J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many of my constituents, but this morning I heard from an Arizonan who made an indelible impression and really brought a face to this debate, Mr. Speaker. His name is Bob Brockamp. Bob's grandfather, Stan McGill, at age 93 several years ago made a mistake in writing a check to the Internal Revenue Service. He meant to write a check, Mr. Speaker, for $700. He added an extra zero. $7,000. Other merchants and other entities with whom Mr. McGill had dealt understood that he was having problems. Indeed, he was in the stages of Alzheimer's disease, and they would say, ``Obviously there's been a mistake in his remittance, we're sending back a significant portion of that money.'' Just about every business he dealt with caught that mistake, but the IRS, when it received a check for $7,000, kept the money. Mr. McGill passed away. Bob's mom received basically a threat from the Internal Revenue Service. Even though her late father had paid $7,000 more than he owed, the Internal Revenue Service said to Mrs. Brockamp that his estate owed $1,000, and she should pay it if she wanted to keep her home and personal property. The Brockamps tried to fight this in court. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0, ``Gee, Brockamps, you might be right on this morally, but you're incorrect legally because the statute of limitations has run out.'' Mr. Speaker, one of the many great things we do in today's legislation is to change the statute of limitations, indeed to remove the statute of limitations or suspend that statute for those taxpayers who are mentally and/or physically disabled and unable to understand what they were doing. Sadly, it will not help Stan McGill, but it will help thousands of senior Americans across the country. Support this legislation. Let us make a move positively for America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair, my colleague from Iowa who is presiding over the debate this afternoon, and I thank my colleagues from the West under the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, my good friend from Oregon. I appreciate the spirit of the overall legislation. I rise in strong support of that, but take issue quite frankly with the amendments offered by my colleagues from Minnesota and Wisconsin. It is important to remember a couple of things when we talk about so- called public lands, Mr. Chairman. Public lands are not public parks. They are not public libraries. They are not public museums. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, a better definition is federally controlled land. Indeed, I would direct the attention of all my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to Gila County, AZ, where less than 5 percent of the land in that county is owned by any private entity. I listened with great interest to my colleague from California talk about the State of Arizona, the youngest of the 48 contiguous States, admitted to this Union on Valentine's Day, 1912. Something to remember is that one of the conditions for statehood was that Arizona had to surrender vast amounts of its territorial lands to the Federal Government as a condition for statehood. When we talk about the territorial lands, the lands surrendered to the Federal Government, we are talking about the most choice land. Indeed, if I had a dispute with my colleague on the other side from California, as he tried to lump together Arizona and other States in dealing with this and the appeal I would make to my colleague from Wisconsin, is that we are not talking about the same land. We are not saying that it is the same property, even if it is property adjacent, because the Federal Government had the right to select the acreage that it took from the territory that became the State. And it changed the whole situation there. So indeed my colleague from Oregon is quite correct. When the Federal Government was given the pick of the land, there is a fundamental difference in that property. But I would also appeal to those in think tanks who love to talk about socialist cowboys or to those who would claim that somehow these are evil subsidies or corporate welfare, remember the history, Mr. Chairman. Do you not believe that if the ranchers of the West had the opportunity to buy private property as exists east of the Mississippi River, that they would gladly surrender the current situation for a portion of land? Mr. Chairman, knowing that sadly sometimes policy debates are displaced by political consideration and a deliberate misunderstanding of what I am saying, let me be very clear on this point. I am not asking that all federally controlled land be put up for sale. I am not saying that. But I am saying that with the vast amount of land owned by the Federal Government, you better believe that ranchers and farmers would love to have the opportunity to have that land in private ownership. And we are forced into this situation because of the history of our Nation, because of the fact that the Federal Government insisted in territories like Arizona that became States that a majority of that land, or a significant portion of that land, be under the control of the Federal Government. That brings us here to this debate today. That is why we need to reject the proposed amendments and embrace the overall legislation brought to the floor by my colleague from Oregon, because we have worked to fashion a reasonable compromise. Indeed, the gentlewoman from Idaho had it right when not everything in the legislation is exactly to the liking of our constituents. But we have hammered out in the spirit of compromise to go the second mile with those east of the Mississippi River who are suburbanites, with those who believe that they can capture the issue and so misframe it as to perpetuate the myth that those who make their livings off the land are not good stewards of the land. Quite the contrary is true, Mr. Chairman. And because of conditions that exist today, because of the presence of the Federal Government, because of the history of the settlement of the West and the long and rocky road to statehood for many of the territories west of the Mississippi River, we are brought to this situation here today. For all those who talk about subsidies, for all those who call this a form of corporate welfare, Mr. Chairman, they are dead wrong. Support the underlying legislation. Reject the proposed amendments.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, to follow the comments of my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the revelations are as real as the headlines in today's Washington Times: ``China Aided Iran Chemical Arms.'' And below that, a bolder headline: ``Clinton-Jiang Reach Nuclear Accord.'' Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have this straight. The White House agrees to a transfer of nuclear technology to the Communist Chinese in exchange for a written promise that the Chinese will not share that technology with Iran. We are not talking neckties or nectarines or notebooks. We are not talking conventional trade here. We are talking nuclear technology. We are going to give that to Communist China? Monte Hall would not even make a deal like that on his old game show. There must be a sweetener here, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Chinese Government is not going to try to find Ya Lin Charlie Trie.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the committee, for yielding time to me, and for this opportunity to come to the well and engage in honest dialogue and debate concerning the future of our children. I listened with great interest to my colleague, the gentleman from New York, the distinguished ranking member, and listened also as he outlined literally the horrors that confront American families today in so many neighborhoods, including the neighborhood and the community that my colleague from New York represents. What we have here today, Mr. Speaker, is a historic opportunity to help those families, to help those parents seize control of the money they earn to direct an education in the way they see fit, whether it is choosing a school that the parents and family and others believe is best suited for the education of that child, or seeking outside help, remedial tutoring or extra-educational aid, such as textbooks or computers; to have a savings account, a tax-free interest-bearing account to put the control back in the hands of American parents. For those people should literally hold the destiny of their children in their hands, and this affords those parents the chance. Mr. Speaker, we have made great strides in allowing these educational accounts for college-bound students. Why, then, would we deprive children from kindergarten through the 12th grade of the same opportunity? Mr. Speaker, I would point out a special provision of this bill that I believe is vitally important, an ability for parents of children with special needs to look beyond the chronological age to continue to have money in these accounts to help those children. Mr. Speaker, one of my first cousins has Downs syndrome. My uncle and aunt were blessed that they lived in a community with a school district with the ability to help educate children with special needs. But the challenge is for parents of children with special needs that, in our situation today, quite literally many of those parents are at the mercy of the local school districts in terms of quality of education. Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this bill today we do not leave any parents, but especially those parents of children with special needs, literally at the mercy of the accident of geography, and where they happen to live in a school district. What we have, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, and I urge its passage and the creation of these special savings accounts, is the chance to give families the opportunity to make the choices to help benefit their children. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and let me simply, gently correct the gentleman. The proposed legislation we will bring to the floor of the House will help every American family by empowering every parent with the choice of how best to educate their child, whether in public schools or in an alternative setting. Also, the bill we will bring to the House with a tax-free, interest- bearing account will allow those parents of children with special needs to have the ability to find a way to educate their children and, moreover, there will be no time limit on those children with special needs because we understand full well the challenges they will face, the special needs they have. Mr. Speaker, what this bill does instead is allow parents the dignity to decide how best to educate their children, free from the Washington bureaucrats and the notion of centralized planning. It is as elementary as ABC. Mr. Speaker, for an effective education, parents need to be in control.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me join the chorus of praise for our colleague from Wisconsin because we are moving actually beyond that notion where, yes, we realize we want to balance the budget, but it should not be a one- time curiosity. Indeed, now with responsible fiscal practices that allow people to hang on to more of their own money, with the growth we have seen in terms of jobs and economic opportunity, it now appears that we may really turn the corner, and as our colleague from Wisconsin has pointed out, we may be moving into an era of surplus and yet there is another public charge, if you will. There is another requirement of those of us who serve here for future generations and that, of course, is to pay down the debt. So we really have a one-two punch. I am pleased that our colleague from Wisconsin has offered a National Debt Repayment Act as well where we take a look at codifying or putting into law a fairly significant observation that with those surpluses, one-third for tax relief, one-third for debt retirement, and one-third for Social Security to maintain that program so vital to our retirees. I think there are a lot of things that we are working on in this Congress, building off the solid success of the first tax cuts in some 16 years, also balancing this budget, and then moving forward to define how best to serve as custodians of our children's future by working to pay down and eventually pay off this burdensome debt.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I just want to say, I thank those in the Sixth District of Arizona and those nationwide who join in this endeavor, in this crusade to make our tax laws fairer, to work to restore basic constitutional dignity and to restore fiscal sanity to this Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Amen.

Mr. HAYWORTH. My good friend from Georgia has a tangible example.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Georgia and Pennsylvania, and listened with great interest to some of their discussion here tonight because, Mr. Speaker, it mirrors, it echoes what I have heard in the sixth district of Arizona. Now, Mr. Speaker, just to offer some background as to the nature of the sixth district in Arizona, in square mileage it is almost the size of the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] my good friend, calls home. I heard a lot of what my colleagues heard back home during town hall meetings; an almost universal urge on the part of those gathered to move to sunset the current Tax Code by a date certain. As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] has legislation in that regard, as does the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent]. But coming up tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, in the Committee on Ways and Means, and later this week, we will move to actually mark up, and let us move out of legislative parlance to discuss this for those who join us outside this Chamber via television, to sit down and examine a piece of legislation to make sure the wording is correct, perhaps to offer an amendment here or there, to deal with accountability of the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues pointed out earlier, it certainly it was a curious spectacle to see government employees, their identities shielded, their faces kept from the cameras, their voices electronically altered, as they offered example after example of an agency that sadly has run roughshod over the rights of many Americans. Indeed, one of the most important provisions we will discuss this week in the IRS accountability legislation that I am pleased to cosponsor with my colleague and fellow Ways and Means member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], one of the most important provisions that will emanate from that legislation is something that Americans take for granted. For, Mr. Speaker, when we are hauled into a court of law on criminal charges, I know my colleague from Pennsylvania not only has the initials J.D., but he is in fact a juris doctor, he is an attorney. The presumption when we are hauled into court and charged with some criminal activity, if any American is placed in that situation, the burden of proof rests with the State. The presumption of innocence belongs to the accused citizen. And yet, sadly in terms of tax adjudication, that presumption of innocence is not there for the individual. Essentially in tax adjudication, an American citizen, a taxpayer, has to go in and prove his innocence. The government assumes the taxpayer's guilt.

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, indeed, to the best of my recollection, and I must confess, Mr. Speaker and to my colleagues here, I do not have a detailed history at my fingertips. It is my understanding, however, that as things changed in our society, as the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, as there was an allowance of direct taxation of income, sadly, a lot of perversions have grown out of that. And I use that word purposefully, because these things run counter to our well-established constitutional rights that our Founders brought us.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is correct.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague asked the question, I can simply point out that is one of many questions that members of the committee have had for those involved in the Internal Revenue Service and for those who ostensibly oversee the Internal Revenue in the Department of Treasury. But as my colleague points out, whether it is as relevant as today's headlines or historical incidents in the past, for example, I would commend to the attention of my colleagues and those who join us tonight a very fine book by the political author and columnist Chris Matthews, entitled ``Kennedy and Nixon.'' Very interesting. And these are the words and the observations and the scholarship of Chris Matthews. I am not here to hurl partisan brickbats, but as a historical fact or incident, Mr. Matthews points out that the audits were used quite willingly to the defeated candidate, Mr. Nixon, in the early years of the New Frontier. Again, I am quoting Mr. Matthews and his book, ``Kennedy and Nixon.'' I am not making that assertion. We understand, certainly, President Kennedy is not here to answer for that. But there have been numerous examples. And then again for the not so rich and famous an example in my district. One of my colleagues, one of my coworkers, had a situation where his father was a small businessman, a pharmacist. An Internal Revenue agent came in. In frustration, the gentleman made a comment that probably we could all agree was ill-advised and intemperate. He did not threaten any violence against the government employee, but it was a comment that was fraught with frustration. However, after that, the gentleman was audited, I believe, for the next 5 to 7 years, every year.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think that is absolutely necessary. We manifested in perhaps another fashion what is key on this legislation that will be offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] in a bipartisan manner is to say that there needs to be effective oversight of the Internal Revenue Service not only from the constitutional purview of those of us in the Congress, but also immediate oversight. And right now the Internal Revenue Service is the 800-pound gorilla, if you will, of the Treasury Department, because so many of the resources allocated for Treasury end up in the Treasury of the IRS. So much of the Treasury budget is focused there that sometimes it is the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. What the legislation calls for is an independent advisory oversight council, not based on political appointees, but again to remove some of the suspicion, some of the coincidence of audits, some of the questions that I think Americans of all political persuasions have to depoliticize that agency. Of course, this is but a first step. You spoke earlier of what should transpire in the years to come as we have a grand debate about tax reform in general, whether it is a flat tax, a national retail sales tax or some other notion, it is such an important debate to have that we take the steps now to rein in the IRS, but certainly as we confront a new century, it is certainly time to reexamine the 16th amendment, certainly time to reexamine the tax tables and the Tax Code and some of the arcane procedures that surround them. We have a very big job. The challenge for us, and I think this is a marked difference, quite candidly, in political discourse and in working within our constitutional Republic, that instead of walling off this debate and calling a few people in, a few so-called experts in to give testimony behind closed doors, this is something that is so far- reaching to every American family, to every American citizen that quite literally every American needs to weigh in, needs to offer their thoughts and opinions. That is why I am so gratified, Mr. Speaker, that two of our colleagues, our party leader here in the Congress, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], and our good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], have taken to American cities to debate the different alternatives that are there because the stakes are high and the implications are many for our Nation as we approach the next century.

Mr. HAYWORTH. In fact, just to point out one of the ideas, this engenders a lot of interest and a lot of initiative. Indeed, one of our constituents in Carefree, Arizona, put together a proposal. He attended a town hall meeting in Carefree and two nights later was back at another town hall in Fountain Hills, Arizona, where he had put together his own plan that, indeed, I will take and certainly take into the Committee on Ways and Means and offer to the Joint Committee on Taxation and take a look at with my staff, because that is the essence of our constitutional Republic, different opinions, different notions. In fact, the gentleman, as he brought the plan down, I could not help but say, imagine if it is this skill, and someone on the front lines who has been in business, has not been wrapped up in electioneering, has not been part of bureaucratic intrigue, but simply seeks a solution, how refreshing it would be? And one other constituent at the meeting said, there may be a town hall marker, there may be a historical marker placed outside this room saying, here is where the solution was found. That type of participation we need. One cannot help but note the stark contrast to before we arrived in Washington when those in the administration dealing with health care wanted to have almost super secret meetings and then unveil a plan from soup to nuts that ostensibly was going to help the American people. What a great contrast to have the sunshine come in, to have the ingenuity, the ambition, the ideas of the American people come to us as their duly elected representatives and then move forward to have the debate. This can be a great moment for our country.

Mr. HAYWORTH. They pay quite a few.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague for pointing out the Arizona experience because certainly in this short time frame, this decade of the 1990's, we have seen a philosophy in Arizona that, indeed, I believe would work well throughout the country and it is born of this notion, we have talked about it before, Mr. Speaker. It is the notion of many of us who came here to change the way Washington works, to first of all, identify the problem in this fashion. When we are talking about tax funds, money taxed from the American people, this money does not belong to the Government. It is money that belongs to the people. Quite simply, whether at the State, county or more fittingly here for this Chamber at the Federal level, the notion should be that the American people work hard to create their wealth. They worked hard for the money they earned. Therefore, they ought to hang on to more of it and send less of it to the Government and we have been able to do that and make great strides in the State of Arizona and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I was riding out to catch the airplane very early this morning Arizona time to get back here prior to votes after 5 eastern time, we heard some of the new unemployment figures. And unemployment is down in metropolitan Maricopa County to points almost minuscule. To be sure there are other problems, other places across the width and breath of the Sixth District, but it shows what can happen when people are allowed to hang on to more of their own money. When they have it to save, spend and invest as they see fit and that can really be an answer because it actually, with economic growth, would create more revenue for the government.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me the time. It is with great interest that I listen to the minority whip as we talk about what our priorities should be as those who are duly elected representatives of the citizens of the United States. In fact, Madam Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join me in this realization, that those who aspire to public office should obey existing law. And unfortunately, the scenario that is played out here, listening to the whip, my friend from Michigan, listening to my colleague from California, is one akin to a speeder pulled over by a traffic cop. Now, I know many policemen who patrol the highways and byways hear all sorts of excuses. But never have I heard them relate to me that when they pull over a speeder, the speeder says to the officer, well, you may have a posted speed limit of 55 or 65, but that is just not adequate. That law should be changed. That law should now be 95 miles an hour. And sadly what is going on in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, and going on, I regret to say, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is a massive effort to misdirect the attention of the American people. Campaign finance reform, indeed, that is a subject that should be discussed. But not to sacrifice, indeed, some, Madam Speaker, might use the word ``obstruct,'' not to sacrifice the legitimate priorities of funding our Coast Guard, of maintaining the integrity of our borders and indeed to maintain the integrity of our electoral process, Madam Speaker. This should be the framework under which we operate, obedience to existing statute. Sadly, Madam Speaker, what this is about, I regret to say, is the presence of some in the White House. And here we see the President and First Lady in this picture with one Johnny Chung who seems to be unavailable to come before committees in this House and in the other body and freely explain to the American people his role in the 1996 campaign. So let me say candidly, Madam Speaker, to my friends on the other side, to all of my colleagues in this Chamber and indeed to the citizens of the United States, let us first exercise our legitimate oversight to find out exactly what went on in 1996, to find out exactly what went on within the executive branch, to find out when this gentleman is so pleased to be standing with the first couple, to get to the bottom of these very disturbing questions. If we are to prioritize, it would seem to me that we would start with the numerous concerns, suspicions and allegations sadly confronting this administration. Madam Speaker, there are many lessons to be learned from history. I lament the fact that some of my colleagues have drawn the wrong conclusions from what transpired nearly a quarter century ago. Because in that era there were those who talked of stonewalling, there were those who talked of the absurdity of the limited modified hangout. And in stark contrast, quite frankly, to the behavior we see displayed today from Members of the minority, two people from my State had the guts and the gumption to go to the White House in 1974 and request that President Richard Nixon resign. Oh, for a true spirit of bipartisanship, not borne out of temporary convenience but of constitutional conviction. This is not a game. Serious questions remain. Yes, we should take a look at campaign finance reform from stem to stern, but first we must find out who violated, who is under suspicion of violating the rules that now apply in everyday law. And, moreover, Madam Speaker, we should not try to turn this question of a legitimate security question to our national boundaries, to a branch of our service, to funding of the Coast Guard for the preening and posing of partisanship in the hopes that those allied with those who would obfuscate and try to run away from the problem might find temporary advantage. Let us adopt the rule.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the reminiscences of the distinguished minority whip as to his athletic career, a great athletic career that continues even today, as we have seen him on the baseball diamond and on the basketball court. Let me also invite the minority whip, Madam Speaker, and others on that side of the aisle, to join with me, with my own campaign finance reform bill, the nickname is ERIC, election reform in campaigns, and let them also, Madam Speaker, join with me to reaffirm the basic first amendment rights of members of voluntary associations, trade associations, and union associations not to have their dues taken from them against their will to be used for political causes in campaigns with which those members may not agree. I would hope that we would move forward in that debate. But for now, and the question before this House now, we dare not turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to the funding requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard and the legitimate national security concerns therein. And, Madam Speaker, on the subject of national security concerns, it entirely proves my point that we should assess just exactly what has transpired when foreign nationals, indeed with suspected representatives of foreign governments coming to peddle their influence in Washington and sadly in the last cycle allegedly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh yes, let the committees, Madam Speaker, conduct their oversight. Let the chips fall where they may. Let us end the obfuscation and what sadly has become the misdirection. Let us put our priorities in order. Campaign finance? Sure. But legitimate constitutional congressional oversight first for very disturbing questions of national security and alleged improprieties that cannot be erased no matter how fond the athletic reminiscences.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for joining us here tonight, and the American people. What my friend from Indiana has pointed out from newspapers, both liberal and conservative, is tantamount to a litany of shame. What is even more compelling and even more difficult are some reports we hear that perhaps White House attorneys met with the Attorney General on Wednesday night, perhaps those people even had knowledge of those tapes and they did not share that knowledge with the Attorney General. Very, very disturbing and serious questions need to be answered. I would simply point out to those who would wrap themselves in that rather infamous excuse of no controlling legal authority that yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a controlling legal authority. It is called the Constitution of the United States, which gives this body and the other body in the legislative branch oversight ability to check on allegations and to deal with these growing concerns, and it is the role of the people's House and the other body here in the Capitol to exercise that oversight, because our constitutional Republic and those who live in it can demand nothing less.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to make the point, and I thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding, because he makes the point that I can recall many of the arguments as I was coming through school, as my colleague from Indiana was, in the wake of the Watergate scandal. And I do wish that many on the other side of the aisle would heed the words of the late Democratic Senator from North Carolina, Sam J. Ervin, who said in response to those types of protestations, well, does that make it right? Are we to ignore it in this situation because it may have gone on before? That is the type of selective analysis that is akin to saying that if a traffic cop pulls me over and I try to say, ``Well, everyone else is speeding,'' is the traffic cop simply supposed to say ``Well, you are right, so I will let you go on your merry way.'' No, of course not. By definition, it is going to be selective, but how I wish that others would speak up and remember those words of Senator Ervin: Just because it happened before and perhaps was not prosecuted or investigated, does that dismiss the current problem? Of course it does not. Again, it brings us no joy to do this, but it is a sad tale of woe that goes to the very fabric of our constitutional republic, and to ignore these problems, these discrepancies, these misdeeds would be to do our country a grave disservice.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And even more astounding, as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] will acknowledge, even more astounding was the explanation that we heard from the Vice President of the United States, who stood before a gathering of the press and said that he was proud of his actions but, from that day forward, he would not repeat them. And he developed for that press conference one of the most infamous phrases that I believe has been hoisted upon the American people, because the Vice President of the United States, the man who, if circumstance and tragedy struck, would be elevated to this Nation's highest office, the Vice President of the United States said, ``There is no controlling legal authority that pertains to my conduct.'' Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, and those who join us through the miracle of television, coast to coast and around the world, ponder those words, because words mean something. For the Vice President of the United States to presume and to protest that there is no controlling legal authority can only lead us to conclude, sadly, that the Vice President of the United States believes himself to be above the law, believes his conduct, which is and has been and is suspected of being illegal in this regard, somehow should result in no sanction, somehow should result in no punishment, but instead should be blithely dismissed as just one of those things, because as my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], to paraphrase so many who work in the fourth estate here in Washington in the news rooms here so eager to explain things, so eager to change the agenda for our Nation, as they try to say, ``Everybody does it.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on the record tonight with my colleagues here to protest that notion; to say most certainly, not everyone does it. Indeed, when we came to this Chamber, when we started to help change the way Washington works, one of the first things we were taught was that these offices are government offices provided by the taxpayers, belonging to the taxpayers and our constituents; they are not to be used in any way, shape, fashion or form, for fund- raising. This is an elemental lesson in the education of a public servant in this role in the people's House, in the other Chamber, and dare I say at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. This is one of the first things we are told and we are taught, and sadly, there are some who have ignored the lesson, some who would presume that they are above the law because they claim there is no controlling legal authority. How tragic, how shameful that utterance truly is.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is the audio that is missing, according to the testimony of a professor from Johns Hopkins University. What is also fascinating, and my colleagues have distinguished themselves, I believe, in these special orders where they have helped to inform the American people, but I want to call on my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], for some free legal advice here in the people's House, and it has to do with some other things we have heard now dealing with these issues, because there are some at the White House, some attorneys there, who tell us that if a law is an old law, it should not count any longer. I refer specifically to the Pindleton Act. Let me ask my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], has he ever seen a situation where a cogent, logical defense is, a law is old, therefore, it should not be observed?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]. And I am very pleased that we are joined by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], because he has distinguished himself in the legal profession as he distinguishes his work here in this body. I would simply offer one different take on one aspect, because I know my colleague is laughing to keep from crying, because none of this should bring us joy. It is one thing to have political differences with folks and to have philosophical discussions. In a free society, we champion that. The problem now is a pattern, as my colleague said tongue in cheek, that is really not coincidence, that seems to be a habitual pattern of lawbreaking. I thought it was very important when he mentioned the videotapes and how they had obviously been edited and when my colleague mentioned the lone, soundless tape. Let me read today from the Omaha World Herald on this point. Quoting now the Omaha World Herald, ``The lone, soundless tape in Clinton's collection is one of the potentially more important videotapes made. It shows DNC fund-raiser John Huang introducing the President at a coffee on June 18, 1996. A Johns Hopkins University professor has testified that Huang said, `Elections cost money, lots and lots of money. And I am sure that every person in this room will want to support the re- election of President Clinton.' ''