J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for this time. I rise in support of this legislation to echo what the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said. Here we have a wonderful opportunity for a bipartisan piece of legislation for projects that benefit the American people. In the Sixth District of Arizona, Mr. Speaker, there are two sites in particular. We will take them alphabetically, the Alpine school district needs land, a tiny school district asking for the conveyance of fewer than 40 acres to build school sites and athletic fields. The tax base has dwindled. Resource based industries for one reason or another have not been allowed to operate. This is a wonderful chance to truly put children first and help education in the Alpine school district. Second, Mr. Speaker, the Walnut Canyon National Monument outside Flagstaff, regardless of partisan dispensation or political stripe, the people of Flagstaff, indeed the people of the Sixth District of Arizona hope to see the boundaries expand on this great natural landmark and national monument. We have a chance to do that. So I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for this time. Mr. Speaker, I would make the observation that despite the prevailing winds of what is politically correct, this is one of the few instances in official Washington where a description accurately fits the act it is describing, for this rule and this legislation addresses the problem of illegal immigration. By its very definition, it is an act against the law. And for that reason primarily, if an action is taken which is illegal, there should be sanctions against those who would participate in that illegal act. That is why I rise in strong support of the rule and the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I come from the border State of Arizona. It is of great concern to the people of Arizona that we close the door on illegal immigration. Hear me clearly, on illegal immigration, because by closing this illegal back door, we can keep the front door open to immigrants who have helped our society and helped our constitutional Republic. I think of one of them who hails from Holbrook in the sixth district of Arizona, who makes that place her home. Her name is Pee Wee Mestas. She is a restaurant owner. She came to this Nation legally. Her mother applied for a visa, went through the necessary legal steps to become a citizen. Her mother worked hard, going to school, going to cosmetology classes while working as a domestic servant to provide for her family. Pee Wee's mom was willing to work hard and follow the rules. Because she was, she raised up a generation of citizens, citizens who work hard and play by the rules. That is the basic issue here. End an illegal act and instill responsibility. If it is good enough for the Mestas family, it should be good enough for the United States of America. Support the rule. Support the legislation. Let us take steps to end illegal immigration.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 1996, the House of Representatives passed two bills that are critically important to our Nation's veterans: H.R. 3586, the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act, and H.R. 3118, the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996. These bills reaffirm Congress' commitment to veterans who came to the defense of our Nation in times of need. H.R. 3586 responds to growing concerns that the viability of veterans' preference in the Federal work force is being threatened. When veterans leave the military to become civil servants, they should not be forced to start their careers over again. Rather, their military experience should carry over into their Government service. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not always the case. That is why it is important for Congress to pass this legislation, and forward it to the President for his signature. This bill rightly removes impediments veterans face during hiring, and strengthens their rights during agency downsizing. In addition, H.R. 3586 establishes, for the first time, a system for redress for veterans who believe their rights have been violated in the workplace. This legislation recognizes that veterans should have the same rights and privileges the rest of the work force enjoys. When veterans enter the workplace after serving their country, they will be no longer relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Rather, they will be rewarded with jobs that take into account their previous military experience. While veterans need and deserve jobs, they also need adequate and expanded health care. For this reason, the House passed H.R. 3118, which will update and simplify rules governing VA medical care and substantially expand veterans' eligibility to receive treatment on an outpatient basis. As the VA moves from expensive inpatient care to more cost-effective primary and outpatient care, it is important that Congress recognizes the potential of serving more veterans at a lower cost in outpatient centers. H.R. 3118 moves toward this goal by helping the VA shift its focus to outpatient centers so that more veterans will be able to access these facilities. Another key element of H.R. 3118 is expanded veterans' access to VA health care by eliminating statutory rules which for years have prohibited the VA from providing many veterans with routine outpatient treatment and preventive care. If this legislation becomes law, access will be expanded for veterans with service-incurred disabilities or low incomes by allowing them to receive their care at outpatient facilities, which has been prohibited by outdated rules. By shifting our focus to outpatient facilities, our Nation's veterans will be better served because these centers can provide care in less populated areas in a more cost-effective manner. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: Every one of our Nation's veterans is a hero. Without them, our country might not be able to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that we, as Americans, cherish today. Veterans have kept their promises to the Government. We must honor our commitment to them by providing veterans with the necessary tools for survival. These include work and health care. H.R. 3568 and H.R. 3118 provide veterans with more work opportunity and expanded health care, and these bills personify this Congress' deep commitment to the veterans who valiantly fought for our great country. I commend my colleagues for supporting this legislation, and will continue to work with them to pass important legislation that benefits veterans.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee for their assistance in moving H.R. 3215 through the legislative process. As my colleagues may know, the Trading with Indians Act was originally enacted in 1834, and at that time it served an important purpose: to ensure that Federal employees did not improperly influence native Americans. However, today this law is unnecessary and unproductive. It establishes a prohibition against commercial trading with native Americans by employees of the Indian Health Service [IHS] and Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. In many cases, this prohibition also extends to transactions undertaken by the spouse of a Federal employee. The penalties for violations include a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. The act further provides that any employee who is found to be in violation should be terminated from Federal employment. Enforcement of this outdated law has caused great difficulties for many native American families. It has also made it more difficult for IHS and BIA to retain quality Federal employees in certain facilities located on remote parts of reservations. Both Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Interior Assistant Secretary Ada Deer have expressed support for repealing the Trading with Indians Act. The Senate has already approved legislation which includes language identical to H.R. 3215. Both the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe support passage of the bill. In fact, I am not aware of any opposition to H.R. 3215. Repeal of the Trading with Indians Act is long overdue. Passage of H.R. 3215 would benefit numerous native American families, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. I know that Chairman Myers and Representative Bevill, the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, have had to work especially hard this year to report this legislation in light of their original allocation. Once again, they have done an incredible job of balancing the many requests they received with the available funding. As I noted earlier this year in hearings, I appreciate the outstanding leadership Chairman Myers and Representative Bevill have provided. They will be sorely missed. Mr. Chairman, this legislation includes $500,000 to complete a reconnaissance study for the Rio de Flag floodplain in Flagstaff, AZ. The residents of Flagstaff, AZ are grateful for the $200,000 provided by the committee last year to initiate this study. The Corps of Engineers anticipates beginning this study this spring. As a result of the Federal Emergency Management Agency designating much of Flagstaff's downtown and southside areas as a special flood hazard area, Flagstaff is prevented from moving forward with new development or important redevelopment projects. The city of Flagstaff is aware of the cost- sharing requirements associated with planning and constructing this project and is a willing partner. Finally, I want to note my strong support for an amendment offered by one of my colleagues from Arizona, Jim Kolbe. Representative Kolbe intends to offer an amendment which I believe is unprecedented. Instead of looking for ways to score easy political points by attempting to find spending cuts in someone else's backyard, he has looked to Arizona for ways to save money. Specifically, the amendment will cut over $20 million from water projects in Arizona. I am proud of my colleague's courage and vision to offer this amendment and happy that I can stand with a unified delegation from Arizona in supporting it. I hope that as the House continues its efforts to balance the budget, other State delegations in Congress will follow our example. I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Kolbe amendment and for final passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, my colleague from Ohio, for this time. Madam Chairman, she is called by an unlikely nickname, Pee Wee. Pee Wee Mestas of Holbrook, AZ, operates the Wayside Drive-in and offers a true spirit of compassion that goes beyond bromides to putting her philosophy and, yes, her faith in action. For, you see, Madam Chairman, Pee Wee Mestas, the operator of the Wayside Drive-in in Holbrook tries to do a gigantic job, not only providing for her family but trying to introduce the concept of work to young ladies in her hometown who have had children out of wedlock. Recently Pee Wee shared with me her frustration, for inevitably, Pee Wee says, when she offers jobs to these young ladies, they come and they work for a couple of weeks. But then invariably, and this is the sad fact, then invariably they say: Pee Wee, listen, I appreciate the opportunity to have this job, but, you see, the government will pay me more to stay home and do nothing. Madam Chairman, I respectfully submit that the issue is not about the care of children, for all of us in this Chamber truly care for children. The issue is teaching those mothers, those parents who have failed to take responsibility, they need responsibility, they need work. That is genuine compassion. Vote for the majority plan.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in the chaos of battle, victory is determined, not by the planning of Generals and staff officers, but by the leadership of the junior officers and noncommissioned officers [NCOs]. The Battle of Normandy was no different. In fact, the historian Stephen E. Ambrose, in his book ``D-Day: The Climatic Battle of World War II,'' wrote: . . . for all the inspired leadership, in the end success or failure in Operation Overload came down to a relatively small number of junior officers, noncoms, and privates . . . if the noncoms and junior officers failed to lead their men up and over the seawall to move inland in the face of enemy fire-why, then the most thoroughly planned offensive in military history, an offensive supported by incredible amounts of naval firepower, bombs, and rockets, would fail . . . It came down to a bunch of 18 to 28 year olds . . . They were citizen soldiers, not professionals. This weekend, I will have the opportunity to participate in a ceremony where one of my constituents, Rex F. Gibson, a citizen- soldier, will finally receive his Bronze Star with Valor for his actions in Normandy in 1944. Rex Gibson personified the concept of the citizen-soldier. In 1939, he joined the Arizona National Guard while he was in college in Safford, AZ. He was selected for Officer Candidate School to be commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army. Rex was assigned as platoon leader of the Intelligence and Reconnaissance Section in the 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division, a National Guard Division, Rex's regiment was nicknamed the ``Stonewallers'' after their legendary Southern commander. Gen. Stonewall Jackson. Rex and the stonewallers were about to become famous as well. They would be the first regiment of the 29th division to land on Omaha Beach during the invasion of Normandy. To the horror of the soldiers, the Army-Air Force and the Navy did not silence the German machine guns or destroy the barbed wire and other obstacles on the beach. Their landing craft ramps opened to a wall of machine gun and artillery fire. Chaos broke out as soldiers tried to find safety. Rex and his fellow stonewallers quickly took the initiative and braved the machine gun fire to get a foot-hold on the beach. By nightfall, the beach was taken but, at a terrible price. Rex's regiment suffered heavily from the assault. Platoons and companies were decimated because they had lost so many of their soldiers on the beach. The 116th Regiment may have been battered, but they were not out of this battle yet. Rex and the Stonewallers moved forward from the beach into France, fighting the Germans for another month. The famous war correspondent Ernie Pyle, who later landed on Omaha Beach, summed up the experience with these words: `` . . . it seems to me a pure miracle that we ever took the beach at all.'' The miracle was the junior officers like Rex and the regimental NCOs who ensured that the beach was taken, that the battle for Normandy was victorious, and that the war was won. When the war ended, Rex came home like so many other citizen-soldiers to continue with his life. Until now, Rex thought he had only done his duty as a citizen and a patriot. He did not know that his Regiment, his Division, and his country thought he had done more. Back in June of 1944, his division commander, Maj. Gen. Charles Gerhardt recommended him for the Bronze Star with Valor for his outstanding service during the Battle of Normandy. Mr. Speaker, 52 years is too long for anyone to wait to be properly recognized for their service to their country. I want to thank Rex for his dedication and patriotism.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. I also stand to salute our chairman, the dean of the Arizona delegation, for the commonsense approach he brings to the challenges we face on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as does the ranking member, my good friend from Mississippi, Mr. Montgomery, who we share in the despair of him leaving this institution at the end of this term. My colleague from Illinois, Mr. Evans, said it quite succinctly. No other measure will affect more people who have worn the uniform of this Nation than this cost-of-living adjustment. Mr. Speaker, I stand in this well today simply to take note of the fact, as I have before, where on many different occasions we come here with profound philosophical differences and different approaches on how we should solve the problems, that today, once again, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs serves as an example of what is possible when Members agree to rather commonsense, broad precepts such as a cost-of-living adjustment for deserving veterans with disabilities and their survivors. This is an outstanding piece of legislation. It is a commonsense approach that brings the concept of fairness to those who have worn this Nation's uniform. I endorse it wholeheartedly. I urge my colleagues to vote in the affirmative for the legislation. I thank those Members on both sides of the aisle for their meaningful participation in getting this work done, and I salute the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, because I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], although I might have a slightly different interpretation of the events as he portrayed them in front of this body, and because I realize that there is a schedule to be kept and that Members have many obligations, and taking into account the sensitivities of some other Members, I would be happy to say now that I am certainly prepared to move ahead this evening, and to those who misinterpret my actions as somehow being disrespectful, when, in fact, of course, we have the utmost of respect for differences of opinion. and differences in styles of speaking, and different personalities, and different points of view in this Chamber, I would say that I regret the interpretation of the incident. I still lament the words of my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I would hope he would apologize for those words and that we can move along to complete the people's business in this House, for the people's business should supersede any personalities, personal ambitions, or personal affronts. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to speak out of order.) apologies

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, is it within this Member's domain to ask those words to be taken down? It is a personal attack and grossly unfair, and I would ask that those words be taken down in this House.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the sanctity of this House, I demand those words be taken down.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, we do not need a whole minute to say this. We just need to reiterate this one key point: $200 is a lot of money to hard-working families in the United States of America, and for people to have the opportunity to buy a home for the first time this amendment would empower those people. That is why I am proud to stand with my good friend from Illinois and Members on both sides of the aisle in support of the Weller amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois for offering the amendment. The notion is empowering first-time home buyers. I would suggest, echoing the comments of my good friend from Pennsylvania, when we think about the fact that this amendment would save the average FHA homeowner about $200 in savings on an annual basis and, while we are here talking about billions and indeed trillions of dollars, the fact is sometimes lost upon us, I would suggest, that $200 is a significant amount of money for first-time home buyers. And indeed, if the notion of what we are here to do in this 104th Congress is to expand opportunity, to empower first-time home buyers to lead to more home sales and to expand homeownership opportunities, then I am glad to rise in support of the amendment. I, too, look forward to its offering tomorrow during the later debate on this amendment. I look forward to supporting the amendment.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for yielding to me. I also rise in strong support of the Lazio amendment, not out of disrespect for my good friend from California but because I believe, precisely as the gentlewoman says, the senior population is growing at an incredible rate. This is a question of where we place priorities. Given the fact that the senior population continues to rise in a burgeoning fashion, given the fact that we do need to supply housing for the disabled, I believe that this amendment is well thought out, well reasoned and, therefore, I support it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to mourn the passing of our friend and colleague, Bill Emerson. Being a newcomer to the Congress, I reflected on the words of our colleague from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, on bipartisanship and actions speak louder than words. So it has been on many occasions when I would see both Mr. Skelton and Mr. Emerson sharing a ride across the river to work. In our Cloakroom, there is a picture of a younger Mr. Emerson and our colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kanjorski, when they served as pages in this institution, helping to bear the stretcher of a wounded Member in a terrible episode in our Nation's history. So, yes, this is a time of remembrance. It is also a time for true bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, I recall that in the middle of some troubled times, one political adversary gave his partisan foe some very good advice. It was Hubert Humphrey who told President Richard Nixon to lay out all the facts, and to come clean on certain issues. I daresay, had Mr. Nixon followed Mr. Humphrey's advice, a lot of the problems we faced in this country would have been eased. In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, without venom or vitriol, in the spirit of true bipartisanship, I would call on this President to release the pertinent documents needed to bring the investigations to a resolute and clear conclusion, so that we may move forward in a bipartisan fashion to clear up questions and to work in a constructive manner in this body.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for his recognition this evening, and I would thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his word of remembrance of our departed colleague, Bill Emerson of Missouri, and I would second the notion that Bill Emerson was a great teacher in this House, and he taught all of us who were newcomers by example. I daresay that the example of his courage in the wake of fighting his final battle with illness can only be described as exemplary, and indeed that word falls short for the courage displayed by Bill Emerson, and his dedication to duty will rank as perhaps the greatest lesson he has provided to us. Our sympathies go to his family and the people of his congressional district in Missouri, and whomever is honored with selection by those constituents to serve in this House will indeed have big shoes to fill. Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by the debate tonight, the preceding debate, there are many important jobs and many important roles which we must fulfill here in the House of Representatives. We spoke earlier tonight of empowering first-time homeowners. We spoke of a variety of issues dealing with concerns on housing and the appropriation process that is so vital to conclude. Yet, Mr. Speaker, before this legislative day ends we would be remiss if we failed to mention other concerns that dominate the headlines of this evening and indeed will reach into tomorrow and in the days to come. We mourn the deaths and injuries of American servicemen abroad as we hear of a terrorist attack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, overnight, and we will watch with interest and indeed work with the administration to determine exactly what happened, what type of preventive measures need to be taken by Americans abroad and how this tragedy could come to pass. But again for now our concerns and our prayers are with the families of those who have perished and, of course, with those who have been wounded in this attack, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, while we are mindful that this issue is something that will warrant our concern and vigilance in the days to come, there are other developments in other stories and in other concerns that we must address. My colleague, Mr. Fox, who preceded me, it should be noted, has resigned from the Government Oversight Committee to take another appointment, and yet that committee tomorrow, led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, will be asking some very serious questions of administration officials. Let me begin with what I believe is truly a positive and constructive note in this regard. Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, a contempt of Congress citation was being prepared, indeed a vote would have occurred in this Chamber later this week, concerning the apparent lack of cooperation that the administration had shown in surrendering some 2,000 pages of documents needed to continue the investigation of what has become known as Filegate, possession of FBI files of prominent members of my party by the Clinton administration, and one official in particular, an Anthony Marceca, for examination over a long period of time. As I noted, Mr. Speaker, this House, and indeed the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, asked for some 2,000 pages in documents, and it appeared that the White House was reluctant to turn over those documents. I understand now some agreement has been reached. The White House, as I understand it, will cease to offer its claim of executive privilege to these documents, and there has been some measure of accommodation so these documents may be examined by officals on the committee. Even as we welcome this important action, I remember the observation of that great author and humorist, Mark Twain. From time to time I have recalled it here in the well of this House. It was Twain who observed, ``History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.'' And I believe that tonight again we see that strange similarity of actions that have gone on before, actions that, in all candor, caused great concern, precipitated a great crisis, and led, of course, to a change in the executive branch almost a quarter century ago. It is very important, I think, to recall the lessions of history. Again, I offer the observation that I offered as this House began business earlier today, that ofttimes, while the dynamics of this institution often rely on partisanship as one of the mechanisms utilized to get business done during the course of the day, that even as we recognize we may have partisan labels, it is important to remember that at moments of great import, people of different parties have offered valuable advice. I remember well a quarter century ago when the gentleman from Minnesota, the former Vice President and one-time Democratic presidential nominee, Hubert H. Humphrey, advised, in a public way, President Nixon to come clean, to offer a full explanation and accounting of the events that history now recalls as Watergate, to the best of President Nixon's ability for, as Senator Humphrey maintained, that action in itself would go a long way toward allowing the American people to address the problems, allowing the Congress of the United States to address the problems, and then to move forward. Indeed, Mr. Humphrey was of the opinion that if President Nixon would take this action, the American people would be forgiving of the problems and President Nixon could move on in his second term. Mr. Speaker, again, not to score partisan points tonight, and again, devoid of the one-upsmanship that so often characterizes political debate, honestly, and sincerely, I would call on this administration and this President, Mr. Speaker, to step forward with all the information at hand. For indeed if this administration will be forthcoming with the information and allow the American people to decide, while I cannot guarantee that the outcome would be similar to what Hubert Humphrey envisioned for Richard Nixon, I can say that the American people deserve no less than a full accounting because of the concerns we have in so many different areas, but because the questions raised by the possession of these FBI files have implications that strike at the very fiber of our Republic, for they deal with issues of vital import to every American and every American's individual rights as provided in this document, the Constitution of the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the President and members of his administration have a duty to step forward with the whole story. The American people deserve no less than a full accounting of some of the questionable actions that have occurred with reference to FBI files, now with a suspicion, and indeed, the implication that more FBI files, that indeed, IRS records may be involved, to a certain degree; and that by taking that step, the President will show true leadership, allow us to deal with this most fundamental of questions, and then move forward to address the other vital issues of the day. I would suggest this Congress will continue to do its work, as witnessed with the various appropriations bills. This Congress will continue to do its work with reference to our concerns about a tax on Americans abroad. This Congress will continue to do its work, yes, with reference to legislative oversight of the executive branch, should the President's decision and that of his legal counsel turn out to be only a halfway or halfhearted approach in any circumstance. But it is vital that this administration address these troubling questions for the American people and for the process of government provided for in our Constitution, and indeed, for the very fabric of our constitutional Republic. Again, Mr. Speaker, I make this call not in the interests of partisan one-upsmanship or gamesmanship, for this is not a game. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what this entire process should typify in its best sense is a competition, a discussion, a difference of ideas, a difference of opinions, a difference of philosophies and vision as to how best serve the American people. As we approach the new century, do we take money, power, and influence out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and, indeed, turn that influence, power, and money over to governments closer to home, and, indeed, ultimately by allowing the American people to hang onto more of their hard-earned money, allow the American people to make those decisions at home that directly influence their lives? But in this context, Mr. Speaker, it is vital that this administration move forward tomorrow in a spirit of candor, in front of the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], to lay out the entire story for the American people, and quite frankly, to change a pattern of denial, evasion, and a new formulation of answers that seems to have typified the conduct of this administration with reference to these FBI files and with reference to so many other questionable endeavors. Again, it is my hope that every Member of this House and that every American citizen would watch closely what will transpire in committee tomorrow, even as we work in this full House to deal with other vital issues of the day.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, all Americans should note with pride the fact that the Olympic torch passes through Washington today on its way to Atlanta, GA, but we should issue this warning both to the International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee: ``Whatever you do with that torch, please don't stop at the White House.'' Chances are the torch would get lost and we would not see it for 2\1/2\ years. But I am sure that would be just an honest bureaucratic snafu. Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, this morning I respectfully request that we include in the Record the lead editorial in today's Washington Times entitled ``The Filegate Investigation.'' If we include that in the Record, we will come to the conclusion that all sober and fair- minded Americans should share, that with all due respect to the FBI, letting the FBI conduct its own investigation into the Filegate matter would be like letting the fox guard the henhouse. An independent counsel is needed to get to the truth on this subject. The Filegate Investigation Now that Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr has determined he lacks jurisdiction to investigate White House abuse of FBI background files on more than 400 Reagan and Bush appointees, Attorney General Janet Reno is planning to turn over the investigation to the FBI itself. That is less than a satisfactory solution--to put it mildly. This unprecedented and ``egregious''--as FBI Director Louis Freeh describes it--violation of the Privacy Act could not, after all, have happened without FBI cooperation. And this is not the first time that that agency has overstepped the bounds of propriety, if not legality, in its willingness to cooperate with the Clinton White House. Senior FBI officials allowed themselves to be browbeaten by White House staffers into getting involved in constructing the Clintons' cover story for the summary firing of seven travel office employees in May, 1993. And now it turns out that for months afterwards, without batting an eye, they were merrily handling over hundreds of confidential files the White House had no business getting its hands on. The White House responded to the initial revelations of these privacy violations with typical disingenuousness. While acknowledging it should never have happened, Clinton spokesmen laid it all at the feet of a low-level clerk, who had no idea who did or did not still need White House access and was using an outdated Secret Service list--and an order form stamped with then-White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum's name. The Secret Service quickly jumped into the fray with the news that their lists of employees are constantly updated, and that active and inactive passholders are very clearly designated--in short, that there is no such thing as an out-dated Secret Service list. That hardly mattered in any case, once it also became known that the clerk, civilian Army investigator Anthony Marceca, was actually a longtime Democratic hack, who'd been brought on board by and was working under the direction of another veteran Democratic operative, Craig Livingstone, who worked for then-Associate Counsel, Rose Law Firm partner and Clinton crony William H. Kennedy III. All three had every reason to know perfectly well that they didn't need background files on, say, former Secretary of State James Baker. None of this painful truth has stopped the White House's spin machine from continuing to maintain with a straight face that the illegal intrusion into confidential files by Clinton employees was nothing more than a ``bureaucratic snafu.'' Nor has it interfered with Democrats' unblushing assertions (which will ring a bell with anyone who followed the Senate Whitewater investigations) that any further questions about this scandalous act--and particularly the hearings that began this week in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee (with more to follow soon on the Senate Judiciary Committee), are ``politically motivated.'' It's clear despite the PR, however, that the beleaguered folks in the Clinton White House recognize they're in trouble once again. The president and chief of staff have apologized, albeit in classic Clinton style--without admitting to any wrongdoing. Craig Livingstone, it was announced this week, will be going on ``requested'' paid leave of absence. And White House Counsel Jack Quinn has decreed that henceforth, all security operations will be put under the control of Charles Easley, a veteran career civil servant who was hired during the Reagan administration. Admirably free of the Clintonian ethics plague as Mr. Easley undoubtedly is, it's too late to get those 408 FBI background files back in the toothpaste tube. More to the point, his appointment only raises the question why someone like him was not appointed in the first place--if the Clinton administration really had no evil intentions. And honorable as Director Freeh may be, his agency is too sullied by its part in the Privacy Act violation to carry out a credible investigation. It is troubling, indeed, to say this about yet another Clinton administration scandal, but if anything ever called for the appointment of an independent counsel, this does. Ms. Reno should not delay in seeking such an appointment. Anything else will look too much like setting the fox to guard the henhouse.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues from Arizona for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great astonishment as once again rhetoric replaces reality. We should strive for a genuine balance of the environment and legitimate economic enterprises. It is well documented that a fire corridor exists from Idaho to Mexico, and yes, even beyond. But there will be new fires prompted by these new prohibitions, by not allowing the salvage of dead and decaying timber. It is as if the new prohibitionists were lighting entire small communities ablaze. It is an outrage. No on this. Yes to economic vitality, yes to a true economic balance. We can coexist, and we need to eliminate the fire hazard. Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. OBEY

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me talk quite candidly about my fellow Arizonian who has a decidedly different interpretation of reality. In a western caucus meeting I brought forth a speech that Governor Babbitt made on two occasions, now as Secretary Babbitt, once at Tufts University, on the other occasion in Colorado Springs, where he essentially said that those of us who have honest disagreements on how best to balance the priorities of the economy and the environment were, quote, guilty of the greatest sneak attack on America since Pearl Harbor, end quote. When I asked him politely, ``Now, Governor, do you really believe that?'' he gave us the same aw shucks grin and said, ``Oh, come on now, J.D., you know how the game is played.'' Mr. Speaker, let me make this point, let me make this point to all the American Nation, Mr. Speaker. This is not a game.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I guess this is something that will be printed up in the not too distant future and be available in Pueblo, CO, from the consumer folks there: The painless Clinton diet. Not ``I feel your pain,'' but ``I can miscompute your calories.'' Imagine what you would have weighed.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would that he only would help us put this Nation on a fiscal diet to help straighten out the priorities with tax reform for the middle class which he promised and then backed away from; with welfare reform, as the claim was to end welfare as we know it, but vetoing that meaningful welfare reform which we sent him and a myriad of other projects that he campaigned on and then backed away from. I can appreciate his exercise regimen, but I do wish that his exercises in his role as chief executive would have more followthrough and be more in tone with reality. But that new diet plan offered by an assistant secretary----

Mr. HAYWORTH. You know, I really do appreciate this new insightful diet plan offered by the administration, and let me pause here to actually give the President some credit because in terms of his diet and exercise regimen in the real world he has done a pretty good job passing up the fast food on several occasions, and I have to give him credit there.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for the time. I listened with great interest to the arguments of my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. With all due respect, I think that what we should focus on today is not the notion of personalities but the notion of public policy. And while I have the utmost respect for the Herculean efforts brought to the formulation of this bill by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, my good friend and colleague, Mr. Regula of Ohio, I see the Walker amendment as providing a common sense approach to some badly needed funds in some areas of great concern. First and foremost, as the representative of the Sixth District of Arizona, I am acutely aware of the solemn and oft-regarded sacred nature of our treaty and trust obligation with native Americans. I believe this amendment works to address those problems by raising the forward-funded tribal education by $27.5 million. Also, in the Grand Canyon State of Arizona, where some of nature's greatest treasures exist, I am mindful of the need to deal with the real wear and tear on some of our national parks. And, yes, if the truth be told, I do have my share of problems with the Park Service in terms of funds and some questions about how those funds have been used, but no one can dispute the fact that this type of maintenance is needed. Moreover, to the notion of dealing with our deficit, the Walker amendment eliminates spending by $48 million. So, it rightly does what we come to this Chamber to do, to determine the proper priorities, to deal not in personalities but in policy, and to realistically face the future. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Walker amendment and would urge my colleagues here in this House to join me in that support.