J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the concerns he has brought to light this evening. As I watched on our television system while I was making calls to constituents in the 6th district of Arizona, I could not help but note that the very concerns the gentleman from Georgia outlines were raised with me this past weekend back in the 6th district. I had occasion to visit Arizona's pleasant valley, the small town of Young, Arizona for their annual Pleasant Valley Days parade, and then Saturday evening in a neighborhood townhall meeting in Mesa. Many citizens of the 6th district raised these precise concerns. And regardless of philosophical orientation, what the gentleman from Georgia points out tonight is absolutely correct, because in this Chamber and indeed, Mr. Speaker, throughout this government, there needs to be a reverence for and an adherence to the Constitution of the United States, which properly notes that the powers this government derives is conferred upon it by the people, and accordingly states that it is the legislative branch which has lawmaking authority, and the executive branch the responsibility to execute the law. So this transcends political philosophy, for it is a question of constitutionality, and those who would seek to usurp in the executive branch the powers rightly conferred by the people on the legislative branch of government are treading on dangerous ground. I almost hesitate to use the term, for it sounds very strong. And yet this is what it in effect is. It is a subversion of the intent of our Founders to have those in the Executive Branch attempt to legislate by Executive order. I would say, Mr. Speaker, this holds true regardless of party affiliation. For whatever reasons, those tempted in the Executive Branch to attempt to subjugate the American people to their visions and designs, independent of what the Congress of the United States says, and indeed in direct opposition to what the Congress has specified through the votes of the duly elected constitutional officers in this body and in the Chamber opposite who serve in the legislative branch. So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of many citizens of the Sixth District of Arizona, I rise to take to the well of the House to commend the gentleman from Georgia for properly pointing out that there are serious questions about the entire notion of Executive orders, and especially those which he has outlined here this evening. Again, concerns that transcend philosophical differences and go to the very fabric of our constitutional republic and the powers conferred upon us by the people through their expressions at the ballot box. That is why I look forward to joining with my colleague from Georgia and others in this body to reaffirm what the Constitution sets up. That this body is set aside to deal with legislative remedies and law making. And that the Executive Branch exists to execute the laws passed in the Legislative Branch. And that, of course, our friends in the Judiciary, in that third separate but coequal branch of government, have the right to interpret and through judicial review determine the constitutionality of many different actions. I share the concern of the gentleman from Georgia that the propensity for and the temptation of Executive orders seems to have run rife through this administration. That in the wake of the ground swell of popular support for a new conservative majority, there seem to be those in this city, located at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, who would move to ignore the will of the people as expressed by the duly elected constitutional officers. So, again, just as I heard Saturday afternoon in Young, Arizona, and Saturday evening in Mesa, Arizona, I rise to compliment the gentleman from Georgia, to pledge publicly that I will work with him because the people have this concern. And as Dr. Franklin said to a bystander, ``Here, sir, the people govern.'' Not the executive, but the people working their will through their duly elected constitutional representatives.

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.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of this amendment, because far from being a poison pill, it carries to the logical conclusion what we should all be about in this Chamber, and that is the elimination of corruption in the campaign and election process. The election is the logical culmination of the campaign. Mr. Chairman, we should stand foursquare for the legitimate rights of United States citizens to vote in open and honest elections. The Goodlatte amendment helps ensure this. Mr. Chairman, I have spent part of this weekend in the Pleasant Valley of Arizona in the tiny hamlet of Young, and people there came and asked me, they said, ``When we go to the city and go to buy something at a grocery store with a check, we have to show two forms of identification. But under current United States law, we require no identification to claim citizenship to vote.'' Mr. Chairman, reasonable people would call for this rational reform for open, fair and free elections.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 1998, Lena C. Pretsch, a constituent of mine from Payson, Arizona, will be celebrating her seventieth birthday with her family and friends. Lena is dedicated to serving her family, her community, and her country. Lena grew up in Bloominglen, Pennsylvania where she met her husband, Joe, when he returned from World War II. She left Pennsylvania behind and joined her husband traveling around the world with the Army for twenty years. During those years, she also raised two sons, Roger and Richard, and a daughter, Kathy. While patriotism runs in the family, Roger has stated that few Americans embrace their patriotic duties as passionately as his mother did in times of need. During World War II as a teenager, Lena volunteered to read to blind soldiers recovering from wounds received in battle. Her voice soothed and comforted many young men in their time of need. Many years later, as she saw her own son off to the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, she helped send 15,000 Christmas cards to the paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division. Her son and the soldiers will never forget the Christmas cards they received in the desert. Every Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and Fourth of July, Lena organizes a volunteer group that places 500 to 600 flags around the town of Payson. She also had a giant flag pole built along Highway 87 so visitors coming into town would see the American flag. She even convinced Governor Symington to declare Payson the Flag Capital of Arizona because of the group's efforts. Along with her flag activities, Lena chairs the Governor's committee for the Americans with Disabilities Act. She helps plan events throughout the state to increase awareness of the contributions disabled people make to our society. She also remains active with the city council and her church. As an ordinary citizen, Lena may not have made headlines with her contributions, but she has made an impact on the lives around her. Congratulations on your seventieth birthday, Lena. And thank you for your service.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I just was struck by the eloquence of my colleague from Virginia, and I think, again, he has pointed out quite correctly, but it bears some repeating, because we all realize sadly that there are those who would attempt to deliberately misunderstand or distort the message we offer tonight. Again, the message we offer is in the finest tradition of freedom and individual self-determination. As my colleague from Virginia points out, this is not an attempt to eliminate unions. This is not an attempt to destroy collective bargaining. This is not an attempt to end anyone's right to strike. Those rights exist in a free society and will be maintained. But what we are saying, Mr. Speaker, simply, clearly and we believe ultimately persuasively to the American people is the fact that we want people to have the right to decide for themselves when it comes to economic association, when it comes to making determinations about their economic future and freedom, and how wrong it is to predicate the acceptance of a job on compulsory membership in a union. Again, the quarrel is not with those who would voluntarily join such an union. That is the right of an American. But, again, we reaffirm that right in its true essence by saying, if you want to belong to a union, well and good. Join, be involved in that process. If you want to be involved politically in that union and have a portion of your earnings secured through some mechanism for union dues ultimately to go to political expression, God bless you, you should have that right. But just because you have that right does not mean you should abridge the rights of others and in some way step in and subvert their abilities, A, either to join the union or choose not to join the union or, B, once a member of the union, coercively force them to surrender a portion of their paycheck and union dues to go to political activities with which they may disagree.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, as my colleague from Virginia accurately points out, in having lived through the experience firsthand in 1996, as the number one target of boss John Sweeney and the other union bosses of the AFL-CIO, who took from their membership compulsory union dues used for the committee on political education, I can tell you, one of the real tragedies from my vantage point was not the give and take and the rough and tumble of public discourse because, as Abraham Lincoln said, the American people, once fully informed, will make the right decision. And I trust the people. No, the tragedy was this, Mr. Speaker, that that longshoreman in Maryland, or that lettuce picker in California or that assembly line worker in Michigan who knew nothing of the political dynamics of the sixth district of Arizona, who had no direct stake in the political expression of the people of the sixth district of Arizona, yet found their wages against their will imported to the State of Arizona to the tune of $2.1 million for false television ads distorting my record. And we will see that, I dare say, again as we receive reports around the country that the same activity continues. Again, let us stress, free and open debate is fine. If people voluntarily give of their wages, that is a time-honored tradition in the Constitution. That is something we freely welcome, freedom of speech, freedom of association. But when that crosses to compulsory, coercive, accumulations of wealth by the labor bosses against the will of the very working people they purport to help, how sad and how cynical. And again, Mr. Speaker, amidst all the talk of campaign finance reform, there is this one fact that comes from 1996. In a Rutgers University study, it is well documented that despite the reports of some $35 million used in an effort to influence congressional elections, the actual figures, according to the Rutgers University study were these. Between 300 million and a half a billion dollars was taken coercively from members of unions to go into political campaigns in an attempt to change control in this Congress. How much better for our constitutional Republic had all those donations been freely given and freely accepted. How much better for the rights of workers would it be if they had the opportunity to express this most basic of freedoms, the right to associate and, indeed, the right to work regardless of the encumbrances of those who would compel them into associations with which they might disagree. This is something that must change for freedom in its truest form to flourish, so that the give and take can be genuine, not coercive and for those who would stand for true reform to end the practice or the threat of this constitutional Republic, as some would say, being sold to the highest bidder. That is what is at stake every 2 years in our renewal and celebration of freedom at the ballot box expressed in this institution, the most basic, the most responsive designed by our founders to be a constitutional office absolutely beholden to the people. How much better it would be if the people were free to truly express their opinions, their free associations without the specter of intimidation or the specter of economic ruin for failing to belong to an organization.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia, and I thank the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from Maryland, who manages the proceedings of the House in a manner that behooves bipartisanship, as I call it, in the bipartisan fashion of the writings of Senator Sam Irvin and what he had to say about the true notion of negotiation; not all the other trappings and all the compulsory addenda to what is the central mission of the labor-management dynamic, but to concentrate on what is really important. It is a sad fact, as my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, will attest, that even now there are those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue what would look to limit the choices even of this Federal Government. When it comes to competitive bidding, there are those in this administration who have said that competitive bidding should be open only to union shops. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to stop and think about that for just a second. In addition, again, to abridging, to segregating the choices available in the work force, what would happen there to carry that scenario to fruition would mean billions upon billions of dollars of extra costs to the American taxpayer; indeed, the most conservative estimate I have seen is some $5 billion in additional spending by the taxpayers, simply to assuage the notion of those who would even move in a greater way to force compulsory unionism past the membership, already subverting the notion of free association, but to the point where this government could not contract with nonunion shops. Mr. Speaker, I will work and fight to maintain the rights of all companies to freely bid, because in that way, in that way the best interests of the taxpayers are preserved, and in that way the best interests of this country is preserved. Yet, my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, brings it to the most simple and elemental fact here, because it deals with freedom of the individual, because it deals with the clear, simple notion that we in this Congress should undo the unfair power grab of those who succumbed to temptation in the middle part of the 1930s; that we in fact should stand, as we are poised for a new century, to reemphasize the most basic of freedoms: freedom of association, freedom in the marketplace, freedom for families, freedom from fear, and freedom to work; indeed, the right to work for all Americans for all time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and our distinguished majority whip for taking time on the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this vital issue. I am proud to stand strongly and foursquare in support of one of America's most fundamental rights: The right to work. Mr. Speaker, Arizona's favorite son recently passed, and Barry Goldwater's memory has been extolled by members of both major political parties and many others on the scene. Indeed, tonight I am reminded that Barry Goldwater, Jr., the former Congressman from California, who returned to his native State of Arizona, and now, I am pleased to say, a very good personal friend of mine, that on this date, Barry Goldwater, Jr., celebrates an important birthday. But I must say, in all sincerity, the plain-spoken, commonsensical ways of Barry Goldwater, Sr. were brought to bear in this fight, in this endeavor as Arizona clearly and unequivocally is a right-to-work State. Said Senator Goldwater, quoting now, ``I believe people have a right to join a union, but I also believe people have a right not to join a union.'' And that simple two-sentence statement sums it up. In this Nation we have rights to freely associate. How then could this government move to abridge those rights in the 1930s? It is sad, but truly a part of our history, that there have been times when certain factions have moved to consolidate political power in the attempt to ensure a permanent majority and abridge the rights of American citizens. So tonight I remember the simple eloquence of Barry Goldwater, Sr., extolling the virtues of that basic fundamental American freedom, not to the detriment of unions or the collective bargaining process, which as my colleague from Virginia pointed out was summed up in the message of one of the great leaders of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers, to talk about voluntary institutions and how it was preferred that voluntary institutions would work far better than compulsory systems. Indeed, as my colleague from Virginia pointed out earlier in this time, Gompers said those compulsory systems are not only impractical, but a menace to their welfare and to their liberty. I am struck by the words of another who served at the other end of Pennsylvania avenue, and who went to foreign soil a decade ago. President Ronald Wilson Reagan stood clearly and boldly, square in the jaws of tyranny, and challenged the leader of the then Soviet Union to tear down a wall that came to symbolize oppression. Mr. Gorbachev said, President Reagan, tear down this wall. And, Mr. Speaker, tonight, to my colleagues, to those who found it so seductive to strip Americans of a basic freedom of association, and thereby build a wall of compulsory coercive unionism, to them we say, in the best traditions of freedom, Mr. Speaker, tear down this wall, tear down this wall of compulsory unionism, tear down the wall that Thomas Jefferson would call sinful and tyrannical, because it moves to abridge the very basic rights of freedom of association. It moves through coercion and through compulsory status to extinguish the freedoms of association, and it moves against the basic fabric of American society. Hear clearly what I say. I heard it from constituents in the Sixth District of Arizona, given the fact that we champion in this country political discourse, and give and take, and a free, open debate. Mr. Speaker, and those who join us electronically far beyond these walls, I cannot tell Members the number of times union members in Arizona would come to me and say, I support you, but to keep my seat at the bargaining table, even though we live in a right-to-work State, to avoid retribution I must support you silently. What does that say about those in our society who would have moved to abridge this most basic right? It certainly calls not upon the best traditions American history has to offer, and yet, tonight, this is that fundamental choice. That is why we are pleased to rise in favor of the right to work. That is why I am pleased that Arizona, not only in the alphabet, beginning with A, leads the way, but Arizona shows the way, the youngest of the 48 contiguous States, and yet at the forefront of championing the rights of workers to freely associate with different groups. I am pleased that every one of my colleagues on the majority side from Arizona joined me in sponsorship of the legislation offered by the gentleman from Virginia. Of course, there are other practical means beyond the most practical and basic notion of freedom that commend this act. The simple notion of prosperity is also commended. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is well aware of the academic labors at George Mason University and the scholar there, James T. Bennett, where, in his study of a higher standard of living in right-to-work States, he illustrates how families in States like Arizona enjoy a higher standard of living than families who hail from States with compulsory unionism. According to the study of Mr. Bennett, the cost of living in the 21 right-to-work States is nearly 25 percent less than in the 29 compulsory unionism States. Families in right-to-work States also have lower State and local tax burdens than compulsory unionism State families. It is what the scholar calls a right-to-work boom. The average urban family living in a right-to-work State has an after-tax cost-of-living adjusted household income of $36,540 dollars, almost $3,000 more than a family in a forced unionism State, because of the principle of the free market working, where people can freely associate and have work and not artificially inflated prices, either in the public sector, through public works, or in private works. These are the fruits of honest labor, and this is what we come to the floor to extoll, not in the fashion of a green eyeshade, but again, evoking the best of American traditions; again, evoking the words and the memories of those who have gone on before. Lest anyone mistake this as a harangue against any one political party or the current liberal minority, I will not only call on the memory of Arizona's favorite son and the standard-bearer of my party in 1964, but I would call upon the memory of another great member of the other body, the gentleman from North Carolina, Senator Sam Irvin. In his book entitled ``Preserving the Constitution,'' Senator Irvin wrote, quoting now, ``Right-to-work States remove the motive of the union to subordinate the interests of the employees to its wishes, and thus leaves it free to conduct negotiations for the sole purpose of obtaining an employment contract advantageous to the employees.'' So we can see even from that observation that one from the other side of the aisle, if you will, talked about the true nature of collective bargaining, the essence of collective bargaining, not the intervention in other areas.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for this time. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), I would like to take a moment to thank you for your hard work on this Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill. In particular, I am very pleased the gentleman and his committee has seen fit to include report language that directs the White House Counsel's Office to clearly define the line between personal and official legal business in representation. Mr. Chairman, I have been examining this issue for many months now and have come to the conclusion that the White House Counsel's Office continues to use taxpayer funds to pay legal staff to work on the President's personal legal issues. I think this is clearly a misuse of taxpayer funds. That is why I introduced a sense of the House resolution this March that, along with the cosponsorship of 30 of my colleagues, sends a clear signal to the White House that the public will not stand for footing personal legal bills of its elected officials. Mr. Chairman, the White House Counsel's Office does not need 34 staff members, when previous Counsel's Office staff was limited to seven at most, and the American taxpayers should not be held accountable for $2.36 million in salaries for this legal work.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I would like to thank my colleague from Arizona for his continued support of this very important issue.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, one further question to follow up. In view of the fact that in several markets around the country, probably including Phoenix, the AFL-CIO will start an ad campaign, does the gentleman not worry about the constitutionality of attempting to abridge people's ability to speak? Because even though I am often personally the target of these abusive and false ads, I just do not think, or I would ask, does not the gentleman have some concerns that this could be unconstitutional?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the gentleman another question, because I very much want to visit what he had to talk about in terms of different groups and their financing of different candidates. Would the gentleman repeat again his notion of what is done now, if someone is not a union member, their dues cannot be taken? What happens to a union member who does not want his or her dues taken?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut, for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I just want to return for a second to his observation about ``no controlling legal authority.'' How does my colleague from Connecticut then account for the memo that preceded the behavior by Vice President Gore from White House legal counsel Judge Abner Mikva, a former member of this institution, who said, for all administration employees, it was a violation of the Pendleton Act to solicit funds from Federal installations, i.e., the White House?

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Is it appropriate for Members to come to this Chamber and personally characterize the speaking styles and the conduct of other Members of this House while debate is going on?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Is it appropriate for Members to characterize the personal delivery styles of other Members?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, a simple question. Does the gentleman have any evidence of any Chinese arms merchants giving money to the Bush-Quayle reelection campaign?

Mr. HAYWORTH. One further question, since the gentleman advances the argument that everybody does it, and he had his suspicions. Does the gentleman have any evidence that the Bush administration took any donations from Chinese arms merchants?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask my good friend from Michigan, because he returned to the argument that, quote, unquote, everybody does it.