J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

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 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. I thank my colleague for the work he has done in focusing attention on the marriage penalty, one of the many features of our Tax Code that was just plain wrong. It did not make sense to penalize married couples, when other couples living out of wedlock were enjoying economic benefits as opposed to those who played by the rules, worked hard and observed the institution of marriage. There are so many different things that we are offering in this relatively modest package of tax relief. Again, remember, we are setting aside $1,400,000,000,000 of the surplus to stay, to strengthen, to save Social Security, and only 10 percent of the projected surplus would go to tax relief. But in that package I think especially about my district and the seniors who live in my district and the many seniors who find that they have to work. As much as they would like to have the leisure time, their situation demands that they still need to earn an income. And what we have done, as part of this bill of tax relief, is to increase the amount of money seniors can earn without losing Social Security benefits by increasing that earnings limit; to raise that, understanding that some people, A, enjoy working, they still want to be active, they appreciate the dignity of work, and they do not want to be penalized for working but; B, some folks, quite frankly, need it to make ends work. Why then would we seek to punish those seniors? And that is another area that is so vitally important. My friend has another point to make, and I would gladly yield to him.

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. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means from Texas, for this time. It has been very enlightening already this morning. Already this morning, twice, we have heard the term ``raid,'' ``raiding'' the Social Security fund. How enlightening. How enlightening for my colleagues on the left to employ and embrace wholeheartedly the politics of fear. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the left who will do anything and everything to stand in the way of the American people and the chance for working Americans to hold on to more of their hard- earned money. That is what we are seeing here today. But moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. They cite arguments from the President of the United States. They cite arguments of what they would call responsible tax cuts. And we are aware, in the current climate in Washington, D.C., that definitions can change in a nanosecond. But to follow their logic, last year when they joined us on tax relief and tax cuts that were long overdue, they did so in a climate of deficit. And now here we have the hope and the policies of surplus. And, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we set aside $1.4 trillion to supplement Social Security, $1.4 trillion, when the left had set aside nothing over 40 years of control. And here we stand today, standing up for working families by providing relief from the marriage penalty; standing up for the self-employed by giving them deductibility of their health insurance costs; standing up for seniors by relaxing some of the limits on their ability to earn money past the age of retirement. The answer is clear, Mr. Speaker: Stand with the majority for tax relief. That is the truth.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman of the committee, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, to expound upon the comment just made by the distinguished chairman of the committee, we must rise in strong opposition to the Rangel substitute precisely because of its method of devising a so-called lockbox, because it does nothing to serve as stewards or protectors of Social Security. Oh, no, it gives the consideration to the central bankers. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York City. New York City? Why on earth would we devise this legislative sleight of hand? We understand the desperation of those on the left. Not only intent on bankrupting the Nation fiscally, they are bankrupt and bereft of ideas. So this extension of the politics of fear is made manifest in the Rangel substitute. You see, Mr. Speaker, the left so mistrusts the American people with their own money that they will devise any scheme to put the government in the way of hard working people and their money. There is another fatal flaw that we should point out, and I listened with great interest to the revisionist theory of my friend from Michigan who comes down with his tired old recitation of government spending, as if history occurs in a vacuum, about the 1980's, and we did not have our defenses fall into great disrepair and we did not confront a superpower intent on enslaving all the world; as if all that was brushed away with a sleight of hand, as if the world was not a dangerous place and it was not incumbent upon President Reagan and others to provide for the common defense. But the spending question is very interesting here, because we had no less a personage than the President of the United States come to this chamber and stand in that podium for his State of the Union message and say to us all in sterling rhetoric that we should save every penny for Social Security. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the facts are these: He has already taken $2.9 billion of that surplus to support a misadventure in Bosnia. Those are the facts. And the simple distinction is this: Do we allow the left, thankfully these days the minority, to continue to stand in the way of the American people and their money, in holding onto a small portion of their money through tax relief, or do we allow them to spend it and put the money in the hands of the central bankers? Reject the Rangel substitute.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of our committee. Mr. Speaker, hearing my good friend from California typifies the incendiary nature of this debate. For what the American people see today, Mr. Speaker, is a clear example of those who eagerly embrace the politics of fear rather than the policies of hope. The case is clear, the facts these: In excess of $1 trillion, $1.4 trillion set aside to do nothing but save and protect Social Security. My colleague from California and others who expound on the politics of fear talk about the short-term calendar. But, Mr. Speaker, for purposes of full disclosure, it is far better to take a long-range view and let history teach us. Mr. Speaker, in terms of full disclosure, the facts are clear and undeniable. In 40 years' time, when the liberals had the majority in this Chamber, they never set aside one single penny to save Social Security. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a thing did they save. Oh, they were happy to raise payroll taxes. They were happy to take more and more of Americans' hard-earned money. And now when we have the opportunity to set aside in excess of $1 trillion, they say no, because, Mr. Speaker, the message is clear, if somewhat confusing, from the other side. They once again say no tax relief, no time, no how. It is the taxpayers' money, but somehow they should not have it. Shame. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the majority proposal, reject the minority substitute.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as we can tell from the tone of the remarks and the date on the calendar, the rhetoric grows more and more pointedly partisan in this Chamber, and I guess that is a function again of time and of what transpires. I have listened with interest this morning to my friends on the left continue to talk as if they are the saviors of Social Security. A couple of historic points might be in order. First of all, for purposes of full disclosure, we should point out that our friends on the liberal side of the aisle over the 40 years of time when they were in control never set aside one penny to save Social Security. Zero point zero. Zilch. Nada. On the other hand, the new majority embraces a plan that would take in excess of $1.4 trillion and use it to save Social Security and use a relatively meager $80 billion to allow the people of the United States to keep more of their hard-earned money. What the left really tells us, Mr. Speaker, is: No tax cuts, no time, no how.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would commend to my colleagues and the citizens of this Nation the lead article in today's edition of The Hill entitled ``Clinton asks Dole for help on Hill.'' The reason I do this, Mr. Speaker, is apparently there is a misconception being propagated by some here in Washington. Some here in Washington have confused their occupancy of a certain office with the institution itself. Let us reaffirm at this time, in this place, that the offices we hold are a reflection of public trust, and our presence in those offices does not reflect the institution one way or the other. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, let us reaffirm at this place, in this time, that no American is above the law, no matter what office they may hold.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, lest there be any doubt, we come to this Chamber, and indeed in the next few trying weeks this should be our cause. This, Mr. Speaker, should be our mission not to address the impending crisis as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans. Americans concerned about the future of the rule of law. Americans who understand that our adherence to the rule of law is both central and elemental to our survival in a constitutional republic. Adherence to the rule of law for all, regardless of title, regardless of job, regardless of economic standing, regardless of race, religion, color or creed. This is the essence of what it means to be an American in the late 20th century. To understand that adherence to rule of law is everything. For if we lose that, then, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California for yielding to me. I would simply stand in support of all that he has said. It is important to make the distinction between charges and crimes. I thank him for that distinction. I thank the gentleman also, Mr. Speaker, for explaining in his own unique fashion the creed that is inscribed on the magnificent temple of law across the street here in Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker. For outside the chamber of the Supreme Court of the United States, as one gazes at that edifice, one sees the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Who among us would alter that notion? Who among us, Mr. Speaker, would perverse or pervert that dynamic, that all who live in this Nation, that all who are blessed with citizenship in this constitutional republic are equal under law? That is the question that confronts us, not the high jinks or tomfoolery or gossip that accompanies the charges that are there, but, instead the simple notion, Mr. Speaker, that no one, no one, no prince, no potentate, no President is above the law. For in this constitutional republic, if we abandon that notion, then one should simply take a match to this document or tear it asunder. For the rule of law will crumble as will this last best hope of mankind.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as I hear my colleague from California recount honest policy differences, I am struck by the words of that great and good man, Dwight David Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe, and later the President of the United States who, Mr. Speaker, instructed all of us, all of us when we have a political dispute, to understand that those who might hold differing views honestly want what is best for the country. This is the distinction we draw tonight, Mr. Speaker. To those small-minded, sinister, purveyors of the perverse, we say tonight, Mr. Speaker, shame. Shame on you and your tactics. Shame on you and what you attempt to do. For in your attempt, you bankrupt any innovative policy of those who have chosen to stray from constitutional guidelines, those have chosen to stray from the conduct of simple human decency, and those who may have chosen to stray from the rule of law. That is the statement we make tonight, well aware that those small and sinister minds may work overtime with journalists of their choosing and publications of their philosophy to try and lower us to the muck and mire, and yet Ike's example is there for every American. To quote the former President and a member of the other body in bygone times, ``I am not going to climb into the gutter with that guy,'' said President Eisenhower. And those of us of both parties join in the example of Ike to say, no, it is not time to climb into the gutter. Instead, it is a time to champion the truth, the constitutional remedies at our disposal for the people, because principle outstrips polling and outstrips malicious gossip any day at any time, and especially in this place.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, indeed, those tactics, Mr. Speaker, are tactics of desperation and depravity, for they fail to make the moral distinction between mistakes, sins, and possible crimes. There is a clear distinction in our society, especially for the latter category. That is why for over 200 years we in this constitutional republic have had an adherence to the rule of law. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are those who, through their scurrilous actions, would try to muddy the waters, try to change the distinctions, try to mitigate the circumstances for what could possibly be crimes. Let us state clearly and unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, for those who join us in this chamber; for those who may watch around the world, a failure to tell the truth under oath is a crime. Not a mistake, not an indiscretion simply, and not simply a sin. It is a crime.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is the crux of what confronts us at this time, in this place, in this city, and indeed across the Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, I would say tonight, ladies and gentlemen who join us here in this Chamber and those who watch these words coast to coast and beyond through the facilities of C-Span and other satellite networks, that sadly a scourge has descended on this Federal capital district, on this capital city, a scourge borne of a cynicism, a scourge borne of a scorched earth policy. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I think it is important to note some basics at this hour of need in our Nation. First and foremost, every Member of this body, as well as those who serve in elective capacity within the Executive Branch and those in the Judiciary, take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And at this hour in this place at a time of grave national concern we would do well to remember the words of our founders in Article 2, Section 4, when it comes to discussion of the Executive Branch. Our founders write, and I quote: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Those are the words of our founders. Those are the words of the document which Katherine Drinker Bowen characterized as the miracle at Philadelphia. Those are the words to which we took an oath of office to protect, uphold and defend. And I share my colleague from California's amazement and outrage that in this city, at this time, there are those who would pursue a scorched earth policy to try and convince the American people that, quote, everybody does it. Well, Mr. Speaker, no. Everyone does not do it. Everyone does not lie under oath. After making a promise to God, after making a promise to the citizens of this nation, after swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, at long last, have they no dignity? Have they no sense of honor? Those who through the media and who through whispered comments and who through telephone calls would besmirch the dignity of those who serve in this branch under the cynical and sick notion that everyone does it, Mr. Speaker, I give the American people far more credit. I understand the burdens that confront the average American family. Indeed, we have seen it here and my colleague from California will attest, I have come to this well, as has he, and as have others, to point out that the median American family today surrenders well over a quarter of its income in taxes to the Federal Government as opposed to the median American family in 1948. I understand the workload that confronts moms and dads around this country, where one spouse chooses to work not voluntarily but out of necessity, to pay the tax bill. I understand the stresses and strains on average Americans simply to pay their taxes and to feed and educate and clothe their children and yet I understand what our founders meant in this document. Let there be no mistake, to those cynics who offer the tactics of smear and fear, the citizens of this great country and those who serve in this body will not be intimidated. Freedom has come at far too great a price. The Constitution is far too valuable for those peddlers of petty gossip to sustain a position of supremacy. Mr. Speaker, their actions speak clearly. They have no decency. They hold no harbor for the rule of law, and they certainly fail to adhere to the edicts of the Constitution, but our founders, in their prescience, in their foresight, in their resolve, offered constitutional remedies to this House and to this nation. No one approaches these remedies with glee, for our oath is to the Constitution, not to partisan political advantage. As my colleague from California points out, the peddlers of gossip, cynicism and despair continue to wage their sinister tactics. Would that it were not so. Would that we could come to this chamber to discuss policy differences, earnestly held, sincerely championed. Yet, even though there are grave concerns that confront this nation, from the concept of providing for the common defense, as my colleague from California pointed out, to the challenge of making sure that American families hold on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington, even with those pressing concerns, not to mention the concerns of education that confront every family, there is no more pressing need, Mr. Speaker, than to champion the adherence to the rule of law in this constitutional republic, at this time, in this place, Mr. Speaker, the most hallowed of American institutions. To those, Mr. Speaker, who would weave a cynical web of gossip and cynicism, we say, shame, shame on your cynical tactics, shame on your crawling into the gutter, shame on your cheap, reprehensible notions that you can claim simply that everyone does it. For, Mr. Speaker, even though as I stand as a human, as the Apostle Paul said, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Even as we understand the difference between mistakes, so, too, Mr. Speaker, do we note the distinction of crimes. If we are to suggest that, one, for whatever reason, is excused from the oath before God and man, not of high office but simply to tell the truth in interpersonal matters, then we have abandoned the rule of law and we have surrendered that which makes this constitutional republic the last best hope of mankind. It transcends party. It transcends personality. It goes to the core of what it means to be an American. Mr. Speaker, again, to those who would crawl into the gutter, who would whisper to the magazine writers, who would whisper to the television journalists, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity and all humility I must ask, have they no shame? At long last, have they no shame. Worse, Mr. Speaker, have they no reverence for our constitutional republic and the concept of freedom, which is every American's, conditional upon the rule of law? These are not tranquil times. No matter the Dow Jones industrial average, no matter the rate of return in the bond market, if we face a crisis of personal integrity in the social will to tell the truth, then we indeed face a crisis. If we continue to hear from the punditocracy that the rule of law makes no difference, then we confront a crisis as grave as the missiles that may be aimed at us, a crisis of spirit. Mr. Speaker, I reject that notion. I know full well from hearing from the constituents of the Sixth District of Arizona, to whom I have listened in the past few months, in knowing of the concerns of my colleague and others on both sides of the aisle, we know full well what is at stake and we heap disdain on those who would try to change the subject through cheap gossip.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in the wake of a momentous vote to discuss not what lies ahead but to remember two who have gone before, from my great State of Arizona. I first pay tribute this afternoon to Governor Jack Williams, a dedicated public servant who served as Governor of Arizona during challenging times from the mid-1960s on through the early 1970s, an effective leader, a true public servant, who reminded us all that public service is not always equated with public office. Jack Williams, for many years before serving as Governor of Arizona, was a broadcaster. Mr. Speaker, his repeated broadcasts on KOY radio were a source of inspiration and amusement to his fellow Arizonans and every day he would conclude his broadcast commentary with a sign-off saying, ``It is a beautiful day in Arizona. Let us all enjoy it.'' Arizonans enjoyed unparalleled economic prosperity during the administration of Governor Jack Williams. He was a dedicated results- oriented leader, but more than that, he was one who listened to all Arizonans, one who never developed the trappings or the arrogance of office; instead, always dedicated himself to the ideals of true public service, whether as a broadcaster or later a mayor or finally as governor of the great State of Arizona. Because of Governor Williams' efforts, we remember him today and we can honestly say, there is a great future for Arizona. Let us all enjoy it. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that those in the punditocracy in the light of current events and other procedures would say that the culture of Washington has somehow denigrated, has somehow deteriorated, until the politics of personality, I would make this observation, for I rise today also to remember another Arizonan, not a member of my party, not one who subscribed to the conservative philosophy to which I adhere, but one who I believe needs to be recognized. His name was John Cox. He aspired to service in this chamber and, Mr. Speaker, just last week, he passed away, even as he had made plans again to challenge my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) in the First Congressional District of Arizona. John Cox was not a man with whom I agreed but, Mr. Speaker, he was a man whose company I enjoyed. Indeed, the last time we had a chance to get together was at one of the great programs that has been run nationally, where Americans got together to discuss the future of Social Security. That meeting was scheduled in the Valley of the Sun in the days immediately following the passing of Senator Barry Goldwater, and it was during an honest, open dialogue and discussion, listening to citizens of Arizona when John Cox leaned over to me and whispered in my ear, I have something for you that I would like you to have that I believe will mean far more to you. Even though it has great meaning for me, I know it will have far more of a meaning to you. Mr. Speaker, what John Cox gave me are the little replica of glasses I wear on my lapel just above my Congressional pin, glasses that symbolize allegiance to Barry Goldwater in the 1964 campaign. John Cox's gesture bespeaks what is good about our political process because in this chamber, even in these challenging days ahead, there will be honest disagreements, sincerely held, passionately stated. Our Founders experienced the same, in what Catherine Drinker Bowen calls the Miracle at Philadelphia when they put together the document which we swear to uphold and defend and indeed whose very presence we are mindful of today at the outset of such momentous proceedings. The examples of John Cox and Jack Williams suit all Americans. That is why I pay tribute to them today and that is why they will not be soon forgotten.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 4.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply clarifies that nothing in this bill will limit the preservation or the use of Native American or Native Alaskan languages. As many Members of this body know, nearly one in four of my constituents are Native American. I represent eight tribes, including the largest sovereign tribe, the great Navajo Nation. Through constitutional and treaty obligations, Native Americans are guaranteed certain rights and protections, and I can think of no more important protection than the preservation of the languages and cultures of the first Americans. While it is important that every American learn English to succeed, it is also important that we ensure that native languages and cultures continue to thrive. Indeed, these unique cultures provide a deeper understanding of our country's history. It is also important that we preserve these languages because, unlike immigrants who came to our country by choice or circumstance, Native Americans have always inhabited the land we now call the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, my point is simple: Native American languages are an important part of our country's heritage and must be protected and preserved. My amendment ensures that these indigenous languages will not be affected by this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), for his support of my amendment. As vice chair of the Native American Caucus, I know he is deeply concerned about Native American issues.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we struggle in vain to find the right words to try and make sense of the senseless. In the final analysis, we realize that no words can compensate, no words can comfort, no words can change the reality of loss confronted by the families of John and J.J. In the end, Mr. Speaker, we are left not with words but with examples. In the New Testament Book of James, the writer reminds us that words are one thing and actions are something else. In the midst of this tragedy, Mr. Speaker, we saw a devotion to duty that transcends the horror and mayhem of that hour of uncertainty, because J.J. and John reflexively answered their call to duty. In the end, that remains the truth and reality, that as professionals, befitting their brothers and sisters who wear the badges of honor in this House, they understood the true meaning of public service, which is not restricted to those who hold public office but in fact includes all of those willing to stand and put their lives on the line for an idea and a notion greater than themselves. Mr. Speaker, our Founders, in the Declaration of Independence, the first time we see in print those words, the United States of America, said in closing, we pledge our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor. So, too, did John and J.J. Rest in peace, job well done.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Illinois and I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado, because she unintentionally demonstrates why we should oppose the Dingell bill and support the reasonable, rational, compassionate Patient Protection Act. You see, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a choice today. Do we support a true patient bill of rights, or do we support a lawyer's right to bill? I rise with colleagues from both sides of the aisle who say they do not want decisions made by bureaucrats, whether they are Washington bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats. Health care decisions should be made by physicians and health care professionals consulting with their patients. That is the element that we preserve, uphold and amplify in the Patient Protection Act. Sadly, endless litigation and lawsuit after lawsuit is provided for in the Dingell substitute. That is what we have to remember; true compassion, not courtroom drama.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, today we had an important vote regarding federal lands in our country. I believe Chairman Regula did an excellent job of handling this difficult and controversial appropriations bill. However, one project that was left out of the bill was funding of the new Seba Dalkai school in my congressional district that has been on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) priority list for several years. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, Seba Dalkai is located on the Navajo Nation, the largest and most economically-challenged sovereign Indian nation. Education is vitally important for children to achieve their full intellectual and economic potential. A healthy learning environment is central to this goal. Seba Dalkai has been patiently waiting for new school facilities, while educating their children in substandard conditions. They are presently the highest ranked school on the BIA priority list that has yet to receive funding. Unfortunately, this has been the situation for several years. Seba Dalkai needs and deserves funding. It is my hope that since the new Sac and Fox and Pyramid Lake schools will be completed this year, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee will begin funding the new Seba Dalkai school in fiscal year 2000. I will continue to fight for funding for Seba Dalkai, although I am disappointed that the Subcommittee could not begin funding this important project in fiscal year 1999.