the House Appropriations Committee report language, hardware and software problems discovered during developmental flight testing at Edwards Air Force Base caused the Air Force to decide on March 10, 1999 to delay the program for correction and flight testing of the discrepancies. With the tremendous efforts of the Air Force and the T-38 contractor team, all critical hardware and software problems discovered during flight testing have been fixed and the following flights were successful flights. All flight testing was completed at Edwards on July 9, 1999. This entire corrective process, typical of a development phase, took less than four months. The Air Force has thoroughly reviewed the entire process, determined that the ``fly before buy'' criteria have been met, and on July 26, 1999 approved initial low-rate production of the T-38 AUP. There is no longer any reason to further delay the program. I do not think that this information about the rapid correction of problems was available to the House Appropriations Committee prior to the House vote to reduce funding earlier this month. Full fiscal year 1999 and 2000 production funding is required to keep the T-38 AUP on schedule. First aircraft deliveries are required at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia by August of next year. Delaying the T- 38 AUP program will have a significant effect on pilot training and will increase overall program costs and operations and maintenance costs associated with the older versions of the T-38 aircraft. Air Force pilot training and retention is a national security issue. The T-38 AUP is a critical vehicle in the process of helping the Air Force improve its pilot situation. In addition to being a low cost trainer, the T-38 AUP will provide the configurations in avionics and cockpit design the pilots need to train. By slipping this program out a year, we will be forcing America's finest new fighter and bomber pilots to use an aircraft with 1950's and 1960's cockpit technology. Funding reductions this year would unnecessarily delay the T-38 development efforts by a year or more, delay needed upgrades for critical Air Force pilot training needs, and increase fiscal year 2000 research and development costs by millions and program production costs by tens of millions. Additionally, if the program is delayed, operations and maintenance costs will increase by millions annually because of parts shortages and other difficulties associated with maintaining he older T-38 aircraft with the high failure rates of their obsolete avionics components. Finally, the delay will result in loss of some of the valuable workforce experience that has been hard-won during the development phase of the program. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the new millennium, we would be doing a disservice to our future pilots by training them in aircraft with 1960's and 1970's technology. With full funding of $85.7 million for the T-38 AUP program, the Boeing Company and the Air Force will ensure that our future pilots will have state-of-the-art avionics to begin their training.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the tortured reasoning that has been brought forward in this Chamber, trying to muddy the waters. Let us make it very simple, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with politics or parsing words. This has everything to do with what is just and what is right. My colleague, the gentleman from New York, spoke of what went on in this Chamber 20 years ago. Let us take that as an object lesson. Clemency and leniency was granted. It did not deter the FALN, that continued a decade-long campaign of terror resulting in bombing, resulting in deaths. I was not in this Chamber, I protested at that time as a private citizen. But we have this simple question. It is one, Mr. Speaker, we should put to the President of the United States: Are we willing to take as the policy of the government of the United States forgiveness for acts of terror on the flimsy promise that people utter the statement, they will never do it again? We cannot trust the word from the top. We should not trust the words of terrorists.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, my colleague from New York who preceded me in the well accurately points out yet another problem in the world, and while this House in a bipartisan basis will work its will in short order to deal with this crisis, it reminds us that we bear the bitter fruits of confusion, naivete, or worse on the part of this administration in dealing with foreign policy. Madam Speaker, the best example and the latest example is the confusing dilemma in which our Commander in Chief has placed the American people because he apparently has chosen to reward terrorists. It is sad to note the President of the United States has granted clemency to about one dozen Puerto Rican terrorists who advocated the armed overthrow of the United States Government. Madam Speaker, the President says that he will take the terrorists at their word. Madam Speaker, as we have learned, when we cannot trust our highest elected officials and take them at their word, how can we possibly take the word of terrorists?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think the preceding two speeches offer a classic contrast where we come as a free people to debate ideas because my friend from Oregon who precedes me is caught up in the politics of envy. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that as Americans, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, we would do well to set aside the politics of envy and embrace the policies of opportunity. Mr. Speaker, as all of my colleagues had the opportunity on recess to spend time with their families, I also spent a good bit of time with my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, a district in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and in 13 town halls held across the width and breadth of the Sixth District I found that constituents were consistently rejecting the politics of envy for the policies of opportunity as enunciated by our common-sense majority in the Congress as we pledged during this 106th Congress, number one, to save and secure Social Security and Medicare not only for today's seniors, but for tomorrow's, as we also move to save and strengthen and rebuild our national defenses and our national security, as we work to improve education by empowering leaders at the local level, locally elected school boards; but, more importantly, teachers in the classroom and parents in the home because we know that teachers in the classroom and parents at home can deal far better with the educational challenges of their youngsters than any Washington, D.C. bureaucrats. And finally what my good friend from Georgia mentioned, tax relief and tax fairness for all Americans. My friend from Oregon had one glaring omission in his diatribe against letting the American people hold onto more of their hard-earned money. He failed to cite the fact that the top 5 percent income earners in this country pay well over 60 percent of the taxes taken in by the Federal Government. But be that as it may, tax relief for everyone is encapsulated and included in death penalty relief, easing the penalty of the death tax on the American people, reducing the marriage tax penalty, reducing capital gains taxes so that you are not punished for succeeding or investing wisely and offering to small business 100 percent deductibility for health care insurance instantly if the President will sign the bill even as we lock away over $2 trillion to save Social Security and Medicare and pay down the national debt. These are the opportunities that confront us, and, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention one other topic that has come to the fore in town hall meetings and has been part of our electronic town hall in talk radio and in discussions on television, and that is the unbelievable actions of our Chief Executive to grant clemency to Puerto Rican terrorists. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Osama Bin Ladin and others who embrace terrorism are watching with great interest. The power to pardon, to grant clemency is given to our Chief Executive by the Constitution. How curious that our President, having issued clemency only three times, would grant it in blanket fashion to over a dozen Puerto Rican terrorists who waged a campaign of terror for well over a decade if they would only promise to renounce violence. Mr. Speaker, when will it end; the pilfering of 900 FBI files of political opponents, the curious and tragic actions at Waco, putting the Lincoln bedroom up for sale to the highest bidder in terms of political donations, and, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of campaign financing, donations from front companies for Communist China? Mr. Speaker, it is shocking, and as the people of the Sixth District of Arizona told me last week, Alice may have said curiouser and curiouser when she stepped through the looking glass, but, Mr. Speaker, as we look to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for curious, coarse, callous political calculation and decisions that actually are not in the best interests of the American people and their children, all we can say, Mr. Speaker, is: Shame. If only those who bear the responsibility were capable of feeling the shame they ought at this hour in this moment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a simple purpose. It prohibits spending any money on any activity in support of adding or maintaining any World Heritage site in the United States on the list of world heritage in danger. It is based on the provision in the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883 which passed in this House on May 20 of this year by voice vote. The World Heritage Committee influences activities that occur around World Heritage Sites by putting such sites on what is entitled the ``List of World Heritage in Danger.'' As many of my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, the World Heritage Committee has been attempting to extend the reach of the convention concerning the protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage beyond a world heritage site in an effort to influence activities around the site. Unfortunately, the World Heritage Committee has interfered several times in ongoing internal economic development permitting processes of sovereign nations, including a project on private land in the United States. The World Heritage Committee, with the approval of the executive branch, has ignored Federal law and infringed on constitutionally protected private property rights by disrupting the National Environmental Policy Act process for a project located on private land. Under the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee monitors activities in and around a site in danger, and the country in which the site in danger is located is obligated to aid the committee in this monitoring. A site remains on the list of World Heritage sites in danger until the host country agrees to implement the committee's recommendations concerning land use around the site, which generates international pressure on the country to follow the World Heritage committee's recommendations. Policies implemented in accordance with recommendations of the World Heritage committee can limit the use of privately owned property, thereby reducing its value. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will help stop international organizations from interfering in United States land use decisions. Mr. Chairman, if one supports American sovereignty, I urge them to support this amendment. If one supports the constitutionally granted right of Congress to affect Federal land policy, I urge them to support this amendment. If one supports the American Land Sovereignty Act, I urge them to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote yes on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.