J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend, the distinguished minority whip from the State of California, and listened to her say vote ``no'' on this. Understand that a ``no'' vote means a lack of real reform where it counts: to allow people to pay penalties to the IRS in a reasonable and rational way; to allow those who have inadvertently made a mistake to be recused from the wrath of a government charging them inordinately for a mistake they made in good faith. And speaking of good faith, does it not make sense to have those who are involved in the political process report via the 527 situation there? Indeed, we see we have form 990 here. We already know that Members of Congress file a return form 1120POL which is required to be made public. And what is interesting, do you want to have bipartisanship? Even the general counsel of the Democratic National Committee admits these additional forms are unnecessary. Joe Sandler was recently quoted as saying, ``It just doesn't make sense to require campaigns and parties to file the forms as these organizations already provide detailed disclosure of their finances.'' Full disclosure? Absolutely. Redundant disclosure targeting those who are not even involved in the political process? Of course not. That is what this bill does. That is why we should support it, in the spirit of real reform and rational regulation, not bureaucratic overkill and other alternative consequences.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1712) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make minor adjustments to the boundary of the National Park of American Samoa to include certain portions of the islands of Ofu and Olosega within the park, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) going into more detail about this unique national park and exactly the treasures there, the opportunities there and things that are worth saving there within the confines of that park and why it is necessary to move forward in this legislation. I would join him in earnest bipartisan support for this because I think it is a scientific treasure for us and one that, as he has pointed out, with the medicinal value of plants and other things there, things that may hold the key to medical miracles and marvels yet to come. It is in that spirit that I would urge passage of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1712, introduced by our committee colleague, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make adjustments to the boundary of the national park of American Samoa to include certain portions of the islands of Ofu and Olosega within the park. Created in 1988, the national park of American Samoa preserves the tropical forests and archeological and cultural resources of American Samoa and its associated coral reefs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the national park of American Samoa preserves the only paleotropical rain forest in the United States. Mr. Speaker, expanding the park's boundaries to include land and water on the islands of Ofu and Olosega would protect additional coral communities that harbor great diversity of species, including the endangered hawsbill, preserve high concentrations of medicinal plans, and offer increased scuba diving and hiking opportunities, while at the same time preserve subsistence fishing, which is protected by the park's enabling legislation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, unlike all other units in our national park system, the National Park Service would lease, rather than purchase, the additional lands. Currently, the park service manages 9,000 acres of land and water on the islands of American Samoa through a 50-year lease. The additional lands and waters would also be leased by the park service. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1712, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Though this oft times is far from the roar of the grease paint and the smell of the crowd, this is another commonsense piece of legislation that we will move on today to reaffirm what is really, we call it bipartisan but basically nonpartisan, focusing on results for real people. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the dean of that State's delegation, put it quite succinctly, and I think very poignantly, when he said this legislation ultimately is about people and doing what is right; and it is in that spirit that I would commend this legislation to the full body. I congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) on a commonsense piece of legislation. I thank, once again, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his help on this and the help of all the members of the committee to expedite this process to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 706, sponsored by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain properties in the vicinity of the Elephant Butte Reservoir and the Caballo Reservoir in New Mexico, to transfer 403 recreational lots on the two reservoirs to private ownership. This transaction will be done at fair market value. Congress expects that the cost of the appraisal and surveys will be included as reimbursable costs to the purchaser. The manager's amendment clarifies several technical issues regarding the transfer of the properties. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the bill's sponsor, to offer further information on this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 706) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain properties in the vicinity of the Elephant Butte Reservoir and the Caballo Reservoir, New Mexico, as amended.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). For purposes of full disclosure, we should point out he is quite right. In fact, both the University of Arizona and Arizona State University have enjoyed great success with athletes from American Samoa, and for purposes of full disclosure, my alma mater, N.C. State, enjoyed the services of Niko Noga as middle guard. We appreciate the athletic prowess of our friends, but more than football, and obviously, we are focused on this possibility, but in spite of football you can see, really, we are looking at financial opportunities and economic possibilities for the Gila River Indian Community, much like the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community, also in my district, has enjoyed. So this legislation which we join together in a bipartisan fashion to champion today is all about economic opportunity. That is the real possibility we champion here today, even as we certainly tip our rhetorical cap to the great athletes of American Samoa who have performed so admirably in the State of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) this afternoon on the legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Gila River Indian community is currently a finalist in the new Arizona Cardinals Stadium site selection process. In connection with the possible development of the stadium on the Gila River Indian Community's reservation, the issue has arisen regarding the need for certainty with respect to resolution of contract disputes between the Gila River Indian Community and its business lease tenants. Many of the community's commercial contracts provide for arbitration of disputes. They further provide that the agreement to arbitrate and any arbitration decision may be enforced in either tribal or Federal court. Unfortunately, tenants and their lenders remain uncomfortable with the tribal court for a variety of reasons, and Federal courts would lack jurisdiction over contract disputes between private business entities and Indian tribes. In addition to the possible development of a stadium site, the community has developed the business part for high-end commercial uses. Since potential business partners see no viable means to enforce contract and land lease arbitration provisions, some very good potential tenants for the community's business park and other potential business partners have in the past decided to look elsewhere. Providing potential tenants with a Federal court remedy if the community refuses to arbitrate according to agreed-to lease provisions will cause quality developers to be more interested in leasing land in the business part because leases will be more financeable and marketable. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, also in my congressional district, has been successful in attracting commercial tenants to its various projects. One reason for its success is a unique Federal statute that Congress adopted in 1983. This statute basically provides that with respect to Salt River leases, Federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce agreements to arbitrate and any resulting arbitration decision. To a large extent, this statute has enabled Salt River leases to be financeable and marketable. Attorneys for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community report that there has never been any Federal court litigation filed pursuant to the statute since it was adopted nearly 20 years ago. Still the statute has provided assurance to tenants that, if necessary, there is an available forum other than tribal court to enforce Salt River's agreement to arbitrate lease disputes. Mr. Speaker, I would also mention that the introduction of this legislation does not in any way imply any preference for the selection of the Gila River Indian Community for the site of the Arizona Cardinals stadium. I feel that both the Gila River Indian Community site and the city of Mesa site will serve as excellent possibilities for construction of a new stadium. This legislation, however, will help ensure that the best possible business environment will exist if the stadium is to be built. Therefore, I would urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3985) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases'', approved August 9, 1955, to provide for binding arbitration clauses in leases and contracts related to reservation lands of the Gila River Indian Community.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I would thank my friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), and let me simply say that it is my hope that this example can be replicated to offer economic opportunity throughout the width and breadth of Indian country as we move in the days ahead. I would urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant but in absolute opposition to the legislation we debate here today. My friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), made the salient point, echoed by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode): Border security measures have been passed in previous legislation. The operative provision we are dealing with in this House at this time is amnesty. There is a fundamental disconnection, and I welcome my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) speaking of family values. Yes, everyone, regardless of political philosophy or partisan stripe, should champion family values. But then, should we also champion a disdain for the law? For here is what is transpiring today: This will reward illegal immigrants by granting them a benefit simply because they broke our laws and did not get caught, or more appropriately, the laws were not enforced. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is still a tremendous opportunity to work with the Republic of Mexico, to work with President Fox, to set up a reasonable, rational, accountable means to see who travels back and forth across our southern border. I daresay the same should apply to our neighbors to the north in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, we are a nation at war. In the midst of this conflict, at this time, in this place, why would we seek to dilute the laws of this Nation with respect to sovereignty? Mr. Speaker, lest the propagandists of the politically correct deliberately distort, let me make this clear: I welcome constructive dialogue. I welcome an opportunity for a full accounting of those who come here for economic opportunity. But I categorically reject the message this House will send today if we say, Forget about the law, come on in. You did not get caught. Congratulations. That is what this legislation is about, and that is why I oppose it. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, the $1,000 payment from each individual who comes here, every bit of that $1,000 payment from all the individuals should go to try to strengthen our borders. But Mr. Speaker, I would go further. Because we are a nation at war, this House and this government should seriously consider a moratorium on immigration until we put in place biometric devices so we know exactly who is coming into this country, whether from our southern border, our northern border, or via shipping containers, which we can only eyeball right now to the extent of 2 or 3 percent. If nothing else, the American people understand we are a Nation at war, and we dare not send messages to terrorist states that somehow we will dilute our enforcement. No, the contrary is true: We need to enforce the laws, and we need to work productively with the Republic of Mexico and others.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from Indiana who started with the point of gamesmanship. He spoke about three strikes and being out. A more complete exposition on the rules on baseball, four balls and one walks. Sadly, there are some in this town who just walked away. One definition of balance, to deprive the creation of job opportunity to strike balance for unemployment checks, that type of false compassion. Let me suggest, Madam Speaker, this is not a game. Those who will come to this well and cry crocodile tears as to their compassion for the unemployed are missing the boat. Our President made the point, true compassion is not an unemployment check, it is a paycheck from a job. When we turn our back on tax policy that creates economic opportunities and jobs, in the unrealistic and almost plaintive cry that somehow these are tax breaks for the rich, they fail to understand. Madam Speaker, there are many in Arizona and across America who grow cynical with the shenanigans in Washington and grow cynical with those who would put political career advancement in front of the needs of the very people they purport to champion. Indeed, there are those in the dominant media culture who almost cheerlead for that somewhat cockeyed view of how to help people. Good people can disagree, but once again we have taken a step today, more modest, to help those who need help, people we could have helped in October, in December, once again in December, and in February. At long last, we will rally. How sad it is that we do not get balance for economic opportunity at all, but we do take the steps necessary.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if any of the words that I offered rendered some offense to anyone in this Chamber, I apologize and ask unanimous consent that they be stricken from the Record.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for yielding me this time. This debate has been very interesting indeed. In fact, one of my friends from Texas came down, and, talking about Valentine's Day, offered his own rhetorical version of a Saint Valentine's Day massacre of the facts as they exist. You see, my friends, not once, not twice, but on three occasions now we have brought a package that the President requested. My friend from Kansas had the letter. The President asked not only for unemployment benefits but for health benefits. We cannot control what others on this Hill may do, nor is that our mission. Our responsibility is to produce today the best legislation we can that provides unemployment benefits, with a trigger, in case tough times continue, as the President stipulated, which expands health benefits to get the help to the people my friend from California spoke so eloquently about, and deals with the very people my very good friend from Texas talked about when he engaged in Enronomics. And, oh, by the way, with all the talk of campaign finances, perhaps it would do good for everyone to listen. From opensecrets.org, my good friend from Texas, who engaged in the rhetorical bloodbath about Enron, has taken in the past few cycles $4,850 from Enron. Those are the facts. And perhaps with his former profession, this is the undeniable evidence and the rest of the story. As our second President, John Adams said, facts are stubborn things. How ironic it is that those who engage in the rhetorical wailing and gnashing of teeth will do everything, throw up any obstruction, make any excuse, offer any argument, . . . to try to deny the unemployed help. Support the rule.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day this afternoon, we are faced with a fundamental question. Implicit in the criticism from our friends in the minority is the notion that there is only one course of action here and that is 13 weeks' unemployment and that is it. What we do here is improve the legislation, not only 13 weeks' unemployment but an economic trigger for those States that are having challenges. Moreover, provisions for health benefits. Recall our friend from Kansas brought a letter down a little while ago from the President asking not only for unemployment benefits but for health benefits. It is our role in the Congress of the United States to take legislation from the other body and improve it and we do so. And there is something else that is important. This bill also provides tax relief that fires the engines of economic opportunity. We passed it once. We have passed it a second time. On this third occasion, we give the other body the opportunity to join us in an effective plan to put people back to work and to provide for those who have lost their jobs. I ask my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased and proud to rise in strong support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). Mr. Chairman, it is a curious process here, because actually, through the amendment process, we are trying to restore first amendment rights. Think about what was done earlier today. It was bad enough that we established a new and, really, the ultimate loophole with this bill, allegedly taking effect or going to take effect the day after Election Day. Curious timing. Congratulations if it helps the fine folks in a partisan manner and allows them to take soft money, use it as collateral, turn it into hard money and presto-chango, the day after the election, pay off the loan. It is very crafty. But the American people see through it. Now, tonight we are in the ironic position of trying to restore first amendment rights piece by piece, group by group, to American citizens. To the very people who fought to defend the first amendment, we have to say tonight, could we possibly restore those rights? What should be beyond debate, beyond dispute is now suddenly put in contention. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, that is the very problem with the legislation, and that leads us to the irony of tonight where we seek to restore the first amendment. Now, you are going to hear under the misguided label of reform, that oh, no, no, there is no intention to in any way diminish the rights of Americans. Why, this notion of reform, the same misguided notion of reform that leads to a loophole, that is obscene, a loophole that takes something that is illegal today, makes it legal for a certain amount of time. This is what is labeled in this almost Orwellian legislation as reform. And now our friends tell us, oh, no, no, it is not their intent to in any way abridge the first amendment. It is not their intent to in any way stop free debate. Yet here we are tonight trying to thaw the chilling effect of abridging the first amendment, of abridging debate on the part of everyday Americans who, yes, have the right and the franchise to vote, but should not lose their voice in the process. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. It is sad to see this deliberative body put behind the looking glass.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas once again. My good friend from Florida proves the point. She has objections to what has gone on in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Why muzzle the veterans 60 days before the election? If they have concerns in a free society, let them bring them forth and make them clear. Do not abridge that. Oh, yes, I guess that is right, that they can advertise on the pages of the New York Times. I know that is of acute interest to at least a few in this Chamber. But why would we abridge their rights to freedom of speech? This is the essence of the battle of ideas in a free society, and what has gone on here is suppression of that debate, the very thing we should champion.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Mississippi for yielding me this time, and I thank my friend from Hawaii for her impassioned statement. You know, the whole purpose of the amendment process is to offer perfecting amendments, and indeed, if we followed the gentlewoman's logic, then we would allow noncitizens to vote. After all, should they not have a voice? Indeed, we have seen evidence of that in recent election campaigns, just as we saw in 1996, Bernard Schwartz, the leading contributor to the Democratic Party, and his Loral Missile Systems give the Communist Chinese guidance systems, and our Commander in Chief at that time did absolutely nothing. And that was an outrage. But we understand the pop psychology of the left: ``Oh, gee, it's just this horrible system. I didn't really mean it. It's just a horrible system.'' Now, my friends, here is your chance to change the system, to say lawful citizens can contribute. No more financiers of Red Pagoda Communist Chinese cigarettes, no more daughters of the head of the Chinese equivalent of the CIA who showed up in the Oval Office, no more sham corporations, Chinese shell corporations operated by the Red Army of China doing their dirty work through soft money to a Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. If you are serious about reform, stand up for national security, stand up for this perfecting amendment, but I know the Orwellian phrase will be, somehow this is a poison pill. Yes, I guess it is poisonous to disallow enemies of this state access to our political system. That is so bizarre. Shame on those who advocate this. Support this amendment. Stand up for America. Improve the system.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment because it offers us a straightforward choice: either you ban soft money or you do not. It was our second President, John Adams, who pointed out that facts are stubborn things. And on pages 78 and 79 of the Shays-Meehan bill, here it is: ``This act and the amendments made by this act shall take effect November 6, 2002.'' It is a fair question to ask: Why would we set up a new loophole to really have a type of legalized money laundering, hard money for soft money, all the little gyrations we can have? Certainly not for partisan advantage from my high-minded friends on the left or my well-meaning friends on the right. Certainly not for that. But yet, at the end of the day, how can you deny it? Facts are stubborn things. I do not question the intent, although it is provocative. But if it is good enough to ban soft money, why not do it now, and not wait until the day after election day? Do it now.