J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. We have been working to introduce new language that I believe both sides have agreed to on this particular amendment, and my inquiry is, do I have to offer an amendment to the amendment? I do not. I stand corrected. So we do have the new language.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I thank the gentleman. I may have a little different interpretation and assessment of what the amendment does, but I am pleased to see we could work this out, and we will enforce existing law.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, quoting the words of my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to Indian Country Today Newspaper, he said he would push for a compromise bill through Congress that would support on-reservation tribal sovereignty against the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, while accepting the board's role as arbiter of labor-employee disputes and union organizing on off- reservation tribally owned business. The only workable bill is an authorizing bill, H.R. 16. As I have pointed out, we come here with this recourse because of uncertainty and because of bureaucratic fiat. Adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment because it is important not only to the State of Arizona but to the entire Nation. As of last year, Mr. Chairman, 40 of our 50 States as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed charter school laws. My good friend, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, pointed out that charter schools are public schools, that charter schools in fact offer services to children with special needs. And we cannot stand by and allow the Department of Education by bureaucratic fiat to decide to cut off these funds to deserving children in what are public schools as set forth by State standards. Education is a national priority and ultimately a local concern. And just as Arizona has taken the lead in terms of formation and the flourishing of charter schools, we want to see the funds there for the children who deserve them.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, in May 2004, the National Labor Relations Board overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes and their employees, the NLRB seeks to replace that law with its authority in this area. This decision is a frontal assault on tribal sovereign rights. The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities, and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt from NLRB jurisdiction. But the NLRB incorrectly decided that it should exercise its jurisdiction over tribal governments on their own lands. If this unfair decision stands, the only governments that will be subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be tribal governments. The NLRB misunderstands that tribal governments, like State governments, rely upon government-owned enterprises to generate revenues to support governmental purposes such as reservation, law enforcement and fire services, and programs for the health, education, and welfare benefit of tribal members. Consistent with the policy behind the NLRB exemptions for governments, private parties such as labor unions should not be able to hold government-owned enterprises hostage when disagreements arise. Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California that has enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with greater labor union rights than the National Labor Relations Act. In fact, the tribe has a collective bargaining agreement with the Communication Workers of America. The heavy-handed activist NLRB overlaid an incompatible legal regime where a tribal one, agreed to on a government-to-government basis with the State of California, was in place and was working. Now, San Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great uncertainty about which one applies. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, make no mistake, sovereignty cannot be situational. To reverse 30 years of policy by bureaucratic fiat is wrong. Adopt the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is not process or legislative jurisdiction. Until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this problem, this amendment simply calls for a temporary time-out to allow us to work together for a more substantive solution, to avoid additional confusion among the tribes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. My friend from California proves my point. He admits that in a government-to-government relationship, as the San Manuel Band has done already, they actually put together an agreement with greater union rights than the NLRA. That is precisely the point. Tribes should have the sovereign ability to decide that if they want to bring in those expansion of rights, yes. But it should be their decision. Sovereignty is not situational, and any attempt to paint this otherwise is wrong. That is why the amendment should be passed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Chairman, after the rhetorical display, I know my friends did not mean to insinuate that tribes are composed of bums and scoundrels. Yet, what we are hearing here is that somehow the very worst in human nature would come out.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this is my time, is it not?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the chairman. We are making the point that we are dealing with sovereignty. Yes, this is an imperfect world. But I scarcely imagine that a gross violation of human rights will transpire when we live up to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, States, and with the Indian tribes. Tribes have sovereign immunity. They have sovereignty. It is not situational, no matter what some leaders in the AFL-CIO may say.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. During the course of my previous presentation, was the extra-curricular activity outburst included in my time when others sought control of the microphone?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I will simply say to both the majority and minority staff of the Committee on Appropriations and to Members on this side, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who were all prepared to speak on this amendment, we thank them for their involvement. This revised amendment ensures that a proposed Social Security totalization amendment or agreement with Mexico now fully subscribes to what has been signed into law, H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. And this ensures that any proposed totalization agreement would not have funds going to anyone from our neighbor to the south employed here illegally. I thank both sides for their cooperation on this, and though we may have sincere differences in the challenges of the day, I do appreciate everyone's constructive attitude on this amendment. It shows the American people that, yes, we can get things done. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate with interest. And I rise in support of the rule and in support of a realistic foreign policy that some in this Chamber apparently misunderstand. The actions of September 11, 2001, were not criminal acts; they were acts of war against this Nation. One of the fundamental problems when you separate all the venom and vitriol that we have heard in this debate and certainly from someone in the other body who compared American fighting men and women to the Soviets with their gulags and the Third Reich and Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, one of the fundamental problems seems to be the willingness of many to equate this with some sort of law enforcement problem. It is not. And to those who are expending such efforts and such rhetoric on behalf of the alleged rights of enemies of this country, let me remind you that the Constitution's first three words are ``We the people,'' not ``they the terrorists,'' or ``they the insurgents,'' or ``they the accused.'' In wartime the Constitution is a mechanism for the survival of the Republic. And as Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out years ago, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. This need not be a partisan controversy. One look only so far as the History Channel as columnist Thomas Sowell pointed out 2 weeks ago. Do you know what happened at World War II to unfortunate combatants; that is, those without representing a nation state or wearing the uniform or insignia of a military nation or state during World War II? When those unlawful combatants were apprehended, they were lined up and shot. The Commander in Chief at that time was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That was in adherence with the Geneva Convention. We are in a war where people behead Americans. It would be nice to see one-tenth of the passion on behalf of American citizens that we see for the terrorists and their alleged rights. Vote in favor of the rule.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for offering this amendment. It is sorely needed as we examine both the plight of Palestinian refugees and the propaganda that emanates from those who prey upon the frustrations of Palestinian refugees. Mr. Chairman, UNRWA stands for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees, created in the wake of hostilities in 1948. This seeks first on a humanitarian basis to aid those who have been afflicted, and as is so often the case, the United States of America, maligned internationally by many, has stood front and center and has borne the financial burden of one-quarter of the world's expenditures for UNRWA. And others around the world, we should point out, have also stepped in. But the fact is that the United States, Sweden, Japan, and Italy pay individually into UNRWA more than all the Arab nations combined. It is a fair question to ask in terms of geopolitical proximity, i.e., neighbors living closest to those experiencing the problems, why do those nations not step forward to pay their fair share? Why do those nations who in their satellite news organizations that chronicle the plight of the Palestinians, why do those same nations not step forward? Saudi Arabia ranks 16th in contributing country with $1.8 million in funding. A nation that earns billions from its natural wealth of petroleum offers less than $2 million. This amendment is wise and fair. Adopt this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I thank my colleague from Arizona for his comments. I do not believe that his analogy about withholding tax payments in protest to the government is apt because, Mr. Chairman, our responsibility first and foremost, yes, even as a Member of an international body, is to make sure that American interests are protected and, by extension, the interests of those in the world who have been abused, such as the Iraqi people, such as those innocent, young people in the Congo who have been sexually assaulted. And with a corrupt world body, we have incumbent in this amendment an obligation to seriously reduce the funding and, by extension, might I add, allow others within the international community to pay their fair share. I look forward to the bill from the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, but I would ask my colleagues to join with me in acceptance of this amendment, because enough is enough.