J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, Mr. Speaker, there they go again. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a tragedy when our liberal friends on the other side again, despite an excess of rhetoric, use as their main bone of contention that the way to solve problems is to impose a new tax. And you heard my good friend from Massachusetts, even as he called, properly I believe, for the expansion of the use of our fossil fuels, although certain friends over there will try to have it both ways, in the heat now of seeing a problem, the key to what he talked about was a tax increase. Mr. Speaker, the way we solve these problems should be based on this acknowledgment: The American people work hard for the money they earn, and all Americans should hang onto more of that hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington. So no to all tax increases, roll back the Clinton gas tax, and let that be not an end to itself, but the start of the rollback of the assault of Washington on the pocketbooks of Mr. and Mrs. America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization Act of 1996. This legislation will address the long-standing problem of an overly bureaucratic BIA which is often unresponsible to the trial constituencies it is supposed to serve. Since its establishment in 1824, the BIA has functioned as the lead agency through which the Federal Government carries out its trust responsibilities to native Americans. However, the evidence shows that the BIA largely fails to meet these obligations. Recent reports indicate that the BIA cannot account for billions of dollars it was supposed to hold in trust for native Americans. The Interior Department Inspector General has reported that many BIA school facilities are very poorly maintained and, in some cases, native American children must attend classes in buildings that have been condemned. Compounding these problems is the lack of tribal input into BIA priorities and operations. There have been several attempts to reorganize and reform the BIA, including, most recently, the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Reorganization Task Force. Despite the fact that the Joint Reorganization Task Force submitted its final recommendations in the fall of 1994, shortly thereafter the BIA proposed its own organizational reform plan. Most tribes opposed the BIA proposal, in large part because the BIA plan was not devised with tribal input and because it ignored several key recommendations of the Joint Reorganization Task Force which the tribes supported. The legislation that I am introducing, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization Act of 1996, will address these issues by allowing tribes to assume certain functions of the BIA. The bill requires the BIA to enter into negotiations with tribes to reorganize the agency. Tribes in the jurisdiction of each BIA Area Office will be allowed to decide which functions the BIA will continue to provide, and which functions the tribes will take over. These decisions may differ from region to region, as some tribes are more willing and able than others to administer particular services. Tribes which choose to perform certain BIA functions will receive corresponding BIA funds. Before any negotiated reorganization plan for a BIA Area Office is implemented, it must be approved by a majority of tribes in that region. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not prescribe a certain outcome to reorganization of the BIA, but instead requires the BIA to follow a particular process which respects the sovereignty of tribal governments and our trust responsibilities to native Americans. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has already approved legislation, authored by my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, similar to the bill I am introducing today. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to reform the BIA.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my good friend and colleague from California and her editorial cartoon that she brought out, but I thought she and other Members on the liberal side of the aisle would be interested in this statement from President Clinton when he was freed from the strictures of campaign fever. ``It'', raising the minimum wage, ``is the wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners.'' So said the President in Time magazine February 6 of last year. Mr. Speaker, the challenge for us is not to prescribe some artificial wage mandated by Government. The challenge for us is to allow hard- working Americans to hang on to more of the money they earn and send less of it to the Federal Government, beginning with this regressive, horrible Clinton tax on gasoline. Let us repeal that today in true bipartisan fashion and that will help American workers at the lowest rung of the economic ladder and on up.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well once again heartened by the remarks of my colleague from the great State of Ohio. I just wish we could get past some of the name calling and some of the, to be frank, disinformation that has infested itself here on the banks of the Potomac; to wit, fact, yesterday the Treasury Department reports that Medicare is losing money, $4.2 billion in the first 6 months of this year. Yet what does the minority leader say on television? Last summer, when queried about allowing Medicare to grow at a rate less than 10 percent a year, he says, and I am quoting him, the reforms the majority tried to make amounted to this, ``This is a hoax.'' Mr. Speaker, it is no hoax. The hoax comes when those on the left would deliberately employ medi-scare tactics to try and get through the next election rather than to save and transform Medicare for the next generation. We are all to be held accountable. Let us deal with the truth.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, what is radical within this beltway is reasonable to the people of the United States. I thank my good friend from California for mentioning that fact, and I thank my friend from Georgia for offering real-life experiences of his constituents and the challenges they face. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that brings me back to H.R. 2727, the Congressional Responsibility Act, which I sponsor, which simply again redesignates and reemphasizes what Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution says: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 272 does not outlaw executive agencies enacted by this very Congress which now exist within the executive branch. All it does is say that all of those proposed regulations, before they become in essence law published in the Federal Register, should come here to the Congress of the United States in expedited fashion for an up or down vote. Now, the government experts say, ``My goodness, that would require too much time on the part of the Congress of the United States.'' But, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, as has been my honor on several occasions of preside as Speaker Pro Tem of this house, I have presided on at least two occasions where this body was engaged in largely ceremonial debate for a ceremonial vote to name Federal installations after noteworthy Americans. Now, I do not criticize that process, but instead I ask this simple question, Mr. Speaker: If this Congress, in the wake of over the last year having cast more votes than any other Congress before it, still can find the time to expend hours of its energy on largely ceremonial votes, cannot this same Congress take the time to fulfill its constitutional obligation as stated in Article 1, Section 1 of the sacred document we call the Constitution of the United States? Mr. Speaker, it is about this: Reclaiming this government for the American people. As my friend from California pointed out earlier, it is nothing radical; instead, it is reasonable. Indeed, the only way it can be called extreme is in the fashion of making extremely good sense. Let me yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, who fast approaches his 45th birthday tomorrow, and again provides the wisdom of his age in the interaction of the teenagers in his household. Mr. Speaker, I simply thank my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] and my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], who joined us during our special hour. Mr. Speaker, it is all about this document, the Constitution of the United States, and people being free to decide what is best for themselves and their families, instead of relinquishing that power to a centralized authority in Washington, DC.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I gladly yield to my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from California and also my friend from Georgia, as we talked about what in essence has become the act of extending welfare as we know it, and my friend from California especially knows this, we are not only extending welfare benefits to American citizens. No, indeed. We have extended those benefits to folks who are not United States citizens, to those who commonly cross our borders in illegal fashion. I know that is a problem within the State of Arizona and also within the area my friend from California represents.

Mr. HAYWORTH. We would be happy to. I thank my friend for the offer and I am expecting those Vidalia onions, providing they do not violate the gift ban any day now.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It could be that, reclaiming my time, or the fact that our dear friend, as my friend from California knows, is just the perfection of physical fitness, as you are, spending time as I know that you do, surfing. I also know that my colleague from California and my friend from Georgia----

Mr. HAYWORTH. Forty-one for the youthful visage of the gentleman from Georgia, it is truly amazing.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I will be happy to yield to my friend from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. You will be back.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, we absolutely invite you to the great State of Arizona, Mr. Kingston. I hope you will visit often.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, when you talk about that $500 per child tax credit, I cannot help but think of the people of the Sixth District of Arizona who send me here to represent them. I cannot help but think of a single mother who may have three children, whose spouse may have deserted her, who is working hard, playing by the rules, trying to provide for her family and yes, seeking outside educational skills to heighten her earning potential, despite the trauma that has most assuredly occurred in her personal life. By denying the $500 per child tax credit, the champions of big government, the champions of expansive and excessive bureaucracy are saying to that single mother, ``No, indeed, ma'am. You do not need that $1,500 to spend or save for your family as you see fit. That money instead should be taken from you and given to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.'' How fundamentally cynical, how philosophically bankrupt, how essentially immoral that notion is. For what we do here is to establish the primacy of the State, the primacy of the bureaucracy instead of the power of the people. In a free society, that young lady struggling to provide for those three children should have that money to spend on those children as she sees fit. Let me yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, little wonder, then, that the so- called credibility gap of the 1960s, Mr. Speaker, has expanded to this credibility canyon involving the President of the United States who says one thing and then has actions totally, totally in opposition to his rhetoric. And, Mr. Speaker, again this is not said to score partisan points. Indeed, the irony of what has transpired in the last year and a half is that this new majority has moved to enact many of the programs that our current President championed on the hustings only to abandon once he moved in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But it is especially galling to have this situation. And now, in addition to the credibility canyon, now in addition to the reality of this President extending welfare as we know it rather than ending it, you have the whole new wrinkle known as the Clinton crunch. For, yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be a day of reckoning. When this President has the audacity to come back to this Chamber, after standing here at this podium a few short months ago telling us the era of big government is over, and insist that this government, already in arrears to the tune of $5 trillion with the national debt, should expend yet $8 billion more of those dollars which we do not have, it is an incredible assertion, not something to be championed or applauded, but something to be questioned for its very absurdity. It is indeed frustrating to find those who would give lip service to reform and think not of the next generation but instead of the next election. That is something that my friend from Georgia and I are not here to do, for we are not career politicians. Let me yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. He chose to veto it not once but twice. And I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, and again I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing forth this very cogent observation. And again, Mr. Speaker, we should note this is not said with venom nor vitriol, not in the form of a playground taunt, but, really, Mr. Speaker, just to examine the record of the gentleman who resides at the big White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, for if words are to mean something, actions should correspond to the words. And, indeed, as my friend from Georgia points out, we have a President who campaigned in 1992 on balancing the Federal budget in 5 years. Yet when confronted with a realistic plan that actually gave him a 2-year grace period, if you will, a balanced budget plan which was introduced by the new majority, back I believe last October, the President chose to veto that; instead putting in its place a document of suspicious foundation from this standpoint, Mr. Speaker. It would be akin, and I will use a personal example, I am fighting the battle of the bulge around my waistline, it would be akin to saying to someone we are going to give you a year to lose 50 pounds. We ask you to lose two pounds in the first 50 weeks of the year, and in the final 2 weeks of the year we ask you to lose the remaining 48 pounds. On paper the mathematical operation can work, in real life that would be very difficult. That is what we are dealing with. And as my friend knows full well, we have, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a President elected by saying that middle class taxes were too high and that people should hang on to more of the money they earned, yet adopting the philosophy upon his inauguration of those proponents of big government who said, oh, no, no, no, more of your money should come here to Washington. Thus, the largest tax increase in American history. But especially galling, as my friend from Georgia points out, and this is something that happened on my watch, if you will, after I was elected to the Congress of the United States to represent the good people of the 6th District of Arizona, we provided this President, Mr. Speaker, with a welfare reform plan, taking him at his word when he said we should end welfare as we know it, and as my friend pointed out, with a modest work requirement.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know of no one who works from dawn to dusk to provide for their families who could do that for 20 hours a week.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the time, I thank my friend from Georgia for making this fundamental point, for as certain as the sun rises in the morning, there are those who will willfully distort or mischaracterize what we are saying here tonight. And the gentleman is quite right, Mr. Speaker, for he talks of regulation that is there to establish order and also there to offer a helping hand, not in terms of money or tax dollars allocated to business, that is not what we are talking about, but to work in a cooperative fashion with business and industry as opposed to an adversarial relationship, or a game that is ofttimes played in the Nation's press, in the common vernacular it is called a game of ``gotcha''. So that we pass so many regulations, so cumbersome, so out of touch with what is reality or in any way, shape or form reasonable so that those responsible for enforcement can come in and say, ``Ah, `gotcha'.'' Part B of subparagraph 1 of section 325 states this. You made an effort but you did not quite reach what I believe, as the regulator, as the arbiter of this, to be the right decision. It comes back not only to this document, our Constitution, but also to the simple notion I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker. And it is this question. What is reasonable? What would a reasonable person do? As my friend from Georgia mentioned a second ago, even if we accept the notions that some in our society seem to adopt, that business, by its very existence is greedy or motivated out of avarice; even if we were to accept that notion wholeheartedly, we would have to understand that it is in the best interest of business to make sure that employees are productive. And to be productive they need to work in a safe environment. So even if we were to proffer the notion, as some in this Chamber do from time to time, that the profit motive is inherently evil or selfish or somehow misguided, even if we were to accept that notion, there would be the corollary offered by my friend from Georgia, which is this: Those folks owning the business would like to keep it productive, and to do so there has to be a modicum of worker safety. I want to yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Florida and I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Georgia after I offer this parenthetical note to quantify what the gentleman from Florida just said. Indeed, if we were to define this, Mr. Speaker, despite the sensationalistic notion of revolution, what in essence we have here is rather than revolution, a reclamation, a reclaiming of this government for its rightful role in society, and that is what is at stake here and a reevaluation of the role of government. I thank our good friend from Florida for joining us, making those points, and once again I am happy to yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, my friend from Georgia makes an excellent point, and indeed relating once again to us the real life experience of our colleague from California and what prompted his entry into pursuit of elective office I think is especially appropriate. But there is something that undergirds it entirely, Mr. Speaker, and that is the notion of those who put together this document, the notion of our Founders, which was unique in human history. For in contrast to our English forbearers, or our British cousins, as some of us affectionately refer to our friends across the Atlantic, in this new Nation, in this constitutional republic, we did not choose to recognize one person or one family as sovereign or as sovereigns. Instead, in this Nation we operate from the assumption that, first, power is conferred upon us by a creator, and that in this Nation, the people are sovereign and they in turn confer their power, or political power, if you will, on governmental institutions. Yet, as our friend from Georgia relates the story, what all too often happens is that notion is twisted or turned to where American citizens are suddenly accountable to unelected career Washington bureaucrats, instead, Mr. Speaker, of what was intended, and that is for government to be accountable to the people. So, indeed, this so-called revolution, which, by the way, can only be defined as extreme in terms of the context of making extremely good sense, what is in fact a resolution not born of something radical but something entirely reasonable, simply says that the power, indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is reminiscent of a popular slogan in the 1960's, that power belongs to the people, and that power goes to the people. Let me yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois who preceded me here in the well. Indeed amidst all the talk of a lack of civility, amidst all the talk of hostility in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I can personally say without equivocation that one of the honors of serving in this House in addition to being here representing the people of the Sixth District of Arizona is to serve alongside my good friend from Illinois. Because without venom or vitriol, he states a case, and he makes mention of the fact that, yes, there are two predominant philosophies at work in the Congress of the United States, by and large two philosophies represented within the two- party system, and I applaud him for his efforts to go beyond mere accountancy and figures to try and explain what many of us have come into contact with with various road projects, both at the Federal and State level, where we have all seen the sign that says, Your Tax Dollars At Work. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my good friend from Illinois. But, as he says, there are basically two philosophies, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intent to put words in the mouth of the gentleman who preceded me here in the well but simply to challenge his fundamental thesis, the underlying argument, Mr. Speaker, that he presents tonight to the American people. My friend seems to say that American citizens laboring from January through May to account for the huge Federal tax bite, well, that is money well spent, so my friend says. And, yes, there are problems, but incremental reform and fine-tuning and some adjustment can give us the necessary change to confront the next century. Again I applaud my friend's effort and it is not a spirit of one- upmanship that brings me to the well of this House tonight, Mr. Speaker. But again I feel compelled to challenge the assertion nor the assumption of my dear friend from Illinois. For, you see, Mr. Speaker, I believe true reform and true effective use of tax dollars stems first and foremost from this document, the Constitution of the United States. And while I appreciate my friend's effort to account for your tax dollars at work, I do not believe that any of us can improve on the assertions of our Founders who in a beautiful and indeed inspiring Preamble to the Constitution offered, Mr. Speaker, I suppose in the buzz phrase of the mid-1990's, their vision statement, if you will, for this constitutional republic, and I quote: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. And indeed, although I am joined on the floor by a dear friend who is a practicing physician, most of what transpires in this Chamber and upon this hill does not equate with brain surgery nor complex accounting. Instead, its most fundamental premise is founded upon the notions set forth in this document, what one historian, I believe, rightly called the Miracle at Philadelphia. This document, timeless, timeless in its ability if not to predict the future but to provide us with a framework for a free people to determine what should transpire within this free society. And I cannot help but note the irony of those who purport to represent the party of Jefferson who all too often forget his words, and this is something that becomes misunderstanding given the theatrics and the rhetorical excesses bound to occur in an election year, but it is worth noting again the Jeffersonian ideal. It was not for elimination of government but, as Mr. Jefferson pointed out, the ideal of a limited and effective government with the proper role for the Federal Government and a far more active role for State governments, for counties and for urban jurisdictions. And so that frames the debate as we approach the next century. Are we to assume that history occurs in a vacuum? Are we to assume that because at previous junctures in our Nation's history we should only subscribe to a philosophy that would dictate that power should reside primarily here in Washington, D.C.? And, further, that that power be exercised not by those elected but by those appointed or those who have sought career service within a vast bureaucracy? That is the crux of the debate. Let me pause here, lest someone misunderstand. Mr. Speaker, this is not a diatribe directed toward those who find themselves in the employ of the Federal Government. Indeed, I would be the first to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are many hardworking, dedicated people employed in the service of the Federal Government. But, Mr. Speaker, it is to say this: At this juncture in our history, is it preferable for power to be concentrated here on the banks of the Potomac in the hands of unelected officials accountable really only to themselves? And is it proper to issue the assertion that, Mr. and Mrs. America, if you work from January until May to satisfy your Federal level of taxation, well, well and good, because you are receiving incredible benefits? Is that really the course we should follow? Or is instead it more proper to understand that the average family in 1948, the average family of 4, surrendered 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government as opposed to the average family of 4 one year ago which surrendered almost one-quarter of its income to the Federal Government? And, mindful of that, is it a good and fair deal that the families of this Nation now spend more, Mr. Speaker, on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined? For, you see, Mr. Speaker, this argument is made not out of avarice or greed or selfishness or any of those labels so many in this election year are willing to bandy about akin to playground taunts. No, the question is asked legitimately because it helps define what type of future we should have. And indeed as I look beyond the Preamble to this Constitution, I cannot help but note the first clause in article I, section 1, which reads as follows, Mr. Speaker: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' All legislative powers, Mr. Speaker, vested in this institution and the other body across this magnificent structure, the Congress of the United States. Yet what has transpired in this century? Often for the most noble of motives, this Congress has established agencies within the executive branch and those agencies in turn issue regulations. Let me again pause at this juncture to make sure I am not misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying that regulation in and of itself is a bad thing. No, quite the contrary. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in my profession as a broadcaster, I know firsthand that a modicum of regulation was necessary to create order out of chaos on the airwaves, first at the behest of a Secretary of Commerce by the name of Herbert Hoover, then through a Federal Radio Commission established in the late 1920's, and ultimately within a Federal Communications Commission, and I think we can all agree with the developments in technology, with the changes we have seen throughout this Nation with the wonderful expansion of the economy and opportunity, some modicum of regulation must continue. But what I am saying and indeed what I propose in H.R. 2727, the Congressional Responsibility Act, is to indeed make sure that the first section of Article I of the Constitution is followed, that all legislative powers be vested here. Accordingly, H.R. 2727 would provide that every proposed regulation return here to the Congress of the United States for an up-or-down vote before it is printed in the Federal Register.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think my friend from Florida, indeed on the front lines of not only health care as a physician, but also on the front lines here representing very capably the people of this district, again points out something which we should note with more than curiosity, indeed with widespread concern, for taking the model offered by our dear friend from Illinois, who preceded us here in the well, who said well, let us set up the construct, if you are paying from January to May for the tax bill, it is money well spent, there is in fact a hidden tax, and this is what the gentleman from Florida refers to, a hidden tax of overregulation that by many estimates means that the average American is really in essence working for governmental entities far beyond May, indeed past the day upon which we celebrate our independence, and that the true Independcence Day for the American citizen in terms of taxes and fees levied by excessive regulation, either through higher costs or other things, does not come until really mid-July. So there you have it, more than six months, in reality, six and a half or almost seven months, where the hard working people of the United States work and labor essentially to propagate a system of excessive regulation and a system of centralized control. What we offer in the new majority is very simple, and this is something that we need to articulate here once again, free from the diatribes and the playground taunts and the interesting interpretations that some of our friends in the media would offer. What we are simply saying is this: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of the United States of America work hard for the money they earn. They ought to hand onto more of that money and send less of it to Washington, and they should have not only the money in their pockets, but they should ultimately decide what is best for their families and their futures, instead of ceding that power and that revenue to a centralized governmental authority. Let me yield to my friend from Georgia.