J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

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

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. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for yielding this time to me, and, Mr. Speaker, I come to the well in strong support of this conference report and the work performed by both Chambers on this hill. Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions that have been outlined, but in addition to the provisions, we can put faces and names on those families directly affected, sadly, by what must be termed as IRS abuse. I think of a man from Arizona, Bob Breauxcamp, and the story of his granddad who inadvertently sent a tax payment of $7,000 to the IRS when he only owed $700, how he was aged and infirmed, and upon his death then the IRS sought estate taxes from his daughter, Bob's mom, and she discovered the overpayment; how the IRS said, no, that money will not go back to his estate and how that overpayment, through an oversight in law and, yes, I dare say, abuse by the IRS was never returned to the Breauxcamp family. Mr. Speaker, today with passage of this conference report, we provide for a wide array of reforms. But to the aged and the infirm, to those who have been taken advantage of in this process, we become their advocates. That is another key provision we should support. As mentioned earlier, the innocent spouse provision is vitally important and most fundamental to our notion of fairness in this country, the basic premise of American jurisprudence which says that the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. What was deprived in Tax Court is restored henceforth with passage of this legislation. The burden of proof will rest on the government instead of the taxpayer. I urge passage of the conference report.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the debate this evening. I rise to support the Thomas amendment. I also rise to discuss some very interesting comments made by my friend from Massachusetts, followed up by my friend from Maine. I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts quoting the late great Senator from my State, Barry Goldwater. I think it is important also to remember the context of Senator Goldwater's quote, because, ladies and gentlemen of the House and ladies and gentlemen of America who join us beyond these walls via C-SPAN, a check of the complete Goldwater record indicates that our late great senior Senator was talking about liberty and freedom of expression within the context of those who had that right denied by the coercive actions of organized labor bosses who reached into their pockets against their will to advocate causes with which the rank and file disagreed. Indeed, I note with interest, this dispatch from U.S.A. Today, May 30, 1996, Dateline, Portland, Maine, the campaign in which my friend from Maine was involved, ``By air, the AFL-CIO has spent more than $500,000 on a series of television ads criticizing Jim Longley's votes on Medicare, student loans, and private pensions. The ads have helped make Portland the political advertising capital of the Nation. From April 1 through September 15, 6,968 ads aired or 41 per day.'' My friend from Maine also offered elucidation of what he called the soft money process. I believe he should know firsthand, as chairman of Clinton-Gore 1992, which was the vast recipient of vast amounts of soft money, firsthand, the Clinton-Gore ticket and the minions of the Washington labor bosses got help that was never really documented. Again, let me give credit to the left, because in employing so-called campaign finance reform, they ensured in 1974 and years before that there would be no legitimate documentation of the amounts of money spent by the Washington union bosses to the extent that a study from Rutgers University shows us that, instead of $35 million spent by Ball Sweeney and his ilk, they instead spent between $300 million and $500 million to try and influence elections in the Congress of the United States. Yet, the self-same recipients of that ultimate special interest money would come here to this floor and act as the paragons of virtue and tell us that we need to change our system. Barry Goldwater was right about something else. When he discussed Bill Moyers, and I thought it was interesting to see the jump from Bill Moyers to Senator Goldwater, when he said, when he said how hypocritical. The fact is that we have seen the corruptive influence of people reaching into the pockets of other people against their will, subverting those First Amendment rights, free from documentation, free from the spotlight of the Washington media, except in rare cases. We see all too often through the clear glasses that Senator Goldwater wore, which I wear in representation on my lapel, the real story here and the real culprits. Two things should happen if we want real campaign reform. Number one, I would suggest to my friends on the left and those well-intentioned friends here on the right, if you want real campaign reform, obey existing laws. I would note with interest the comments of my dear friend from Wisconsin who seem to imply that the reason the White House strayed into suspect ground and may have violated these rules was because of the current system. No, I would suggest otherwise. I would suggest that there was a clear, sadly mistaken desperation for cash and a win-at-all-costs mentality that cannot be excused by any type of misdirection play, by any type of masquerading in the public interest to claim that somehow let us clamp limits on those who seek donations of free will from free American citizens. Let us, instead, maintain the current system, allowing the union bosses to reach into the pockets of every working American who happens to be a member of a union, subverting their rights, and taking their money to go to causes with which they may disagree. I would suggest, again, to this body, that we should adopt the Thomas amendment. And I would suggest further to this body that let us have a clear examination of what, in fact, has transpired in the past election, in elections before, and let us tell the entire story. Senator Goldwater was talking about the freedom to use contributions, not to have money cynically taken away.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield so that I might ask my friend, the gentleman from Maine, a question?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Under a lawyer's definition, that would be existing law. It makes the point that there are those following the human impulse of gaining the system for their own selfish needs.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is making my point for me. What I am suggesting that, through previous design of so-called campaign finance reform, a large segment of this society, through coercive tactics, have their contributions undocumented. To that extent, the law is silent.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Oregon yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a question of my good friend from Arkansas. In his days as a prosecutor, did he petition for the legislature to change laws in lieu of prosecuting those who had broken existing laws?

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I concur wholeheartedly with my colleague from Colorado and again would just note that sadly, there are those who draw the wrong lessons from history, those who believe that somehow, to use the words of my dear friend from Colorado, that by erecting the great Stone Wall of China down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to this hallowed Chamber that somehow, by placing partisan concerns over patriotism, somehow the people are well served. Indeed, cynics from the Watergate era a quarter of a century ago seemed to draw the lesson that if anyone steps forward on the other side of the aisle, if they step forward collectively to adhere to the rule of law, somehow they will suffer losses at the ballot box. So, Mr. Speaker, tonight I again renew my call. At long last, is there not one, is there not one to step forward from the other side, to say, let us adhere to the rule of law and these allegations are so disturbing that we owe it to the citizenry, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, to get to the bottom of this. Is there not even one who will stand for this?

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is as false as false can be. The Minority Leader demonstrates in that statement why he will remain the Minority Leader if, in fact, he remains in this Chamber because I believe exactly the opposite is true. Mr. Speaker, we should trust the American people, and that may shock my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, having been the No. 1 target of the Washington union bosses, having had $2.1 million pumped into my campaign for my adversary to falsely characterize my record. But you see in America, Mr. Speaker, I believe that people even have the right to disagree with me to the point that they can choose to mischaracterize the record because I believe as Abraham Lincoln said: The American people, once fully informed, will make the right decision, and fully informing them is up to me in my role as a candidate and as a Member of Congress and as a citizen of the United States. So what we have here, Mr. Speaker and the gentleman from California, is a cynical, sadly misguided attempt to explain to us how we should abridge constitutional freedoms. Now I guess it should come as no surprise since we have already seen these supposed champions of the working man thrust their hands into the pockets of working people across the country uninvited to take coercive dues to go to political campaigns with which those working people disagree. I say how sad and how cynical and how important it is, Mr. Speaker, to shine the light of truth on that hypocrisy and that wrongheaded notion which may be popular in the editorial reams of certain liberal eastern dailies but is just plain wrong in the shipyards and the construction yards of America.

Mr. HAYWORTH. To simply respond, it should come as no surprise my two friends in the well preceded those of us here in the Congress of the United States, and we realize for 40 years, and it eventually caught up with the left, the notion of saying one thing and doing another led to the change in this Chamber. And what was the first thing that was passed by a new common-sense conservative Congress on the first day of the 104th Congress? This notion: that Congress people should live under the laws every other American lives under. So it should come as no surprise that the tired, discredited architects of cynicism on the left would come to this Chamber and under the guise of openness seek to abridge the debate, the debate which should go on in the people's House. It is the ultimate irony, and though we will have the predictable cacophony of support from those allied in the left and the editorial rooms of the major eastern dailies, the American people, Mr. Speaker, will see that for what it is, a crass, cynical attempt to change the subject when again. And I think it bears repeating, if the American people desire a campaign finance reform, it comes in three simple words: Obey existing law.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the distinguished majority whip from Texas and my friend from Arkansas and others of us are here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, just to underscore the point, and I think this photograph says it all. Mr. Speaker, there are three words that would bring about genuine campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, those three words are these: Obey existing laws. I marvel at the cynicism of the punditocracy, to coin a new phrase in this town, so intent on changing the subject, so intent on saying, and I really hate to use this analogy, given my affection for cookies, but saying to those with their hands caught in the cookie jar, ``Oh, look over here, there's a broken glass elsewhere in the kitchen.'' Or to say, in case of emergency, break the glass for the standard rhetoric that everybody does it. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth, for everyone does not do it. Most of those who serve in this body attempt to adhere to existing law. But, as has been chronicled by my colleague from Colorado, what is very interesting, a very curious thing happened on the way to campaign finance reform a quarter of a century ago. You have to hand it to the left for being pretty crafty politically. ``Let's ensure,'' said members of the left, ``that organized labor and the Washington bosses are never held accountable.'' I would commend to my colleagues and those, Mr. Speaker, who join us electronically from coast to coast and beyond, a study from Rutgers University, which pointed out that the widely reported figure of $35 million used by Boss Sweeney and others of his ilk to try and influence the congressional elections of 1996 was a grossly underreported number. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Rutgers study pointed out that the Washington bosses spent between $300 million and $500 million to try and buy Congress in 1996. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask how on earth could they do that. Two reasons, Mr. Speaker, one alluded to by my colleague from Colorado. Understand full well, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, that through compulsory dues, working men and women supply the union bosses here in Washington, D.C. with vast moneys on an annual basis. How much? Well, according to these studies, I have seen anywhere between 8 and $11 billion. So indeed, Mr. Speaker, one-half billion dollars is pocket change to those who really attempt to buy the Congress. Yet some people, well- meaning in their intent, and others cynically looking for political cover, would have you believe that this most fundamental reform, restoring the constitutional rights of workers and for once making those who claim to be friends of the working man adhere to this basic notion of keeping their dirty hands out of the working man's pocket, to take money from the working man to give to causes with which that working person may fundamentally disagree, sadly those minions of the status quo are given cover to claim campaign finance reform. Those protesting the loudest are headquartered at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Not only ironically, Mr. Speaker, the Chief Executive of this Nation, but the Vice President of the United States, who has been heard within recent months to offer this buzz phrase when asked about his direct violation of Federal law, and do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, take a look at the memo from former White House counsel Judge Abner Mikva who sought to forbid those types of campaign phone calls from the White House. The Vice President of the United States told the press corps in this town and the American people, and I quote: ``My legal counsel informs me there is no controlling legal authority.'' How cynical, Mr. Speaker. How tragic, and how fundamentally wrong because, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Vice President and to the American people, yes, there is a controlling legal authority. It is called the Constitution of the United States which gives this body oversight of the executive branch. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, how much more constructive it would be if we did not have so many colleagues fall for the siren song of the pundits who often find themselves affiliated with the left to throw up this mud and this dust under the guise of reform. How honorable it would be if we moved toward a system that would rid us of these Orwellian definitions of reform that do more to repress the constitutional rights of American citizens than anything dreamt of. How interesting it is, Mr. Speaker, that many on the left would say, if we move to protect the rights of workers through a paycheck protection act, that would mean any type of agreement on campaign finance reform. To use their words, Mr. Speaker, it would be dead on arrival.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is a phenomenon where those who would claim to champion the rights of working Americans can do more for those working Americans by getting their uninvited hands out of their pockets. If that is done and if, Mr. Speaker, we as a people and those of us who would serve in public office at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would obey existing laws, we would see genuine campaign finance reform.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, and I appreciate the input of my good friend from Arkansas and our friend, the distinguished Majority Whip. But again I think we need to come back to this point again and again so that everyone understands this, Mr. Speaker, so there can be no doubt real campaign reform means obeying existing law. And, Mr. Speaker, I note with interest an article which appeared in the Washington Post on Tuesday, July 9 of this year. The banner headline: ``Campaign Finance Probe, 94 Who Aren't Talking.'' Count them, Mr. Speaker, 94. Ninety-four individuals have either fled or pled. That is to say they have either left the country or they have claimed their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. No controlling legal authority indeed. This cynicism, which betrays the rule of law from those who are supposed to be the stewards of our Constitution from those who are charged, Mr. Speaker, with being the chief magistrate or the chief executive or occupying a position of trust secondary only to that position of Chief Executive is absolutely cynical, hypocritical and just plain wrong. Mr. Speaker, the American people and this great Nation have been endowed with many blessings, but chief among them I would say this evening in addition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a good solid dose of common sense, and while there are those who try to fool most of the people most of the time, Mr. Speaker, in this they will not prevail. So even as this Chamber attempts to seek an open rule for a full, fair, complete, comprehensive honest debate on campaign finance reform, so too is it incumbent upon this body to exercise its legitimate rights of oversight. Because indeed, the ultimate irony, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, are charges that have appeared in the press in recent days involving the curious timing of transfers of missile defense technologies to the People's Republic of China; the end result, Mr. Speaker, being that over one dozen American cities are now targeted by Chinese nuclear missiles. This is a disturbing fact which should shake our freedom-loving people to their very core, because, Mr. Speaker, it transcends politics as usual and what Drew Pearson and later Jack Anderson called the Washington merry-go-round. Mr. Speaker, this is no game. This is no debating competition to win points. This goes to the heart of our national survival providing for the common defense, and I look forward to the day when a select committee will examine these, as Senator Shelby and others have done in the other body, to get to the bottom of this. Goodness knows, the headlines are as relevant today when the outlaw nation of North Korea attempts to deliver an ultimatum to the United States of America saying that, Mr. Speaker, yeah, we sold missiles to other countries. What are you going to do about it? Oh, and if you want us to stop, we want to extort some money from the American people. How shameful. But again, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we have seen that the burdens of deliberation and leadership and providing for the common defense rests uneasily upon the collective shoulders of this administration and their apologists in the press, and those who would enter this Chamber. How we need a clear, consistent policy which says extortion, either by foreign governments such as the North Koreans, or by other foreign governments attempting to subvert our political process, will not be tolerated by the United States of America, and this body fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities will stand and deliver in the clear light of day to get to the bottom of this, no matter how incredible the findings may become, no matter how shocking the truth may be. Let me state for the Record, Mr. Speaker, it is my fervent hope that there is nothing to these allegations, because they are almost unspeakable. And those who would greet these with cynicism or cat calls from the press do this Nation a disservice, for constitutionally it is our responsibility as the citizens of the United States to form a more perfect union and to provide for the common defense that we stand as sentinels at the gates of our constitutional republic, and that we get to the bottom of these disturbing malodorous, troubling allegations. Yes, we believe, Mr. Speaker, in that unique American notion of jurisprudence and fairness, that all are innocent until guilt is proven, and yet, Mr. Speaker, the headlines scream to us, and mercurial actions of timing compel us to say, what on earth has gone on here? What has transpired with those who are to be the custodians of our national defense? What has happened to the veracity of the act of raising your right hand and taking an oath, whether an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, or an oath before a jury to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Forbid it, Mr. Speaker, that in this Nation there are actually those who would suggest that those who perhaps have lied under oath should have the right to do so in civil litigation concerning personal conduct, and, Mr. Speaker, we wonder what transpires in terms of respect of the rule of law. And we wonder why we see troubles in the schools and in the streets and with the breakdown of the family unit. Mr. Speaker, our constitutional republic offers a representative form of government, and I would suggest that oftentimes this form of government is as a mirror to the citizenry. And if we allow the rule of law to fall into such disrespect, then history will show that on our heads will rest the shame for the unraveling of the rule of law and the pursuit of justice. We dare not allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker. We must answer these questions, and those who serve the executive branch, Mr. Speaker, would be well served to, quoting now, offer those answers sooner rather than later and recognize the fact that we are entitled to the full story. Campaign finance reform indeed, Mr. Speaker. The American people and those who would serve the American people in seats of government should obey existing laws.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me time, and I welcome the remarks of my friend from Oregon, to the extent that he stands opposed to user fees in the parks. I very much appreciate that. Knowing his reputation for more and more spending and more and more government control, I am very grateful that he joins with me and others to share that concern about fees. Now, it is very interesting that we take a look at this.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, is it proper for a Member to come to the well while one Member is addressing the House? He could also ask from back there.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Speaker. We will try to restore some order. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason why we see such vociferous protests is because, even in good conscience, my friends on the left cannot abide the fear and smear they are offering this morning. Now, some of my friends on the left wonder aloud, why this is brought to the floor? Let me attempt to inform them. You see, friends, and Mr. Speaker, it is because words mean something. When the President of the United States came and spoke from the podium behind me here, he offered a budgetary plan that really, in terms of oratory, was a wonderfully crafted speech with all the poll data and all of the driven rhetorical phrases to offer empathy and concern for the American people. But, you see, we are compelled to go beyond words to check the costs. And in the words of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Louisiana, our President promised everything but stronger shoelaces in that State of the Union message. So if he is going to promise, he has got to follow through with a price tag. Now my dear friend, the ranking member of the committee on which I sit, the Committee on Ways and Means, lamented what he claimed was an absence of hearings. I would direct his attention to an important date, not only in the Hayworth household, but also in this august body, February 25; not only our wedding anniversary at home, but the day we invited the administration in to defend the budget plan of the President. I recall distinctly the fact that many of our colleagues on the left joined with us. Indeed our colleagues on the left, Mr. Speaker, were most vociferous in objecting to the revenue raisers that would have to come with the President's budget. So I would remind my friend of February 25. It is just very interesting to take a look at the reality of what the President offered, almost $52 billion in new taxes.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, June 4, 1998, I missed roll call votes 193, 194, and 195 because I was attending former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater's funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time. This is not a game nor an athletic event, nor an exercise in partisan politics. My friend from Michigan who preceded me in the well wondered aloud why people do not trust us. There is a fundamental reason for the cynicism, Mr. Speaker. The distrust comes because when we are given an historic opportunity to rein in the growth of government, not to radically cut spending but to rein it in and reduce its size, sadly we hear the familiar litany of fear and smear and that the sky is falling in and that there will be those who will bear the brunt of these cuts. Mr. Speaker, I am serving my second term in this body, and one thing I know about a budget statement is that it is a road map, a statement of principles that sets a goal. As we all know, we go through the appropriations process to decide how money is to be spent. So all the talk about all the cuts and all the fear is just talk. Mr. Speaker, that is why a group who used to control this body no longer does. That is why the American people and my constituents in the 6th District say something very simple. For the last half century, they have been called on time and time again to sacrifice so that Washington could spend more. They tell me overwhelmingly and resoundingly, it is time for Washington to sacrifice so that working families can keep more. That is the essence of the debate tonight, to restore trust in this process and to restore fiscal sanity and to maintain spending at more than the rate of inflation, certainly not draconian cuts. Reasonableness and common sense demand that we support the rule and support the budgetary process to offer this sensible road map to improve and to build upon what was done before, not to be locked into stagnation or into a revisionist history that would say that tax increases are laudable and desirable, not to continue with the mistaken notion that if we only spend more and if we only tax more and if we only ask more of the American people, then that is the key to nirvana or success. No, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the minority should stand with us and improve upon that historic agreement by stepping forward to say, let us live within reasonable limits, for those reasonable limits offer true compassion that working families understand and offer that restoration of trust so vital across this country.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening having just returned from my home State and a gratifying service in remembrance of a true American patriot. Family, friends, and an entire Nation remembered Barry Goldwater today for his contributions to our country, for his outspoken conservative convictions, indeed for his conservative conscience. Mr. Speaker, we watched as the Goldwater family so eloquently remembered their brother, father, husband, grandfather, for Barry Goldwater was all of these things and yet more. For Arizonians, and indeed for many Americans, it seems that we remember Barry Goldwater as a member of our families giving voice to common sense, conservative ideals; willing at times to stand alone for the courage of his convictions; always foremost in his mind the ideals of freedom and the notions of liberty. Indeed, today in route to the auditorium on the campus of Arizona State University, there were protestors. One can imagine our friend Barry, with that outlook of his saying, ``You know, I don't agree with what these protestors have to say, but I would defend their right to say it.'' There are many personal recollections I have of the gentleman. One in particular is one of our final joint appearances together in front of the Phoenix 100 Rotary Club. He had his name place card there and he wrote three words on it: Russia, China, freedom. From those three words, Mr. Speaker, Barry Goldwater stood and delivered a 30-minute speech, all-encompassing, enlightening, about the state of geopolitics and the emerging freedoms in previously enslaved countries around the world. Barry Goldwater, an American original. He will be missed.