J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect to this ongoing saga that we would be remiss if we did not point out. Because as my colleague from Indiana just briefly touched on, there seems to be a tendency in this town for members of the fourth estate, that is to say, the press, to view things with a prism that always and forever supplies a benefit of the doubt to the executive branch and to the administration. You mentioned that in terms of the alleged government shutdown that may be formulated at this time. I think it is also important, again, to review the itinerary that we understand the President will follow tomorrow. Tomorrow the President will not be involved in negotiations to end this stalemate. The President will instead first go to Palm Beach, Florida and then follow up that trip with a trip tomorrow night to New York City to fund raise for his political party and for candidates including in New York City a gentleman who serves in this House, who also serves on the Committee on the Judiciary and who entertains ambitions of moving across this Capitol into the other body. Now, again, I should point out that we certainly know why Washington fancies itself a sophisticated place, sometimes sophisticatedly cynical. But even with the collective mindset of journalists and the punditocracy in Washington, D.C., certainly, Mr. Speaker, we can detect some conflict of interest. Indeed, my colleague from Indiana, in his other position in oversight on the yet another committee, we understand that given campaign finance difficulties of the minority party in this Chamber, apparently in excess of $1 million, some $1.7 million has yet to be refunded that the minority party in this Chamber claimed they would do given the status of those contributions and the apparent illegalities involved. Does the gentleman from Indiana have a comment on that?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I think we could do with a lot more light, and a lot less heat. I think it is unfortunate when members of the minority, and we can understand that different people have different philosophies and that we should exchange those, but to have reason and, to a certain degree, passion replaced by a sad rhetorical device to imply that anyone's policies on this floor led to the death of an individual I think is highly regrettable. I would hope that those on both sides of the aisle would rethink that type of rhetoric, because again, it has no place in this Chamber. Indeed, given the standards that many have applied to the conservative side of the aisle, I would hope that they would offer the same scrutiny to such unfortunate statements that come from the other side. The bottom line is this: We can work together in the framework of what we did last year, balancing the budget for the first time in a generation; offering tax cuts to working folks for the first time in 16 years; and I would hope that all of the poll-driven rhetoric and all of the passion-driven examples that are highly regrettable would be left outside the Chamber.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for yielding this time to me. Madam Speaker, I would say the debate is somewhat enlightening, except there seems to be far more heat of that aforementioned four- letter definition that my friend from Connecticut mentioned a second ago than any light. We could sit here and retrace history. We could ask why during 40 years of liberal control campaign finance reform to deal with so many problems was never really taken up. We could talk about the fact that true health care reform to protect the doctor-patient relationship rather than the patient-trial lawyer relationship has been championed in this body. We could talk about the fact that for the first time in 16 long years, this common-sense conservative Congress offered tax relief to working Americans. Indeed, Madam Speaker, I am struck by the irony of the other side who always would cast themselves as defenders of working Americans, and yet time and time and time again reached into the pockets of those working Americans to take their wages and send them here to Washington. Madam Speaker, our common-sense policies have drawn a clear choice and contrast because we are intent on transferring money, power and influence out of the hands of the bureaucrats. We are intent on making sure that working Americans hang onto more of their wages so they have more to spend on their own families rather than sending those wages here to Washington. That is the real change, and to the extent that we continue this proven record of success with a balanced budget, with tax relief for Americans, with a bold plan to ensure the sanctity of the patient-doctor relationship, we are proud to take our time to debate our differences and to achieve that balanced budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman is in support of cutting taxes for working Americans.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and my colleague from California for the time and having the privilege to serve on two of the three committees with jurisdiction, both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I am pleased to rise with the dean of our Arizona delegation and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), in strong support of this legislation. As has been chronicled by people from both sides of the aisle with disparate views of the role of government in health care, we all agree today, Mr. Speaker, that this is an idea whose time has come, not only for the challenges confronting home health care, challenges that in and of themselves tend to make HCFA truly a four-letter word, if not an acronym, in terms of the administration and practical applicability of ideas, but also for those Americans who have worn the uniform of our Armed Services and served with distinction both in wartime or in peacetime, especially in a place like the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, a district in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is historic legislation because it would permit the VA to establish service networks to provide Medicare-reimbursed care to service-connected or financially needy Medicare-eligible veterans for whom VA medical centers are geographically remote or inaccessible. While we are working to establish these service centers for these veterans, this is another tool that can be utilized to give these veterans flexibility and access to health care in their senior years. For these reasons and many more too numerous to mention, Mr. Speaker, I would ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in strong support of this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant, but strong support of the resolution offered by the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. It is disappointing to see this debate degenerate into a cacophony of cat calls. Honest people can have honest disagreements. But I take strong exception, Mr. Speaker, to the notion that somehow this is unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. This follows the Constitution. Incumbent upon every Member of this House today is the most important responsibility short of the responsibility of a declaration of war because we have to begin the process to determine the fitness for office of our Chief Executive. There is no reason to let this degenerate into cat calls or into the spin cycle. Let us follow the Constitution, let us follow the procedures laid down by those who have gone before, let us not confuse the issue, trying to superimpose ethics rules of this House on the constitutional process. Vote for the inquiry of impeachment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I should note at this juncture in the Record that the illness which afflicts our good friend from Florida, I suppose there are some in this chamber, indeed, perhaps quite a few in this chamber, who do not wish ill upon anyone, but perhaps would like to see that affliction of the voice visited upon this Congressman from Arizona from time to time. Be that as it may, and mindful, perhaps, of that situation, let me, in all sincerity and seriousness, thank my colleague from Utah for having the foresight to offer this common sense piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, my colleague quoted the words that came to us I believe in history from Mr. Justice Brandice, who pointed out that time and again, in the public interest, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in much the same way that we invited television into this chamber, so that these remarks are seen throughout the Nation by our fellow citizens, so, too, as we move through new communications capabilities to involve and disperse data upon the internet, we offer the American people another glimpse of sunshine and more than just a ray of hope, because this legislation compels the Federal Election Commission to carry the step of sunshine a step further and to post these contributions on the internet within 24 hours. My colleague from Utah pointed out, and, indeed, if the truth be told, as many of us are involved in spirited campaigns where we champion differences in philosophies, to have these contributions available for public scrutiny, or at least disclosed by candidates within a 48-hour period down the stretch of a campaign, how much more vital it is, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that that information is available to every American on the internet. My colleague pointed out that already the FEC has made strides, but this legislation will ensure that we go the extra mile to give voice to the notion of genuine reform by bringing in the sunshine of full disclosure and living up to the spirit of what Mr. Justice Brandice advocated. So it is in that spirit, again thanking my colleague from Utah, because I believe the Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for seizing upon this common sense piece of legislation, that I urge the House and Members of both parties to join with us in its passage. I would advocate strong support for H.R. 2109.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation, for I too take a back seat to no one in adherence to property rights. And at the same time, I believe everyone in this House should look carefully at this legislation and ultimately support it, not exclusively for recreation, although recreational reasons are at stake here; not exclusively for preservation, although the Casa Malpais area in the Round Valley of Arizona with great archaeological value would be preserved; but the most important reason I believe we should support this legislation is for a reason that might not occur to many in this House. That is education. We heard the gentleman from Utah, despite his many reservations, rise in support of the schoolchildren of that State. I would rise in strongest support of this legislation for the new Education Land-Grant Act that is included in this bill. Understand, in a bipartisan way we worked together to set up a new provision in U.S. Code to designate certain nonenvironmentally sensitive parcels of federally controlled land to be conveyed to rural school districts for the construction of new academic and athletic facilities. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot in the politically correct double- speak of Washington, D.C. and all the talk about benefitting our children and education. And I will tell my colleagues this, Mr. Chairman, nothing will do more for the rural schoolchildren north, east, west and south, than this particular provision within this omnibus bill. It will revolutionize educational opportunities much as we saw done in a smaller piece of legislation in the Alpine District in the 6th District of Arizona. In these districts that find themselves cash poor but land rich, this is a chance to help them. Let us really help children and education.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about Ms. Genie Eide, a fellow Arizonan, who is receiving national recognition for her contribution to home health and hospice nursing. Today, in Atlanta, Georgia, Genie is being inducted as a Fellow in Home Care and Hospice at Home Care University. Only five leaders, nationwide, in home care and hospice are being so honored. Genie always says that she has been in nursing for ``about a hundred years,'' which is a remarkable achievement for someone who also claims to be thirty-nine years old. How she accomplished so much in so little time is truly a mystery. Genie has been a nurse for over 50 years. She is a graduate of Arizona State University and has served on the faculty of ASU. She has held management positions in a number of Arizona hospitals, home care agencies, and hospices. She has published numerous works, presented workshops and seminars in Arizona and other states and has received many awards. She has been listed in Who's Who in Nursing. The reason, however, that I am rising to speak about Genie Eide is that, in my mind, Genie is a great example of what's right about America. Genie has made a life and a career out of her commitment to public health and public service. She has worked with the American Red Cross and spent two years in India with The World Health Organization as a nursing consultant. When Maricopa County Health Services made its initial commitment to provide home health services to the county's disadvantaged elderly population, Genie was called on to develop the program. When a number of hospitals in the Phoenix area recognized the need for the development of a hospice program to provide care and comfort for dying patients, Genie was involved. Throughout her entire career, Genie has been there to help. Genie Eide represents one sterling example of hundreds of thousands of dedicated care providers who live each day to provide health care when and where it is needed. Genie is unusual in the energy that she devotes to her calling and the broad scope of her vision. But she is a leader and a representative of a large group of Americans who still believe that individuals can make a difference.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest because we have a chance to come to know people on both sides of the aisle when we come here to the people's House. And the gentlewoman from California often talks about her kin folks in Kearny, Arizona, the area I am pleased and proud to represent. I am also proud of the fact that our friend who is preparing to leave the people's House, Congressman Torres, is from Miami, Arizona in the Cobra Valley. Now as we know, that area is rich in two ways, in copper, so vital to our Nation and the world, but the most precious resource in those areas famous for their wealth in the mines and from the precious metals, the most precious resource of course is the people who live there and who come from a place like the Cobra Valley and from Miami, Arizona. I guess we could say today, Mr. Speaker, that one of our famous exports from Arizona is our colleague, Congressman Torres. Let me also say that we champion our differences as well as those of a kindred philosophy in this House, in our constitutional republic. We should actually gain comfort from the multitude of voices and opinions and points of view. I am so pleased that Congressman Torres really embodies the notion that I think General Eisenhower left for us when he talked about public life and public discourse and issues that come before us. He said, I always assume of those who oppose you politically that they want what is best for the country as well. They may have a different approach to get it done, but they, too, have something to bring to the table. And there may not always be unanimity, although I would note, I say to my colleagues, on this floor at this hour there is complete unanimity in celebrating the achievements and the congressional career of our colleague. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), just mentioned a few minutes ago the artistic excellence which typifies Congressman Torres. I have been after him, and I guess for purposes of full disclosure, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that I have been after him for a long time to favor us with a work of art to hang in the office that belongs to the people of the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, because, again, he is from that district. I would hope that now, as he prepares to leave this institution, that he might take some time and on canvas convey the nature not only of his experience here in the Congress of the United States, but the proud heritage he brought from Miami, Arizona. And to my colleagues here, and, Mr. Speaker, to those who watch us coast to coast and around the world via C-SPAN where we often see heated arguments, where the punditocracy would tell us how savage and how difficult these days are, let us say that together with one voice we celebrate many different opinions, many different routes to this chamber, and one exceptional life and person in Congressman Torres. My friend, thank you for your service.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Kansas for introducing this resolution, and I rise in strong support of the legislation. I would like to also thank my friend from Maryland for whom I have a great deal of personal respect for offering his perspective on this issue and on this debate. Mr. Chairman, it is a fairly simple question we are here to decide today, and I appreciate the intellectual candor of my colleague from Maryland, because in essence what he is asking us to do is to make a choice. Are we in favor of educating the first Americans, and do we owe our first allegiance to the education of the first Americans, or do we instead owe our allegiance to the unions? That is the question here. I represent more Native Americans than anyone else in the contiguous United States. The Sixth District of Arizona in square mileage is roughly the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Within the Sixth District of Arizona are several schools under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Mr. Chairman, we should make this point: When it comes to education, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in controlling schools grades K through 12, has already been authorized through legislation to establish these alternative personnel methods appropriate for educational systems. That has happened for grades K through 12. But now we have a situation where we come to two institutions of higher learning and the status quo is saying, ``No, whatever you do, don't change the personnel methods. Make sure that civil service rules and, more importantly, that unions control the educational process.'' I noticed with interest the criticism came because the university presidents would be given control of personnel decisions pertaining to education. Horrors. The school presidents in charge of personnel and curricula at the schools? To me, far from being a foreboding step, that is a commonsense approach. An elder on the Navajo Nation, Mr. Chairman, put it quite succinctly and clearly to me during a town hall meeting there when he said to me, ``Congressman, as far as I'm concerned, BIA, those letters stand for three things: Bossing Indians around.'' Now, I know there are a lot of dedicated workers in the BIA, and I appreciate the BIA's foresight in elementary schools and other controlled schools to say education is more important than union bargaining. I would simply say that we should follow the example not to have anyone outside the educational institution presume to boss around or dictate or somehow dilute the primary mission of the institution, to educate the first Americans, the first Americans who are too often the forgotten Americans. As my colleague from Kansas pointed out, during the period of time this legislation was being worked on, union representatives were involved. They have a place at the table. But the question becomes, who should control institutions of higher learning, educators or union bosses? This is not a very difficult question to answer. Educators should control this. It should follow the blueprint offered for other schools within the BIA framework as these two institutions have that unique status as institutions of higher learning overseen by the BIA. I call for those better instincts and those efforts of many dedicated employees by the BIA not to boss Indians around, but to preserve education. I gladly and strongly support the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is just a common sense notion. Money does not belong to Uncle Sam, it belongs to the hard-working people of the United States, and those hard-working people ought to hang on to more of it and send less of it here to Washington. The gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and would just reiterate his comments on welfare and welfare-to-work and what this tax bill does in providing those opportunities to extend the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. It is so vital, because indeed, there has been a disconnection in this city with the rest of America, because this city has, and those in the Federal Government and the bureaucracy, have measured compassion by the number of people added to the welfare rolls. We say true compassion, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the opposite. True compassion is moving people off welfare and on to work. Almost 4 million Americans have left the welfare rolls and are now gainfully employed. That is true compassion. Those are true results. And they go a long way, and this tax package will help further that endeavor. The gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, there are so many positive provisions of this bill that I think all of us on this floor stand in amazement to hear the mindset of those on the left who, after 40 years time, never set aside a single penny for Social Security, Mr. Speaker. That is right, zero, zip, zilch, nada, not even an idea of how to set aside funds to save Social Security. Yet to hear the tired old chorus, they would have you believe some sort of cynical mumbo-jumbo that this is something that Americans are not entitled to. It is some sort of gimmick. No, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us on the floor and those of us who voted for this common sense tax policy say quite the contrary: This is not a gift to the American people. This is money that belongs to the American people. We do not sit here and deign to give them a pittance of what they sent in to Uncle Sam. It is their money to begin with. So, Mr. Speaker, tonight as we continue to review these provisions, let us respectfully take issue with those who time and again come to this floor, or sadly on an annual basis to the podium behind us here, and display a mindset that would seem to suggest that tax relief for working people is candy or dessert or some special gift, as if it is an accident. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the group here on this floor right now and other colleagues in this majority were sent to Washington precisely because the American people understand that they are not selfish for wanting to provide for their own families; that they are not selfish for wanting to have a greater control of their own destiny and their own futures; that they are not selfish for saying to Washington bureaucrats, we earned this money. We want to see a strong Federal Government, but not a government powerful enough to take away everything we have. That is the difference. Tax relief is not selfish; tax relief undergirds the notion of individual freedoms and a sense of responsibility. I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri, also my colleagues from Illinois, Pennsylvania and South Dakota, for coming to the floor of the people's House to discuss the people's solution, grounded on 2 realities, Mr. Speaker. Number 1, our firm conviction that the money in the pockets of American citizens belongs to those citizens. Not to Uncle Sam, not to the Washington bureaucrats, not to a burgeoning Federal Government, which has grown leviathan through the years, but instead to the people of the United States who deserve to hang on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington. The second notion is this firm conviction, that to fulfill the social contract, time-honored over years in this century, we believe it is vital of the surplus we are projecting to set aside 90 percent of that surplus, $1 trillion, 400 billion to save Social Security. In stark contrast to our liberal friends who, during 40 years time in the majority, never quite found the time or the inclination to set aside 1 penny. We believe we owe it to today's seniors and future generations to save $1 trillion, 400 billion which will be devoted exclusively to saving Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I suppose it really comes down to the policies of hope and prosperity versus the politics of fear and class-envy. Indeed, one year ago the President of the United States journeyed out of the District of Columbia across the river to the Commonwealth of Virginia where on a Sunday before a statewide election he proceeded to lecture the people of Virginia, essentially telling them that if they wanted their car tax reduced, they were being selfish. For all his alleged political acumen, sadly, the President was mistaken and his advise to Virginia voters last year was overwhelmingly rejected with the election of Governor Gillmor who has worked to reduce that unfair car tax. Now, for all 50 States and the District of Columbia, we reaffirm this basic notion. That money should remain in the pockets of hard-working Americans, not as some cynical stunt as those on the left would have us believe, but because it is the right thing to do. This 90/10 plan provides, again, another modest attempt to ensure that Americans hold onto more of their money, thereby strengthening the institution of marriage, thereby strengthening the family, thereby strengthening local control of issues such as education, thereby strengthening seniors, who have seen the handcuffs taken off of the earnings limits; in short, to offer something to all working Americans, because, after all, Mr. Speaker, it is their money. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would address, through the Chair, the other body and those in the executive branch of government to join with us; to remain committed to the notion of a smaller, more effective Federal Government; to stay true to the notion of Americans holding onto more of their hard-earned money. We would ask that, in a bipartisan way, even with the reality of a pending election in a little more than one month's time, that we join together. For if we do not, Mr. Speaker, again, what we have done is offered a clear choice to the American people: Do they want to stand up for a plan that recognizes that we should save social security by setting aside $1,400,000,000,000, and at the same time offering tax relief, reaffirming the promise of our individual freedoms and individual endeavors, and the fact that it is our money? Or do we want to return to the tired, old ways of the Washington bureaucracy, and the notion that Washington, D.C. knows best? Mr. Speaker, the choice is crystal clear. But even now, while we rejoice in difference, we would ask people to cooperate, because after all, the American people have the most to gain.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, now to my right, fittingly, although he stands at the other microphone here in the well, it is another newcomer in this 105th Congress, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), who has played a major role on the Committee on Ways and Means in bringing the tax bill to the floor and seeing its subsequent successful passage here in this chamber.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Illinois for raising this part of this very human equation, because there is a temptation when we start talking about tax bills and tax relief to somehow put on the green eyeshade and pull out the calculators or the slide rules and deal with numbers, and, please, do not get me wrong, the numbers are important, Mr. Speaker, especially the $1.4 trillion which we pledged to set aside for Social Security. But, moreover, there is a concept here that my colleague from Illinois touched on, and it is this: There are those in this city who still fail to learn the lessons of history, who would still have us believe that a centralized bureaucracy can make decisions for your family, for your school district, sadly I suppose ultimately for your children in a lot of ways, and I think our new common sense conservative majority says this: That we believe education is too important to leave up to Washington bureaucrats. There is no way that folks inside this beltway can micro-manage education. Indeed, sadly, one need only look to the schools inside this District of Columbia to see what disarray can befall an educational system at the hands of big government solutions and more and more spending with less and less accountability. So what we are saying in this tax bill is for local school districts, to have provisions that they can use for capital improvements, for construction, for renovation. As my colleague from Illinois points out, that is the key. We understand that not all the answers exist inside the Beltway in Washington D.C., and we are better served when we transfer money, power and influence out of Washington and back home to people on the front lines, living their lives, educating their kids, and seniors in the dignity of retirement.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we are joined also tonight by two colleagues from the freshman class of the 105th Congress, two gentlemen who hailed from States where agriculture is of vital importance, and I look to my left, very rarely philosophically do I find this gentleman on my left, but my friend, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) joins us.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that a previous liberal Congress put upon the American people the largest tax increase in our history. Indeed, to quote a member of the other body on this hill, a liberal Senator from New York State, he said it was not just the largest tax increase in American history but the largest tax increase in the history of the world. If there is one primary difference, it is this: Our common sense conservative majority believes that, Mr. Speaker, the folks who live in this country, who work hard and pay the bills, have worked very hard for the money they earn. They need to hold on to more of it and send less of it here to Washington. My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), has one point that he wants to bring out and I am happy to yield some time to him.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would point out one other fact that I hope that American citizens will keep in mind. When the President of the United States graced us with his presence and stood at the podium behind us here, he not only said that every penny should go to save Social Security, we should save Social Security first, but sadly his actions failed to reconcile with that promise. For, even as he made that promise from the podium behind us here, he subsequently spent almost $3 billion in Bosnia, which points up the other basic truth of the pitfall of the great debate that continues in this chamber and across America. As my constituents tell me, the sad fact is, if we leave money in Washington, Washington spends the money. It belongs to the American people and that is money that should return to their pockets. Mr. Speaker, we are joined here tonight by another colleague. I look and see another classmate from the 104th Congress, our good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), who joins us here on the floor tonight.