J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Following the tradition of our friend from Texas, I gladly yield him some time to visit on these issues.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that. I think again it typifies much of what we have heard about, in the midst of this so-called political season where there are honest disagreements.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion as we can with the time allocated. Let me yield more time to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend. I think this is important, because knowing my friend from Texas and his fiscal conservatism, it simply makes more sense to make the money work harder. You do not do that when you artificially inflate prices for the cost of construction, or, worse still, when you take the authority for school construction away from local school boards and transfer that authority here to Washington. In fact, I yield to my friend from Michigan, who has great oversight of this in his role in the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I thank my friend from Texas for his perspective. I think it is important to understand that there is far more that may unite us than divide us; and rather than pointing the finger of blame, I think it is important, after we await the verdict of the voters on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, if we should be fortunate enough to return to this institution, we certainly welcome our friend from Texas and other like-minded friends on that side of the aisle to join us in a governing coalition to work with the next President of the United States, who could very well be the Governor of my friend's home State, to work to unify and put people before politics and to deal with these real questions. I do appreciate the fact that he offers a voice of fiscal conservatism. We may not see eye to eye always on tax relief or a variety of other issues; but by the by, I think there is a great deal of agreement, and I do look forward to that opportunity. I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, just to reiterate what has been agreed to, and I think it is important for those of us who hail from Arizona, Texas, other border States, what we have agreed to is a family unification process, because we do not want to see families separated, but by the same token, when it comes to this notion of blanket amnesty, we have a problem when we are dealing with ignoring what is already illegal. And that is where the sticking point comes, and while we have had a reasonable approach, bipartisan, to deal with family unification, I would just make that key distinction as we are dealing with the amnesty question.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, if my friend from Georgia will yield, that remains the question, because, the fact is, we are not getting a clear and compelling signal from the White House or from our friends on the left. You see, we worked together to achieve a consensus in many areas, especially on the bill we passed just last week, which offered not only tax relief, but Medicare refinement and improvement to strengthen Medicare payments to hospitals and home health care facilities and nursing homes, but also something the President embraced when he came to Phoenix, Arizona, the so-called ``new markets initiative.'' Community empowerment. So we had a very broad bipartisan piece of legislation there, and yet we hear now that the President says he intends to veto the legislation. So, sadly, the answer to the question that my friend from Georgia poses tonight has no quantifiable answer.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, there is a simple question we confront tonight as we have moved in this common sense Congress to reach compromise and consensus in a bipartisan fashion. That is, after agreeing to many provisions on both sides of the aisle, with what some would call reasonable and others would call overly generous spending packages, Mr. Speaker, we are facing this question: How much is enough? I would turn to the legislation we passed at midweek last week in this 106th Congress, reasonable plans that offered tax relief, but more importantly, ordered a Medicare refinement and restoration plan needed for our hospitals, needed for our home health care, needed for our nursing homes, and other provisions actually requested by the President of the United States who came to Arizona to embrace a new markets initiative, part and parcel of the bill we passed last week, and yet sadly so many people on the other side voted against it. Mr. Speaker, how much is enough?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate tonight, and mindful of the reality of where we stand on the calendar, Mr. Speaker, here we are again with, sadly, my friends on the left apparently attempting to put politics before people. Perhaps it is not intentional, a misunderstanding, a misquoting of figures. Believe it or not, despite the discord and debate, I do hear some common themes. I do hear friends on both sides of the aisle saying that health plans are crucial for seniors. Indeed, my friends on the left seem to be swearing by these HMO-Medicare+Choice programs, even as they swear at them. So if we agree that these programs are important, why do we not work now to save them? That is what this House did last week, Mr. Speaker, with the legislation we passed, with the majority of funds going to hospitals. Of special concern to me are rural hospitals across the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, based on the fact that people knew we were working on this, the gentleman from the Fifth District of Arizona and I, working with our colleagues in the Senate, actually got a decision reversed on a health care provider preparing to leave Pima County. Now, when we try to set arbitrary guidelines here, what we are doing is padlocking the insurance provisions. What we are doing is trying to stack the deck, and, in the process, kill the very thing we want to see happen. Mr. Speaker, I would implore those on the left to put people before politics. We have a solution here and now that can work, that can keep insurance programs in place for seniors who have come to depend on those programs. That is why we must defeat this motion to instruct conferees and move forward with the legislation we passed.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I have listened with great interest and with, sadly, some misgivings to the tone of this debate. Let me start with a point of agreement. My friend from North Carolina and my neighbor from New Mexico said this is not a game. They are exactly right. How sad it is, then, that such partisan invective is brought into this debate. As the father of two children in the Cave Creek Unified School District in Arizona, I have a firsthand knowledge of the challenges teachers face in the classroom, of the special challenges of growth in that school district, of the bond issue that will be on the ballot in a few short days. I heard the litany of challenges outlined on this side. I would not take issue with the reality of the need that is there. But I am compelled to point out the fact to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 days ago we empowered local districts with over $16 billion to deal with a variety of projects. My friend from Pennsylvania, under his leadership, we have moved for the full Federal component of funding for children with special needs, a promise made nearly a quarter century ago that was left unfulfilled. There reaches a point, my colleagues, when we must put people before politics. Join with us in the broad goals of empowering local districts, parents in the homes, teachers in the classroom, leaders in the communities, and give them the latitude they need. Sadly, I must ask my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct and deal with the reality and come together in an agreement that is good for every child in this country.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, as we come together on this floor, not to engage in the great debates and the differences that ofttimes define us, but to speak with a united voice in honor of our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), who has decided, after three decades of meritorious service, to leave our midst for private life, although I have a feeling that he may be summoned to other duties in future days. Mention was made earlier of Bill's lovely bride Sharon and the menagerie of animals they keep in the Archer household. I would note with some pride, Mr. Speaker, that the Archer family cat is from the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, having been picked up there by one of the Archer children during their time at Northern Arizona University. So I feel a kinship with the critters in the Archer household. And from time to time being described as one of the more animalistic members of the Committee on Ways and Means when tempers flare, when the debate is joined, I must say, Mr. Speaker, I look with great respect on the unique ability of Bill Archer to disagree without being disagreeable. That is a remarkable gift. Because time and again when we come to this well or when we meet in full committee, there are honest disagreements and policy differences passionately held. The true mark of service and leadership for our chairman, Mr. Speaker, is his remarkable ability to deal in an affable, evenhanded fashion with every Member of the Committee, with every issue that may be contentious in nature, with every disagreement in such an agreeable fashion. It is a gift that escapes many of us, truth be told. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) the man leaves a legacy of kindness and civility, of unpretentiousness in a city where egos can clash, where, Mr. Speaker, if truth be told, most everyone who runs for public office and the euphemism of the new century has a healthy dose of self-esteem. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) stands as a modest man of incredible abilities. The public policy side of the ledger demonstrates this and has been enumerated by speakers who have preceded me, including my good friend from New York. Welfare reform can be looked upon as a bipartisan accomplishment driven by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Mean, the first meaningful tax relief in almost a decade and a half under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and at times, even as recently as yesterday, when a sense of principle motivates him, there is no debate. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) disagreed with many of us yesterday and cast a vote based on his firm and unwavering ideals. Our other friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) mentioned times ``behind closed doors.'' And while those phrases are used as figures of speech, ``in the dark of night,'' ``behind closed doors,'' the fact is that we must sit down from time to time away from the roar of the grease paint, the smell of the crowd, and try to deal with policy. And I do not believe I am violating any confidences. I believe, Mr. Speaker, were the chairman here today he would freely admit to all, as he did to us privately, his test for how to do this job in the people's House, a test that may have in fact been magnified given the role he played as chairman of arguably the most powerful legislative committee in the greatest Constitution republic this world has seen. He said quite simply it is this, I made a promise to myself that, with every vote I would take, I would be able to sleep at night and I would remain true to my convictions. So said the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer). His actions have never wavered from that simple test. And as recently as yesterday, at a time of contentiousness again, he held firm. We may not agree on every issue, but we can all agree, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of our chairman are indeed special. Many others join us to share their reminiscences. I would simply say this again to reiterate. I am not at all certain that our chairman is headed for retirement. I think he is so valuable in so many different ways that there are those who may follow us into Government service who may cast a keen eye toward his talents. But for now in this role, as we prepare to conclude the 106th Congress, we do not say farewell, we simply say, Mr. Chairman, we will try to follow your example and we expect to see you again in other endeavors of public service. Because your wisdom, your unpretentiousness, your good common sense, and your grace under pressure are things that we cannot leave simply to retirement.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2000 with the entire Arizona House delegation. This is landmark legislation which, as stated in the delegation's introductory statement, will resolve long-standing issues pertaining to the repayment obligations of the state of Arizona for the construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). In addition, it will address allocation of remaining CAP water to satisfy the water rights claims of a number of Arizona tribes, including the Gila River Indian Community and the Tohono O'odham Nation. This is an issue that is important to the state of Arizona, as evidenced by the delegation's full support. In fact, the principal purpose of introducing this legislation at this time is to encourage all parties involved to expeditiously resolve the few remaining issues of the agreement, and to show the Arizona delegation's full commitment to the issue. We fervently hope that all the parties will work in the coming months to wrap up the last remanining details of the settlement. Some of these issues also reflect a delicate balance. For example, the issue of lands acquired by the tribes after the settlement date and the procedures with which the tribes bring these lands into ``trust'' is an issue that is still being negotiated. It is my understanding that although the tribes have been working closely with the other parties, and that a tremendous amount of work has already been accomplished, the final details have yet to be agreed upon. All of Indian Country will be looking to this provision because it could very well affect all future Native American water and land dispute settlements. Another critical component of the bill is the use of the settlement funds. It is important that we come to an agreement with the affected Arizona tribes on how best to utilize the funds associated with the settlement. I know that the Gila River Indian Community has worked hard to come to a consensus on this issue, and I hope we will be able to put this issue to rest prior to the start of the 107th Congress. These are important and difficult issues that still need to be finalized, but I am extremely encouraged that all the parties are so close to an agreement. I commend all the parties involved not only for their perseverance, but more importantly, their willingness to negotiate their differences for the benefit of all Arizonans. Along with this intoductory statement, I am also including a statement from the Arizona congressional delegation in support of this legislation and a letter from Governor Hull expressing her support for this bill. I am happy to sponsor this bill and look forward to enacting legislation on this issue early in the 107th Congress. STATEMENT OF THE ARIZONA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION REGARDING THE ARIZONA

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we should rejoice in our constitutional republic when there are differences of opinion. And I welcome the comments from my friend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). Although I think that harsh political attacks, even taking a look at where we are on the calendar, may be somewhat out of place here. Attacking prosperity is curious. Attacking local control of public education is even more curious. Mr. Speaker, ``curiouser and curiouser'' said Alice through the looking glass. The fact is we stand for local control, putting parents in charge of education. And, yes, we invite our friends to put people in front of politics and join with us in a bipartisan way to make sure there is full health care deductibility, to make sure that there are solutions not decreed by Washington bureaucrats but by the people at home and the business owners and parents in the home and teachers in the classroom. That is where our strength remains, not in the bureaucracies of Washington, D.C.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time. I would also ask the indulgence of those who join us this evening as I battle a bit of a cold. Mr. Speaker, tonight before us is an important bipartisan bill that will help school districts around the country by allowing those districts to apply for conveyances of small tracts of Forest Service land at a nominal cost for the purposes of building, renovating or expanding school facilities. Currently, only school districts near Bureau of Land Management lands can apply for conveyances under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, and modeled after that act this legislation simply adds Forest Service lands to the equation. It is worth noting, as my colleagues have before me, that H.R. 150 unanimously passed this House by a recorded vote with 420 of us in attendance voting yes; not a single voice, not a single vote, Mr. Speaker, in opposition in June of last year. By unanimous consent, as was mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Senate passed an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 150 and while this was a bipartisan agreement, objections have been raised. They were enumerated by my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). Therefore, by disagreeing to the Senate amendments to H.R. 150, we can send the House-passed bill back to the Senate in the form of H. Res. 621 and send it directly to the President after the other body passes the legislation. To recount, this new Education Land Grant Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey Forest Service lands for educational purposes if certain conditions are met. First, the entity seeking the conveyance must use the land for a public or publicly funded elementary or secondary school. Second, the conveyance must serve the public interest. Third, the land conveyed cannot be environmentally sensitive land and cannot be otherwise needed for purposes of the national forest system. Finally, the total acreage to be conveyed cannot exceed the amount reasonably necessary for the proposed use. Furthermore, our new Education Land Grant Act limits the amount of acreage to be conveyed to 80 acres. It also provides that conveyances under this legislation shall be for a nominal cost using the guidelines of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, which allows for conveyances or transfers to be made at $10 per acre. The bill would require expedited review of applications by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to acknowledge receipt of an application within 14 days of receiving it. A final determination about whether to convey the land must be made within 120 days, unless the Secretary submits a written notice to the applicant explaining the delay. Mr. Speaker, ofttimes rural school districts cannot afford the costs of buying land and building new school facilities. In fact, in the 104th Congress, I introduced legislation which was signed into law that helped one of these aforementioned financially strapped school districts, the Alpine School District in Eastern Arizona. This district desperately needed new facilities. However, they could not afford the cost of acreage which was estimated to be approximately one quarter of a million dollars, as well as the cost of new school facilities. This legislation seeks to set up a national mechanism for school districts to apply to the Agriculture Secretary for Forest Service land without having to come to Congress every year to pass legislation for their particular school district. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, part and parcel of the exercise tonight is perhaps to an onlooker, Mr. Speaker, a crazy quilt of small applications or conveyances of land. The beauty of the new Education Land Grant Act is to offer a uniform mechanism that can be used. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that although it is of special interest in the rural West, it is important to note that this legislation would help school districts in 44 of our 50 States. The Constitution gives our Congress authority in article IV, section 3 when it states that Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other properties belonging to the United States. I mention the conditions unique to the West. It has been part and parcel of discussion on earlier legislation tonight. Private land in the West is extremely expensive, and while it is true most federally controlled land is located in the western States, we also confront a problem there: Rapidly growing populations. In fact, Arizona, Utah and Nevada have the three fastest growing States in the Nation. With less and less private land on which to build schools and other facilities, the West will increasingly need to find new solutions to growth problems. The Education Land Grant Act provides one of the ways we can alleviate some of these concerns and at the same time help our children receive the education they need and deserve. Not only is there rapid growth in the West but nationwide. As has been part of the discussion on this floor and in other venues, many school districts find themselves financially strapped. We have the opportunity tonight, in the tradition of Justin Smith Morrill, who consulted with then candidate Abraham Lincoln, in the election campaign of 1860, for an Education Land Grant Act that allowed for conveyances of land for the construction and establishment of institutions of higher learning in the agricultural and mechanical arts, in that tradition that Lincoln made the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency and, of course, a terrible war intervened and his assassination. Ultimately, the Morrill Land Grant Act was signed into law. Indeed, from the vantage of time we see how important that was to higher education in this country. Mr. Speaker, tonight we again have the opportunity to stand and deliver, and though it is virtually ignored by the fourth estate, in retrospect, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is of great importance because it enables local districts to free up their precious resources to help teachers teach and help children learn. Certainly despite our many differences, as we take a look at the political calendar we can agree on that basic mission. In the tradition of original passage last year, unanimous passage by this House, I would ask this House again to support this legislation now by calling for passage of H. Res. 621 so that this new Education Land Grant Act can become reality, so that we can streamline this process for the greater good of all America's children in our finest traditions.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, during House floor consideration and passage of H.R. 2820, a draft resolution was inserted into the Record that was to have been a signed version of the resolution from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community approving certain amendments to the Community's water code, as contemplated, and, indeed, as required by the bill. To correct this admission, I ask unanimous consent that the attached signed copy of the Community's resolution approving the requisite amendments to its water code be inserted into the Record and be included in the Record of the proceedings of the House with regard to H.R. 2820. Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, AZ. Resolution No. SR-2031-2000 Whereas, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (``SRP-MIC'') Council has the authority pursuant to Article VII, Section 1(d)(5) of the Constitution of the SRP-MIC to provide for the proper use and development and prevent the misuse of the lands, natural resources and other public property of the SRP-MIC; and Whereas, the Congress of the United States has under consideration the passage of H.R. 2820 to convey to the SRP- MIC the irrigation works formerly owned and operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and located on SRP-MIC tribal and allottee land; and Whereas, as a result of negotiations that led to the development of H.R. 2820, and amendments thereto, the legislation's language contemplates that the Community will adopt certain amendments to its Surface Water Management Code prior to enactment of the legislation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the SRP-MIC hereby adopts the attached amendments to its Surface Water Management Code, attached hereto as Exhibits ``A'' and ``B'' respectively; and be it further Resolved, That, if substitute legislation for H.R. 2820 (1) is not passed by the Congress prior to the adjournment sine die of the 106th Congress, or (2) if so passed by Congress, but it is not signed into law during the 106th Congress, the approval by the Community of these amendments shall become null and void.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), and I echo and reinforce their comments. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take time to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), who worked with me to draft this bipartisan, common sense piece of legislation. The gentleman from American Samoa just a few years ago had a chance to join me on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community for a good visit about housing. So he has had a chance firsthand to see the area we are talking about. Again, to echo the previous comments, this legislation would transfer ownership and operation of the irrigation works there from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the tribe. H.R. 2820 was intended as a way to jump-start talks between the tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to transfer ownership of the irrigation canals to the tribe. This final legislative product is the culmination of intense negotiations and is agreeable to the tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Interior Department, and, as has been mentioned on the floor tonight, both Republicans and Democratic Members of the Committee on Resources. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anyone who stands in opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2820 is a win-win for the tribe, the BIA, the government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and the tribes, and obviously it is also a win for the taxpayers. As the BIA has allowed the tribe to operate the irrigation works since November of 1997, it is important to note there would be no disruption in service. It is important to note also something interesting and perhaps unique to Arizona and certainly the portion of Arizona that is part of the Sonoran Desert environment. Water is so critically important there. We have a variation of the saying in the Old West: ``Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting.'' I am glad we are not going to be fighting about this when we see the common sense of transferring ownership of these canals to the tribe. It would allow the tribe to make desperately needed improvements to the canals. Mr. Speaker, some of these canals are nearly a century old; and by offering these improvements, we can save precious water supplies. Sadly, though it is unintended, under the current situation, improvements to the canals were impeded and complicated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs' control of those canals. With ownership transferred to the tribe, the tribe would be able to line the canals with concrete and make substantial improvements to save water and enhance agricultural opportunities for the tribe and its members. Now, as the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) will attest based on his personal visit, the community is located in the shadow of suburban Scottsdale, but it is worth noting that this Native American community is largely an agricultural community dependent on cotton and other crops to generate revenue for the tribe and its members. Improved canals would bring more surface water to use for crops and eventually increase revenue because of the additional water that will not be lost to the aforementioned poorly maintained canals. Transferring the control of the irrigation canals from the BIA to the tribe would also give local BIA employees the freedom and flexibility to work on other worthwhile projects. In addition, it would strengthen the unique government-to-government relationship between the tribe and the Federal Government by allowing the community to move a step closer to self-sufficiency and independence from the Federal Government. Again, to restate the win for American taxpayers, the victory for all Americans comes with enactment of this legislation because the costs allocated for maintenance and operation of the irrigation canals to the BIA will no longer be necessary. Mr. Speaker, while we look at the calendar and note that this is, indeed, the political season, and while we rejoice at the fact that we can have deeply held philosophical differences, this is one occasion far from the interest of the Fourth Estate and many around the country where we are able to enact a common sense policy, not because it is the trademark of either major party, not because it is the intellectual creation of one particular Member of Congress. No, Mr. Speaker, this stands as a classic common sense, good government piece of legislation. In that spirit of consensus and bipartisanship, even as we note this particular date on the political calendar, I am pleased to join with my friends, Republicans and Democrats alike, in urging the House to pass this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed interesting to hear the tenor and tone of this debate. My friend on the other side used the term ``stealing.'' And rather than hurl verbal brick bats, I just think it is important to take a more complete look at the picture. I appreciate the fact that we can have different points of view. But facts are stubborn things. The minority leader came to this well a short time ago and said it was important to work in a bipartisan fashion, and yet he was quoted last year in the Washington Post very candidly that his goal in this Congress was to delay and deny and obstruct so that then a label of the ``do nothing Congress'' could be used politically. Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues on the left, the challenge we confront now is to put people before politics. Even at this time on the political calendar where the temptation is great to point fingers, and given the situation in which we find ourselves with budgetary challenges, we are coming to this floor with a continuing resolution. It is interesting to hear the criticism from the left, especially in view of the number of continuing resolutions that were utilized during their time in the majority. It is also curious, Mr. Speaker, to hear the carping and the criticism when no less than the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), has made it quite clear from the free press that the goal of the other side is to delay and deny and obstruct. Mr. Speaker, we have seen notable exceptions. To those who claim this is a do nothing Congress, I would remind them that just not an hour ago we passed legislation to help the parents of missing children. We can do more for America if we put people in front of politics. Vote for the rule and the continuing resolution.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the glare of the camera lights is not present here. The press gallery is virtually empty. Yet, today, Mr. Speaker, with this legislation we will send a signal across America that I hope many in this town will heed. Because today, with passage of this legislation, we will reaffirm that there are members of both major parties here who are willing to put people before politics. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) recounted it well. It is chilling, really, to think about the conversation that occurred between the mother of a missing child and an employee of the Federal Government, one charged presumably with the mission of service to our citizenry. In asking if the deduction for a dependent was still in effect, this Washington bureaucrat said, ``No, we presume your child to be dead.'' Mr. Speaker, is there anyone in this Chamber, no matter partisan label or political philosophy, who believes that was the right thing to do? Is there anyone who could condone that heartless act? Our Founders warned us of placing overwhelming powers in the hands of a Federal bureaucracy. Individual freedoms are threatened; but, more importantly, common sense is often abandoned. Now comes the welcome news, as the gentleman from Minnesota reports, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) from the other side of the aisle confirms, that now the Internal Revenue Service has reconsidered. Small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Justice Brandeis called sunlight the best disinfectant. But as our attention turns to other matters, the temptation for that callous group-think to overtake the Internal Revenue Service, again, I believe will be rife. Mr. Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that we have a constitutional mandate and responsibility to enact law, that that law is formulated in this Chamber, and signed into law at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue by our Chief Executive. Let us not leave this to bureaucratic women or, to be charitable, to misinterpretation. The stakes are too high for families ravaged by the trauma of losing a child. Mr. Speaker, we should put ourselves in the place of those parents, the horror of the event, the uncertainty of the child's fate, and walking down a darkened hallway past an empty room; the daily fear and trauma that is as close literally as their own home. And to have this vast bureaucracy, in the name of compassion, take away from the treasure of that family and impose a penalty on that family for what can only be described as a horrible crime and a horrible curse, is deplorable. My colleagues, we have a chance today to right that wrong. The press may not write about it, the punditocracy may leave it alone, but here is an opportunity to stand together to put people before politics and help parents in the most horrible of situations. Stand with us, regardless of partisan stripe, in the name of true compassion and common sense, and reject the heartless group-think of a bureaucracy out of touch with the American public. Reaffirm our constitutional responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, we need to right this wrong.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I say in response to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan way to fix a problem. The Constitution provides for veto override. This need not be a partisan ballot. Indeed, when people get marriage licenses, they do not record political affiliations. But when they fill out their tax returns and they are penalized to the tune of $1,400 a year, that is a concern whether one is a Republican, Democrat, libertarian, vegetarian, independent. It comes to this simple philosophy: let married couples and their families keep what they earn to save, spend, and invest. This need not be partisan. We in the legislative branch have the constitutional ability to override the President of the United States. We invite our friends on the left, join with us, stand for families, not for disguising targeted tax cuts as spending programs, but straight up, allowing American families to keep more of what they earn. That is true compassion. That is why we must override this presidential veto.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as an Eagle Scout, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Scouting for All Act, because, Mr. Speaker, the so-called Scouting for All Act means constitutional rights for none. It is as if we tear freedom of association out of the document. Another federally chartered organization, the Jewish War Veterans. We do not see the southern Baptists or the Buddhists demanding membership in the Jewish War Veterans. Jewish War Veterans as a federally chartered organization have the right of freedom of association based on their spiritual beliefs. My suggestions to those who place such an emphasis on sexual identity is to have another freely formed association, the sexual identity seekers of America. If that predicates one's world views, that is the choice. The profound intolerance of those who claim to preach tolerance is incredible. Those who would boo the scouts, and the Vice President of the United States, the standard-bearer of his party not standing foursquare for this federally chartered organization. Shame on those who bring shame to this Nation by trying to profoundly alter the Scouts.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee, I thank the Speaker, and I thank my friend from Texas who preceded me in the well, because he failed to point out one essential part of the equation. You see, it is legitimate to have differences of opinion and to disagree without being disagreeable, and Mr. Speaker, I think it is painfully apparent. Our friends on the left believe there is a higher and better use for your money in the coffers of the Federal Government. My friend from New York said it very clearly in the Wall Street Journal: ``We will have to figure out who hasn't been hit so hard and take away some of what they have earned.'' But the other portion, my friend from Texas left out. Should the Vice President of the United States become President of the United States, just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he outlined a budget plan that would spend all of the surplus; and while I do not doubt my friend from Texas' commitment to cutting the deficit and the national debt, the fact is our friends on the left had 40 years and they were so caught up in spending that they spent all the monies, including the Social Security monies. So what we say is this, and, again, I would enjoin my friends to disagree without being disagreeable: the fact is there is a philosophy on the left to take away what people earn. The fact is also that many of our friends on the left, fully one-third of the minority, including every member of the Democratic Party serving here from Tennessee, voted for death tax relief. We ask folks to join with us to say let us put this unfair death tax to death, because we can continue to pay down our debt and we can also get rid of this onerous tax. As my friend from Colorado has said, ``no taxation without respiration.'' It is unfair to have to visit the undertaker and the tax collector on the same day. I represent family farmers who are fiscally conservative, who care about Social Security and Medicare, but also care about their children and also care about their fellow citizens, and we should get rid of this tax. Vote to override the veto.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 20, 2000, I missed rollcall votes 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, and 428 because I was attending to congressional business in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 421, ``no'' on rollcall vote 422, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 423, ``no'' on rollcall vote 424, ``no'' on rollcall vote 425, ``no'' on rollcall vote 426, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 427, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 428.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to hear my good friend, the minority whip from Michigan, talk about Las Vegas, because perhaps there are those in this Chamber who contemplate a future career opening for Jerry Vale along the lines of an insult comedian. Because, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, quite unintentionally, the previous words in this Chamber served to insult the intelligence of the American people, and particularly the very seniors, Mr. Speaker, that our friends on the left claim to care so much about. For the record, what this House will do today, in bipartisan fashion, is to strike a blow for tax fairness and remove the ultimate theft of money from the people who most need it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) a few moments ago talked about how this would only help the wealthy few. Well, I guess there are different definitions for words in this grand land of ours, and people are free to use Orwellian definitions, when, in fact, what we want to do is make sure that the seniors who are single and earning $34,000 a year and married couples who are earning $44,000 a year have their Social Security taxes reduced. These are the wealthy few? Mr. Speaker, how sad, the shameful catechism of the left, always embracing emotion and interesting definitions that fly in the face of fact. The other fact is, there seems to also be confusion not only on the status of the wealthy, since we apparently find that those earning $30,000 are ``wealthy'' by the definition of our friends on the left, but there is also confusion in terms of the date on the calendar. Apparently our friends believe this is the final day of October, it is the day to scare folks, it is Halloween. So they hope to scare seniors by saying there is a raid on Medicare. Mr. Speaker, we should not dare believe it. Our friends on the left continue to take revenue streams from the general accounting fund, the general revenue. We do not raid Medicare, we strengthen it, and we strengthen seniors by lowering their taxes. I stand in support.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, far from the roar of the grease paint and the smell of the crowd when we enter a political season where we accentuate our differences, it is very easy to lose track of those areas where the real work of government occurs. Such is the case with this bill, H.R. 4868, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000. I am pleased to rise and speak in favor of this legislation because it will temporarily suspend the duty on dozens of items that are not produced in the United States and consequently have to be imported. They include drugs, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade, mentioned, drugs used in the fight against HIV-AIDS and environmentally friendly herbicides and insecticides. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention now and thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), for including in the package several bills I introduced to suspend the duty on certain chemicals, chemicals vital to American industry and to our quality of life. Let me also commend the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Speaker, for including legislation introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), legislation of which I am a cosponsor, that reduces the duty on steam generators, as we work on an energy policy for our Nation. All of these provisions further the sound trade policy the chairman always tries to pursue because these products are not manufactured anywhere in the United States and, consequently, it makes no sense to tax their importation. This is an excellent package of noncontroversial items. It offers the best examples of what we can do working together, and we rise not in partisanship but in progress with this legislation. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the time, and I would be remiss at the outset, Mr. Speaker, if I did not acknowledge someone who will follow me in this well in just a few minutes, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my good friend and seat mate who worked so hard on this legislation, along with the gentleman from Indiana on achieving marriage penalty relief for hard-working Americans. It is sad, but I guess not totally unexpected, that our friends on the left again would be involved in political speeches that really, sadly have more to do with ego than results. It is also curious to see this almost Orwellian definition of bipartisanship. In Arizona, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the rest of America, bipartisanship means understanding that there are sometimes are philosophical differences but focusing on results, and the most profound results, Mr. Speaker, the most profound results, my colleagues, is making sure that American couples get to keep in their pockets up to 1,200 a year. I would suggest to all my friends, Mr. Speaker, that that is real money, and with a compromised solution, stepping back bipartisan in nature, we are inviting not only our colleagues on the left, but, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States to join us in truly a civil, bipartisan approach to help that married couple in Payson, Arizona making $36,000 a year penalized because they are married. We are saying to that couple, whether the couple lives in Payson, Arizona or Peoria, Illinois or in Harlem in New York City that they can keep that money in their pocket; that they will not be penalized for being married. That is what we are focusing on today. Friends, bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship is not the majority party twisting and bending its good name and ideas to the will of the minority. It is working together. So in that sense, Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues on the left to join with us in providing true marriage penalty relief.