J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 437, sponsored by Senator John Kyle and supported by a bipartisan group of our House colleagues in Arizona and New Mexico, represents years of negotiations among representatives of the Federal Government, the States of Arizona and New Mexico, the Gila River Indian community, as well as various communities in the region. This bill offers a comprehensive approach to resolving certain Indian water claims and settles long-standing litigation. It also provides long-term water use certainty for non-Indian water users and allows New Mexico to develop long-promised water supplies. I commend my colleague, Senator Kyl, the sponsor of this bill, and so many others for helping foster the historic agreements in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation offers most everyone something, but not everything to anyone. It represents hard-fought compromise that deserves passage. I would urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would simply comment that I welcome the statements of my two colleagues from Arizona on the other side of the aisle. I thank my friend from the Virgin Islands for managing on the minority side. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, chairman of the Committee on Small Business, for yielding to me and the chance to again repeat that I hail from the State of Arizona; Arizona and Illinois, with a great symbiotic relationship that extends beyond spring training. I was talking to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who likewise will leave the Chamber coming up, and we honor his service. And he talked about coming out to be able to watch the White Sox and the Cubs unfettered by the contingencies of the congressional calendar. Mr. Speaker, I obviously get emotional when I think about the friendship and the example of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). There have been those who have preceded me in the well who have spoken of the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Crane) impressive resume, of the fact that he arrived here as a new Member of Congress to succeed our current Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld in 1969, the year which man finally walked on the moon, and at that time, the prevailing sentiment within the body politic was that conservative ideals were almost as distant as the moon to the here and now. And yet the cheerful persistence of this great and good man from the land of Lincoln, offering a clear, constructive example of free minds and free markets and a foreign policy built on freedom was an example day in and day out in this Chamber. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a historian, a professor, a citizen, a congressman, a presidential candidate; but always a catalyst, a catalyst for conservatism, an agent for change, yes, only in the sense that change would understand what it is in the American character that made us great, that continues to make us great. My friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) preceded me in the well, as did my friend from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). They spoke of 1980, and how I remember that year as a senior in North Carolina State University with more than a casual interest in politics, mindful that in that year no fewer than three Members of the people's House aspired to leave the legislative branch to serve as our chief executive, our friends Jack Kemp of New York and John B. Anderson of Illinois and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), likewise of the land of Lincoln. And as I have shared with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Crane), I remember full well his opening statement in the debate in the Iowa Caucus where he quoted Frederick Douglas and how Frederick Douglas said, ``I am a Republican and I will remain a Republican because of the triumph of freedom and the opportunities that this country represents.'' And, yes, we think of conservative leaders, and we think of Arizona's favorite son, Barry Goldwater, for whom the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) worked tirelessly, and we think of Ronald Reagan. And we understand also the seemingly insurmountable challenges that confront a Member of the people's House who would aspire to an address down Pennsylvania Avenue. Indeed, history records that only one among us, only one sitting Member of Congress was elected from this Chamber to serve in the executive mansion, James A. Garfield of Ohio, in 1888. But perhaps the lesson is best told by another historical name, John Quincy Adams, who followed his father, John Adams, our second President, into the White House in later years, but who, upon losing a bid for reelection, returned home to Massachusetts. And then the people of Braintree came to him and said, ``Mr. President, would you run for Congress?'' And so John Quincy Adams, former President of the United States, ran for and was elected to this institution where he served to the end of his days. And what he said upon that election I think is a sentiment shared by all of us but especially by our good friend whom we honor tonight. Quoting Congressman John Quincy Adams, ``There is no greater honor than serving in the people's House.'' And as I see my friend nod in agreement, I know through 3\1/2\ decades of public service that truth has been reaffirmed. And for the citizens of the land of Lincoln who sent our friend here, beginning in 1969, time and again, we say thank you. And to our friend, as I look at this color scheme, I am so glad because I remember the button. It was the reverse of this, ``Phil Crane for President.'' Now we say ``Phil Crane for Citizen,'' in a land without title, without distinction, without peerage. The most honored title is not President, is not congressman. It is citizen. So, Mr. Speaker, to our good friend, to his bride, Arlene, to a remarkable family that has lived the American Dream, we say, ``Thank you, Citizen Crane,'' for what he has done, but more importantly what he is going to do. There is a reality that many of us fail to recognize and embrace, and it is that life continues. There is a life after Congress, and that life is found with friends and family and fellow citizens and an advocacy that never leaves us though we may leave the well of this House, though we may surrender a voting card in this Chamber. There is always the advocacy and the poetic justice of eternal vigilance and continued involvement in a constitutional republic, and that is the gift that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) over 3\1/ 2\ decades fought to preserve. That is the gift that he will continue to enjoy as he leaves this Chamber. And regardless of political affiliation tonight, that is what we recognize, and that is what we celebrate. One closing purely personal note. It has been said that the true measure of a man is how he treats not those born to great wealth or those who enjoy great titles, but how he treats small children. I will never forget when our middle daughter, Hannah, was much younger. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of full disclosure, I should point out that sometimes Mary and I believe we should lobby Dr. Dobson to put Hannah on the cover of the next edition of ``The Strong-Willed Child,'' and I hope that Hannah will forgive me for that candor tonight. But Hannah has a vivacious, rambunctious personality, and her favorite Member in her first trip to the floor when she really understood this place was one Phil Crane who would say, well, there is Hannah Banana, what are you doing? And in that gentle, easygoing way of a man blessed with a great family who understands girls and understands children, there Phil Crane, right here on Crane's Row in the people's House, would put a little girl at ease and enchant her and charm her with no great theories of government, but just an easygoing style that said, honey, I am your friend. You come visit with me. He has been a friend of the people from the land of Lincoln. He has been a friend to this country. He remains one of the foremost founders of the modern conservative movement. His works have inspired so many, but more than his writings, it has been his call to arms. How many sit back, how many offer the dogma and the doctrine on the printed page and yet fail to have the courage to step into the arena. Theodore Roosevelt wrote to the man in the arena. Phil Crane has been that man in the arena. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), for the time; and I thank Philip Crane for his service.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to head back to our respective districts and likewise as we prepare to engage in the exercise that typifies this constitutional Republic, where our government operates only through the consent of the governed, I believe it incumbent upon Members of this House and, indeed, Mr. Speaker every citizen of these United States, to pause and remember, and, yes, in this case to hear from one of those young Americans defending our freedom in Iraq. Recently on the pages of the Arizona Republic there appeared a letter from Captain Scott Moore. Captain Moore, with the United States Army, lives in Sholo, Arizona. His civilian job is that of a high school history teacher in White River on one of our tribal reservations in rural Arizona. How appropriate it is that Captain Moore, through his letter, teaches all of us about the nature of the men and women serving this country and reminds us of the special gift it is to be an American. This letter was written February 1. It was composed in a military plane headed for Kuwait. Captain Moore writes: ``If you were with me, you could tell this plane I am on is heading to a combat zone. All the passengers are dressed in desert camouflage uniforms and carrying weapons. I have an M-16 and a 9 millimeter Beretta, which will be in my possession until I go home in about a year from now. ``As I sit on this plane taking us to war, I cannot help but think about who is with me. No African Americans are going to war, no Asian Americans are going to war, no Mexican Americans are going to war, no Native Americans are going to war, no Hispanic Americans are going to war, no Arab Americans are going to war, no Anglo Americans are going to war. Only Americans who happen to have different ethnic backgrounds are going to war with me. ``I assume Americans from different religions, such as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, et cetera, are going to war together on this plane. We don't really know who practices what religion, and don't really care. Only Americans are going to war. ``Americans from all over the United States are going to war together on this plane. They are from different States, from urban cities to rural towns. Once we left the United States, this didn't matter anymore. We were from only one place, and that was the United States of America. ``Americans from all walks of life are going to war together on this plane: doctors, custodians, teachers, police officers, store owners, engineers, the unemployed, college students, post office employees, restaurant workers, retail sales workers, veterinarians and countless other people with different civilian jobs are going to war together. These citizen soldiers left their civilian jobs and are now all American soldiers fulfilling their commitment to the Army Reserves and the United States. ``Americans going to war on this plane are grandparents, parents, daughters, sons, single parents, granddaughters, grandsons, nephews, nieces, cousins, boyfriends, girlfriends, wives, husbands and fiancees. Americans going to war on this plane are ages 18 to 59. Americans going to war on this plane are rich and poor. We have soldiers who were unemployed before getting activated for military service. We also have soldiers who were making six-digit salaries and just took quite a pay cut going to war on this plane. ``Americans on this plane joined the Army Reserves for different reasons. All are volunteers. Some joined primarily for college funds. Far many more joined out of a sense of duty and loyalty to their country. ``Many people in this unit were not originally in the unit when it initially got alerted. Only when they knew the unit was going to Iraq did they join. Some joined to be with friends in the unit, some to do their duty, some out of guilt of not being in Iraq with friends already there. Some joined for very specific reasons. One joined the day after September 11, 2001. Another was excited to hear news reports that al Qaeda is showing up in Iraq. He has special plans for those people. ``The very best of America is on this plane heading to war. I feel humble and not good enough to be with them.'' So writes Captain Scott Moore, serving now with the United States Army in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, Captain Moore need not feel unworthy. Indeed, the reader of this letter cannot help but be humbled by the quality of those in our all-volunteer force willing to step forward. And whether it is in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere around the world or here within the boundaries and borders of the United States of America, we have been blessed by this all-volunteer force. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was I who felt incredibly humbled in the spring of this year visiting with our troops in Iraq and Kuwait. Indeed, just about 6 weeks to 2 months after this letter was initially written by Captain Moore, I had occasion to travel with a congressional delegation led by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who just managed the conference report for Military Construction. The ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), joined us, along with others. Our travels took us first to Baghdad and then north to Mosul, and then to the growing nerve and supply center known as Balad, where the Iraqi Olympic team during Saddam's reign of terror trained, and, indeed, members of that team had terror and torture perpetrated on them by the now departed sons of Saddam, Odai and Qusai. So many instances in that trip resonate in this letter. I can recall climbing aboard a Blackhawk helicopter flying over Mosul, flying over a large hydroelectric dam utilized for power to the northern portion of Iraq and viewing the infrastructure there, but climbing into the helicopter and having the help of one young soldier. And when I pled lack of familiarity with the harnessing and the procedures, the young soldier said, ``That's okay, sir. That is what we are here for.'' ``That is what we're here for.'' President Bush at our National Cathedral on our Day of National Remembrance for those Americans and others who perished on the date we now know in that historical shorthand as 9/11, President Bush said, ``This war was started by others, but it will end at a time and a place of our choosing.'' Perhaps our Commander in Chief did not realize exactly how prophetic those words have become, because in a free society we celebrate the fact that different Americans can have different points of view. We rejoice in that divergence of opinion. But it is worth noting the consequences of following certain policies that have been advocated as people make their choices as to who should serve in public office. I am disturbed that the Democratic nominee for the Presidency has yet to express a consistent, clear, concise response to carrying out the mission in Iraq and elsewhere in the ongoing war on terror. Indeed, there have been so many different responses. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but believe that the electorate is somewhat confused. We heard the Democratic nominee a few days ago say he was committed to staying the course in Iraq, yet even as he called it the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time. Mr. Speaker, it is more accurate to describe the military action in Afghanistan and in Iraq not as a singular or specific war, but as battle campaigns in an ongoing war against Islamo fascism and the terror that has been utilized by Islamo fascists and unleashed on liberty-loving peoples throughout this world. Accordingly, I celebrate in a bipartisan fashion with my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); we do not agree on much, but as I heard her comments celebrating what transpired today in Afghanistan when the citizens of that Nation went to the polls and expressed their preference for leaders and for government and for governance. When we realize that now, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, young children are going to schools, including little girls, many for the first time, having the opportunity to learn reading, writing, arithmetic, and oh, yes, for the first time to learn without a message of hatred for others in the world or an endorsement of the twisted cult and political morphing and hijacking of a faith best described as Islamo fascism. Instead of an endorsement of Islamo fascism, little boys and little girls now in Afghanistan and in Iraq are going to schools opened by the same soldiers who we have seen perform their duties so valiantly and work actually to rebuild two societies even as insurgent conflicts continue. We are reminded that not only were elections held today in Afghanistan where close to 10 million Afghanis, according to the latest reports I saw, 10 million Afghanis were willing to come forward and vote, despite remnants of the Taliban and other terrorist groups who would try to abridge, who would try to terrorize, who would try to tear down the elections process. Yet, the Afghanis lined up to vote. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that just a few short days ago, if memory serves, just 2 weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Prime Minister Allawi stood here at the podium behind me and addressed a joint session of this Congress and spoke of the challenges confronting his homeland, but pledged to this Congress and to the people of the United States that the sacrifice in blood and treasure of the American people will not be in vain, that there will be a free Iraq, and that there will be elections in January of next year. Consider the source making this bold, clean assertion. Perhaps my colleagues do not know the story of the Iraqi Prime Minister. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that now, at least 2 decades, perhaps close to a quarter of a century ago, Saddam's secret police tracked then-private-citizen, or perhaps more accurately, political-refugee Allawi to London, and Saddam's agents of death, wielding axes, went in to kill him. He fought off that attack in the most literal sense. Prime Minister Allawi is a survivor. So often, because of just the sheer volume of information and news that come across anchor desks and through the Internet to your home and through so many sources, sometimes we fail to pause to understand the unique nature of those who stand with us. Mr. Speaker, we should make no mistake, for we also need to understand the evil nature of those who fight against us. We have heard of the Jordanian al Zarkawi wreaking havoc within the boundaries of Iraq, beheading in barbarous, indescribably cruel and evil fashion American citizens and others. But the irony seems to be this: As horrible as this monster is, in an intercepted communication which first appeared in the American press, in The New York Times, of all publications, in an intercepted communication to other allies in terror, Zarkawi outlined what is exactly at stake. He outlined to other evil agents of terror, if Iraq is able to elect a free government, if boys and girls are able to go to school and learn without the prejudice of Islamo fascism and without the heel of the jackboot upon their throat, and without the continued threat of mass graves, that freedom in Iraq would be a crushing, mortal blow to the forces of terror and Islamo fascism around the world. Now, Mr. Speaker, if one of our sworn enemies understands what is at stake, I would ask the American people to likewise understand that dynamic. Here is the irony: Our sworn enemy, in communications not intended for our ears, in intercepted correspondence, clearly and succinctly put the stakes of our action and the possible consequences for his evil movement out for us to understand. It was not his intent, but that is the result. Mr. Speaker, while we all rejoice in the fact that we are free to agree to disagree, while people of goodwill can disagree, while indeed we will make manifest those different opinions through different choices at the ballot box on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the American people, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent or Libertarian or vegetarian, whatever your political label, whatever your partisan stripe, as Americans who were brutally and viciously attacked on 9/11, as Americans who now in this post-9/11 world understand that there are those who will harm the most innocent among us, as Americans who just read of reports emanating from Iraq where our forces had uncovered intelligence, where Islamo Fascists and forces of terror had the layout and the architectural plans and the schedules of certain schools in the United States, bringing to mind the horror of what transpired in Russia and what in that culture and society was a day of great joy, the first day of school in that society, that turned to such evil carnage. We are confronted by people who are not out to win debating points, who are not out to win friends among us, but indeed, Mr. Speaker, if there is a new phrase I could coin, I would say that those forces of evil are actively engaged in plotting and planning Americide, where our only crime is to be Americans in their eyes, and the malignant, malingering, accompanying aspect of this wretchedly despicable and evil behavior is the fact that these same Islamo Fascists care not if they kill fellow Muslims, care not if they kill noncombatants and women and children, indeed, care not if their carnage continues unabated, such is their twisted, malignant outlook. The choice remains for us here at the dawn of the 21st century. The choice is a stark one, and it is very simple. Either we take the fight to the terrorists where they live, where they grow up, where their homes are located; or we sit back, we hope for the best through nuance and timidity and the alluring siren song of complacency, if we do not bother them, they will not bother us. If we follow that doctrine, I fear for my country and for its survival. No. It is simple. The reason we are in Iraq, the reason we are in Afghanistan, the reason we must be prepared to fight Islamo fascism around the world is because it is far better to take on the terrorists on the streets of Tikrit, Iraq, than on the streets of Tucson, Arizona. It is far better to deal with the terror movements and the insurgency on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of Baltimore. It is far better to confront these agents of evil in Sadr City than in Syracuse, New York. The key to our national security and defense is not found in a fantastic fantasy of hope that these agents of evil will ever listen to reason. It is instead found in the solemn promise and commitment to this Nation, a commitment embodied so valiantly in our all-volunteer force, a commitment embodied in the letter of Captain Scott Moore of Sholo, Arizona, a high school history teacher in White River, on one of our Native American reservations who is, himself, along with his colleagues in arms, making history, building a free Iraq. Moving forward, he eventually strikes a blow for peace by picking up the implements of war. Mr. Speaker, our President again made the statements so clearly and compellingly, in the days following 9/11: ``This conflict was started by others but it will end at a time and place of our choosing.'' No one wants war. General MacArthur, our supreme allied commander in the Pacific theater in World War II said, ``The soldier least of all wants war for it is the soldier who literally has the most to lose.'' His counterpart in the European theater, the supreme allied commander, General Dwight David Eisenhower, who remarked that when he came ashore a few days following D-Day on Omaha Beach, it was impossible to take a step without treading upon dead and decaying human flesh. Eisenhower, even in victory, seared by that experience described war as a cross of iron upon which hangs all humanity. But as horrible as war is, the constant threat of terror, the scourge of those who in barbaric fashion would murder the innocent, cannot be left unchecked nor unanswered. We must renew our commitment at this time, in this place, and through our expressions of conferring power. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the unique aspect of governance in our constitutional Republic is that this government only operates, only derives its power from the consent of the governed. And as the people make their decisions, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to all Americans regardless of partisan label, political stripe or philosophy to see this thing through. It will take many different forms. It will take many different approaches. It may, in fact, Mr. Speaker, take us many years. I mentioned earlier the observations of our great wartime military leaders, Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. I am also reminded of our British cousin with whom we formed the grand alliance during World War II, Prime Minister Churchill, who in the other body addressed the American people in 1941 or in early 1942, the date escapes me, but who essentially said, as allies we are in for a time of great tribulation and sacrifice. There is no way to sugar-coat or put aside the sacrifices of war. There is no way to explain away the sacrifice of the lives of men and women. There is no way to articulate the thanks we owe to so many brave wounded with whom I have had the privilege to meet at Walter Reed Medical Center and at other locations. But we dare not in this new century fail to understand that the horror of war cannot obscure the even greater horror of inaction, the even greater horror of appeasement, the even greater horror of capitulation through inaction, the even greater horror of a lack of resolve. For in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, the most basic responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of this Nation, as our founders said it, to provide for the common defense. And we best provide that defense and that national security with offense, with offensive operations, with taking the fight to those who would hope to bring the fight to our shores. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier my visit to the war theater on the anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict. I saw many Arizonans there. I was greeted in Baghdad by a former Arizonan, General Steve Sergeant, former commander at Luke Air Force Base in the west valley at Balad. I saw my old friend Cornell Ronny Cox who I first got to know when he was a high school football coach for an opposing team in my youth, who at the time I saw him in Balad earned the informal title the ``Mayor of Balad,'' dealing with civil administration and so many other things. I have met many other Arizonans along the way, but in Mosul I saw another young Arizonan who typified what is best with America. This young man calls the Navajo Reservation in northwest Arizona his home. This young man happens to be the grandson of former Arizona State Senator Jack Jackson. And it was interesting as I sat in the mess hall with Munoz of Tempe and Pignato of Tucson, they said to me, Whatever you do, Congressman, do not leave until you meet Adahy. Sergeant Adahy, the young Navajo was working in the garage, but he was not performing the standard maintenance of vehicles that we often associate with the grease pits in the garage. No. Adahy was there building what was eponymously named the Adahy Special. You have heard about the challenges that our forces faced as they tried to deal with their different vehicles and initially a lack of armor; and this Congress provided supplemental funds not only for personal body armor but also for retrofitting armor on vehicles. Indeed, one of the companies supplying that armor likewise is located in Arizona. But our friend, Adahy, was not waiting, was not waiting for that armor to come up the supply line. He was doing what so many Americans have done before. He was displaying good old fashioned Yankee ingenuity, finding scrap iron, taking the welding torch, working in his own way to build what they call Adahy Specials, putting armor on the vehicles to protect his fellow soldiers. What Sergeant Adahy was doing that day we have seen so often in our all volunteer force. The unique thing about our men and women in uniform, whether they hail from the Navajo Nation in northwest Arizona or from the plains of Kansas or from the streets of New York City, our fighting forces are composed of seemingly ordinary men and women who are capable of extraordinary things. And we give thanks for their service. To those who have sacrificed, we will remember that sacrifice, and we dare not fail to see this through. Because as we learned on that beautiful fall day just 3 years ago, there are those perfectly happy to kill Americans just because we are Americans. So let us remember the sacrifices of those who serve. Let us remember the words of Captain Moore of Arizona. Let us remember the actions of Sergeant Adahy and so many others who are taking the fight to the insurgents and the agents of terror over there so that we do not confront them here.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding me time. I too listened with great interest to the remarks of the minority leader who preceded me here in the well. Mr. Speaker, I think she offers ample evidence as to why she will remain the minority leader in this body unless she is involuntarily returned to the private sector where perhaps she can take up a career in writing more fiction. Although I would offer some friendly advice: it is probably not good to try to rewrite the Orwellian tale of ``Animal Farm,'' but the valid theme rings true here as borne out by my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) the minority leader. I guess in her mind some animals are more equal than others. Rather than an imaginary sound of a porcine species, perhaps if we listen closely, we hear the braying of the typical tired, shopworn refrain. The notion that somehow the highest and best use of the people's money is to be captured in the coffers of the government to offer this type of job growth. Job growth for bureaucrats, money always in the coffers being overspent. Not really accountable to the people but that for some of our friends is the highest and best use of the money for the American people. And if there are businesses, be they small businesses, S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, whatever category, why certainly they are part and parcel of some evil cabal of special interests. Certainly they exist only for greed and to rob the noble public treasury. That is one vision of the future that was endorsed in this well by the minority leader. But a bipartisan coalition and majorities in both Houses rises to say no to that thinking with this, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 eponymously named, Mr. Speaker, because by reducing taxes, yes, even on corporations, we create more jobs. That is the key. Support the legislation. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the legislation, and I read the words of a young Arizonan now at war from the pages of the Arizona Republic, a letter. He writes, ``As I sit on this plane taking us to war, I can't help but think about who is with me. Americans from all walks of life are going to war together on this plane. Americans going to war on this plane are ages 18 to 59. Americans going to war on this plane are rich and poor, Americans on this plane joined for different reasons. All are volunteers.'' It is a strength to have a volunteer fighting force. We rise remembering the words of Captain Moore, ``We have a great volunteer force.''

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, and I would like to highlight two basic principles in support of the amendment. The first is this, and everyone should understand this, including my friend, the gentleman from Ohio who preceded me in the well of this House. Same-sex couples have the right to live as they choose, but neither they nor a handful of activist judges have the right to redefine marriage for our entire Nation. The second point again goes with what my friend from Ohio said and I take issue with. Marriage is not about excluding a group of people. Marriage is about what is best for our children and our society. To the first principle, I wish this were not an issue that needed at long last constitutional protection via an amendment, but unfortunately, activist lawyers and judges have been working across our Nation to undermine marriage and impose a new national marriage standard without a public debate. Thousands of same-sex couples from at least 46 States have received marriage licenses in California and Oregon, then return to their home States. This is a national issue, and regardless of the months on the calendar and the so-called political season, the American people have a right to know where their representatives stand. Mr. Speaker, to those who believe that marriage protection and that this marriage protection amendment is discriminatory, I would ask them this: Do my colleagues truly believe that marriage, the traditional and foundational union between a man and a woman, is discrimination? Mr. Speaker, once we start treating a child's need for a mother and father as discrimination, it becomes impossible for the institution of marriage to do its work. If it is discriminatory to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, then why not have three parents or four or more? Even groups of single people are now protesting that their exclusion from the benefits of marriage is discriminatory. Now to the second point. Marriage is not about exclusion. It is about inclusion and an inclusive foundation for children and society. Whether a couple is a man and a woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Marriage encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a bond for the protection of children. That is not discrimination. It is the building block on which our society is based. Now, Mr. Speaker, failed marriages between individuals does not mean that the institution of marriage itself is failing, but Mr. Speaker, we will fail in our responsibilities to our Nation if we fail to neglect and fail to protect this basic institution in our society.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Washington State not really discussing the merits of the bill, but discuss atmosphere and perception, and that is fine, as if families struggling to make ends meet are spoiled children to be indulged; as if somehow at this point in time, with 2-year terms, allowing Americans to keep more of their money is somehow ill advised or worse still, a political stunt. Mr. Speaker, our Founders, very exceptional people, gave us 2-year terms. This is overdue, to extend opportunities. Indeed, devoid from this debate until this point, Mr. Speaker, is the acknowledgement of the fact that this country was suddenly, violently and brutally attacked on September 11, 2001. Indeed, I hear laughter from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Laughter about an attack that killed 3,000 Americans. I mention this not to wave the bloody shirt, but to talk, in essence, of what we do in this legislation. I am sorry my friend, the ranking member, is not here who apparently is against the bill. We have authority to issue New York Liberty Zone Bonds, extend that to 2009 to rebuild Ground Zero to bring back the New York economy. We advance refunding the Liberty Zone Bonds. We have tax incentive for the District of Columbia. We have already chronicled out, we reached out with the earned income credit for families of our combat soldiers in harm's way. And yet we hear bemused chuckles and poor analogies somehow claiming that American families keeping more of their own money are spoiled children. The contrast could not be clearer. It is sad when those for whatever reason want to launch into diatribe or to somehow compare hard-working Americans to spoiled children, but the fact is nobody has talked about what the bill does. So apart from the election-year rhetoric and the endless class warfare diatribes and the cynical chuckles about people dying in the wake of terrorists attack, there is merit to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in the nearly 10 years that I have been honored to serve in the House, I have welcomed many constituents from Arizona to our Nation's capital, but one visit stands out in particular. It was in my first term. The gentleman visiting me was a Vietnam veteran. He was a White Mountain Apache, and he came to my office late in the day and he said, Congressman, I have seen all the monuments, I have seen so many statues, but where is the Indian? It was not a rhetorical question; but now, for that constituent, and Mr. Speaker, for all Americans, the rightful place of honor of the first Americans is realized. As my colleague from Michigan mentioned earlier, today we celebrate on our National Mall the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian. Mr. Speaker, I was honored when I first came to this House that nearly one out of every four of my constituents was Native American, and I think the challenge we can confront is that, though we may divide between political parties, there are really only two types of people who serve in the Congress of the United States, those who represent what we now call Indian Country and those who represent what was once Indian Country.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform this House and the people of Arizona of the passing of the Veterans Affairs Coordinator for the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona, Ben Jefferson. Ben lost his battle with leukemia at 1 o'clock a.m. Arizona time Monday. Mary and I were privileged to be with Ben Sunday afternoon prior to his passing, and we reflect back on a remarkable life of service. Mr. Speaker, too often what we do is described as public service. That is an honor and an accolade, but ultimately it is somewhat inaccurate, for what we are involved in is public office. But public service is a dimension that does not require election to office; it instead requires a spirit of servanthood, and that spirit of service sums up the life of Ben Jefferson. Ben moved to Phoenix as a very young boy from Louisiana. He saw Phoenix grow, and, as he grew, so too did that responsibility of service, made manifest by a career in the Navy, a career which saw him as a medical corpsman in Korea, which saw him again answer the call to duty in Vietnam, which literally took him around the world, even for a year's duty at the research station at the South Pole. Ben had a heart for people. And how fortunate I was, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, those of us who serve here are honored by one of the gratifying mysteries of running for public office, which is that good people cross your path, and, more amazingly, those good people are willing to donate their time and their energy and their enthusiasm, first to campaigns and then as support staff. So it was for Ben Jefferson. After a career in the Navy, after a career in business, stepping forward first in a campaign, and then assuming a role that he prepared for throughout his life, that of service to our Nation's veterans and the important role that the military plays, not only for retirees, but for those young people who aspire to attend a service academy. It was Ben Jefferson who put together the groups for the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, who would review the candidates and candidacies of those who aspire to attend our Nation's academies. Ben Jefferson would be along my side when I would have one of the most gratifying experiences any Member of this House can have, when you call a young person and their family to inform them that they have been accepted at one of our military academies. The same Ben Jefferson would take calls from veterans who had questions about their benefits, veterans who needed help at the hospital, veterans who had fallen on hard times, and always Ben Jefferson was willing to help. We celebrate his life, even as we mourn his passing, his wife, Bette, his children, his relatives who will gather in Arizona later this week to remember this remarkable man. At one point in his life he thought he would be called into the ministry. But it turned out his ministry was not from the pulpit, it was not as a pastor per se. Instead, in the spirit of James in the New Testament, it was not wrapped up in talk and good wishes, it was service and action and stepping forward to help people. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on what became his deathbed, Ben Jefferson spoke about constituents in need and friends who faced similar challenges of disease, always in a spirit of what can I do to help? In those last minutes when Mary and I were with Ben and with his wife Bette and with other loved ones, I could not help but reflect on the words I think he has heard by now: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' Ben Jefferson: Veteran, leader, citizen. We will always remember you and all you did for the people of Arizona.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, I came to this well reflecting on the difference between holding public office and being engaged in public service. Public office is not a prerequisite for public service. Neither, Mr. Speaker, is public office a prerequisite for holding the public trust. It is in that spirit that I again come to the well to cite apparently falsified documents utilized by CBS News in portraying the service record in the Texas Air National Guard of our Commander in Chief. Mr. Speaker, two questions need to be answered: What did Dan Rather know, and when did he know it? Understand, we believe in the first amendment; Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. All we ask, Mr. Speaker, is that Dan Rather answer those two questions.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in May of 2004, the National Labor Relations Board overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes and their employees, the National Labor Relations Board seeks to replace that law with its regulatory authority in this area. This decision by the NLRB is a frontal assault on tribal sovereign rights. The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities, and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt from its jurisdiction. But the National Labor Relations Board incorrectly decided that it should exercise its own jurisdiction over tribal governments on their own lands. If this unfair decision stands, the only governments that will be subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be tribal governments. There is a basic misunderstanding here, Mr. Chairman. The NLRB misunderstands that tribal governments, like State governments, rely upon government-owned enterprises to generate revenue to support governmental purposes, such as reservation law enforcement and fire services, and programs for the health, education and welfare benefit of tribal members. Consistent with the policy behind the NLRA exemptions for governments, private parties such as labor unions should not be able to hold government-owned enterprises hostage where disagreements arise. Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California, that has enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with greater, let me repeat this, with greater labor union rights than the National Labor Relations Act. In fact, the tribe has a collective bargaining agreement with the Communication Workers of America. The heavy-handed, activist NLRB overlaid an incompatible legal regime where a tribal one, agreed to on a government-to-government basis with the State of California, was in place and was, in fact, working. Now, San Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great uncertainty about which law applies. I strongly support the tribes in their efforts to protect their sovereign rights. Congress should reaffirm these rights and make clear that tribes are exempt from the NLRA, which was the view of the National Labor Relations Board until this misguided decision was promulgated. There are certainly sound policy reasons for such a fix. Tribes are sovereign governments that exercise jurisdiction over their own territory. Although some Federal laws compel tribes to deal with other sovereigns, such as States, on a government-to-government basis, this NLRB decision would force tribes to deal with private entities, labor unions, for the first time, contrary to long-established Federal Indian policy. But until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this problem, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have the effect of calling a temporary time out to allow this body to more thoroughly consider a more substantive solution, to avoid additional confusion among the tribes and to limit unnecessary conflict between tribes and labor unions. Mr. Chairman, this amendment enjoys broad-based support from across the width and breadth of Indian Country. The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest intertribal organization in the United States, and the National Indian Gaming Association strongly support this amendment. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, along with many other tribes, also have weighed in with strong support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a question of sovereignty. We dare not equivocate nor abdicate the role of Congress in dealing with government-to-government relationships and the sovereignty that tribes enjoy. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all to vote in favor of this amendment because it is a vote that supports sovereignty for Indian nations and a vote for the fundamental rights of the first Americans to maintain their status of sovereignty and their rights as sovereign governments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Michigan, and it is an honor to cochair with my colleague the Native American Caucus in this body, and listening to his rationale in response, quite candidly, is a bit confusing because on more than one occasion we have stood united on this basic point, that sovereignty is nonnegotiable. Yet the foundation of his argument is that an amicable relationship exists between some in this House and some in organized labor and some in the tribes; and if they only have the time, they can work this out. Mr. Chairman, I find that rationale one that just does not pass muster. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and this would make the point. In terms of the negotiations in California, were they not, in fact, conducted on a government-to-government basis?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me for that purpose. The gentleman talked about the California situation and the negotiations that went on in the gentleman's home State. I would just simply ask: Were not those negotiations conducted with sovereign tribal entities negotiating with the State of California on a government-to- government basis?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Which is exactly my point. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would simply make the point in response that what we are dealing with here today, contrary to the comments of my friend from Rhode Island, sovereignty was not created in the wake of IGRA. Indeed, a part of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was a government-to-government negotiation between sovereign tribes and the respective States. Now, with reference to what has gone on and what has been described as productive negotiations, yes, indeed, tribes met with several union officials in attempts to negotiate. Our understanding is essentially the negotiations went nowhere. And, Mr. Chairman, the tribes are in no position to negotiate because of this NLRB ruling. This amendment is an immediate solution for now, and it will fix this problem, offering a time out, until a final solution can be crafted. Sovereignty is not conditional. We cannot accept it in some instances, but then, when it somehow is politically inconvenient, ignore it in others. That is why this amendment should be passed, and I ask my colleagues to join me in this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. It is interesting to listen to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), try to characterize this amendment, when I think more accurately we would characterize this as a choice. And this is the choice to make in this Chamber, and, Mr. Chairman, especially for those who say time and again they are friends of sovereignty. Are we, in fact, going to respect the provisions in Article I, section 8 of our Constitution that grants sovereign rights and sovereign immunity to Indian tribes in that document of limited and specified powers, or are we going to make a change for political convenience, for political alliances? And I understand it may be very uncomfortable for some in this Chamber, but are we basically going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the rights of union negotiations supersede the rights of sovereignty? Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber, at this time, this decision will be made. And I would offer for all to note that we should never suborn sovereignty for political convenience. We dare not make that mistake. Support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is very simple at the end of day. I listened with interest to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who would not let me answer a question. It had nothing to do with my advocacy of any policy, simply the notion that negotiations take place on a government-to- government basis. Now, much has been made of the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board; but many in this Chamber, friends who unfortunately line up on the other side of this issue today, often cite the document that trumps all of these organizations, the United States Constitution, article 1, section 8, that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes. Sovereignty is not situational. The Constitution of the United States trumps the National Labor Relations Act. It trumps any treaty, and tribes, as sovereign governments, should have the freedom to determine if this should go forward. Support this amendment.

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