J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his help in making this important change. I know the gentleman realizes how important our constitutional and treaty obligations are to Native Americans, and I believe with the changes that have been made, this amendment now protects the unique nature of tribal colleges, a unique nature reaffirmed in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution and in subsequent treaties. Accordingly, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding me this time. There is a simple realization that confronts us today in this chamber, and that is, despite the very concerted efforts of some very dedicated people, the schools of the District of Columbia, this Nation's seat of government, for which this body bears ultimate constitutional responsibility, those schools are in crisis. And for the parents of the District of Columbia and for their children, this simple notion should reign supreme. In this land of the free, those parents should have the freedom to choose which school they believe to be best for their children, and this tool of scholarships is something needed in terms of educational triage for a system that sadly has failed the citizens of the District of Columbia, has failed the students of the District of Columbia. That is why we stand here today in the well of this House to reaffirm the notion of freedom and choice. Imagine if your child had to go to a school daily where there were unsafe conditions, where someone could not learn; and it is for the children we make this pledge and we make this vote, and that is why I am pleased to support the legislation of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security on which I am privileged to serve. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend from Texas offers a picture-perfect example of why we need to have a national dialogue on Social Security, because perhaps she misunderstands the intent of what many people have talked about here. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the gentlewoman joining with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security in sponsoring H.R. 3351 if, in fact, she is afraid that somehow Social Security will be taken from today's seniors. Let me humbly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be further from the truth, and those who offer that argument, no matter how well modulated and how reasonably stated, are sadly succumbing to the temptation of rhetorical terrorism. Let us state clearly and unequivocally from both sections, from both aisles, that the challenge for us remains, first and foremost, to keep Social Security intact for today's seniors. But, at the same time, we should welcome a national dialogue on something this vitally important. I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Arizona. Because I, too, have formed a citizen's committee on retirement. I, too, invited not only current retirees but baby boomers and members of the next generation to join in a dialogue. That is the key to dealing with this problem. That is what this modest proposal suggests. Indeed, a look back at recent history would suggest that Washington gets into trouble when Washington experts listen to each other, when they are walled off from the rest of the people, when they fail to take into account the concerns of average American citizens, most notably today's Social Security recipients. So this legislation, which I am pleased to support, says that we will set up a dialogue not as Democrats or as Republicans but as Americans, not to succumb to the temptations of rhetorical terrorism but, instead, to offer sound, sensible solutions. Because the stakes are too high, the stakes are too high to succumb to the temptation of sloganeering for campaigns just a few months away. Please support the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. I listened with great interest to my colleague from Colorado who plans to return to private life, and I appreciate my colleague from Colorado a great deal, especially since he was one who spearheaded the notion of civility returning to this Chamber. Let me humbly suggest in the most civil tones I can offer that when the people's business comes before the House, whether it is in April or December or a time in between, it will befit this House to call serious debate or to characterize serious debate as some form of stunt. I also appreciate the gentleman's revision of American history because the gentleman, I know, swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Let us just simply read the first clause from article 5, Mr. Speaker. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution. There is no subservience to some Washingtonized rules of the House. This House, whenever it shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution, but to the revisionist history offered by my colleague from Colorado on the left, I would point out that when it came to questions of revenue in the Federal Government and the intent of our founders, there is a larger question this House should consider. And that is, if revenue procurement was so noble and so necessary, why did not the founders include the direct taxation of income in the main body of the Constitution or in the subsequent Bill of Rights? Indeed, if that is so noble, if that is so civic minded, it would appear to me if that were so sober that our founders would have incorporated that form of revenue procurement into the main body of the Constitution. And yet, the amendment process gave us the 16th amendment. And, as my colleague from Texas pointed out, starting at a very modest level, we have seen taxes grow from 1 percent to almost 40 percent of the median family income. Therefore, to be truly constitutional and true to the spirit of debate and civility in this Chamber, those of us who are here to serve the people bring this proposal forward again, not because of cherry blossoms in the spring or sap or any other derogatory comment that some gentleman may offer to score debating points but because, to be true to the spirit of the Constitution, the 5th article is a living, breathing part of the Constitution and we have every right to do this. Because the people govern; and the people in the 6th district of Arizona and across the State of Arizona who have enacted a supermajority limit for raising taxes in State government, and I see my colleague from Arizona, who helped lead that initiative when we were both private citizens, have said, enough is enough. And so we stand here today to say, the people know best. Not that Washington knows best and not that any type of verbal gymnastics can obscure this basic notion, that it is not a profile in courage to go back to the pocketbooks of the American people again and again and again and, by the margin of one vote, enact what the liberal senior senator from New York called the largest tax increase in the history of the world. Indeed, this amendment offers a tool completely constitutional, completely rational, and I daresay completely civil to allow Americans to hold on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, in hearing his remarks and not only taking a look at what went on in real life down in the Republic of Texas, in the Lone Star State, in that legislature how those programs have worked, I could not help but be struck upon a couple of comments he made dealing with the realities that American families confront now, not only the burden of taxation, but the hidden cost of regulation. And lest anyone misunderstand, because I have a funny feeling in view of what some folks in this chamber say distinctly and want to come back and amend, and certain ad campaigns that have existed in the past to take legitimate comments out of context, lest anyone misunderstand, we are not talking about the abolition of regulation. We understand a modicum of regulation, Mr. Speaker, is reasonable, rational to make sure that infrastructure and systems exist. But what is worth noting is the fact that, when our Founders wrote the Constitution, the first three words in the beautiful preamble are ``We the people''. They did not write we the government. What is unique about our system is the fact that it was, as Catherine Drinker Bowen wrote, the Miracle at Philadelphia, because our Founders devised a system, a notion that was, dare we say, at that time in history, considered by the Europeans and others, extreme for our system, was based on the notion, our constitutional republic was founded on the notion that rights are conferred upon the people by God and, in turn, the people confer rights upon the government. So as I hear the plans that my friend from Texas brings up, it calls to mind and brings to mind a piece of legislation that my colleague the gentleman from Colorado and I cosponsor here in the House, sponsored in the other body by a former colleague in this chamber, now Senator Brownback of Kansas, the Congressional Responsibility Act, another tool to use to reign in runaway regulation. Because following the beautiful preamble to the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, in Article 1, section 1 of this great document, it reads, and I quote, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,'' all legislative powers. Yet, what we have done for the better part of this century, initially with the best of intentions, is to empower the unelected. Congress gradually in ceding that control and that authority to the executive branch has essentially, and pardon me, Mr. Speaker, and those at home, turned its back, turned its back on the American people, turned its back on the responsibilities. So now seemingly daily in the Federal Register you have Washington bureaucrats drafting regulation, and these regulations, if they are not strictly adhered to, carry with them sanctions. Sometimes those sanctions can include fines or imprisonment, sometimes both. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not an attorney. J.D. does not stand for jurist doctorate. I think that is an asset. But you do not have to be a lawyer to realize that, in essence, what has happened is that Congress has placed lawmaking authority in the hands of the unelected. I know my colleague from Colorado had a very interesting experience. One of his committees, he was explaining it to us, his epiphany, if you will, for the way Washington has come to work when we are talking about the regulation railroad, and we are not talking about locomotion so much as bureaucratic inertia. Could you share your experience on committee? Do you recall? You spoke so eloquently at our press conference about your days sitting with the ag folks, and someone came I believe from the Department of Agriculture. And it is a great, great story that stuck in my mind because you said that you leaned over to a more senior member of the committee and you said, ``Wait a minute. This guy is making law. He is bringing up law.''

Mr. HAYWORTH. Since my colleague from Texas raises the specter of Social Security by example, I think it is important to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, what transpired here on the Hill today as we take a look at preserving and protecting Social Security for today's seniors and then making that system stronger through innovation and personalization in the days ahead. It brings to mind the fact that, mindful as we are of the time and the few minutes, about 5 minutes that remain, for us to share with the American people tonight Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the fact that during this recess I will be back in the 6th District of Arizona with town halls talking to seniors about how best to preserve Social Security, how best to preserve that trust fund, and then looking to the baby-boom generation and those of the third millennium, or the Generation Next-Agers, or beyond, to see how best to deal with the problem. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased about the Social Security task force that we have assembled in the 6th Congressional District of Arizona with people who are very, very interested, who have a stake in this, as today's seniors on today's program, as soon to be seniors, as baby-boomers, and as Generation Nexters, or third millennia children. They are working together to try and take a look at this system. I eagerly await their report and to hear from the people as we return back to listen to our constituents to decide how best to solve problems. Again, I cannot help but comment on the irony of those who preceded us in this chamber, who had invented almost out of whole cloth, but instead out of deliberate distortion, scare tactics about a legitimate question of tax reform. And I think, Mr. Speaker, to couch that properly, we should say this: I could not help but note the irony that the three who stood here in this chamber had embraced just a few years before a soup-to-nuts plan for socialized medicine that was derived in a back room behind closed doors down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a program that was doomed to failure because it was never debated by the American people, nor shared. So we do not shrink from the notion of debate; we welcome it. Whether on Social Security or tax policy, or overregulation or overtaxation, we welcome debate and decisions. But we want to hear from all the people, not lock people away and sequester them behind closed doors and then emerge with some Rube Goldbergesque scheme. Instead, it is the basic goodness and wisdom of the people which will prevail and which I look forward to hearing in my town hall meetings when I return home.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And, again, I think what the gentleman from Texas advocates, Mr. Speaker, points up the vitality of our system of federalism where we can look to the States for the examples proffered there. Now, to be certain, what works in Austin may not be readily accepted in Boston; what is embraced in Harrisburg may not always be the case in Phoenix. And yet, taking a look at what States do in terms of seizing the initiative, I know, for example, right now the State of Arizona is coming to grips with the whole notion of school funding; and they are working in the House and Senate working on those ideas. Who knows what will come from those notions? But, again, as we have seen with welfare reform, as we have seen with so many different issues and certainly those that lend a notion of fiscal responsibility and accountability, we look to the States. And I cannot help but notice our friend from the Republic of Texas, known as the Lone Star State also, perhaps with a distinction as the sunset State, and I think he hit on something that is so vitally important because it should be our mission here; and while we do point out differences and while we celebrate differences in philosophies, the fact is that we also look for common ground across the board, across the aisle. And we have been able to make some changes here in Washington based on those examples, perhaps not as formalized as the gentleman offers here tonight, perhaps the first halting few steps made in the 104th Congress, that historic Congress where the balance of power that the American people confer on this Chamber was changed to a common-sense conservative majority when we eliminated over 300 wasteful and duplicative programs and in the process reduced spending by some $54 billion. Now, to be sure, Mr. Speaker, that was just a start. Much more remains to be done. And that is why I am so enthusiastic about our colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) bringing this idea to this Chamber, showing again the wisdom of the notion of transferring money, power, and influence out of Washington, where sadly those resources had been wasted, and making sure that the power rests preeminently in the States. Because in most cases, there may be some exceptions, but in most cases power closer to home, the ideas coming from home to Washington can help reinvogorate our constitutional republic. And that is the essence of what is going on. Again, it just stands in stark contrast. My colleague from Colorado and I were in the cloakroom watching the theatrics on the other side tonight, how instead of ideas they wanted to take something that was just simply a policy notion, not even articulated in the fashion that they would bring it to the floor, but yet to market fear, they take a legitimate proposal, twist it, change it to scare people. I would just like to see their proposals. I would just like to see some new ideas from the other side. I think they, too, should look to the States and look to the people and listen for answers.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased by the fact that he joins me in this Chamber tonight along another newcomer to Washington, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the earlier portion and presentation offered by our friend in the minority, I could not help but think of three dates, two occurring in this month and another that will come in October. We should note for the calendar that this is the 1st of April. And while I doubt no one's sincerity, the absurdity of some of the comments which preceded us in the minority Special Order I guess should be tempered by the fact that this is, in fact, April Fool's Day. And we know that that is the second favorite holiday in the minority's calendar, because the minority party and those always tied to the culture of spend and spend and spend some more really have as their favorite holiday April 15, when everyone must send in their tax returns. And for evidence, despite a frantic effort to get away from words that were read in the Record here last week, my friends, my colleagues and, Mr. Speaker, the citizens who join us beyond these walls via television should look to this quote and understand all the frantic posturing and postmortems cannot change what was said on this floor. The Chief Deputy Whip, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, who stood opposite in the well, said this last week, quote, the fact is that Democrats are not for tax cuts. Now, I could amend that statement because I know a lot of common- sense folks who offer party label second in the Sixth District of Arizona who are hard-working Americans who are pleased by the tax cuts they have this year, hanging on to more of their own money to save, spend, and invest as they see fit. And in the frantic way in which the minority, the congressional folks who are tax and spenders, tried to back paddle on this statement tonight, I could not help but note that the scenario they offered brings up a third date on the calendar, October 31. Because, sadly, it seems that the minority, so bankrupt of ideas, so bereft of new energy at times, offers what is a rhetorical terrorism to victimize the most vulnerable in our society by setting up these scenarios that can only be described as part Orwellian, part Kevorkian. And so, we heard it again tonight. There are many positive things to talk about and to report to the American people tonight, Mr. Speaker, as the new majority continues its quest for common-sense conservative government with the notion that the people of America should hang on to more of their own money and send less of it to Washington. And that is why I am so pleased to join my friend again from Colorado and my friend from Texas.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, to hear this, and again, knowing the deliberate distortion that may be inevitable from those who fear most returning power to the hands of the citizens, I think we need to make this point, again, just to say this: When our friend steps to this floor and advocates the notion of sunset, he does not imply that every bit of government will sunset. He simply asks for increased accountability. That is important. That is one of the notions behind our Congressional Responsibility Act that I would like to outline, Mr. Speaker, for those who join us during this time this evening, and that is also something that I think we can make manifest in rules as we reevaluate our budgetary process. I am pleased tonight that our Speaker pro tempore is the gentleman from Iowa who joins me with service on the Committee on Ways and Means and also is one of our delegates, if you will, to the Committee on Budget where he does that work. That is one of his other committee assignments, almost a liaison, if you will, between the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Budget. We have been engaged in some discussions born of my first experience, an epiphany that I had based on experience here during my first term when I served on the Committee on Resources and on one of the subcommittees responsible for national parks. We called in the director of the National Park Service. And sitting next to him was, in essence, the agency's accountant. Of course here we use a fancy title for accountant. It would be the Inspector General, the person who goes over the receipts, takes a look at the tax dollars that come into the agency. And I will never forget what transpired on that day. The Inspector General who had the responsibility for the Park Service with the Director of the Park Service sitting alongside told a congressional subcommittee in essence that the National Park Service could not account for some $73 million of taxpayer money. Now I know some folks around here talk about billions and trillions; 73 trillion may not be too much. But I tell you what, to an American family, to the hard-working people in the Sixth District of Arizona and, I submit, to the people in Texas and Colorado and people from coast to coast in Alaska and Hawaii $73 million is real money. And I suppose for the television cameras it made for great television to have folks kind of rhetorically beat up on the Director of the Park Service, but there was no recourse. And so what I think we ought to do, and I have talked with our Speaker Pro Tempore this evening, the gentleman from Iowa, and others on the Committee on the Budget, I think we ought to consider a rule that henceforth, when governmental agencies cannot account for taxpayers' funds, as the audits and reports come from their respective inspectors general, then automatically for the next year that amount of money be automatically impounded from that particular agency's administrative account because, as one of my colleagues said on that day to the Director of the Park Service, were he a director of a business, were he chairman of the board of the corporation, what he had done that day would be tantamount to a criminal offense that would land him behind bars. But instead all he endured was the wrath of a few congressional subcommittee members and, I am sure, the disdain of those who joined via videotape that discussion on C-Span. There must be ways for us to seek accountability. And so I hope that as we review the budget process with the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, as many of us take a look at this, that we take a look at restoring accountability whether it is through sunsetting or through more budgetary rules that require accountability to the citizens of this country or through the Congressional Responsibility Act which says simply this, Mr. Speaker: That henceforth, when the regulators formulate their regulations, those proposed regulations would not be printed pell-mell in the Federal Register after a certain amount of time for public comment. No, instead those proposed regulations should be returned here to Capitol Hill, to this Chamber and to the Senate, and voted on by the duly elected constitutional representatives so that in that way, Mr. Speaker, those of us who are sent here to represent the people can be held truly accountable. Now it may come as no great surprise that that notion is fought by a lot of folks, and let us be candid about it, my colleagues. A lot of folks on both sides of the aisle, be they liberal or conservative, do not like that idea because they do not want to take that responsibility. Some folks who are into the notion of careers in Congress would rather not have that responsibility. But I would submit to you that that is the responsibility we should have. And to those who say, oh, with a raft of regulations there is too much for Congress to ever cover, you could not do it, I would simply point out it has been my experience in this Chamber, both in this session and certainly in the 104th Congress even with that incredibly ambitious schedule we had some days where we would have ceremonial debate followed by ceremonial votes to name Federal installations after noteworthy Americans, I do not criticize that practice. I simply say this: If we have the time in the Congress of the United States to engage in those largely ceremonial votes, do we not have time to live up to Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution? Should we not take the time or make the time to do that? And that is what this is about. Despite all the rhetoric and what we can expect, the intentional distortions sadly that will emanate, which I guess is part of the theater of the absurd that often encumbrances Washington, what we are about here, Mr. Speaker, is not a revolution, nor is some on that side who curiously do not believe there is any controlling legal authority would call it a reinvention. We are not about that. Instead what we are about is a restoration, a restoration of constitutional obligations taken on by those to whom power is conferred, a restoration of power in the hands of the citizenry and an acknowledgment that, whether it is regulation or taxation, that the American people work hard for the money they earn. They should be able to hang onto more of it, send less of it here to this city, because, as my colleagues have both pointed out, when the money remains in the hands of Washington, the money is spent.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program. While the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA ) increases current IRR funding levels to $212 million, I would urge the conferees to recede to the Senate funding level for IRR of $250 million. Funding for the IRR program is critical to the safety and, ultimately, the health and welfare of Native American communities. The current state of tribal infrastructure often consists of dirt roads over which community members must travel for hundreds of miles to reach the nearest hospital or school. Crumbling infrastructure does nothing to induce safe travel to and from community resources, and speaks poorly of our nation's regard for the treaties, relationships, and prioritization of Native Americans needs. The Senate funding level for IRR of $250 million is a modest but necessary increase, and I urge my colleagues to respect the call for desperately needed resources.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the time; and I rise in strong support of the rule and the self-executing amendment contained therein. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all my colleagues and their staffs and the American people to listen closely, especially the veterans who have served this country. Because contained within this rule is an amendment that sends a very strong message to our Nation's veterans, a message that needs to be reaffirmed loudly and clearly, that I do this morning in the well of the House and that, more importantly, we do in the legislative language of this rule. Because we need to say to America's veterans that we will not take money from their programs to pay for transportation spending. The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Jewish War Veterans, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Non- Commissioned Officers Association have all spoken very clearly; and, my colleagues, we should heed their call to resist the temptation to raid veterans' programs to fund this bill. Now, I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to accept this amendment and include it as part of the rule. I appreciate the willingness of my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to hear these concerns. And the reason we must express them today from this well and in this rule is because, sadly, the other body, the Senate, it seems, ignored veterans' concerns when it passed its version of the bill. The Senate- passed bill would apparently spend all the veterans' money on surface transportation projects. Now, it is my view that in passing this rule and the amendment contained herein, this House will send a message to the other body that we are opposed to that. So it is important to give our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman and other members of the conference a clear signal when they go into consultations with the other body so that they stand firm and we stand firm protecting veterans' programs. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his help in making this amendment in order. Let me also pause at this time, Mr. Speaker, to thank the dean of our Arizona delegation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who 53 years ago today was landing in the Pacific possessions defending America's freedom in World War II, for his leadership; and also one of our new colleagues, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond), for his help in joining with me to offer this amendment, again, to echo the comments of my good friend from the other side of the aisle from West Virginia. This is an important rule, an important piece of legislation. Please vote yes on this rule and the amendment contained therein.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, I will not yield at this time. The gentleman has his own time on which he can speak. This time has been given to me by my colleague, and I am going to make this case for the American people because not only with poll numbers, but with principles the American people say, it is our money. Let us spend it as we see fit. Adopt this act.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this time. I think it is very instructive for Members of this House and those who join us coast to coast beyond these walls on C-SPAN to hear the familiar cacophony of complaints, criticism and carping from those who claim to champion the rights of workers, but yet would move to abridge the most fundamental right, the freedom of any citizen to say, I do not agree with the political endeavor. How dare you reach into my pocket and take any of my pay and use it for a political cause with which I fundamentally disagree. And that is the issue which this House debates tonight. And it is very, very instructive that amidst all the arguments, we have heard nothing substantive tonight from the other side. We have heard no one try to stand up and defend the rights of abridging workers. Instead, we hear these playground taunts and this type of class warfare, but, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that on this one, the American people, regardless of their work status and affiliation, are speaking with a united voice. They know this is all about freedom of association, freedom of dissent, first amendment rights. And this is the real campaign reform that Members can vote for. So I would urge my colleagues to resist the temptation of class warfare and driving wedges amongst the so-called classes of the American people and in fact cast a vote for freedom.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the House today to recognize a community success story: Project HOPE (Hayden Offers Positive Encouragement). Project HOPE is a pro-recreation program for youth in Hayden, Arizona. The program was started by David Elmira, a former Hayden town councilman, in 1993 and has been supported every year since then by Hayden's mayors, Melesio R. Chavez and Jose Aranda. The program's purpose is to encourage youth to participate in after-school activities in order to keep them from getting into trouble. Mr. Speaker, we often talk about the importance of local control. This program helps youth without the bureaucratic strings from the federal government. More importantly, Project HOPE doesn't rely on federal funds. Therefore, they can craft a program that fits their youth, instead of the federal government's ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. This gives them the freedom and flexibility to create a program that can succeed. Project HOPE organizes various sporting activities including basketball, golf, and volleyball tournaments and football pass, punt, and kick competitions. Night swimming also remains a central component of this program. The program enters its fourth year under the leadership of Hayden Vice Mayor David Aguirre, who heads up the town council's Parks and Recreation Department. Carlos Galindo-Elvira, who is the Economic Development Program Coordinator, also deserves credit for the success of this program. Project HOPE is primarily funded by the Town of Hayden, along with various grants. The year, Project HOPE will open a new youth recreation center. The center, a renovated fire station located in downtown Kearny, will have a physical exercise room and group activity room for all youth from the surrounding community to enjoy. It is local programs like this that need to be replicated in other communities. I wish Project HOPE continued success in the future.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment and would urge this House and my colleagues to overwhelmingly reject the Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am struck by the irony and indeed the absurdity of what I hear from my friends on the left, and we hear echoes through history. One of the most absurd statements of our recent history was this: In order to save the village, we had to destroy it. And make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, the extreme notions offered in the Boehlert amendment offer the same rationale. For indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would invite all of my colleagues, as my colleague from California just has, to come to the 6th District of Arizona, to see what is about to transpire, and if some colleagues are more comfortable in the concrete canyons of Manhattan or the cocktail parties of the bay area, then that is fine, but I can tell them firsthand what exists in the 6th District of Arizona, in the wake of what transpired with our last bout with El Nino, we had rapid and massive undergrowth, and in the 6th District of Arizona, there was a fire that came to be known as the ``Dude Fire.'' It threatened real people. It is not a matter for humor, to some of the staffers who would smile in bemusement on this floor. It threatens the very livelihoods and homes of the people who live in the 6th District of Arizona. This is not some far-flung rationale for fund-raising by an interest group. This is not some way to get back at corporate America, for in abdicating our constitutional responsibility, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) from California so eloquently pointed out, we allowed, by bureaucratic fiat, the systematic destruction of homes and livelihoods across the country, but especially in the American West. Mr. Chairman, long before I came to this Chamber in the 103rd Congress, a group of dendrologists testified before various committees that because of a lack of reasonable forest management, a corridor of fire could extend from Idaho to Mexico, and what will happen in the 6th District. God forbid, but what most likely will happen is that we will have a fire this summer, and I hope not, I fervently pray not, but conditions can exist where we could have a fire that should not be named ``Dude 2,'' it ought to be named after the devil himself. And we have this type of inaction because it seems, sadly, that there are those who would abdicate the responsibility that we have constitutionally in favor of bureaucratic fiat and in favor of a misguided notion that if somehow we stop roadbuilding, if somehow we stop effective forest management, somehow we are saving the forests. Mr. Chairman, while there may be some ideological bank accounts in terms of mail order ideology and scaring the American people, the real fear should come from this, that we are threatening people's homes, we are threatening people's livelihoods and fundamentally, we are threatening the very forests we allegedly have pledged to save. Mr. Chairman, with every ounce of sincerity and honesty, and while we acknowledge freely differences of opinion in this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to this House not to abandon the rural citizens of America, not to abandon their livelihoods, their well-being, not to abandon reasonable forest management with what is a renewable resource. This is a health and public safety issue my colleagues neglected for the sensational headlines of today, and at the same time put the lives and livelihoods of Americans at peril. I urge the Members, overwhelmingly, reject the Boehlert amendment, preserve the Smith language, preserve our national forests, preserve a way of life that calls for a true balance between environmental safety and economic well-being.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Bill Scott, an outstanding leader in the agricultural community in Arizona and President of the Family Farm Alliance, a grassroots organization serving irrigated agriculture throughout the West. After serving the Alliance diligently and responsibly for the past eight years, Mr. Scott is stepping down from the presidency. I want to take this occasion to honor him for his long service to his fellow farmers and ranchers. Bill has been involved with agriculture his entire life. He farms in the Maricopa Stanfield area of Arizona and is in partnership with his two sons, Colin and Craig, under the name of Marathon Farming Company, which includes El Dorado Ranches CJ & L Farms and MFC Farms. These farms encompass approximately 6,000 acres of planted cotton, wheat, and alfalfa. Under Bill's leadership, the Family Farm Alliance was founded eight years ago by farmers from California and Arizona who needed a coordinated way to meet directly with legislators and their staff in Washington, D.C. on federal water policy issues. At its inception, the Alliance was a handful of individuals representing only two western states with a determined purpose. Bill has been an instrumental part of the Alliance's growth from a small group to the large and well respected organization that it is today. The Alliance now has members representing 13 western states. In addition to serving as the President of the Alliance, Bill also is the Director of the Maricopa Flood Control District. In the past he has served as the head of the Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation District, Cotton Incorporated, the Board of Arizona Cotton Growers Association, and many other organizations. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Mr. Bill Scott. His service to the Family Farm Alliance, the State of Arizona and western agriculture is greatly appreciated. I wish him all the best.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. And it sets up another challenge because as we transition from the policies and the politics of debt, if you will, to the policies and politics of surplus, that can be fraught with challenges as well. We have seen one of the temptations here to say, well, there is a surplus so let the good times roll, let us spend as if there is a never-ending spending spree. And it reminds me, if I can personalize this to a certain degree at my own expense and self-deprecation, Mr. Speaker, and viewers from coast to coast will note that some would say I have somewhat of a robust physique. One of the challenges I face is when I go on a diet and I lose 5 to 10 pounds, I celebrate by cracking open a pack of cream puffs. That kind of defeats the purpose. And I do not mean to trivialize this debate but try to bring it home because it is so easy to rush back into old familiar habits that may not be good for us and in the process negate the very real progress that has been made, and, doubly defeating, rush right back into the failed policies of taxing and spending and debt and deficit and create conditions that, far from a continued and sustained growth pattern economically, lead us back into cycles of boom and bust. Indeed, much talk has been proffered around this city of dangerous schemes. I can think of no more dangerous scheme than to rush headlong back into the failed policies of the past, try to claim everything for everybody and promise everything except stronger shoelaces through increased Federal spending, and then continue to ask for more and more and more of the American people's hard-earned paycheck. My colleague from Minnesota, and indeed the delegate from the District of Columbia, in the preceding hour, I believe, offer a compelling case. The gentlelady from the District was talking about the choices of women in the workplace and the challenges of economic equality, and certainly I agree with a portion of what she had to say. But as my colleague from Minnesota pointed out earlier, one of the problems we face today in two-parent households is the fact that both spouses ofttimes have to work, not by choice but by necessity, one spouse working to essentially pay the tax bills of the family so that the other spouse can bring home the paycheck. And while we have those conditions right now, we need to look at a way again to move forward to cut taxes further. We made a modest start last year. I think we will take another step this year, but, again, to continue to allow families to hold onto more of their money so they can save spend and invest it.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Minnesota, and again I think he points out the key issue that confronts us, because there will always be those who find themselves susceptible to the roar of the grease paint, the smell of the crowd, and the adulation of those for whom they can try to find more spending or they can paint an incredibly rosy scenario but fail to offer the price tag along with it. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would argue the reason there is such cynicism among citizens of this Nation and so much ``We will believe it when we see it'' is because of two factors: No. 1, in so many ways the repeated contradictions in policy pronouncements and other actions that emanate from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, policy with a wink, a nudge, a smile, and, sadly, policy that does not equate with agreements nor an acknowledgment of reality in very many cases. And so given that, coupled with the fact that previous Congresses, as my colleague from Minnesota points out, spend an average of $1.21 for every dollar in taxation, that explosive combination has led to the cynicism there. And again, right here on this chart my colleague shows us, again based on the numbers from this administration, that, sadly, they are willing in almost hauntingly familiar tones, in a very real policy sense, to break a commitment. There are reasons why within our constitutional republic we have many different tensions. We have the challenges of the executive branch and the legislative branch and the judicial branch of government, and we have different outlooks and philosophies. But when we put aside our differences and make a commitment, the American people deserve that the commitment be upheld, not swept away in roguish embellishment of oratory and a little something for everybody and pet projects based on emergency focus groups to focus attention into a type of Nirvana. No. What this needs to be based on is the truth, and basic choices, and basic agreements and bedrock principles that this Nation should not spend more than it takes in, that we should all live within our means, that by holding down spending and reaching agreements we could allow the American people to hold onto more of their money and send less of it here to Washington because after all, Mr. Speaker, that is the central truth here. All the money we have talked about, all of the figures we have offered tonight, large, small, and in-between, one central fact is inescapable; the money does not belong to the government, it is not hoarded into the Treasury. The money belongs to the American people who voluntarily, although with some reluctance, confer it and offer it to the government in the form of taxation. We ought to make sure that American families continue to hang onto more of their hard-earned money to save, spend, and invest as they see fit. Why should a family have to change its plans and priorities and make sacrifices so that Washington bureaucrats can make decisions? We believe the opposite should be true, that Washington ought to alter its behavior and make sacrifices so the American families can realize their own dreams and their potentials, and that is the importance of the agreement we reached, setting aside some partisan and philosophical differences, and that is the very real danger we confront at this juncture in our constitutional republic, eerily familiar in so many different areas, when some in this city and nationally want to abandon commitments they made.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think what the gentleman says bears repetition, because there is a tendency in our fast food, perishable throwaway society to forget some events that make up if not current events, then rather recent history. While there were many--it was interesting, the paradox at work in 1996 in the 104th Congress. There were those who attempted to paint what ultimately turned out to be an inaccurate picture for political reasons. There were others who were champions of the conservative cause who said, ``You haven't gone far enough, New Majority,'' and we understood and sympathized with that point of view. Yet even with the challenges confronted within our constitutional republic and our unique system of government, still what we were able to do was to reverse for the first time in the postwar era the notion of constant growth of government, not only the elimination of more than 300 wasteful and duplicative programs and boards of absurdity, if you will, such as the Coffee Tasters Commission, but also in the process holding on and refusing to spend some $54 billion. That is something that cannot be overemphasized, because what that signaled to Main Street, to Wall Street, to our friends internationally and most importantly to the American people, although sometimes it gets lost in the context, was a willingness to say that government has grown too large, it has continued to grow out of control, we are going to rein in the growth of spending for spending sake. We are going to have controlled growth in a variety of areas where growth is not a bad thing and we are going to cut it out in those areas where we can, to eliminate the waste and fraud that had been so much a part. Please do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. There is still a long way to go. But that pivotal step in the 104th Congress amidst all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, amidst the, shall we say, inaccurate political ads that littered the landscape, made a key difference. There is no escaping that fact. Indeed, as we look back to the changes that brought us to where we are today, I believe it can be argued that the strong hand of fiscal sanity from this, the legislative branch, helped the American worker succeed and helped show Main Street, Wall Street and everyone on every street the seriousness of our endeavor and that words were backed up with actions.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is good to join him coast to coast and beyond through the facilities of C-SPAN. There are many different ways to examine this debt. Mr. Speaker, lest there are those who join us who believe this is simply a statistical argument, I would urge them to think again. Because, as my colleague from Minnesota points out, this translates to a mortgage on the future of our children. A lot of things have changed in the 3 years since a new common-sense, conservative Congress came to town. I can remember the almost dark humor that was employed that surrounded an item that each of us receive here in the Congress of the United States. It is our voting card. And the joke, which really was not so funny, that went along with this voting card went as follows: The people here in Washington, inside the Beltway, said, oh, well, you now have the world's most expensive charge card because when you received your copy as a Member of Congress, it came with a debt in excess of $5 trillion. My colleague from Minnesota broke it down for us, in fact, using figures that indeed came from the President's budgeteers, to his credit. He asked us to predict budgets into the future as this town was still held in the grip of a tax-and-spend philosophy; and it was the President's own budgeteers who told us if we did nothing but continue the cycle of debt and deficit and taxing and spending, then all our children could look forward to a future in which they would surrender in excess of 80 percent of their income to taxation. So what we have to remember is that this debt does not deal with the whole batch of zeros attached to a large number; it is not something for the green eye shades or the new fancy calculators, but instead is something that families have to deal with. What do I mean by that? My colleague from Minnesota, who has had a versatile time in the real world before coming to Congress, is a gentleman who worked as an auctioneer. He understands the challenge of family farmers and what goes on on the family farm in his district of Minnesota. I represent a district in square mileage about the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, incredibly diverse from metropolitan Phoenix to suburban Scottsdale and Mesa, and then around rural areas from the small town of Franklin in southern Greenlee County, north to four corners of the Navajo Nation, west to Flagstaff and south again to Florence, there is incredible diversity. But all those diverse areas are held together by some basic economic truths, and those truths, among them centrally is this notion that as we move to reduce the deficit and, ergo, the national debt, as we move to fiscal sanity, we help families. What do I mean? Well, my colleague from Minnesota is well aware of the appearance a couple years ago of Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who projected what it meant to balance our Federal budget, as we now have done. He said that would mean a reduction basically of 2 full percentage points in interest rates. Now stop and think, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues who deal with paying the family mortgage or paying off a loan on a family car or paying a student loan, think what a reduction in interest rates of 2 points means, especially on a 30-year mortgage. We are talking about thousands of dollars. On a car loan over a span of 5 years, we are talking hundreds of dollars. And that money makes a difference. Because, in essence, what we pay, if you will, as we continue to generate deficits and have that large national debt is in essence a debt tax. But my colleague from Minnesota who joined me here in the well of the House, as a Member of the new common-sense, conservative Congress in January of 1995, is well aware of what has transpired and the progress we have made. When we took office on that day back in 1995, the budgeteers in this town were saying that the annual deficit in the year 2002 would be some $320 billion. Today those self-same budgeteers say now, in the year 2002 there will be a surplus of at least, at least, $32 billion. Imagine what that means to the American people. Again, my good friend from Minnesota has the figures, but more than that, has the stories of the American people and the folks in his district who are coming to grips with this and, by extension, how Washington is coming to grips with this challenge.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I do not believe too much can be said about what welfare reform means. I think part of it, the gentleman talked about some of the static, if you will, and the disagreement in terms of public policy and, to be diplomatic, the efforts by some within the liberal community to paint a false contrast of caring. But, Mr. Speaker, the true measure of compassion and caring is not the number of people added to the welfare rolls. Quite the contrary, it is the number of people who are able to leave to become gainfully employed, to take pride in themselves, pride in their endeavors and as my colleague from Minnesota points out, there is no greater social program than a job, a job where people can work to earn a decent wage, to have pride in themselves, to have a portion of the productivity and the fruits of their labor, and it does wonders. That is what is vitally important. So your teacher in the district had it absolutely right. That is what I hear in many parts of the Sixth District, that work makes all the difference in the world. What we have seen is a change in attitude. We have changed the paradigm, in that buzzspeak of the late 1990s, to take a different outlook. In my district, in the town of Holbrook, a lady named Pee Wee Maestas told the same story, how she privately would invite the young unwed mothers of her town to come to work at her small restaurant, to have a chance to work before there was this official welfare reform, and inevitably she told me nine times out of 10 the call would come from one of the young ladies about 3 weeks into her work program. The call would come, ``Gee, Pee Wee, I really appreciate what you're doing for me, but, you see, the government pays me more to stay at home and do nothing than to come down and get a job.'' What we have done is to change that thinking, turn that paradigm around, say there is value in work, there is pride in performance, and as we measure the true barometer of compassion, it is found in gainful employment, where it was said by one of our dear friends from Texas in the other body, ensuring that yes, there is a safety net but that that safety net does not become a hammock.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Minnesota tells us the story of real people in his district, I could not help but reflect, listening to the opportunities for tax relief offered last spring by this 105th Congress, taking a look at the opportunities that exist. I look at the tremendous number of housing starts, and I look at the homes now throughout north Scottsdale, and the East Valley around Mesa in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. I take a look at what has transpired because of capital gains tax relief for the average family selling their principal residence and moving into another house. A married couple able to have and reinvest profits in the sale of a primary residence up to half a million dollars, or a single person hanging on and having tax-free profits up to one-quarter of a million dollars. Again, for a lot of people, the figures are not that high, but they are just as dramatic an opportunity. And other opportunities that we have opened up in terms of home buying. I take a look at the new Roth Individual Retirement Accounts. I think about and I reflect back on our early days of marriage when Mary and I were trying to buy a home. Yes, I had a conventional IRA or what the tax law provided at that time, and I was a private citizen. How I wish I had had an opportunity with a Roth IRA to have money invested for 5 years in that type of forced savings program that could be taken out, penalty free, at the end of 5 years as a down payment on a first purchase of a home, what is so vitally important. I think about young Americans 5 years hence as we continue to sustain this economic growth in part on some very simple commonsensical philosophies of tax relief, allowing Americans to save, spend, and invest their own money, because there is no greater myth ever articulated in this Chamber than those who would try to drive the wedge between economic stations in life, to claim that tax relief helps only the wealthy. Because even as the gentleman from Minnesota told about one of my former colleagues in broadcasting, I thought about the young man in Payson, Arizona who owns a print shop, who I saw the other week at a luncheon, who has four children, who the per-child tax credit will help immensely with $1,600 staying in that family budget, and then elevating that to some $2,000 on next year's tax return with the $500-per-child tax credit. Yet, our challenge, Mr. Speaker, is how do we expand this, because I will go in other town halls in communities like Maricopa, just south of Phoenix in the metropolitan area, and have people come to me and say, look, I am not married, I do not have a child, I do not have any of those targeted areas that are covered with tax relief right now. What about my circumstance? And so one of the things we are examining is how to broaden that base and how to offer simple, sane, reasonable tax relief to even more Americans. And that is one of the challenges we confront. But it is vital to remember that these are not the stories of micro or macroeconomic incidents in a textbook or even despite the graphic nature of these charts that have been presented tonight, Mr. Speaker. No, these are the stories of flesh-and-blood families in the American heartland who may have studied economics but who know the reality of their economic situation, who sit around the kitchen table on a weekly basis making those tough decisions that have the most impact on their futures, decisions about education for their children, decisions about how much to put away, to save, spend, and invest if that is possible, decisions about mom joining the work force, ofttimes out of necessity rather than choice. In this land of the free, we must work to ensure economic freedom and prosperity by allowing people that freedom to make decisions based on what they feel is best for their family, not on what some Washington person feels is best for some Washington program.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of our committee and dean of our delegation, who continues to set an example in his legislative work, as he did as a younger man in the Pacific theater in World War II. I thank also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for moving forward with this legislation in such a timely manner; for, Mr. Speaker, what we are preparing to do in this Chamber with this vote on this legislation, for which I rise in strong support, is to restore trust with the American people for this hallowed ground. I cannot help but notice as we look at the ground that makes up Arlington National Cemetery that the headstones literally border the Pentagon. And indeed decisions made there and decisions made here to send American citizens into harm's way must always be carried out with the utmost sobriety and seriousness, because, as General MacArthur pointed out, ``The soldier personally loathes war the most, for it is the soldier who quite literally has the most to lose.'' Mr. Speaker, as constituents of mine in the Sixth District of Arizona reacted with surprise and outrage, and Mr. Speaker, I do not think those terms are too strong to use, as revelations came forth that, sadly, this hallowed ground was being misused with a liberal use of waivers, what we will do with this legislation is again to state that Arlington National Cemetery exists for the purpose of honoring our military dead, those who have fallen in pursuing freedom, that we are reaffirming that this hallowed ground belongs to the memory and the remains of those who have contributed mightily, who may have fallen on the field of battle, but who always and forever represented this country with valor and bravery, and that we would not succumb to the temptations and political pressures ever again of yielding any of that ground under suspicions that it might go to the highest bidder. This is a mission of honor and a restoration of trust, and I appreciate the bipartisan manner in which this legislation has been approached because, again, we set up a formula whereby if waivers are ever to be granted, they will be granted with the full sunshine of this Congress, representing the people constitutionally to make such waivers, not to any back room or any regulation or waiver otherwise granted.