J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the challenges faced by both the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking minority member, and the many different priorities that one tries to weigh and the compromises that must occur in a legislative body to get work done. Mr. Chairman, let me simply ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], to take a look at the number of attorneys per commissioner or board member.

Mr. HAYWORTH. ``When Congress reauthorized the Impact Aid law in 1994 and created section 8007, it envisioned this part of the Impact Aid Program to be funded at a minimum of $25 million each year. Section 8007 has only been appropriated at $5 million each of the last few years. Currently the House bill includes $7 million for section 8007.'' What we see here is not in gratitude but a simple statement of fact and intent. While again I join with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, on behalf of federally impacted schools and impact aid, this shows again why we should add these funds, why we should respect not only the committee process but the amendments process and pass this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the observations of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I just wonder if my colleague would answer this question. Does the gentleman honestly believe that the several hundred lawyers who work for the NLRB are toiling by the sweat of their brow to help, when we see the extravagance?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate the gentleman's point of view and the passion that he brings to this.

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

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but he is wrong. In fact, I testified for an increase of close to $20 million when I appeared before the subcommittee.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Nebraska and would like to commend both sides for the candor involved in this debate. Mr. Chairman, just going back to some comments made earlier, no one here is suggesting, as has been implied or perhaps stated, that we seek a destruction of the National Labor Relations Board. We understand the importance and value of having a place where labor and management, where workers can go to settle grievances, the framework which exists. But again, as we look at priorities and we deal as a collective body with the recommendations of the appropriations subcommittee, I believe we are well within our rights to ask the legitimate question, given the extravagance that we see at the posh Washington, DC, address. Mr. Chairman, I would just invite our friends in the television networks, and NBC comes to mind with the series, The Fleecing of America, I think they might want to go down and visit the NLRB and take a look at what has become, in essence, a Taj Mahal which stands in stark contrast to schools that are below standards in Timbuktu that we see in many areas of our Nation, particularly on our Indian reservations and military bases. I respectfully, again, would reinforce the notion that we have an opportunity here to redirect some funding, not to eliminate an agency but to redirect our priorities, because, Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is this, if this amendment passes, workers will still have a National Labor Relations Board to go to. But if this amendment fails to pass, many children will still lack adequate places to go to school. It is a simple, stark contrast that compels us to adopt this amendment. Again, I thank my colleague from Nebraska and also our colleague from Mississippi, from whom we will hear a bit later in this debate, for the bipartisan nature of this amendment, because it does what this House is supposed to do, rethink priorities and deal with pressing problems.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague from Hawaii and also to the comments of the ranking minority member. If I am not mistaken, it was not but just a few moments ago when my colleague from Wisconsin pointed out that it should not be my intent to mischaracterize words or his reasoning. I would simply ask for the same courtesy from both the ranking minority member and the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii. For if it were my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to destroy or eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, I would offer that amendment. Again, that is not our intent here. We believe there is a legitimate right for the National Labor Relations Board to work, to operate, to deal with workers' needs, but again it becomes a question of priorities. Now, Mr. Chairman, my friend from Hawaii brought up the President's proposal for 5 billion dollars' worth of funds for school construction. And just to point out, when she asked the question, where is the support for that program, it is worth noting, Mr. Chairman, as I think most Members know, that that $5 billion would not, would not have gone to schools under the aegis of impact aid because they are in areas that have no adequate tax base or bonding capacity. And as we know, that was a prerequisite for the funding, the $5 billion package, offered earlier by the administration. Indeed, as we have talked about and heard from the minority side evidence of so many cuts, just for the record, last year we may recall the House-passed 1997 appropriations bill included a 15-percent decrease for the NLRB, but after conference with the Senate, the agency ended up with a 3-percent increase. What I would ask, Mr. Chairman, is again for our friends in the fourth estate, and some call broadcasting the fifth estate, to take a look at the extravagance at the National Labor Relations Board, the veritable Taj Mahal in downtown Washington, and ask if that is a legitimate edifice, if that extravagant headquarters in fact really helps workers' rights. I appreciate the fact the ranking minority member talked about the efficiency and doing more with less, by his account, that the NLRB states. I am saying with this amendment, as colleagues on both sides of the aisle are saying, as we are looking at priorities, this is a proper venue to take money from an organization that can perform well and that will continue to perform well and put the money where it is needed. Again, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the slight increase to $7 million in school construction. But as the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools states in its study and its request, that organization says we should fully fund this to $25 million. It is that request that I believe we should honor. It is in that spirit that we offer the amendment. Even as I appreciate the fact that there are profound philosophical differences on both sides of the aisle, there is also some uniformity and some recognition of need here; and that is why we come with this amendment today, again to make the choice of how best to spend this $18 million. It is desperately needed by federally impacted schools. We must adopt this amendment, the protestations of the minority notwithstanding.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, with whom I agree on a great many subjects, but hearing his last observation about the path paved with good intentions, it tempts me to remind him that I will just go back to my district and be sure to tell those kids in dilapidated schools that in his opinion they are being treated well because he and I both know and, Mr. Chairman, I think this body knows that we have schools literally falling apart, federally impacted schools. While I joined and sat alongside with the gentleman from Texas to testify and to talk to members of this subcommittee, the fact also remains that in the school construction budget, section 8007, the increase was marginal and woefully inadequate. And the amendments process is not intended as an insult to the Committee on Appropriations, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, is well aware, a colleague to whom I tried to reach out in preparation of this amendment, and we had an honest difference of opinion on this but we have this process again to bring to the floor of this Chamber an open airing of priorities and to give Members a chance to say we believe despite the good work of the committee some things can be done even better, as I see the dilapidated state of federally impacted schools in the Sixth District of Arizona, and I will read a portion of the statement from the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools in support of the Hayworth-Taylor amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 40. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, children on the reservation are often underfed and malnourished and lack the proper books and supplies. But at the NLRB, all five Board members have their own showers, kitchens, libraries, and are provided with clean linen weekly. And get this, Mr. Chairman, while the schools on our military bases and reservations struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers, each Board member of the NLRB has 18 to 22 lawyers on his staff, while the NLRB general counsel employs 628 lawyers at an average salary of more than $76,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, in almost every survey I have seen, the American people list education as their top priority. We have a chance to do something to improve education today in a very helpful way by increasing funding for the construction of schools on some of our Federal lands to serve some of the poorest children in America. By contrast, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen one survey citing clean linen for high-priced lawyers as a pressing national problem. In short, Mr. Chairman, is there anyone in this Chamber who really believes that the NLRB needs the $18 million more than the children on our reservations and military bases? Because, Mr. Chairman, that is the simple choice before us today. I do not want to make it sound as if this Congress has not tried to tighten the reins on the NLRB. On the contrary, I am pleased that the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has frozen funding for the NLRB over the past few years. Nevertheless, the NLRB can and should get by on less. This proposal is not a drastic cut. It is merely a way for us to set our priorities for our scarce Federal dollars in a more human way. Mr. Chairman, we are confronted with a stark but simple choice: lawyers or children, bureaucrats or schools. Mr. Chairman, again I would say this amendment is a straightforward choice: Lawyers or children, bureaucracy or schools. I implore the Members to support this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman will join with me in a colloquy. I am very grateful for the hard work that he and his subcommittee have put into this 1998 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill. My constituents and I are very pleased with the increased attention to health issues and funding in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the gentleman's attention one issue of great concern to the residents of the Sixth District of Arizona, the growing incidence of osteoporosis. As you know, Mr. Chairman, osteoporosis affects 28 million Americans. The problem is especially acute in Arizona, where fully 14 percent of the residents are afflicted with osteoporosis. For these reasons, I would ask the gentleman that as he goes into conference on the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill, that he give consideration to the Senate report language suggesting an osteoporosis public education campaign. Such a campaign would target young women to assist them in maintaining appropriate health behaviors that can have a significant effect on bone strength that can last a lifetime. Funding for such a campaign would come from the amount designated by the bill for the Office on Women's Health. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman consider the startling trends in osteoporosis as we proceed to conference and that the gentleman keep the affected families in mind. Again, I thank the gentleman for his time and consideration of this important issue.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, those of us in the majority join with those in the minority mourning the death of William Pascrell, Sr. We pass along best wishes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell] and to the gentleman's family. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a former United States attorney, and the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely right. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between deliberation and dilatory tactics. Sadly, this Justice Department, in deciding to decide to perhaps one day to decide if there should be independent counsel to check into the alleged wrongdoing of the Vice President, is delaying and stonewalling. Mr. Speaker, with all due apologies to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons], perhaps this body should examine its own form of Reno divorce to see what we can do under the Constitution to examine the actions or the inaction of this Attorney General because, Mr. Speaker, it is important that those elected to high office obey existing law.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, it is with a deep sense of loss and great sadness that I come to the floor of the House this evening to acknowledge the tragic and senseless death of a young man I knew well. Scott McCabe served in the district office of the Sixth District of Arizona as an intern in the spring of this year. Before that, he selflessly gave of his time and talents as a volunteer in our 1996 reelection campaign. Madam Speaker, regardless of our political philosophy and partisan stripe, one miracle of our electoral process can be found in the willingness of so many to join in our cause. Such a man was Scott McCabe. I have memories of him beginning in the early morning hours helping with post hole diggers and using his brawn to erect campaign signs and then coming back to the office and making telephone calls and working literally from dawn to dusk and beyond because he believed in this grand experiment that we call America. On Sunday of this week, Scott was killed near his home while attempting to foil a burglary. Words cannot describe my shock and sadness upon hearing of this awful event. It should serve to remind all of us of the terrible scourge of violent crime which still plagues our society and it should renew our commitment to stand firmly for the rights of victims of crime, who like Scott and his family, cry out for justice. They deserve no less. Scott was a wonderful and unique person. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word. Everyone who was touched by his life walked away knowing they had spent time with a man of character and commitment. Scott's death is deeply saddening in so many ways. In his late 20's, he was really just beginning to find his way in this world. He was continuing his college education. He operated a small but growing business, and he was preparing to be married. His loss is a great one, not only for his family and his loved ones but indeed, Madam Speaker, for all of us. I firmly believe this world would be a better place if only it were blessed with more people like Scott McCabe. He stood firm in his convictions. He worked hard to achieve his goals. He was loved by all who knew him. His passing leaves a void that cannot be filled. He will be missed. My wife Mary and I join with members of our staff who served alongside shoulder to shoulder with this remarkable young man Scott McCabe. We send our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to his family. Our lives are richer for having known him, if only for all too brief a time. We will not see his like again. He represents the countless thousands who care enough about this constitutional Republic to give of their time, their energies and their passions for this wonderful Nation called the United States of America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, there is much that the lady from North Carolina had to say with which I agree, and we are honored to serve in this Chamber where we can both agree and disagree about a variety of subjects. I would simply hearken back to one of the most poignant and pointed observations ever made in this city just down The Mall when Dr. King came here in the early 1960's and dreamed of an America where his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And, yes, the appropriations process is very important. That is why I hope the gentlewoman and many others on the other side of the aisle will join with Members of the new majority to appropriate funds to those who most need the funds. One example of that will come later in our Labor-HHS appropriations bill with an amendment I offer to put an additional $18 million into funding for Impact Aid school construction, because there is a Federal role to be played, both because of sacred and solemn treaty rights and obligations to native Americans, and also to the many children who are dependents of those in military service and who live on military bases both here in the United States and abroad. To be sure, Madam Speaker, we confront many issues of great and grave importance in our constitutional Republic, but I would like to address one that I think has been discussed a great deal this morning during the morning hour, and that has to do with campaign finance reform. Madam Speaker, it is ironic that so many of my liberal friends come to this floor now crying for campaign finance reform. Indeed, Madam Speaker, it is akin to having Bonnie and Clyde, during their heyday, call a press conference to demand that there be a cop on every block, on every street corner in America. That is the incredible irony. Madam Speaker, there is one central truth with which we should all agree, and that is that everyone should obey existing laws. Indeed, Madam Speaker, as we read the revelations in recent headlines, it is becoming painfully apparent that there are serious questions involving members of the executive branch and the actions they have taken that appear to be in violation of those same campaign finance reform laws. Indeed, Madam Speaker, one need only remember back a few months ago to hear the words of the Vice President of the United States when he deigned to claim that there was ``no controlling legal authority,'' end quote, to keep him from making fundraising calls on Federal property. Indeed, as records later revealed, the Vice President of the United States made several fund-raising calls from his office on the White House grounds. That is in clear contradiction to existing law and to the precedents and the ethics of government where, Madam Speaker, as the gentlewoman from Missouri knows from her own experience, and indeed Members on both sides of the aisle know, we are told from day one that as Members of Congress, we are not here to solicit campaign funds on Federal property. We are not supposed to make use of the taxpayers' dollars to place money in the campaign till. Campaign finance reform? Certainly. But reform begins with a recognition of existing law. That is why hearings continue in the other body; that is why hearings will take place under the aegis of this House, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to check and to examine the many disparate claims and the disturbing revelations which we read of almost daily. That is why, despite the great hue and cry for campaign finance reform, we need in this House, we need in this Nation, to take charge and to examine the deeds of those who perhaps have not obeyed existing law.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend from Texas and certainly I think we all share great concerns about campaign finance, especially great concerns about those who do not seem to be able to follow existing law. Mr. Speaker, as we talk about campaign finance, let us join together to acknowledge that one thing should be done at the outset, to have people of both parties obey existing law. But for some to come to this Chamber and call for campaign finance reform in the light of recent reports is akin to having John Dillinger back in his heyday call a press conference and say there ought to be tighter rules against bank robbery. Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. I ask my friends on the other side to join with me for genuine campaign reform, including the inclusion of the Paycheck Protection Act so that working people will not have their wages taken coercively to go to political causes with which they do not agree.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Young for the opportunity to engage in a colloquy earlier today about the Dragonfly program. Dragonfly, also called the Canard Rotor/Wing technology program or CRW is a revolutionary concept helicopter aviation. It uses a stopped rotor, high-speed vertical take off and landing or VTOL platform that has the performance characteristics of a helicopter take-off and fixed- wing aircraft flight. Dragonfly has seen a tremendous base of support develop in the U.S. Marine Corps, and Navy. By the end of this fiscal year, McDonnell Douglas will have an R&D investment of about $9 million and Navy investment of $1 million. It can fill critical, future joint requirements for VTOL operations from all air capable ships, Navy and Marine Corps requirements for a joint replacement aircraft, as well as serve as a continuation of the Cobra and Huey helicopter programs. Dragonfly will demonstrate the revolutionary flight potential of the high speed CRW concept using an autonomous unmanned air vehicle. The CRW concept uses a rotating wing for VTOL operations, and stops the rotor wing for high speed, fixed wing flight. The planned demonstration program will test and validate the new technology, characteristics and capabilities. The Dragonfly concept represents a new performance capability for small deck ships in both manned and unmanned applications. The manned CRW concept can be applied to a number of joint missions: attack, armed reconnaissance, escort, close air support, combat search and rescue, and utility/transport. Since the Dragonfly is compact in size and needs no launch or recovery system, a CRW unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV can deliver battle damage assessments and beyond the horizon survivable armed reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition capability to every surface combatant in the fleet. In addition, a CRW UAV would have over triple the speed and altitude capability of current tactical UAVs and a flight envelope that significantly exceeds other UAV systems currently in production or in the planning stages. Dragonfly promises to be a strong candidate for providing hovering and high-speed capability in an attack platform needed for a variety of future Marine Corps missions such as V-22 tilt-rotor escort, ground attack, and combat search and rescue. The program's near term transition sponsor office is the Program Executive Office for Cruise Vehicles and Unmanned Vehicles. This office has committed to take the proven CRW technology to its next state of development following a successful demonstration of the Dragonfly capabilities. I commend the innovative engineering and design teams at McDonnell Douglas, located in my district in Mesa, AZ, for their work on CRW and Dragonfly. The Department of Defense plans to pursue this technology and include it in its budget for fiscal year 1999. The contractor is also committed to continued shared funding of the program. Mr. Speaker, funding for the Dragonfly Program in the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense appropriations bill is critical to transition this important technology to the future.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, to be certain, campaign finance questions are important, but family finance questions should come first. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of this House we will take an important step to ensure that American families keep more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand just the ``fax'', F-A-X, a letter sent to me via facsimile from the Wilkins family in Casa Grande, AZ. The Wilkins family, Barney and Margie, are school teachers. Their kids are B.J., Megan, and Molly. The letter reads, Mr. Speaker, ``Thanks for such a nice 19th wedding anniversary gift.'' They are talking about the tax cuts we will pass later today. ``We appreciate your hard work.'' And the P.S. says this: ``Please continue to cut taxes so we don't have to work three jobs.'' This is what it is all about. Why should working families sacrifice so that Washington can waste money? The contrary should be true. Washington should sacrifice so that working families can keep more of their own money, and we make that start today.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for the time. Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult for professional politicians to do this, but I would challenge Members on both sides who are career office holders to leave the spin cycle in the laundry room. The fact is it is time, Mr. Speaker, for straight talk with the American people. And the fact is that we have made an important first step with this legislation. Is it perfect? No. Does everybody get everything they want? Absolutely not. But to try and keep scores, as if this were the partisan baseball game the other night, I just think is something we should leave alone. Because this is not a game; this is about living, breathing, working people. Like the working couple from Casa Grande, AZ, who sent me a letter via fax, the Wilkins family, Barney and Margie. They are schoolteachers. Their kids are B.J., Megan, and Molly. Barney and Margie work hard at teaching school. They are not rich although some people have estimates that say that their combined income would make them rich. In fact, they have a third job. They supply auto parts for vintage cars and go to vintage and classic car shows on the weekend. They write me and they say, ``Congressman, thanks for this 19th wedding anniversary gift.'' I do not mean to pick at their sentiment here, but this is not really a gift to them or a gift to the American people. Because the money that the American people earn is their money. They ought to keep more of it and send less of it to Washington. The challenge is, and this is where we differ in good faith is this notion, why should families sacrifice to send more of their money to Washington? Why not let families keep more of their money and let Washington make the sacrifice? The P.S. is the most important thing. ``P.S., please continue to cut taxes more so we do not have to work three jobs.'' Mr. Speaker, we are making that first step today to cut taxes, to reward Americans who work hard. That is the key to this debate, and that is why I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, having heard the comments of my colleague from the Virgin Islands, and indeed the comments of several of my liberal colleagues this morning, it is small wonder that the American people say, will we ever stop the partisan bickering and go to work on behalf of the American people? Are there concerns we should all have with campaign finance laws? Absolutely. But paramount today is the subject of financing for the family and making sure that American families hang onto more of their own money and send less of it to Washington. And, Mr. Speaker, this day and its significance should not be lost on the American people, as we pass the first balanced budget in a generation, as we save Medicare for the next decade and make preparations to deal with those serious questions, and as we offer tax relief in a tax cut for working families and providing tax relief at every stage of life for Americans for the first time in 16 years. Try as they might, the professional politicians want to change the subject, but the American people know that balancing the budget and putting our family finances in order is the proper first order of business.