J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. In American politics of people working together----

Mr. HAYWORTH. To give tax relief to working families.

Mr. HAYWORTH. To help people get everything they can get in terms of their own livelihoods, their own ambitions----

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I daily give thanks for this institution where we are free to express different ideas and opinions. It is worth noting that my distinguished colleague from Texas offered precisely that: Her opinion based on spurious facts, claiming damage to people that simply does not exist. Sadly what we see, Mr. Speaker, is the disgruntled fringe of the left terribly, terribly upset that at long last there is a new consensus----

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Speaker very much. I would say to my colleagues, we have another example of people more interested in disrupting the institutions and agreements than working for honest and open debate.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit in which our colleague from California offers his amendment. But it again points out some fundamental differences in philosophy. For as my colleague from Virginia just pointed out, if we believe that tax hikes and constantly paying more and more taxes is the best form of investment in this country, then we should vote for the Brown amendment. But if on the other hand, we believe, as many of us on both sides of the aisle do now, that the American people and working families need to hang onto more of their own money and send less of it to Washington, DC, that it is possible to rein in spending and at the same time offer the American people much needed tax relief, we will vote no on the Brown amendment. I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that I listened with great interest to the ranking member of the Committee on Science as he outlined what he thought might happen in the 107th Congress. He mentioned, Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, President Gore. I just wonder if he checked that with the minority leader because I believe he might have another idea, judging from what I have read in the press recently. But whatever happens, we, of course for our money, believe it would be a conservative majority and a conservative President in the White House. We are taking important steps now to balance this budget, to allow working families to have tax relief, to properly weigh our priorities, and that is why I rise in opposition to the Brown amendment. Let us allow working families to hold onto more of their hard-earned money. Let us vote for a responsible budget plan.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kennedy amendment, because once again we stand at a historic juncture where we can make a very clear choice. Because quite the contrary what my colleague from Massachusetts has said, when we offer broad-based tax relief to working families, we are not lining the pockets of the rich. Quite the contrary. We are allowing working families to save, spend and invest more of their hard-earned money as they see fit. Sadly, the Kennedy amendment offers no net tax relief for the American people. That is the reality of the Kennedy amendment. Now, it is true if there are those in this Chamber who believe that the era of big government should continue, they should support the Kennedy amendment. However, we have a broad-based agreement which says that we should frame our priorities properly, we should allow almost every American to hold on to more of his hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington. We have worked out agreements and fashioned in the spirit of compromise a reasonable approach to fund priorities on both sides of the aisle, and that is why we must oppose the Kennedy amendment. Because the fact is, even though we can have disagreements about the course of government, once we have hammered out this type of agreement to lead to a balanced budget and, most importantly, offer broad-based tax relief that does not punish people for succeeding nor does it ask working families to continue to give more and more and more of their hard-earned money to Washington, we have the basis for, in fact, bringing this budget into balance, we have the basis for changing the psychology of government as well as the reality of government, and so it is for compassionate reasons that we rise in opposition to the Kennedy amendment, it is precisely because we believe that the era of big government should in fact be over. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague from California. Again I thank the spirit of cooperation that permeates this House with so many pressing questions of concern. Again I rise in support of the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California for his commitment to work in this area. The 6th District of Arizona in square mileage is roughly the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There are many rural communities that are fiscally challenged, financially strapped. I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee chairman joins with me in a commitment to work with FEMA to iron out the problems in and around Kearny and also to reimburse the people, the taxpayers, of Gila County, Arizona, who in good faith worked to fulfill agreements with the Federal Emergency Management Administration. Again I am very appreciative of my colleague from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona and also the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for moving forward on the aforementioned amendment. It is of vital concern for jobs and for Native Americans in the State of Arizona and I thank that spirit of cooperation and comity. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of this Disaster Recovery Act now under consideration by this House. There are many areas across this country that have suffered from a variety of natural disasters, and it is my hope that we can at last move this bill expeditiously. As we prepare to vote on this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out to this body that there are areas in Arizona that still are damaged as a result of flooding back in 1993. In one case, the town of Kearny, Arizona suffered significant destruction as a result of those 1993 floods, including the loss of its wastewater treatment facility, its campground, and its airport. The cost of this loss far exceeded the town's financial ability to recover from it. In response to that flooding, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, or FEMA, committed to help the community recover its losses and build dikes to prevent future flooding. Unfortunately, indeed sadly, Mr. Chairman, in this instance, FEMA has yet to live up to its commitment. In another case, in Gila County, Arizona, FEMA agreed to reimburse the county for $665,269 the county spent on cleanup work for the town of Winkelman. Although FEMA has paid the county some $341,598 of the amount the agency promised to pay, it still has been unwilling to pay the remainder. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues might imagine, this places financially-strapped Gila County in an extremely difficult position. Mr. Chairman, given that it has been 4 years since these floods occurred and satisfactory resolution of these problems has not yet been achieved, I would like to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations if he would be willing to offer his assistance to help me secure relief from FEMA on these issues of great concern in the 6th District of Arizona.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. They defeated the Baltimore Orioles. Mr. Speaker, there are some denizens of this area. Indeed, as we look at the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Gilchrest, tonight and realize that he hails from the great State of Maryland, that may be something that he would rather forget, but knowing it was the year of the Miracle Mets and sadly, ironically, the last year of what should be commonplace instead of miraculous, and that is a balanced budget. But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is quite right, the Mets defeated the Orioles in that World Series 1969 that led to a great book, ``The Year The Mets Lost Last Place.''

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia is correct because in the great State of Arizona it is only about 8:20 in the evening, and so folks are getting home from work, and they have had a chance to sit down and read the newspaper and watch television news and visit with their families, maybe get the young ones to bed, and now they turn their attention to matters that affect their lives. And indeed, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, as I traveled around the Sixth District of Arizona this past weekend, holding town halls in the Globe-Miami area, the Cobra Valley, great resource-laden area, copper mines, down to Florence, AZ, and finally into the small town of Coolidge, AZ, we talked a great deal, and I listened a great deal to Arizona families and their concerns, and because those town halls occurred on Saturday, in the wake of Friday's historic announcement, there was a great deal of interest and excitement about the notion that finally in Washington, DC people quit playing the blame game and looked for solutions. Mr. Speaker, I heard time and again from residents of the Sixth District of Arizona how pleased they were that Congress is getting down to business and working to enact a balanced budget. As our colleague from New Jersey pointed out, the last time that occurred was 1969, the year that Americans landed a man on the Moon. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the flag behind you was taken to the Moon and returned to this Chamber by our astronauts of Apollo 11, and it begs the question, if we could put a man on the Moon, then certainly, if we can reflect our national will in that way, certainly we can move to save money and to allow our citizens to hang onto their money because it is theirs, they earn it, send less of it here to Washington and transfer money, power, and influence out of Washington, DC and into the several States, and, most importantly, keep money in the pockets of hard-working Americans for them to save, spend, and invest on their families as they see fit. So that is what I bring back from the Sixth District of Arizona. To be certain, there is a lot of interest in working out the details, and I welcome this time with my colleagues from Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, as we talk more about tax relief for working families, as we talk about the dynamics of trying to work out this agreement, as we realize up front that challenges remain in the formulation of all the plans; but as we also welcome, even as we acknowledge, that no document crafted by man in this institution or any other can be considered perfect. Perhaps now we have at long last a meaningful start. In fact if my colleague from Georgia will indulge me, let me simply read, Mr. Speaker, into the Record the first couple of sentences in the lead editorial in today's Washington Times. I think it sets the proper historical perspective. Quoting now: Unlike the detailed spartan and loophole-laden deficit reduction legislation passed by Congress in the 1980's outlining paths toward reaching a balanced budget within several years, the budget agreement struck last week between President Clinton and the GOP-controlled Congress appears sufficiently calibrated to reach its target. Most important, that goal is being achieved while providing for substantial tax cuts.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the New York Mets lost in last place that year.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I gladly yield to my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a point well taken, and I would also add that let us give credit where credit is due. Indeed the leadership on this issue comes from both sides of the aisle. Our good friend from Ohio, [Mr. Traficant], has been insistent on this type of legislation, and I do not think we can overstate this to the American people too emphatically. As we know, and my colleague from Pennsylvania being a distinguished attorney, I do not hold that against him, but it has been a basic tenet of Western jurisprudence that the burden of proof does not rest with the accused; instead, with those who make the accusations. Yet, we have turned that in tax law to where it is completely reversed, and some would say that reverse indeed is a perversity of the system, for when one is called in and questioned about one's returns, the burden of proof falls not on the Internal Revenue Service, instead it falls on the accused taxpayer. Indeed, there is not the presumption of innocence; instead, there is a presumption of guilt. So I salute my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], for being a leader on this issue. And I champion the fact that here again is another example, despite the tendencies and temptations of one-upsmanship and snappy rejoinders and spinarama that emanates out of Washington, DC, there are people of goodwill from both major political parties willing to put that aside and work for what is best for the American people. Rest assured, there will be differences, and indeed we should champion those differences here in this, what one of our forebears called this temple of democracy. But with that in mind, let us work together to deal with reforming the IRS, changing the IRS as we know it, working hard to put money and allow American taxpayers to keep that money in their pocket and rein in the size and influence of this behemoth we now call the Federal Government. I know our colleague from New Jersey has thoughts on that as well.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding to me and my colleagues from Pennsylvania and New Jersey for joining us tonight. It is obvious to the American people, while challenges confront us in working out details and, indeed, some would say those details may from time to time bedevil us, we do have a basic blueprint for changing the culture in Washington, for taking a step, regardless of party label, to transfer money, power, and influence out of this city and back into the hands of the American people. And with that and with the framework of this historic agreement, over a 10-year period of time, one-quarter of a trillion dollars in tax relief, in tax cuts for the American people, whether for job creation and economic expansion or with a drastic change to the unfair death tax or, importantly, early on now this $500 per child tax credit, governed by this simple notion: The money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people, and the people should hang onto more of their own money to save, spend, and invest and send less of it here to this city.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am struck by the energy and the enthusiasm, the creativity of those who join us in this 105th Congress: our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], and also one of your colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts], who outlined I think as a former school teacher really what I call the human equation when it comes to Federal dollars involved in education, as they exist today. Because our good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, has come up with a notion of a resolution for dollars to the classroom, saying that henceforth it should be our goal to be mindful of the human equation; for the 6 to 8 percent of funding that the Federal Government supplies to school districts around the Nation, 90 percent of that money should get into the classroom to help teachers teach and help students learn, and 10 percent should be reserved for bureaucrats and buildings and the cost of administration, a 9 to 1 difference. Because our initiative should be focused upon local control, upon sending those resources to where those resources can make the most difference, and, in the case of the proposed land grant legislation that I hope to introduce shortly, even finding ways where money does not have to be spent, per se, but we can use those historical examples that have served us well educationally in the past to offer hope for the future.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a valuable note, but also I think the challenge is for us to find those good ideas to enact into law that can help empower educators on the local level, and I am glad my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox, brought this up. It will be my honor on Saturday to offer the commencement address at my alma mater. North Carolina State University was created in essence by an act of Congress. The Federal Land Grant Act in the 1860's, the Morrill land grant set aside federally controlled land to several States for the establishment of institutions of higher learning so that those citizens who, in the past had not had an opportunity for a college education, could receive an education. I think it is vital, indeed, borne out of experience in the 104th Congress, to take a look, commensurate with our conservative principles of holding the line on spending, recognizing the power of the several States, realizing that education cannot be micromanaged from Washington, and mindful of that historic act I am going to present in the commencement address, and indeed, I have spoken with majority leadership both in the House and Senate, and the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction here in the House, what I would call the Federal Land Grant Act for Elementary and Secondary Schools here in the United States. Let me tell the Members, it is borne of a practical experience in the 104th Congress. The small town of Alpine, AZ, almost located on the border of Arizona and New Mexico, was confronting a crisis because the tax base in that area has essentially been eviscerated through the actions of some Federal judges to stop timber harvests, and through several other actions, the tax base has shrunk. At the same time, there is the challenge of holding the line, or perhaps even, candidly, a decrease in what we call in legislative parlance PILTS, payment in lieu of taxes, in so many areas that have vast Federal lands; that working with the people of Alpine, I was able to enact legislation in the closing days of the 104th Congress, with the help of my colleagues who were here at that point in time, to convey 30 acres of federally controlled land to the Alpine school district for a significant savings when it came to the construction of new school facilities. To get that done, we had to follow almost, I would not call it a crazy quilt, but it was a path that is seldom followed to get this done. So it will be my intent, as I will outline in the commencement address on Saturday, to offer in this body the Federal Land Grant Act for Elementary and Secondary Schools, so those rural school districts from coast to coast will have an opportunity to save funds, to have land conveyed voluntarily at no cost to the Federal Government for those lands that are already held in trust by the United States for these local school districts; not to micromanage the curriculum from Washington, not to dictate the policies, what should go on in the classroom, but simply as another tool, commensurate with our constitutional authority, and also the examples of history, to empower people to make local decisions in areas as important as education. Indeed, I am indebted, I am indebted to the people of Alpine, AZ, who stepped forward with a commonsense idea; and in so doing, yes, to help their local community, offered a prototype for other school systems around the country. I am indebted to my alma mater for an education that gives us a sense of history that can be applied to the problems we face today, and on into the next century. So let us again call, mindful of our historical legacy, for this Federal land grant program for elementary and secondary schools, so that we can empower these local communities, who are desperately in need of holding onto their own funds. And it is that type of thinking, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, from people of good will of both sides of the aisle that can make a difference as we prepare for the next century.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I just want, for purposes of emphasis, to ask my colleague from New Jersey to read that total again, assuming the savings with a 2-percent reduction in interest rates. This is for an average family owning a home with a 30-year fixed mortgage in your district in New Jersey, what would that savings be?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, and I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker as we are here, to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for giving us a tangible answer of why balancing the budget is so vitally important. This is not some sort of esoteric economic goal for its own sake. It is not the notion of in the realm of cosmic reality trying to put our house in order because of a love of symmetry. The fact is, it can help families save more, invest more, plan for their own futures, and that is why it is vital. Every family in this Nation has an economic stake in seeing a balanced budget, not because of some far-flung concept, but because of the glaring realities of the challenges of life that they will confront as we prepare to move into the next century. While there are some cynics who would say of economists, you could lay all economists end to end and still never reach a conclusion, we are compelled to take a look at the testimony of Dr. Greenspan when he testified in the 104th Congress in front of the Committee on the Budget and when he said he was absolutely convinced that a balanced budget would lead to a genuine reduction of up to 2 full percentage points in the prime interest rates.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, a point that I think is important here, and we would be less than candid with the American people, Mr. Speaker, if we did not take into account the cynicism, yes, even the skepticism that greets this agreement. Indeed, this morning in the lead editorial of the Arizona Republic in my great State, there was voiced in the editorial some skepticism about the plan. But Mr. Speaker, as the American people join us tonight, I think it is important that they realize that the proof is in our most recent history, that with this Congress and the change in majority status here beginning in 1995 with the 104th Congress, the proof was in the pudding, the proof was in the actions. For example, the elimination of almost 300 wasteful and duplicative government programs, in the process, a savings of some $53 to $54 billion. So my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Kingston, is correct; much remains to be done. The other thing that makes this different, what was pointed out in the lead editorial of the Washington Times this morning, is that the loopholes are not there. Indeed, the challenge now becomes to craft a document, the details of which will be worked out, of course in consultation with the minority, but with the special philosophical underpinnings of our new majority in the Congress of the United States to adhere to a simple notion that is the following: This wealth does not belong to the Government, it belongs to the American people who voluntarily send their tax dollars to Washington. It is our job to be a good steward of those tax dollars, and to make sure that we have a government that operates within sound fiscal bounds, and at the same time we do so on less of the people's money so that money stays in their pockets. As the first Arizonan in history to sit on the Committee on Ways and Means, I look forward to a very busy time in the next several weeks as we work out the details of tax reductions in capital gains, perhaps the elimination, or certainly a drastically reduction in what we could more accurately call the death tax that my colleague from Pennsylvania talked about. As we look at that $500 per child tax credit, so vital to American families who need to save, spend and invest more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington, that is the challenge before us, even as we work out the details, not with legislative loopholes or some sort of sleight of hand, but we get about the hard work of the details of governance, which is why we were sent here in the first place.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today without venom or vitriol to respectfully suggest to my liberal friends that the debate we should be having today in fact is misnamed by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, for it is not a debate about campaign finance reform. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we stand on the precipice of a major debate concerning our national security, a question that should engage everyone, regardless of partisan label or political philosophy, because the question before us, raised not only in the Washington Times but in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, all the outlets of the main extreme media is this question: In an attempt to win an election, was access to our executive branch conferred upon foreign interests? Mr. Speaker, it brings me no joy to have to bring this up. This is a question of concern to every American. While I understand and to a certain degree appreciate the political tactic of trying to muddy the water, the observation is clear that the first step to genuine campaign reform is to obey existing law; is for those who now freely admit that they violate Federal law and who use the interesting term that their legal counsel informs them there is no controlling legal authority, let me simply say to those folks in the executive branch, Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a controlling legal authority; Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a controlling legal authority. It is called the Congress of the United States, in its oversight power conferred upon it by the people of the United States, who over 200 years ago ratified the Constitution of the United States. So the challenge before us today, Mr. Speaker, again is not a question of campaign finance. The challenge that will confront this Congress, indeed that will confront every city of this Republic, is a question of national security brought to light under existing campaign finance law. It is a serious question. The question remains: Was the executive branch rewarding access to foreign interests in a pursuit of the almighty dollar for campaign activities, to hang onto the executive branch of Government? It is a serious question we must answer.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for yielding me this time and my colleague from Maryland who preceded me with his comments. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to honor the memory and the legacy of Jack Roosevelt Robinson. A couple of Arizonans offer a unique perspective on the life of Jackie Robinson. One is former Phoenix Mayor Sam Mardian, who grew up in the modest Pasadena neighborhood in close proximity to Jackie Robinson. In a recent column in the Arizona Republic, he spoke of Robinson's unique gift not only as a great athlete but as one who could reach across barriers, as one who could work to extol the virtues of teamwork. And even as we recognize that, we dare not, we cannot pause without reflecting on Robinson's incredible athletic gifts. A four- sport letterman at UCLA. Indeed, baseball, ironically, was not his greatest sport. But in baseball it is where he began to make a difference for this land of ours. Another recollection comes from another man who now calls Phoenix home, former Dodger pitcher Joe Black, who joined the Brooklyn organization after Jackie broke the color line and who had the occasion to room with Mr. Robinson. Joe Black recalls that Jackie's first words to him were, ``You're a big man, Joe. I bet you're good in a fight, but we're not here to fight.'' A personal recollection. My grandfather spent 50 years in major league baseball. He was honored to scout, alongside Branch Rickey, many of those who would come from the Negro leagues into major league baseball. And what Jack Robinson brought to the game was more than a great physical ability, it was an incredible ability to bring his intellectual capacities, the notion of strategy. Indeed, he helped to change the face of baseball. The strategy of using his speed to even steal home changed the face of baseball just as suredly as he broke the color line. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor the memory and legacy of Jackie Robinson, who described himself as an eternal optimist. He did so in one of the most difficult moments in our history. In the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jack Roosevelt Robinson said, I am an eternal optimist and I believe some good will come even of this tragedy. Jack Robinson was one who was a pioneer in many areas. He stood unafraid to speak the truth as he saw it, active in both major political parties, and it is that eloquence, that ability and, yes, that pioneer spirit that we honor today. Mr. Speaker, to his widow Rachel, to his family and most of all to the people of the United States of America, we go on record today proud to honor the legacy of Jack Roosevelt Robinson.