J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic. My colleague from Maryland speaks of a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity when we fail to allow the American people to hang on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington, DC. That is tragic. It is a missed opportunity when a Medicare trust fund under this administration is already $4 billion in arrears, instead of moving to solve the problem by allowing seniors the chance and the opportunity they have at every other phase of life to make their own choices, somehow try to lock them into a government bureaucracy. Again, Mr. Chairman, it comes down to this question: Who should we trust? Should we place more trust in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats, who in the wake of that largest tax increase in American history have only delivered 49 percent of the revenues this tax increase was supposed to bring in, in our breakneck pace of spending; or do we trust the American people to make the right choices for their families and their futures? We can play scare games all day, but in the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, we must stand at the bar of history with the American people as our judge; and, as for me and the new majority, we stand firmly in the column of the American people. We reject the outmoded notions that Washington knows best. Join us, save this country.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from new Jersey for yielding the time. I listened with interest to the comments of the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget and to the comments of my good friend from Virginia. It is not my intent to indulge in venom or vitriol this afternoon, but, instead, I think it is a time for truth. The gentleman from Minnesota seems to be saying, ``Well, you have almost learned your lesson, new majority.'' Therein lies the most clear difference between the two overwhelming philosophies, for those who champion the Washington bureaucracy and the Washington approach as knowing all and knowing best put their faith in that bureaucracy instead of putting their faith in the people of America. Those of us in the new majority put our faith in the American people, not the Washington bureaucracy. And this, Mr. Chairman, is what is truly radical, this fact, this piece of truth: That the average person pays more in taxes and the average family pays more in taxes today than it pays in food, clothing and shelter combined. That is a fact. It is time for truth, and the truth is the largest tax increase in American history, and this is a fact that my friend from Virginia, who champions deficit reduction, gets away from. The fact is the Clinton budget and the Clinton tax increase costs every household in America $2,600 in additional taxes. We can do better. My friend from New Jersey brought this check up. We do not need the fictional Baby Jane Doe. I can put a real name there, John Mica Hayworth, who is now 2 years of age. If we fail to resolve these problems, if we fail to live within our means, John Mica Hayworth will pay in interest on the debt over $185,000 in his lifetime. That is unconscionable. This budget dispute is not about numbers, it is about flesh and blood and the future, and despite the rhetoric and the playground taunts, the fact is we can do better for today's seniors, for the youngsters of today, for generations yet unborn. Say no to the Clinton crunch, yes to our new budget and yes to a new plan for the future.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is always with great interest that I come to the well, hearing the same old tired bromides from the liberals, including my dear friend from Ohio. No wonder there is more than a credibility gap; there is a credibility canyon. And today we have a real gender gap. Far apart is the rhetoric of the liberal side about ennolbing and empowering women and right on the other side is their actions taken against working women. Two liberal male Members of this body yesterday in a Committee on Government Reform and Oversight hearing chose to attack two female staffers, not for who they are but for who they are married to. The depths of the desperation of the liberal side are truly amazing. Along with the credibility canyon, nursed by their accomplices in the liberal media, to allow them to say one thing and do another. It will not play this time. Let us close this gender gap. Let us respect everyone in this House.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Young amendment which would strike title III from H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act. Last week, my colleagues and I who sit on the Resources Committee voted unanimously to strip title III from this legislation. Regrettably, it was reinserted by the Rules Committee. Title III of H.R. 3286 amends the 1978 Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which gave tribal courts jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings. Title III would transfer this jurisdiction to State courts. Mr. Chairman, I represent portions of eight tribes, including the Navajo Nation, which is the largest reservation in the United States. As a result, I am mindful of our treaty obligations to sovereign Indian nations. I believe that removing adoptions from the jurisdiction of tribal courts in favor of State courts would violate these important treaty agreements. Furthermore, proponents of title III assume that tribes act arbitrarily and not in the best interests of the children involved. The record shows otherwise. Over the last 15 years, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of adoption cases have been contested. I urge my colleagues not to turn back progress that has been made by Indian nations to become more independent. Support the Young amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to say that I echo the comments of the chairman of the subcommittee. I thank him for his efforts. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for pointing out some legitimate policy differences. But make no mistake, this is historic legislation which empowers the first Americans with what should be the right of first Americans. That is the right to find the dwelling of their choice and to empower them to be meaningful members not only of their own communities but of this Nation at large. I urge adoption of this amendment as it has been amended. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, inquiry. Do we address this amendment at this juncture?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], a gentleman I would have loved to block for on the gridiron. (Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2406 which will provide the tools for native American tribes to meet their unique housing needs. My amendment consists of the text of H.R. 3219, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. This legislation was introduced by my colleague from New York, the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee. I cosponsor it along with Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska, and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Months of consultation with tribes from across the country produced the legislation before us today. The need for better housing on Indian reservations is clear. As Albert Hale, president of the Navajo Nation, testified before the Housing Subcommittee, over 56 percent of the Navajo people live in poverty. It is not uncommon to have Navajo families of as many as 12 people living in a two-room house. The Navajo tribal government has estimated that over 13,000 new homes are needed to alleviate severe overcrowding. But tribes, such as the Navajo Nation, need not just the resources, but the flexibility, to address the housing problems they face. A more effective system of Indian housing should be based on several important principles. First, public housing programs modeled for urban America often do not work in Indian country. Second the Federal role in providing housing to native Americans should recognize the special trust relationship between the Federal Government and tribal governments. Finally, tribes and Indian housing authorities should have the flexibility and responsibility to address the housing needs in their communities. The amendment I am offering reflects these principles. H.R. 3219 separates Indian housing from public housing, a move which tribes have been advocating for years. It creates a block grant which will go directly to tribes, not through the States. I believe this is an important part of recognizing the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the Federal Government. This block grant will also increase local control and allow much greater flexibility for each tribe to address its own housing needs, including building new homes, renovating existing homes, or increasing community development. Finally, H.R. 3219 takes steps to promote and facilitate homeownership and lending on reservations. The National Congress of America Indians, which has 206 member tribes, supports these principles as articulate in H.R. 3219. The National American Indian Housing Council, which represents 187 Indian housing authorities, also supports the principles in this bill. I know that there are still issues that various parties want to see addressed in this legislation, and I hope that the process will continue to be as open and inclusive a process as Chairman Lazio has promoted so far. For instance, one of the tribes in my congressional district, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community, is a self- governance tribe. Although they believe that this bill provides an important opportunity to move toward self-sufficiency in housing, they would like to see an option for self-governance tribes to deliver housing services through a self-governance contract. I know that, as we move forward to conference, Chairman Lazio will continue to make every effort to accommodate the needs and concerns of tribes. Likewise, we have reached a compromise on the Davis-Bacon issue, which will be addressed in an amendment offered momentarily by my colleagues from Alaska and Minnesota. If this amendment is approved and H.R. 3219 is attached to H.R. 2406, none of the provisions of H.R. 2406 will apply to tribes and Indian housing will be established as separate from public housing, as I have said. However, it is extremely important to move the two bills concurrently. As my colleagues know, H.R. 2406 repeals the 1937 Housing Act. Without passage of H.R. 3219, native Americans could be left without a Federal housing program which would be devastating to tribes across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will improve housing conditions for native Americans across the country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, that is technically correct.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we return to title I for the purposes of offering my amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for his courtesy in that introduction and, indeed, for his goodwill and incredible patience in trying to deal with what has become a very contentionus situation. My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, to whom I always listen with great interest, a little bit earlier said he had never heard such outrageous nonsense on the floor of this House. Resisting the temptation to bring up some incredible mathematic equations that have been offered by that side with reference to real increases in spending being portrayed as cuts, I would simply say that there has been a great deal of nonsense that has emanated from the other side of the aisle with reference to a myriad of subjects. But let us move away from nonsense to solving this problem. That is, trying to have housing for the poorest in our society, trying to reach out and empower them to become part of the economic mainstream and to live the American dream. Mr. Chairman, it is inherent with the proposal from my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, that an unintended by-product, an unintended consequence, if you will, even with the modification, is to in essence levy a tax on those who want to work; for even if there is a cap instituted, as the gentleman from Massachusetts in modifying his amendment has done, even if there is a cap, the temptation is always to go to that limit, to that cap and no further. Indeed, if we focus on what has been our history, if we focus on the parameters set forth, if we have that parameter decreed by Washington, it is a virtual certainty that then the 30 percent cap will in fact take place, you will have a situation where you have a malicious tax imposed, and that is something we must categorically reject. I stand in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to voice my strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina, and especially to rise in strong opposition to the remarks of the gentleman who preceded me in the well of this House, for not only has the gentleman chosen to misinterpret the intent of the new majority, I believe perhaps in his own words he has expressed, quite frankly, the alternative to what he purported in standing up in support of the amendment. Because he said, let every American find housing, not empower the government to decree to every American that it shall be the government that will provide that housing; that it shall be the government in a centralized authority that shall provide that housing. Indeed, my friends on the other side confuse compassion, for it is the opposition of compassion to try and claim that it is the sole domain of government or the basic purpose of government to control the masses, to decree where they live, and thereby somehow the government controls this. Even to the use of Holy Scriptures, I would remind those who check Holy Scriptures, nowhere in the verses cited is there any mention that it shall be the government which shall stand to take these actions, it shall be the government which will display its compassion through decreeing to citizens what type of structure they should live in, that it shall be the government that shall decree what is charity. Mr. Chairman, the true measure of compassion is people working with their heads and their hearts to provide not only for themselves, but for others. It is not the mission of government to take on more and more responsibility. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the government that my friends believe should be big enough to give all that they want will then be powerful enough to take away all that they have. So I stand here in the name of true compassion to say it is by empowerment, to say it is not the goal of government to house every American, but instead it is the goal of government to empower every individual to have the opportunity to live up to the potential each individual has. Yes, with a helping hand that is a safety net, but not with a program that decrees greater and greater and greater and greater dependency. There is nothing compassionate in that equation. It is only enslavement of the working class.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this open rule and of H.R. 2406. I believe this legislation signals the end of a public housing system which helps trap people in a cycle of poverty instead of providing a safety net for families who really need short-term assistance. Enactment of H.R. 2406 will give public housing residents more choices and help those who are able move on to a life of greater self- sufficiency. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank and commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for his efforts to improve our Nation's system of Indian housing. H.R. 3219, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, which I will offer as an amendment to H.R. 2406, will give tribes the flexibility they need to meet their unique housing needs. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide a block grant that will go directly to the tribes and those tribes in turn can then use the funds to build new housing, renovate existing homes, and revitalize their communities Mr. Speaker, it is all about local empowerment and empowerment of individuals. ``Yes'' on the rule; ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I offer congratulations to you and congratulations to every hard-working American taxpayer. Or should I say offer condolences? Because at long last, today, May 7, is tax freedom day. We have heard a lot of talk, a lot of playground taunts about the gas tax and repealing the Clinton gas tax. That would be but a modest first step, a reasonable first step. Let me put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker. One of my constituents stopped by my Washington office this morning and told me in the wake of Bill Clinton's tax increase, the largest in American history, including retroactive taxes, her tax bill increased 213 percent. That is compassion? That is common sense? Mr. Speaker, in the words of my colleague from Ohio, beam me up.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, objection. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. She is making a political speech.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply make this point: The American people are watching, not for partisan squabbling, but asking this question: What works? And the notion that medical savings accounts, where people control their own destiny, where people are able to visit the doctors they want to see and seek the treatment they feel is best, is at the very heart of our American system. And to suggest that it is some sort of cheap political ploy is once again to at least ignore the facts or to engage in deliberate disinformation and distortion to cloud the picture and to again try to confuse the American public, instead of allowing the American public what they deserve, and that is choice health care. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as we take a look at what has been said in the preceding speech, I think it is the proper question to ask, or the proper contention to make, are---- parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and speak in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina, for their insight, and indeed the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota, for some of his thoughts earlier today on this. Mr. Chairman, I will confess I am new to this process. I came from the outside world. I am not a career politician. Getting here has been a rather eye-opening experience. I have noted with great interest the disdain that many of my constituents have for what they term ``gridlock'' or almost a playground type of contentious debate that happens here. While major policy differences should be discussed and indeed debated in this Chamber, and we champion that, and indeed we champion differences in opinion, I cannot help but notice the irony of the situation in which the Committee of the Whole House finds itself today with reference to this piece of legislation. Again, even taking into account the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member, I just note the irony that fairly drips from the comments of August 1, 1995, from my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota: ``This bill injects a very healthy and significant dose of flexibility of competitive opportunity into the carrier and shipper relationship. That was the aim of my bill. I am pleased to see we are taking that tack in this legislation. It is what will be good for ocean shipping.'' So said my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, in August. Indeed, as I understand, hearing from my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, essentially this point of view prevailed until what legislatively, Mr. Chairman, becomes the very last nanosecond of the 11th hour, when those who sought to find fault with the legislation chose to step in and inject the whole notion of union bossism into this process. Now, this is a free country and certainly those special interests have a chance to stand up and say ``no.'' But, Mr. Chairman, what is the prevalent difference? Now we find, Mr. Chairman, that confidential agreements, a hallmark of doing business in almost every commercial endeavor, are suddenly given the name rhetorically, secret agreements, as if there is something ominous, as if the entire practice of doing business is somehow protected. But then again, what are we to expect of those who constantly propagate a philosophy that would tell us that taxes are really just investments in government growth, and that Washington knows best, and it must always be the constant oversight of some governmental body into every endeavor; only that process, only Washington knows best, only government exercise of oversight can ensure the true and property aims of business. Mr. Chairman, I assert that if it is good in other areas of transportation deregulation, if confidential agreements and other essential staples of the business process are good in the deregulation that has gone on in other sectors of transportation, why now, at the very last nanosecond of the 11th hour, are there problems? This is a good piece of legislation as it stands. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation as presented. I oppose the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the Committee on House Oversight, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on National Security, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.