J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to what has slowly evolved into sloganeering, rather than finding solutions here on the House floor. It has been interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear talk about coming together to find some solutions, and now to hear the refrain from the left, it is kind of like that old country song, ``That Is My Story, and I Am Sticking to It.'' It is almost the equivalent of legislative hypochondria. Now, look: we have a solution and a commonsense compromise crafted by the gentleman from Georgia, the President of the United States, and thoughtful Members from both sides of the aisle. And one thing I agree with is my colleague from Florida, who said put doctors in charge of health care, that is absolutely right. The tragedy of the product offered from the left is that it again seeks to put the trial lawyers' lobby in charge. Now, like any good piece of legislation, we have come together here. There is quality care here, there is a level of care here, there is an appeals process here. There is a protection device to ensure the sanctity of the relationship between the physician and the patient. That is the key. But, again, the left will tell us, no, the trial lawyers' lobby must be there, solutions need to come in court rather than in the clinics; and, worse yet, if we come together, no, no, we cannot have that, because it is much more enticing to have an issue than a solution. It is much more politically feasible to continue to indulge in rhetoric, rather than deal with a real solution. Now something has been crafted to find the hard-won compromise, to deal first with health care, and to say both to insurance companies and to the trial lawyers, neither group gets in the way, quality health care is dependent on the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would say that the wonder of being in the minority is to be on all sides of every issue; to call something a travesty and say you support it is curious, indeed. But we welcome the support; and as my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, heard in the committee hearing, we will continue to work to solve the needs of Native Americans. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. With Native economies commonly reliant on Federal transfer payments to create employment opportunities, American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer an average unemployment rate at or near 50 percent, stagnant incomes, poor health, substandard housing and education, and associated social ills. American Indian and Alaska Native tribes own a large share of the Nation's untapped energy resources and proper development of products and energy by-products would result in significant socioeconomic benefits both to tribal members and to the rest of our Nation. The United States and tribal governments share the obligation to preserve and protect tribal land, assets, and resources, including efforts to assure that renewable and nonrenewable resources are used to the maximum advantage of tribal owners. Economic development is an essential tool in achieving self- sufficiency by American Indians and Alaska Native tribes. Increased employment and business opportunities are key to achieving economic self-sufficiency for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. The Buy Indian Act amendment provides additional opportunities as envisioned in the Indian Self-determination and Education Act for tribes to achieve self-sufficiency. Each American Indian and Alaska Native tribe has to choose its own path to self-sufficiency. It is our role to provide options for tribes, not to make decisions for them. Mr. Chairman, the purchase of energy and energy by-products will provide additional economic means for American Indians and Alaska Native tribes and Indian businesses to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency. The Buy Indian Act provides additional incentives for corporations to partner with American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and Indian-owned companies in energy sector development projects. If tribes are given the tools to stand on their own and not be beholden to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the sooner they will achieve self-sufficiency. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New Jersey for this bipartisan amendment. If we listen closely, the problem with the minority is a problem essentially of process. As I mentioned before, as is part of the Record in terms of the Committee markup, we made clear as part of the majority we stand ready to work for comprehensive solutions throughout the width and breadth of native America, to work for these tribes. There are tremendous opportunities. Let me agree with my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey. In terms of hearing from representatives of sovereign Indian tribes and nations, their determination to become involved in energy exploration, in energy resources, we should inspire that. This is an important first step, but make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, much more work remains to be done. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, I appreciate the voicing of support for this amendment; and I think this can be a good night for the House and an important step for Indian country to have this amendment adopted.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is rather curious to note that if we could have converted into energy some of the fear and smear being employed here, we would have enough energy for the entire next century and well beyond. Mr. Chairman, every dollar that comes in for Medicare is going to be used for Medicare. What we have here is a comprehensive energy bill. We concentrate here on tax relief and tax incentives to make sure we work on new technologies, on conservation, and on exploring for the energy we need. While others want to play a game of wolf and fear, we have a comprehensive, reasonable, rational response. It is easy to be on all sides of the issue, as we often hear from our friends in the opposition. But still, we have the invitation: join us and work together, because the stakes are too high to bury our heads in the sand or pull the fire alarm falsely.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding to me. I listened with great interest to the gentleman from Georgia and, preceding me in this well of the House, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the principal sponsor of the true bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. Because make no mistake, my colleagues, we have a clear choice on this floor for all of America later this week: Will this House stand for a true patients' bill of rights or, in the games of special interests, will this House, instead, pass a trial lawyer's right to bill. The gentleman from Kentucky made the case. The gentleman from Georgia made the case. Let us reaffirm the principles so important to us. As I see here tonight we are joined also by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), whose district, as most districts in this country, really embraces the work ethic and the notion of getting one's money's worth and the quality of life, and I think these underlying principles form the foundation of our actions. Number one, when someone is sick, they do not go to see a lawyer. They want to see a health care professional, a health care provider of their choice, a doctor to help them solve that problem. Number two, should there be a dispute about insurance, most individuals want health care professionals who understand the concept of continuity of care, who understand the concept of the illness that that person faces making decisions, rather than ending up in court. The basic thought, Mr. Speaker, is this: We all want help from medical professionals rather than a court date that can stretch on and on ad infinitum instead of getting quality health care. That is the key decision we confront. Mr. Speaker, I was frankly amazed to hear my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), come up a bit earlier this evening and talk about the profit motive and the evils that were imputed to profits. Because were we to follow the line of reasoning as relevant as headlines in The New York Times of 3 weeks ago, how shocking was the news we had about the trial lawyers' lobby and the dispute involving the Ford Motor Company and the Firestone Tire Company. The New York Times, not exactly a conservative journal, the New York Times pointed out that the trial lawyers involved in that case made a conscious decision to conceal the facts. To help protect public safety? No, to protect their case in court. And almost 200 fatalities resulted in the time from the discovery of the defect until the courtroom shenanigans to get a big decision. When we talk about the common interest in the public health and public welfare, who is culpable there? I say we better not go down that path, we better not surrender health care rights to the trial lawyers' lobby. Yet, the choice we will have on this floor is crystal clear. We can succumb to the siren song of the clever and those who wrap their message of higher fees in the language of love and counterfeit compassion; or, instead, we can vote for a bipartisan measure, the principal architect of whom has dealt with patients in his primary calling in life in a bipartisan way to focus on health care for Americans. That is the simple choice when we take it all away. Are we for lawyers or are we for doctors and health care professionals helping Americans make the right decisions for their health care? That is what we will confront this week on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we will have a decision in the days to come. Do we opt for a genuine Patients' Bill of Rights, or do we instead follow the siren song of the trial lawyer's right to bill. Make no mistake, when Americans are sick, they do not want to deal with Washington bureaucrats or with insurance company bureaucrats. They want help from medical professionals. Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple. Are we going to allow patients seeking relief to end up in court or to be treated in a clinic? By the way, do we want to destroy health insurance as we know it? That may be the very serious unintended consequence of people who mean well but seem to put their faith in healing more in trial lawyers than they do in physicians. Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon this House to pass a bill that is a help to patients, rather than a boom to the trial lawyer's lobby. Let us opt for the plan of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) to truly help patients rather than trial lawyers.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of my friend from California, and I just find it ironic; he hails from a State that once championed the free speech movement at Berkeley, and today on this floor, with a rule that will allow to come to the floor amendments that doctor the so-called campaign reform bill, we will have a chance to see just how corrupting a process can be. Talk about dirty money, Mr. Speaker. Take a look at the influence- peddling of the so-called reformers. The simplest way to handle this would be to heed the words of Mr. Justice Brandeis who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Yes, it is going to be very enlightening, and I find it fascinating that my friends on the left suddenly now find it unfair to completely debate this important issue. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. Today the American people will find out just how corrupt and curious the process has become.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if we could harness some of the wind power this morning, we could solve our energy problem. If we could take the blame game and convert it to Btus, we would have energy to last for a long time. Mr. Speaker, we ought to bring in a lot of different people and put them under oath in front of the Committee on Resources, in front of our various oversight committees, and get the answer. I do not countenance any misconduct by anyone, but I will tell you what is interesting: when the Governor of California had a chance to put emergency generators online, he said, Oh, no. If those folks are not going to be union employees, I do not want to see those generators. When the Governor of California had a chance to work out these problems, he took $1 million from the same utility companies my friend from Oregon rails against. When the Governor of California had a chance to step forward and solve this problem, he went on Jay Leno. What is next, a Letterman appearance with stupid gubernatorial tricks? We have got real problems. Let us solve the problem. We can all yell and scream.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Those of us who hail from the West and in the western power grid, 11 States, including the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the great State of Arizona, along with our friends in California, understand that the implications of this are far, far-reaching, so there is more than a casual concern when it comes to flipping the light switch. But listening to my colleague from New Mexico, I think it is important to amplify what has transpired. When she talked about clean- burning sources of energy, I could not help but think about the Palo Verde nuclear plant outside of Phoenix that has worked well and without incident for well on 2 decades, now serving and providing power for the Nation's sixth largest city. Even as we look across the ocean to Europe, while it is true that in Germany, there has been now a hostility, the hostility of the radical environmental movement to step away from nuclear power, we see that Germany's neighbor France has relied on nuclear power for the better part of 3 decades. If the French are able to do so, with safety measures intact, it would seem that American ingenuity, American technology and the ability to streamline regulation, to bring on line new technologies, should prevail. I listened to the gentlewoman from New Mexico talking about the role of the Committee on Commerce, not to become prideful of different committee jurisdictions, but as the first Arizonan to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means, the committee charged with tax policy, I think I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that as we take a look at conservation and the promotion of new technologies, there is a role to be played in tax policy. I have sponsored a bill that again champions residential use of solar power. The fact is, when that first came online, now almost 30 years ago, another broadcaster who had gone into public office, the late Jack Williams, Governor of Arizona, at that time there was this promise of nuclear energy, but the technology had not caught up with the vision. Now, we have made changes, to the point where residentially, for heating water, for cooling our homes, we have the opportunity to look to the sun, and solar power and solar energy on a residential basis. Just as so many Americans have their own garden in the backyard, we can look to a sound alternative form of energy with technological advancements and, in the long run, not only save on power bills, but save on taxation too. Mr. Speaker, we should look to those types of commonsense policies. We should never forget that the term ``conservative'' and ``conservation'' share the same root, the same notion, that we preserve in a commonsense fashion and, in so doing, free up other sources for those who need them. That is something we need to remember. Conservation plays a key role; not the only role, but an important part to play, just as we look at tax policy and new exploration and streamlining regulation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend from California would yield, because this points up the real challenge afoot. If just one-tenth of the energy that is being utilized to engage in name-calling or to go on late night television, and I do not know, do stupid gubernatorial tricks or whatever is going to be required, if that were utilized to help solve the problem, that is the measure of a man or woman in public office. Not posturing and preening for the cameras and issuing attack memos and spin, but working to solve the problem. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my colleague from California, I heard other reports where temporary energy stations could have been placed into commission on an emergency basis, where some regulations had been streamlined, but what I find amazing is that, apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Governor of California said if the folks employed there do not belong to a union, why, then it was not worth opening the power plant. Now, Mr. Speaker, whatever your feeling on the right to work or collective bargaining, it seems to me the collective need for energy outweighs the political chits called in by the union bosses. Let me address, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California. Are those reports true? Did the Governor say he would not allow these temporary plants to come on line, these regulations to be streamlined, unless the folks were union employees at the controls?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think of the distinction here. It seems that to the cynic so much of what transpires politically is theatrical. We heard in the preceding hour, and I was especially struck by our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) on another matter, just dealing with disinformation and demonization rather than solutions. It seems to me especially on this topic, which touches every American, perhaps we should pledge ourselves not to an extremist environmentalism, but to an enlightened environmentalism; not to a radical environmentalism, but a rational environmentalism; not to the environmentalism of the elite, but to the environmentalism of the enlightened. Our President has made sense of this because he says, Mr. Speaker, that one has to cease looking at this as an either/or. It is not, well, we will have a clean environment, or we will burn fossil fuels. It is not, we will have clean air, or we will commit to motor vehicles. Indeed, there is an enlightened approach that uses the latest scientific data for clean-burning energy; for environmentally-sound exploration. Though it may not be commensurate with the theatrical politics of demonization and disinformation that drives some of the eco campaigns my colleague talks about, it is what we should do because it is the right thing to do, to provide for our economy, but at the same time protect our precious environment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), for scheduling this hour to discuss the challenges at hand, and whether one resides in Mariposa County, California, or Maricopa County, Arizona, or Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, or Mecklenburg County, Virginia, for that matter, from coast to coast and beyond, in our 50 States we are confronting a serious challenge. We need a comprehensive policy, the type drafted by this administration, because we have reached a point where we must realize that this challenge is multifaceted. We cannot conserve our way out of it. We cannot drill our way out of it. Instead, we need a calm, confident reassessment of where we are headed. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here in the well of the United States House of Representatives and I look just behind me here to this podium, I am acutely aware that 40 years ago Jack Kennedy stood there and challenged this Congress and challenged this Nation to put a man on the moon and bring him safely back to Earth before the decade of the 1960s was completed. We were able to do that; a triumph of technology, yes, but a triumph of will and the human spirit. It will take that type of commitment. Just as we brought together the best minds and the most innovative companies to put a man on the moon, so, too, we need a national, organized effort, a strategic and financial partnership between business and government to solve the energy problems. Am I talking about a State plan, excessive regulation program? Of course not. We need to find a reasonable, rational way to put the best minds in this country to work on this program, to take what is valuable from business, to take the strategic planning that should be part and parcel of our constitutional Republic and form a good partnership to solve the energy challenges we face. Quite simply stated, we need less dependence on foreign oil and more attention to developing our own energy supply. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), summed it up. It is worth noting and amplifying. Early in the 1990s, the oil and gas needed by the United States, the majority of that oil and gas was produced within the borders of the United States. Some 60 percent was produced here in this United States. Foreign suppliers accounted for a distinct minority, some 40 percent. Sadly now, at the dawn of a new century, with almost a decade devoid of any energy policy, with almost a decade of the sweet by and by and we will take our risks and we will not worry about this, the situation is completely reversed. We now depend on foreign sources for almost 60 percent of our oil and gas. Simply stated, a reasonable, rational environmentally sensitive policy of exploring for more American energy is something that forms the foundation of what we need to guarantee an uninterrupted supply of energy when we need it. It goes beyond that, as important as those products are, because when one thinks of the challenge of energy, when one thinks of what my colleague pointed out, we are talking ultimately not only about the process of exploring and ultimately consuming energy, but there is an impact to the pocketbook. The most immediate effect we think about and associate with across the country is the price at the pump. We need to have a situation where we are no longer dependent on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, otherwise known as OPEC. Here is one of the ironies at the outset of the 21st century: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a nation which threatened the stability of its neighbors, attempted to invade and occupy another oil-producing state, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a country in the early days of this administration where American war planes carried out a raid in part to try and disrupt the fiberoptic sophisticated air defense systems now being installed, here is the irony, Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of a cohesive, coherent energy policy, we now import more oil from Iraq than we did prior to the Persian Gulf War.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, it has been very interesting to spend this hour, not engaged in disinformation or demonization, but looking for reasonable, rational solutions at the outset. When the gentleman from California claimed this hour of time, I reminisced about the fact that 4 decades ago, President John F. Kennedy stood at the podium behind us and challenged us to go to the Moon. We harnessed not only a triumph of will and exploration, but a triumph of applying science to a national vision to deal with that challenge. Certainly this challenge cannot be as formidable. Certainly this Nation, with the best minds at the fore, working together with sound policies that streamline regulation, to make it reasonable that look for environmentally sensitive ways to explore for new energy options, that do the research to bring online the innovative new sources of energy and that realize that our destiny is within our grasp in terms of energy self-sufficiency. Certainly that can be the watchword, the vision for us. Certainly that is what the administration offers in its energy plan. The challenge for us, Mr. Speaker, is to abandon the theater of politics where some have been so tempted to engage in name-calling and political posturing, to truly represent the American people to find sound solutions, to reject the environmentalism of the extremists and embrace the conservation and environmentalism of the enlightened. That is our challenge. I believe we are poised to meet that challenge, just as we put a man on the Moon in the 1960s.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Just one note in closing, Mr. Speaker. Very soon we will move past the rhetoric, and we will have to roll up our sleeves and make it happen. The administration has put out a plan. I cannot help but think about the holiday we are about to celebrate and observe, the independence of this country. A new biography of our second President John Adams has been written. In the final year of his life and the final days, a committee of men from his home State of Massachusetts went to visit the second President, at that time his son was President of the United States, and they asked John Adams, Mr. President, would you like to propose a toast to the country you helped to found? And he stood up there, stiff-legged, still the strong voice, and he offered two words: ``Independence forever.'' They said, Mr. President, do you want to add anything else to that? And he said, no, not a word, that suffices. Indeed, not only in the tradition of this constitutional Republic, but for the future of a sound energy policy with an enlightened environmentalism, let that again be our cry: Independence forever.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this rider on an appropriation bill. I listened with interest, Mr. Chairman, to my good friend from Washington State, because in a previous Congress, both on October 4 of 1999 and October 21 of 1999, he told us how horrible it was to have riders added to appropriation bills. In fact, he likened them to fleas. Well, I will tell my colleague what is going to flee. With the passage of some of these anti-mining and anti-jobs riders, say good-bye to the jobs. If my colleagues care about endangered species, I wish we cared one whit about the people of America who earn a solid, decent, honest living from mining. But we can laugh and watch the other countries put up help wanted signs and kiss off another industry, when the fact is that already on the books there is effective regulation that has ended the scourge of environmental harm. The industry has changed. Look, all we are saying is let the current administration have the same courtesy the previous administration did. Let a reexamination of section 3809 take place, rules that took effect in the last nanosecond of the previous administration on January 20. Why not have a situation where we can review them? This body has twice directed the Department of the Interior to not promulgate rules inconsistent with the recommendations of a congressionally mandated study of hardrock mining on Federal lands by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. We hear so much about the NAS and its studies, we hear so much lip service paid to science, yet when we have a provision here that says let us stand up for sound science, we want to abandon it, and with it the jobs of this industry, to make headlines in terms of what some deem to be politically correct. What this amendment will do is set the precedent my friend from Washington State was so concerned about in 1999. This will unfurl a cascade of riders for the remainder of this appropriations process. And what again this will do, and this is the tragedy of the situation, Mr. Chairman, we will add more regulation and cost more jobs. For my friend from California, who is interested in high-tech, I wonder how his computers are going to work when we do not have the copper wiring any more.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Delaware for yielding me this time, and I thank the authors of this resolution for bringing it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the Sixth Congressional District in Arizona, an area in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Nearly one out of every four of my constituents is Native American. I appreciate that designation and that distinction. Ofttimes I call the American Indians the first Americans. Mr. Speaker, I think for too long, in too many ways, the first Americans have become the forgotten Americans. It was my privilege early in my time in Congress to welcome a member of the San Carlos Apache tribe to my district. He was a proud veteran of Vietnam. He talked about coming to Washington and seeing the different monuments, retracing the names of those with whom he served in Vietnam who paid the ultimate price, visiting the Mall and seeing the grand memorials to so many different figures in American history. Yet that afternoon when he came to my office, he was troubled because he said to me, ``Congressman, where's the Indian?'' Of course to score debating points, I suppose I could have pointed out that Ira Hayes, a Pima Indian, is forever memorialized in that brilliant scene from Iwo Jima that we see, the Marine Memorial, as the flag is raised there on Mount Suribachi. But that was not his point. His point was the first Americans have played a vital role in our Nation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we check, those who now serve in our all-volunteer force, no racial group, no ethnic group answers the call to duty more than the first Americans. This legislation asks us to help remember people who are too often forgotten. I hope on many days at school, children of the elementary- and secondary-level students will learn of the code talkers from the great Navajo Nation who helped us win the war in the Pacific in World War II. Yes, Hollywood is prepared to memorialize it in a motion picture called ``Wind Talkers,'' but there needs to be a supplement beyond entertainment in the classroom. Most of us fail to realize that the Navajo Tribal Council, nearly 1 year prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, passed a resolution asking the United States of America to enter World War II on the side of the allies because from their vantage point in Window Rock, Arizona, in a sovereign nation that transcends the boundaries of four of our States, remote in the mindset of many Americans but from that distance and from a proud history a sound perspective. Mr. Speaker, think of the valuable lessons that can be learned from the first Americans. I mentioned only what has transpired within the last century. This is part and parcel of our heritage, and if we are what we learn, if what is passed is prologue, then this is a laudable goal and something this House of Representatives should heartily endorse and pass overwhelmingly because the first Americans should not be forgotten. Their legacy of honor not only in armed conflict but in so many different endeavors of human experience cannot be treated as some sort of novel concept, something that need be shuttled off on the shelf, to be thought of almost as trivia. It is central to our American experience. So I am pleased to endorse this legislation and ask all of my colleagues, regardless of political philosophy or partisan dispensation, to support it as well.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we of course champion the role of a free press in our society, and so it is for that reason that I come to the floor today, because there is a story that some of our establishment media outlets have not really talked about. So I return to my profession as a broadcaster to inform the House that last night, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, voters displayed great common sense in electing Randy Forbes to this Chamber. It means a political realignment probably not receiving the same prominence as a recent political alignment in the other body. Yet, it bears testimony to the common sense of Commonwealthy voters because, in his election, we are seeing now the prevalence of a sound policy striking a balance between protecting our precious environment and also our economy, understanding that education is a national priority but ultimately a local concern, and the notion that the money sent here to Washington belongs not to the federal bureaucrats, but to the people. It was a sound election. We welcome Mr. Forbes to this Chamber, and we will focus on sound policy, rather than partisan politics.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I am so appreciative that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) points out from time to time the seemingly nonsensical approach that Washington bureaucrats can take to the challenges we confront. How refreshing it is, Madam Speaker, that today on this House floor, we can strike a bipartisan blow for common sense as we bring the GI bill into the 21st century. Madam Speaker, a decisive bipartisan majority is poised to pass this bill that will increase benefits some 70 percent because we understand to maintain the integrity of our all-volunteer force, we need to have that promise of education. The former senator from Arizona, Ernest McFarland, is part of this tradition, in the post World War II days; and our former colleague and former chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi, also striking a blow; along with the dean of our delegation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). We thank them for this commonsense legislation. Madam Speaker, I would hope that the temptation to engage in petty politics would be put aside for this sound piece of legislation this afternoon.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to come to the well of this House to speak in strong support of this legislation. At this point, Madam Speaker, it is also important that I respond to some of the observations of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), my friend and the ranking member. I think it is important to point out to this House that when the Committee on Veterans' Affairs met earlier this year to consider what our veterans budget should be, it decided unanimously to request funds to increase the Montgomery GI bill to $1,100 over 3 years. It also talked about the desirability of ultimately changing the program so that veterans would be entitled to a monthly stipend, as well as government reimbursement of tuition and fees, at any postsecondary institution in the United States. However, the committee did not ask that funds for this program change be included in the budget resolution. Indeed, the committee explicitly stated that it would not seek funding for such a change until after a bill like this one we are bringing to the floor today had been enacted into law. Not only did the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) contain funds to go beyond what was requested by the Committee on Veteran's Affairs, it also should be noted that although the Blue Dog Democrat budget substitute contained increased amounts specifically to fund H.R. 320, my good friend, the ranking member from Illinois, voted against that proposal. Madam Speaker, the bottom line on the legislation today is this: rather than being prisoners of process, we have a chance to enact sound policy, a 70, 7-0, a 70 percent increase in benefits under the Montgomery GI bill over the next 3 years. That is something that is meaningful for today's veterans. That is why I rise in strong support of this legislation. We should note this bill was introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). It is cosponsored by 105 Members of this body, including as original cosponsors the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); the dean of all House Members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); and the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services and the dean of our Arizona delegation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). As my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, this measure increases the bill, again, we cannot state it enough, by 70 percent over the next 3 fiscal years, the most substantial increase to date. There is no disputing the fact that the current Montgomery GI bill needs improvement as a transition tool from military to civilian life. At present, it pays $650 per month, from which the veteran must pay for tuition, books, fees, housing, transportation, and myriad other personal expenses that students incur while attending college. Sixty-eight percent of veterans are married at the time of separation from the military and many of those vets have children. These vets are presented with even further expenses while trying to obtain higher education. I would note that from 1987 through 1997, VA reported that only 37 percent of eligible veterans used the Montgomery GI bill. In comparison, almost 64 percent of Vietnam-era GIs used their education benefits during the first 10 years of the program. Providing for the common defense was the primary reason for establishing our constitutional Republic. Therefore, military service is our Nation's most fundamental form of national service. Today's servicemember is no less valued than those who were conscripted. Service personnel and veterans represent an untapped opportunity for the Nation, as Mr. G. Kim Wincup, vice chairman of the Transition Commission, stated in his testimony before our Subcommittee on Benefits. We as a Nation benefit from highly educated veterans. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, testified before our subcommittee that, quoting now, ``providing our veterans with educational assistance creates a more highly educated, productive workforce, that spurs the economy while rewarding the dedication and great sacrifices made by members of our military.'' Madam Speaker, I would suggest this bill is not just about greater purchasing power under the Montgomery GI bill. It is about the value we place on our military volunteers, persons who are in fact not drafted into the military but who as a Nation have asked to serve voluntarily, military veterans who are indeed a unique national resource. These are individuals who after they conclude their military service will ultimately use this GI bill not only to catch up with their nonveteran peers but also to serve among America's leaders. I would applaud the chairman for his leadership on this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. What part of a 70 percent increase do my colleagues fail to understand?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 126, I was detained due to flight delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this morning we are hearing again a very interesting debate. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who worked in a bipartisan way for meaningful pension reform and relief, now abandons the larger measure. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) speaks of speculation. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when I was in the private sector and I watched Washington spend more and more and more and more of the people's money, including Social Security funds, it was interesting how those forecasts and estimations never seemed to make a difference in the minds of the previous majority. I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), reduced to reading a statement from someone in the other body that had nothing to do with the tax relief today; and I heard the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, speak of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Perhaps he was thinking about the fictional character of Tommy Finnagan as portrayed by Jon Lovitz years ago who was somewhat factually challenged, because indeed the presentation from the left has been completely factually challenged this morning. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join us to offer meaningful relief in the marriage penalty, to finally put the death tax to death, for marginal rate reductions, and for the American people getting some of their hard-earned money back immediately. Rather than have the incendiary comments, let us work together. Mr. Speaker, I believe today on this floor, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, despite the extreme rhetoric of the other side, we will have meaningful tax relief for the American people; and it is about time. Wouldst that my friends would join us again; but they are already saying today, just one, no more. How sad that is. But at least on this one, I say to my colleagues, let us join together for commonsense tax relief, because the money belongs to the people, not to the Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on this early Saturday morning, on the East Coast, perhaps some folks are blurry-eyed and perhaps a little frustrated. Perhaps they remember the words to the great country song, That Is My Story and I Am Sticking to It, even though the facts would suggest otherwise. In lieu of incendiary rhetoric, let us just go back to the central concept of what we will do in this Chamber today and it is something that I think interestingly has gained bipartisan support. We have overcharged the American people. We have asked them to pay too much of their paycheck in taxes, and now we are simply giving them a very modest refund. It is not perfect. It is not overly ambitious. It is not risky. In fact, it reaffirms what I think people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle want to do; to understand the truism and the basic wisdom of letting parents and families provide for themselves while maintaining a social safety net and the long-standing commitments that Americans have come to depend on, and indeed we have seen this as a bipartisan initiative through the years. Forty years ago, President Kennedy reminded us a rising tide lifts all boats in terms of fair and equitable tax relief. Twenty years ago, President Reagan made that point. This is a bipartisan measure, and to the extent there is waling and gnashing of teeth and setting off of false alarms, I understand that good people can disagree but I believe in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, people will come to understand that what we do today for the American people is to take a first significant step for letting them put their financial houses in order and in the process putting our entire economy back in order.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time. I welcome the fact that we are able to find some agreement amidst what could be contentious, because when we discuss the issue of education reform in any district with someone of any political party, the one thing that keeps coming up is the notion of accountability. Yesterday, this House went on record saying that we would have sufficient measurements of accountability. What the gentleman from Missouri, my friend, does with this amendment is reaffirm the objective criteria which should be the watchword for this. The Federal Government should not micromanage nor try to evaluate feelings, perceptions, opinions. What we seek to do here is use objective criteria to maintain that sense with this House on the record with this amendment, and I welcome this unanimity, if you will, with reference to the amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Missouri for bringing the amendment to our attention. I urge its passage.