J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a simple purpose. It prohibits spending any money on any activity in support of adding or maintaining any World Heritage site in the United States on the list of world heritage in danger. It is based on the provision in the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883 which passed in this House on May 20 of this year by voice vote. The World Heritage Committee influences activities that occur around World Heritage Sites by putting such sites on what is entitled the ``List of World Heritage in Danger.'' As many of my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, the World Heritage Committee has been attempting to extend the reach of the convention concerning the protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage beyond a world heritage site in an effort to influence activities around the site. Unfortunately, the World Heritage Committee has interfered several times in ongoing internal economic development permitting processes of sovereign nations, including a project on private land in the United States. The World Heritage Committee, with the approval of the executive branch, has ignored Federal law and infringed on constitutionally protected private property rights by disrupting the National Environmental Policy Act process for a project located on private land. Under the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee monitors activities in and around a site in danger, and the country in which the site in danger is located is obligated to aid the committee in this monitoring. A site remains on the list of World Heritage sites in danger until the host country agrees to implement the committee's recommendations concerning land use around the site, which generates international pressure on the country to follow the World Heritage committee's recommendations. Policies implemented in accordance with recommendations of the World Heritage committee can limit the use of privately owned property, thereby reducing its value. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will help stop international organizations from interfering in United States land use decisions. Mr. Chairman, if one supports American sovereignty, I urge them to support this amendment. If one supports the constitutionally granted right of Congress to affect Federal land policy, I urge them to support this amendment. If one supports the American Land Sovereignty Act, I urge them to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote yes on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the comments from my friend from Minnesota and my other friend from California. I heard some sort of analogy that this designation equated with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Mr. Chairman, this is not simply some sort of travel guide, something to be desired, for what it does is establish a framework by which, in essence, another body, an international body, exerts control and influence on property decisions of the United States. Mr. Chairman, the question is not about parks, for we all stand in favor of our National Parks and Heritage Sites that this Congress articulates, that this Congress commemorates, but there should be no misunderstanding that in some way, shape, or fashion we would cede any of that authority, which rests constitutionally, which rests traditionally with this body in this legislative branch, with the Congress of the United States. To allow the opportunity, as my friend from Minnesota mentioned, economic development outside of Yellowstone National Park and reasonable proximity, to have these types of actions by an international body to, in essence, condemn economic activity, I believe is wrong. The Congress of the United States and landowners who are American citizens should make those decisions. Accordingly, if you want to stand for sovereignty and the primacy of American law, so there is no misunderstanding, so there is no usurpation of that authority by any international body, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to several comments from the other side. Let us begin with my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), an Arizona native whose subsequent life's journey took him to another State. We welcome him in this body. He mentioned his concern about the elimination of the new markets initiative as a reason why he would oppose the rule, and I surmise, the general bill. I think it is important to actually take a look at what the President proposed in his so-called new markets initiative. Like many programs that come from the administration, it was heavy on overhead. Indeed, the new markets initiative, posturing as a program to help Indian reservations and those who live in the inner city who are economically disadvantaged, only worked to the advantage of government bureaucrats. Indeed, what the President asked to happen was to have the taxpayers underwrite some $100 million in loans, or actually provide some $45 million in cash for a modest loan program, when instead, in our tax bill that passed on this floor in the proper jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and Means, we incorporated a bipartisan plan that did more through tax relief for the inner cities and distressed areas than the new markets initiative could ever hope to do. To my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) who talked about keeping two sets of books, I would simply commend the rest of the story. Part of it goes back to the wise words of our good friend, the committee chairman, who will offer his appropriations legislation. We need to understand this, Mr. Speaker, that sadly, when it comes to the analogy of two sets of books, we would do well to look at the policy of the director of the Census, who, in apparent irreverence for existing law and the Constitution, this administration and this Census Bureau says that actual enumeration is not good enough when it comes to the Census, that we need to project. We should oppose the rule. Not two sets of books, one set of facts. Support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, does my friend, the gentleman from Texas, actually favor sampling over actual enumeration and counting?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Maryland spoke eloquently of the dreams of all Americans, and it is with a sense of profound anxiety that I come to the floor today to talk about those elements in our world that could defer those dreams. The lead story, Mr. Speaker, in today's Washington Times reads as follows: ``China Tests New Long Range Missile.'' Bill Gertz, the byline, he writes and I quote, ``China successfully test-fired its newest long-range missile yesterday amid heightened tensions with Taiwan over pro-independence remarks by the island's President. The CIA believes the DF-31 test launched from a base in central China will be the first new Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile to incorporate stolen U.S. warhead design and missile technology, according to U.S. officials.'' Mr. Speaker, when I read those words this morning, I could not help but reflect on the revelations that have rocked our Nation's capital and our entire country in the past several months. The fund-raising scandals, the apparent absence of concern at our Nation's nuclear laboratories, the wholesale theft of our nuclear secrets and the apparent cooperation of some in the private sector, and some in alleged government service to make it so. Mr. Speaker, what perverse pride can anyone derive from these revelations? Is there actually pride on the part of the Clinton-Gore gang and their fund-raisers this morning? Is there actually pride in the heart of Bernard Schwartz, the leading giver to the Democratic National Committee, whose firm, Loral, gave technology to the Communist Chinese? C. Michael Armstrong, the one-time CEO of Hughes, another company that gave technology to the Communist Chinese, can he feel pride at these revelations this morning? Is our national security advisor, Sandy Berger, who sat on this information and apparently withheld it from the highest levels of government, does he feel pride this morning that our Nation is at risk? How proud former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary must be this morning, with her socialist utopian vision of sharing our nuclear technology with those who oppose us in the world. And finally and sadly, how proud the President and Vice President of the United States must be. Mr. Speaker, our constitutional republic has survived scores of scoundrels and scalawags, but to have those at the highest level of government speak of a strategic partnership with Communist China and then have it revealed in the fullness of time just what that strategic partnership meant, crass partisan, political advantage through scandalous fund-raising that has led us to this sorry state of affairs. If it is not by design then at least by naivete, and that leads us to another item in this morning's paper. William F. Buckley writes in his column and I quote, ``With reference to North Korea, specifically American intelligence has said that as things are now going the North Koreans plan to test the Taepodong II, an advanced version of the T-1 missile that rocked the world when last August it soared right over the island of Japan. T-2 is designed to do better than T-1, and better means that it could land a nuclear payload in Alaska or in Hawaii.'' I recall the words and the intent of this administration by former Defense Secretary William Perry who lectured new Members of Congress on the necessity of giving, giving nuclear reactors to the outlaw nation, that is North Korea, and worse it has been reported in our press that the State Department kept from Congress information that the core of one of those reactors is now missing. Mr. Speaker, when will we awaken to the threat that has been created by naivete or crass political advantage that some have sought in direct contravention and dereliction of the oath of office which we all take as constitutional officials to provide for the common defense, to defend the people and the Constitution of the United States? Mr. Speaker, when will the partisan press awaken to these revelations?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the esteemed chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me the time. As I walked onto the floor, Mr. Speaker, I was greeted by the familiar incendiary rhetoric of my friend from Texas. While I appreciate his ability to frame in the most extreme terms what is a reasonably prudent bill and action to give the American people more of their hard-earned dollars, give it back to them, I do find it interesting that my friend from Texas supported tax reduction in 1997 when this government was still in a deficit and yet he would use all matters of extreme rhetoric to try and mischaracterize the essence of what we are doing here as the responsible majority in the United States House of Representatives as we prepare to go to conference with our friends from the other body. I think the motion offered from my good friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the committee, shows the length to which the minority will go to separate the American people from their hard- earned money. It is sad but true, and the rhetoric indicates it and so does the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, as we have documented before, we talk so much about billions and trillions of dollars in this body and on the airwaves across America that sometimes we tend to lose focus about what it is our common sense majority proposes. I think the best way to characterize it, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, is to ask us to take a look at these $3 bills and let them represent the $3 trillion of surplus that this government will have in the years to come. This is what we propose to do, to lock away almost $2 trillion dollars to save Social Security and Medicare. And that leaves the remaining trillion dollars. This is the crux of the question, when we get through all the legislative legerdemain and the name calling, this question remains at the end of the day. To whom does this money belong? We would say, in the common sense majority, this money belongs to the people who earned it, not to the Washington bureaucrats. Let us take this money and return it to the hardworking taxpayers who have been called on again and again and again to feed the gaping maw which is this insatiable Washington bureaucracy. And so the gentleman's motion to instruct conferees again asks us, after we have seen the largest tax increase in American history, so extreme a tax increase that over 10 years' time it asked for an additional $800 billion from the pockets of every American, we are told somehow that is responsible, a tax increase so extreme that it was retroactive, to take money from taxpayers beyond the grave in terms of the death tax. What we simply say is, Americans have had enough of this. We should put the death tax to death, we should reduce the marriage penalty, and I am glad my friend from Texas mentioned the special interests. Because, as we have seen throughout the years, no one accedes to the special interests more than the previous liberal majority. Mr. Speaker, I stand with my friends on the right. Reject the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer's Defense Act, which Mr. Gekas and I are introducing today, would establish a system to allow Congress, and only Congress, to approve new taxes before they take effect. Before an administrative tax could be imposed on the American people, an agency would submit the rule or regulation to Congress. The Majority Leaders in both the House and Senate would introduce the bill by request. The bill would then be subjected to expedited procedures and the rule could not go into effect until an approval bill was passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President. It is important to note that this legislation would only affect future administrative taxes, not those currently in effect. I believe the constitutional precedent for this legislation is clear. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the ``power to lay and collect taxes.'' It doesn't give unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats this power; it gives only Congress this power. Moreover, the Constitution's ``separation of powers'' doctrine ensures that each branch of government would have one specific duty. By delegating legislative powers to unelected officials, we are allowing the executive branch to become both the maker and enforcer of our nation's laws, which is in direct violation of the Founders' intent. By enacting the Taxpayer's Defense Act, Congress would once again restore accountability to federal taxation and reduce the hidden taxes that are being imposed on the American taxpayer. While administrative taxation hasn't been used often, it is used increasingly to circumvent the legislative process. One of the most troubling administrative taxes is the Federal Communications Commission tax on long distance telephone service, which is also known as the Gore tax. Every telephone caller in the United States is subjected to this tax, which raises approximately $2.5 billion annually. Other regulatory agencies are also doing an end run around Congress, including the Commerce Department's $1 tax on every Internet domain name. The National Science Foundation has tried a similar approach by authorizing a $30 tax on registration of domain names on the Internet. Fortunately, a federal judge ended this illegal tax, but not before taxpayers shelled out $60 million. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Agricultural Marketing Service, has also gotten into the game with taxation of food commodities in order to fund advertising a promotion of commodities. The point is simple: Americans can't hold unelected executive branch employees accountable for administrative taxation. However, Americans can hold their representatives accountable for these taxes if we once again require Congress to vote on all of these administrative taxes. The Taxpayer's Defense Act would achieve this goal. In December 1773, American colonists boarded three British ships in Boston harbor and emptied chests of tea into the sea. This event, which we all know as the Boston Tea Party, celebrated American opposition to taxation without representation. That is why the Constitution specifically states that Congress shall have the power to tax. I urge this Congress to once again make Congress accountable for all taxation by passing this important legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the way I try to see it as the first Arizonan in history to serve on the Committee on Ways and Means with the authority to deal with this Tax Code, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, is to say it this way: Tax relief first. Tax reform next. Because, Mr. Speaker, if there is any lesson we have learned from this current administration, it is that words essentially mean nothing. That is a shock for those of us who grew up under the notion that we would play by the rules, obey the existing law of the land, and then move forward. Sadly, what we find with this administration and, Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues, especially my friend from Michigan, will bear me out since he arrived after the election of 1992, a full term prior to my presence in this Congress, the irony of this fact. It has been said and is a basic tenet of our civics training that the President proposes and the Congress disposes. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues would be interested, as would others, to hear and to understand that throughout this second term of this administration, indeed since 1993, this administration has not shown the common courtesy of delivering to the Congress of the United States executive branch proposals in legislative language. The last time that happened, Mr. Speaker, was with a proposal in 1993 to socialize our health care. And so, therefore, Mr. Speaker, all the talk of administration plans for Social Security, of administration plans for tax relief, of administration plans for bolstering our national defense are as the wind; there is nothing to them. For this administration lacks the courage and the ability to summon candor to actually help us govern. And we see it most egregiously when it comes to the death tax. My friend from Montana is quite right. And when we represent folks in Arizona, as do I, on family farms and on ranches, in Colorado, Montana or Michigan, the fact is this for many a land holder, they are to use the proverbial term, ``land rich, cash poor.'' And when the patriarch of a family dies, the one in whose name the family ranch or the family farm belongs, the survivors are asked to pay a tax, that is unfair and that is onerous. Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, those who hear these words should remember this fact, that our common-sense conservative majority is committed to ending, to putting to death, the death tax over the course of the next decade. Because fundamentally, as my friend from Colorado said so well and it was quoted in the Wall Street Journal well near 2 years ago, when he said there should be no taxation without representation, he understands the unfairness of this tax. And compounding it, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that with all the sturm und drang, with all the trauma introduced into the lives of the survivors, with all the basic unfairness of taxing the work and the labors of those who have gone to their heavenly reward, still in all, the Federal Treasury only takes from the death tax one percent of the total accrued revenue for the Treasury of the United States. And yet, Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of that one percent is spent tracking down and harassing survivors, forcing families to sell their farms, forcing families to sell their small businesses, and it shows the inequity of this Tax Code. But, Mr. Speaker, we are cognizant of realities. A President who would stand in Buffalo, New York, one day after standing at this podium and saying that he wants to save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and, therefore, spend the extra 38 percent, as my friend from Colorado holds up the words, January 20 of this year the President of the United States, in a rare moment of candor, said the following quote: ``We could give it,'' meaning the budget surplus, ``we could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right. But . . .'' Mr. Speaker, that embraces the central difference. This current President, despite his obvious failings in terms of personal honor and a knowledge of accountability to the people of the United States and, dare I say, accountability of the executive branch to the legislative branch to help us govern, this President stands by a fundamental tenet of faith that is jaundiced and is misguided. Because, Mr. Speaker, he believes that the Federal Government can spend the money of the people better than can the people. That is a serious problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is important to point out because, Mr. Speaker, as I have appeared on different media outlets to hear the predictable cacophony and chorus from the left and indeed, Mr. Speaker, it has become so reflexive, I daresay my colleagues who join me on the floor can offer an answer to filling in the blank. My friends on the left talk about tax cuts for the rich, which is totally false but apparently alluring to those who are captured by the politics of envy, to those who would believe that they do not control their own destiny but, Mr. Speaker, it is patently false and as I heard my colleagues talk and thought about what occurred in the State of Arizona, I could not help but think of the President of the United States during our most recent recess coming to the State of Arizona, specifically coming to South Phoenix. Now, he could have visited a lot of areas, the Navajo nation, the sovereign Navajo nation where there is chronic unemployment, or San Manual, Arizona, site of the largest underground mine in North America that has been closed thanks in part to the Clinton-Gore-Babbitt War on the West, but this President, Mr. Speaker, chose to go to an area that might be more politically hospitable, to South Phoenix in Arizona, and he proposed what he called the New Market Initiative. Again, Mr. Speaker, this has not been put into legislative language and again like cotton candy, it appears alluring but when you get to it, the details are somewhat sticky and inconvenient, the President of the United States proposes $100 million in loans for depressed areas but, Mr. Speaker, understand the taxpayers must provide some $45 million to set up that loan process, the Federal taxpayers must pay two-thirds of the overhead for the so-called New Market Initiative and yet, Mr. Speaker, I look to the plan to help the neediest among us offered in our tax relief and tax fairness legislation, a plan championed by our good friends the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a Democrat, that deals with those depressed areas not just in terms of business start-up and not in terms of make-work for Federal bureaucrats but true empowerment that deals with savings, that deals with home ownership, that also deals with business start-ups, and yet the President of the United States has the audacity to come before the American people and claim that this responsible bipartisan plan to help those who need help is somehow irresponsible and reckless. Mr. Speaker, it simply is something we have seen all too often with this President, an inability to tell the truth and to deal candidly with the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we stand at an epic juncture in American history, because despite the protestations from those who would belong to a third party movement, there is no clearer difference that exists in American political life than what exists in this Chamber. Because my friends on the left, so trusting of the powers of the Federal Government, powers that have grown excessive, that have grown overreaching, that have grown abusive throughout this century; so abusive, Mr. Speaker, to the point that the power of the Federal Government reaches into the pocket of every law-abiding American, my friends on the left place their faith in that burgeoning bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, the contrast could not be clearer, because those of us in the common sense conservative majority take literally the first 3 words of this document, the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would note, and not without some irony, especially given the tenor of the rhetoric from the White House and from the Vice President and from our friends on the left, the first 3 words of this document are not they, the bureaucrats. No, Mr. Speaker, the first 3 words of this document read, ``We, the people.'' And despite the fact that a Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll taken in the space of the last 10 days of 500 Americans at large, when asked, where does the Federal Government get its money? Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that some 50 percent of those respondents replied, oh, the Federal Government has its own special supply of money, and 39 percent answered correctly that the money with which the Federal Government operates comes from the people, the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, we understand our mission loudly and clearly. As Abraham Lincoln said, Mr. Speaker, the American people, once fully informed, will make the right decisions. Mr. Speaker, I stand here tonight to reaffirm this basic truth. The money does not belong to Washington bureaucrats. It does not belong to they, the bureaucrats. It belongs to we, the people.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It is very simple, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. Who do you trust? Those who say one thing and do another? Those who believe that money, power and influence should be concentrated in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats? Those who believe, as evidenced by their statements in Buffalo, New York, and from this podium behind me here, that you should not be trusted with your own money to save, spend and invest as you see it? Or, should you embrace the philosophy of the common sense conservative majority that believes it is our mission to transfer money, power and influence out of the hands of the Washington bureaucrats and back home to people living on the front lines, who understand their lives better, who understand that the money belongs not to the Federal Government and to the Washington bureaucrats, but to the people. Mr. Speaker, on that stand we make our case, and with that, I yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer). Mr. Speaker, at times Washington tends to operate on what former President Eisenhower called a policy of sophisticated nonsense. That is, we get so caught up in the micro and macroeconomic implications of a decision that we allow ourselves to over-intellectualize what, in essence, is a very simple operation. And it is thus with the tax cut, to hear some folks and pundits in this town talk about it. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the American people to think of the surplus that we confront not in terms of trillions of dollars, but let these three $1 bills represent the $3 trillion surplus as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. Now, it is worth noting that almost $2 trillion of that surplus we have locked away to save Social Security and Medicare. We have locked $2 trillion, or close to that, of the surplus away to save Social Security and Medicare. But, Mr. Speaker, that leaves $1 trillion to consider. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it is the intent of the new majority to learn the lessons of history, which are fairly simple and which boil down to this. If we leave this money in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats, it will be spent. Therefore, our mission in this commonsense conservative majority in this 106th Congress is clear: We must return the money to the people to whom it belongs, the American taxpayer. This money does not belong to the government, Mr. Speaker. It belongs to all of those who work hard and play by the rules and pay their taxes. Therefore, our legislation that provided tax relief, which we passed last week, is intent on returning the money to whom it belongs. Because, Mr. Speaker, the money belongs to the people, not to the Washington bureaucrats. And whether it is estate planning reform, putting to death the death tax over a 10-year period; whether it is special accounts for education to empower parents to plan not only for a child's college education but also to seek alternatives in the grades K through 12; whether it is reducing the marriage penalty; or whether it is an across-the-board decrease in the rate of taxation, we hold to this simple truth, Mr. Speaker: The money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the American people. Therefore, the American people should hold on to more of their hard-earned money to save, spend and invest as they see fit. Mr. Speaker, that stands in stark contrast to the vision offered by the President of the United States, who came to this well of the House to deliver a State of the Union message in January and said that it was his intent to save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. Hello. That means he intended to spend the other 38 percent on new programs. And, indeed, as he stood at that podium, he outlined in the span of 77 minutes some 80 new programs that would cost the American taxpayers at least an additional $100 million in new taxation. And, indeed, his budget was so reprehensible that not one member of the minority party would bring that budget forward in legislative language to have it voted on. It was up to the majority to bring it forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), who can make the case graphically for us.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr Speaker, will the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) repeat his assertions, because I think, given the culture of the present day, given the media proclivities here on Capitol Hill and beyond, sometimes, quite often, these stories are missed for whatever reason. Could the gentleman repeat what he has found in the Committee on Resources.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman from Montana, is it his impression that this administration was using those different entities, those different people to campaign for a certain point of view, using these people in a way in a campaign that would be unlawful?

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, it bears repeating, because, Mr. Speaker, there are those in this town, principally those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue but also those who occupy the left side of this Chamber, who would earnestly yearn for a type of collective amnesia to embrace the American people. The President of the United States has engaged in incredible revisionist history where he calls the largest tax increase in American history noble and justified; when he fails to recognize the contributions of this new commonsense conservative majority, which came in and reined in excessive spending, which led to this surplus; but also with his comments in January of this year, when again he stood at this podium and said, and Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating, that it was his intent to save 62 percent of the social security surplus for social security, which meant, of course, that he intended to spend the other 38 percent; and how that stands in stark contrast, Mr. Speaker, with our lockbox to lock away 100 percent of the social security surplus for social security. Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating, consider these three $1 bills again to represent $3 trillion. Take away the zeros. This is what our commonsense conservative majority maintains should happen. Let us take two of those dollar bills, lock them away to save social security and Medicare, and Mr. Speaker, we are left with this dollar bill, representing roughly $1 trillion of additional surplus. We have a choice, Mr. Speaker. If we leave it in Washington, given the proclivities of our president and the temptations which he cannot withstand, that money will be spent. We believe, as the commonsense conservative majority, that the money belongs to the people who sent it here. It should go back to those people. For my friends on the left to claim these are tax breaks for the wealthy, it is an interesting definition of wealthy. Apparently they think folks who make $40,000 a year are wealthy because those folks pay almost four times as much in taxes as the folks who earn $20,000 a year.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Colorado and my friend, the gentleman from Montana. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to their words, I could not help but think of the irony of the current administration, who campaigned in 1992 under a slogan of putting people first. How ironic that is, in the wake of decisions by the administration that would seek to dilute what the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says in its final clause. I would ask my colleagues and those who join us to listen closely. The final clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution says, ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' And the irony of the assertion that the Clinton-Gore gang plan to put people first is exceeded only by the boastfulness of the current president in the inter regnum between his election and swearing in when he said that he would offer the most ethical administration in history. The irony fairly drips from those words when today, Mr. Speaker, we came to this floor to debate the trade status of the People's Republic of China, mindful of the fact that Chinese shell corporations, technically with American charters, had given money to the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996; mindful also of the fact that for those of us from the West, from Colorado, Montana, and Arizona, it has been said that this administration has declared war on the West, on resource-based industries, on small family farms and ranches, on a way of life that is rapidly vanishing, hastened by the bureaucratic decisions of those who would seek to short-circuit this document. Mr. Speaker, one is reminded of the weak assertion by our current Vice President, the same Vice President who last weekend presided over an unparalleled waste of natural resources in the millions of dollars, in the millions of gallons of water, for what is now being called the new Watergate, for what some cynics call Tipper Canoe; for what other cynics call the new Row vs. Wade; a Vice President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, who had the audacity to stand in front of the assembled press and say to America, through the Press Corps, ``My legal counsel informs me that there is no controlling legal authority.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a fair question to ask, how low can an administration go, from the boastful claims of putting people first, from the boastful claims of having the most ethical administration in history, to the reality of taking contributions from Chinese front corporations, to having a Vice President who, in violation of existing Federal law, sought campaign donations from his Executive Office Building location, not from the Democrat National Committee, and still had the audacity to claim that his legal counsel informed him that there is no controlling legal authority. Mr. Speaker, I will say again for the Record, to my colleagues and those who would join us beyond these walls, there is a controlling legal authority. It is called the Constitution of the United States, which provides oversight capacity to the legislative branch of government, but moreover, Mr. Speaker, which provides a remedy every 4 years for the executive branch, every 2 years for those who would serve in the Congress of the United States, where we stand at the bar of public opinion and are accountable to the people who sent us here. That should give pause to this Vice President, even though the current president apparently has no concerns about it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to come to the well of this Chamber; and we can always depend on something. It is as predictable as the swallows returning to San Juan Capistrano and the buzzards going back to Hinckley, Ohio. We always hear from my liberal friends every excuse in the book as to why the American people should not keep more of their hard-earned money. I appreciate my good friend from New York and his lesson in revisionist history. It is always interesting to hear the rationale of those doomed to defeat because they fail to recognize that, if given a choice, we believe Americans should hold on to more of their hard- earned money instead of sending it to Washington bureaucrats to waste. While we are on the subject and talking about children, I am curious as to why my liberal friends think that those working Americans who earn $40,000 a year are somehow rich. Because it turns out those who make $40,000 a year pay nearly four times as much in taxes as those who earn $20,000 a year. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point this out: It is real simple what we want to do with the surplus, the overcharge. We want to take $2 of that surplus and put it away, lock it away for Social Security and Medicare. And then with the other dollar that remains, we want to give it back to the American people because it is their money and in that way we will secure America's future and the majority in this Chamber.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out to the previous speaker that in attempting to deny this legislation for tax fairness and tax equity, my colleague will deny about $3,299 per capita to the taxpayers in the State of Florida if, in fact, my colleague chooses to vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, despite all of the talk of the dead of night, it is prime time in Arizona, and it is high time that the American people finally get more of their hard-earned money back in their pocket. My colleagues will hear a lot of mistaken impressions tonight from my friend on the left, one of them being that somehow we want to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the left are mistaken. Because they should recall that we voted to install a lockbox, to save 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, so often we talk about trillions of dollars, but at times it seems all of our eyes glaze over. Let us put it in simple perspective. When we talk about the surplus that will exist over the next 10 years, think about it in terms of $3 billions right here. And this is what our common sense majority proposes. That we save about 2 of those to go to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. But then the question remains about the remaining money, the overcharge that has been charged America's taxpayers. What should we do with this? Our friends on the left would say, spend it. We say, that is not what people want. The American people gave this money to run this government, but it is not needed, so the money should be returned to the American people. Mr. Speaker, with reference to the alleged saviors of Social Security, I would point out that the President of the United States came to this podium, Mr. Speaker, and in his State of the Union message he said, now, listen Mr. Speaker, he said he proposed to save 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security. Hello. The remaining 38 percent, almost 40 percent was going to be spent on new programs. And then the next day, the President of the United States went to Buffalo, New York and in a rare moment of candor said to the people of Buffalo and the people of America, Mr. Speaker, now, we could give that surplus back to you and trust you to spend it right. Mike Ritter of the Mesa Tribune remembered that remark from the President of the United States, and he offered this cartoon. The headline: No tax cut, says Pres. Americans won't spend their wages correctly. And then the stick-up artist saying, I agree with the President. You'd just waste it anyway, as he sticks up the American people. It is high time to strike a blow for tax fairness and for the American people, the people of Florida, the people of Arizona. Yes to tax fairness; yes to this bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me this time. In fact, the shame should belong to those who failed to accurately point out the full story. Of course there is a Commander in Chief, the nominal head of the opposition party, who has repeatedly been AWOL when it comes to providing for the needs of America's military. I am sure the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) joined with us in voting a short time ago in this House to raise the pay of military officers and enlisted men. I am sure that the gentleman understands full well that the President's budget is so woefully inadequate for veterans. We added $1 billion to the President's budget on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on which I serve. I know the gentleman knows full well that the paradox of this administration is that this President has put the men and women in uniform of this country in harm's way and deployed to more theaters of operation than all of his post-World War II predecessors combined, even as he cuts the budget. That is the fact.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to turn to the document, Mr. Chairman, that we swear to uphold and defend. Article I, Section 8 of this Constitution reads that ``the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the sovereign States and with the Indian tribes.'' Mr. Chairman, that very enumeration ensures that Indian tribes enjoy rights of full sovereignty and sovereign immunity. The problem and the difficulty before us and why we have to reject this amendment in part is based on this fact, not only Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, but subsequent precedent in terms of treaties ratified by the Congress of the United States that sets up, not only a tribal trust relationship, but a government-to-government relationship between our Federal Government and the sovereign Indian tribes. Mr. Chairman, when we look at that government-to-government relationship, there is a difficulty we have, we would all admit it, in terms of fulfilling treaty obligations and dealing with the States and the whole notion of funding and set-asides that exist. That thorny issue is also addressed in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. As originally crafted, IGRA provided States with a role of regulating Class III gaming, but it was never intended to give States absolute authority to preclude tribal gaming. Moreover, if we accept the Constitution, the document that we swear to uphold and defend, and we take a look at what is transpiring, two of our sovereign States dealing with this constitutional question have already sought relief in the courts. Mr. Chairman, I need not school my colleagues in civics. They understand clearly the separation of powers. But the question will be decided through interpretation by the judiciary. The process is already well under way. Why, then, would we come to the floor of this House and attempt to circumvent the judicial process? Worse, Mr. Chairman, we are attempting to legislate in the appropriations process. If the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) have meaningful policy differences to debate, let them bring action through the authorization committees. Let them go to the full Committee on Resources that is facing the challenge of the jurisdiction of tribal trust questions. If there are questions of taxation, let them come to the Committee on Ways and Means on which I serve and must return, as we are in the middle of a legislative markup. But this is not the vehicle to use for this policy difference. Let the courts do their job. Uphold the Constitution. With all due respect and affection to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), please stand together as one, Republican and Democrat, and reject this.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my opposition to language included in H.R. 2466, the fiscal year (FY) 2000 Interior Appropriations bill that would mandate a ``pro-rata proportionate'' distribution of contract support cost funding for Indian Health Service (IHS) programs administered by tribes and tribal organizations. I commend Chairman Regula's inclusion of an additional $35 million over FY 1999 funding for contract support cost funding, for a total of $238.8 million. The increase includes an additional $30 million for existing contracts and $5 million for new and expanded contracts. These additional funds are crucial to meet the federal government's legal obligation to help tribes carry out the management of tribal health care programs. However, I oppose the legislative provisions within H.R. 2466 that purports to ``fix'' the contract support cost funding backlog by requiring a pro-rata distribution of contract support cost funding for all self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts. This language is inconsistent with an agreement reached on this issue among affected Members of Congress during debate of the FY 1999 Interior Appropriations bill. Abruptly imposing such a pro-rata system will disrupt on-going, viable tribally operated health care systems. This system disproportionately punishes those tribes with the longest history of providing their own health services and breaks a government commitment to these tribes. This issue is too important and complex to be adequately addressed without full review by the Resources Committee, the committee of jurisdiction. In addition, the massive redistribution of these funds would cause severe hardships in many of the health care programs serving Native Americans across the United States, a population that already is at the bottom of every health care indicator in the United States. To date, the Resources Committee has taken many constructive steps in an open process to develop a solution. The Resources Committee held its first hearing on February 24, 1999, at which the committee heard from both government and tribal representatives. The Resources Committee is reviewing a report recently released by the General Accounting Office (GAO) on contract support cost funding and how to ensure more consistency in payments. In addition, the committee is working with the Administration to develop recommendations on contract support cost funding that are fair and within budget. I look forward to participating in a second hearing that is scheduled for August 3, 1999, to discuss both sets of recommendations. I strongly oppose the pro-rata language in the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill. I pledge to continue working with the Resources Committee, tribal organizations, and the Administration, to develop a thoughtful and participatory long-term solution to the contract support cost issue.