J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Mr. Chen Shui-bian assumed the presidency of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Today I would like to join my colleagues and the people of Taiwan in wishing President Chen a happy one year anniversary in office. Also, a warm welcome to President Chen and his party as they transit through New York later this month. After a brief stop in New York, they will journey to Central America. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan has a dynamic economy that is the envy of much of the world. Taiwan is now the world's 17th largest economy and holds $100 billion in foreign exchange reserves. The United States is a major trading partner of Taiwan. Politically, Taiwan is one of the freest nations. It has a democratically elected head of state and holds free elections at all levels. People enjoy full human rights and press freedom. By any measurable standard, Taiwan is an economic powerhouse and a beacon of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I salute President Chen and his people on the occasion of Mr. Chen's first year in office.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, how mystifying this debate must be to Mr. and Mrs. America, because here we stand in the people's House finding ourselves enshrouded, encumbered with some frustrations dealing with something our Founders put together, and that is the difference between these two institutions, this bicameral legislative branch. We understand that. I appreciate the concern of my colleague, the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the committee. But let me suggest to all my colleagues that what we do today with this piece of legislation is to reaffirm our commitment to a basic premise that is quite simple: the American people are overtaxed and they deserve a refund. We are working through a process that any student of government understands, and indeed, all schoolchildren are taught about, in terms of bringing this forward. We can deal with arcana, we can deal with prerogatives of different committees, but the bottom line is this: for the Members of this House today, a vote in favor of this legislation will result in tax relief for the American family. That is the basic premise. This is the tool we use to achieve that dream. Mr. Speaker, all too often we hear from constituents that they would like us to focus on results. We can disagree without being disagreeable. If Members oppose meaningful tax relief, then oppose this legislation. But if Members want to stand up for their constituents who are overtaxed, who for years and years and years have been told that they should somehow sacrifice so that Washington bureaucrats can have more, in stark contrast to the rhetoric of the last half-century, where American families were asked to sacrifice so that Washington ostensibly could do more with their hard-earned money, what we say today, what we reaffirm with this procedural vote today, in essence, is the notion that we should turn that around; that Washington should tow the line so that American families can have more. We can disagree on a variety of issues. We can share the frustrations as to institutional prerogatives. But again today, when we come to the floor, I would implore the Members of this body to keep their eye on the ball, keep their eyes on the prize: basic tax relief. This vote, in essence a procedural vote, moves that along. If Members want the American people to hold onto more of their own hard-earned money to save, spend, and invest for their families, vote yes on this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I come before this House today to introduce legislation with Congressman Dale Kildee that will help make the dream of homeownership more accessible to Native American families. Five years ago, my friend and former colleague Congressman Rick Lazio and I worked together to write the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-330). This law has revolutionized Indian housing, and Congressman Kildee and I are pleased to offer a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize this Act for an additional five years. Mr. Speaker, the Congress set out on a path during the 104th Congress to support tribal self-determination through the passage of NAHASDA. Prior to 1996, Native Americans were rolled into standard public housing programs that were insufficient to meet the unique needs of Native American tribes. NAHASDA has changed that. For the first time, tribes have been able to assess their own needs and access funds through a single, flexible block grant that allows for innovation and creativity. The block grant program supports new partnerships between the Federal and tribal governments and the private sector, and provides the tools needed for tribal governments to help their members achieve a higher standard of living. After only a few years of implementation, NAHASDA has proven itself invaluable in this effort. Statistics from the Department of Housing and Urban Development show that today there are nearly 25,000 units of housing under construction or in development, a twelve-fold increase in production since 1996, the last year that tribes were covered by public housing programs. Although originally a sound bill when it was passed in 1996, it took implementation to show where the law might be improved to more effectively serve its purpose. Reacting accordingly, the Congress further refined the Act with two packages of amendments that were approved with wide bipartisan support in 1998 and 2000. The difference in Indian housing before NAHASDA and now, particularly with these new amendments in place, is astounding. NAHASDA provides tribal governments and tribally-designated housing entities with the ability and responsibility to strategically plan their own communities' development, focusing on the long-term health of the community without the burden of excessive regulation. Offering the maximum amount of flexibility in the use of housing dollars, while still upholding strict accountability standards, NAHASDA affirms the self-determination of tribes and allows for local problem-solving. Furthermore, the formula-driven block grant allows tribes to involve private markets and private real estate entities to improve economic conditions in Indian country. Simply put, NAHASDA facilitates a better use of federal dollars to address the needs of Indian communities. Mr. Speaker, the positive impact NAHASDA has had in the lives of so many Native people is nothing short of remarkable. With its emphasis on self-determination and responsibility at the local level, I hope that the House will act quickly to approve the NAHASDA reauthorization legislation we are introducing today. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate and the Bush administration, to ensure that the American Dream becomes a reality for Native Americans.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Maryland for once again bringing to the floor of this House landmark legislation. We have been involved and engaged in cheerful persistence, for this marks the sixth time we have brought this legislation to the floor. And each time, Mr. Speaker, we reaffirm the essential common sense of the measure we prepare to pass yet again. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to think back to your own experience in terms of saving or preparing for your retirement. Not once on a financial form in planning for my family's future, for my retirement, have I ever been asked to list a political registration. The banks, financial institutions, employers, do not ask whether you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, vegetarian, they simply ask you to think about your future. Now, to return to the political parlance for a second, because I think since this is the people's House and we stand at the bar of public opinion every 2 years, we know in political parlance that we regard a landslide election as procuring 60 percent of the popular vote. Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform this House that the American people are currently on the wrong side of a landslide. Only 40 percent of Americans as baby boomers are taking advantage of retirement savings to avoid a decline in their standard of living once they decide to retire. In other words, 60 percent of the people are not taking advantage of these provisions. With this legislation today, we are asking Americans to choose to save. That is what we do with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is saying to the American people, here is an enhanced choice for you. We ask you to choose to save. Portability of the accounts; raising the limits, especially for those who will encounter retirement decisions first, for those age 50 and above, no phase-in, immediately raising that limit to $5,000; phasing that in for traditional and Roth IRAs, increasing that through the years; and indexing this for inflation, so that the inflation monster cannot touch retirement savings, taking those realities into account. And as mentioned by my colleague from North Dakota, the notion of portability. As we have many different freedoms, many different options, as we see people make changes in jobs and in our mobile society and in our fast-changing economy, to have the ability to move this money from job to job and keep it in the same account, portability is key, too. Choose to save. Vote yes on this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time. The temptation is here, Mr. Speaker, to directly address the curious and clever arguments. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), for example, he seems to be suggesting that we truncate the role of the judiciary in our separate and co-equal branches from our constitutional Republic. He also seems to set up an interesting reinterpretation of what our Founders meant in setting up this Constitution. Because, Mr. Speaker, if it was so desirable to have direct taxation of personal income, why did not our Founders include that in the original document called the Constitution or in the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights. They understood the powers that would be abridged,the rights of citizens that would be abridged. Ultimately, it came through the 16th amendment which required a supermajority for ratification. So the balance we strike today in adopting this constitutional amendment is to strike a balance to say, if a supermajority was required for the amendment process, there should be a supermajority required for raising taxes. Now, under the realm of I have heard everything, I think it was suggested earlier we have a supermajority for spending. Let us explore that. But today let us vote yes on this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of this House this afternoon to invoke the name of Brandon Funk of Show Low, Arizona, and 23 others, our men and women in uniform, being detained by the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, our President has been clear and unequivocal. In addressing the Communist Chinese regime, he has said simply, ``Let our people go now and return our plane.'' I support the President, as does this House, united with one voice, not a voice of Republicans or of Democrats, but one voice as Americans. Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Chinese Government to understand what is at stake. They should not underestimate the resolve of the American people, and they should not mistake the genial nature of our new Commander-in-Chief or the gentility he brings to his job as a lack of resolve. With each passing day, the People's Republic of China is placing in jeopardy its place among the community of nations, its status as an economic power, its opportunity to highlight and showcase some of the world's great events. There is a clear choice to be made. There are a number of options available to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I do not come here to try to abridge or in any way describe the actions our Commander-in-Chief can take, but they are numerous, with serious repercussions for the Chinese regime in Beijing. Mr. Speaker, again I would ask the Chinese Government not to underestimate the United States of America. Secretary of State Powell struck the proper note yesterday when he offered regret over the loss of life. The preceding speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, made it quite clear that the EP-3 surveillance plane is not a readily maneuverable craft. It does not reach supersonic speeds, with its propeller drive. Sadly, the Chinese Government chose to scramble fighters, supersonic aircraft, in pursuit of this sovereign American plane over international airspace. As our commander-in-chief in the Pacific noted over the weekend, it is dangerous to try and play bumper cars aloft. We should commend the skill of the American pilot, who, with a severely damaged aircraft and, in what we understand now was a rapid descent, a fall of close to 8,000 feet, had the wherewithal to be able to land the aircraft, albeit in Chinese territory. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Sino-American dictionary that is employed here should be content with the expression of regret. But, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the People's Republic of China that there is nothing in this incident that the United States of America should even begin to apologize for. Are we to throw out rules of international conduct? Are we to ignore the law of sovereignty regarding open airspace? Are we to sit by with muted complaint based on the damage to our aircraft? Mr. Speaker, I think America speaks with one voice. I am concerned about my constituent. Brandon Funk of Show Low completed his high school degree in 3\1/2\ years; such was his desire to serve America in the military. Mr. Speaker, to Brandon and the 23 others, I say, remain strong, because the Nation you serve will do likewise.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, and part of the necessity, I guess, of those who say no in every circumstance, to embellish remarks. In the interest of making a valid point here, to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, one point he assiduously ignored in his litany of alleged shortcomings was this: Under the plan of my friends, the minority, the death tax is never eliminated. That points up a basic disagreement. Our friends on the other side, with the exception of some folks who understand the commonsense reality of trying to get rid of this tax and put it to death within the current budgetary constraints we face, a lot of my friends over there believe no how, no way should we rid ourselves of this confiscatory tax. Simultaneously, they argue every side of the issue, and suggest that we can relieve it to a certain point, but if one makes one dollar more, that is too much success and therefore that person exists to be punished. It is a simple question, really, one of fairness: Is it fairness to eventually put this death tax to death for every American, and say it is wrong to punish those who succeed, or is it better to drive a wedge in the American people; to play upon the politics of envy, rather than the realities of fairness? Today we stand, in a bipartisan way, which may add to the consternation on the other side, and say, no taxation without respiration. The policy may not be achieved in a day, but as my constituents tell me in Arizona, it will be achieved, and we invite our friends to put aside this mindless class envy and to join with us; to say to every American, no family should have to visit the undertaker and the tax collector on the same day. Support the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for taking this time, Mr. Speaker. We are joined by our colleague from Pennsylvania. Again we give thanks for the opportunity to come to this Chamber as a free people, holding opinions and living out notions that may be diametrically opposed. Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice the vision of America proffered by my friend from Oregon in the preceding hour. It seems we have a fundamental difference of opinion. He believes the highest and best use of a citizen's money is by the Washington bureaucracy. There is an element of thought here that everyday Americans should surrender more and more and more and more of their hard-earned money to the Federal Government through taxation because Washington can somehow do a better job with that money. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to those who join us tonight, I think we have come to understand certainly in the last half of the preceding century that that notion is exactly backwards. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for years my friends on the other side have offered that outmoded notion that your family should sacrifice more so that Washington can do more, when instead we embrace the fundamental notion that Washington should make some sacrifices and be a good steward of the people's money so that families across America can have more. That is the crux of what we are discussing tonight. Indeed, when you look throughout our history, and I am so glad we are joined by a friend from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Seeing him here on the floor, I am reminded of another great Pennsylvanian who one biographer calls really the First American, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, a noted scientist, statesman and a humorist. As a publisher in Poor Richard's Almanac, it was Dr. Franklin who observed there were only two certainties in life, death and taxes. But even with his prescience, even with his foresight, I doubt very seriously, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Franklin could envision the day that the constitutional republic which he helped to found would literally tax Americans on the day of their death. Yet that is the spectacle we see today. My colleague from South Dakota stated the problem accurately. For so many family-held businesses, for so many family farms and ranches, for indeed, Mr. Speaker, virtually the bulk of American commerce in rural areas, this death tax is especially egregious. And we stand united tonight, Mr. Speaker, to reassure the American people that we offer a variation, a departure that rings out with echoes of the past. Our new slogan might be, ``No taxation without respiration.'' It is fundamentally unfair to ask an American family to visit the undertaker and the tax collector on the same day. We have seen time after time small businesses, Mr. Speaker, what I would instead suggest are more accurately described as essential business because we know they employ more Americans than the major corporations in our society, but we see small businesses, essential businesses, family-owned enterprises snatched away by the hand of government and this excessive tax. We see ranches and farms, the proverbial land rich but cash poor circumstance because so many of those who literally make their livings off the land, pump their energy and their hearts and their very being not to mention what liquidity, what cash they have, back into the land, back into the farm, back into the ranch and when the holder of the estate dies, to liquidate, to come up with the cash to pay an extensive and expensive tax bill, the farm or the ranch is sold or divided up, subdivided, what some might suggest is the plague of urban sprawl. So we come to this Chamber with a respectfully different approach than those on the other side who believe the highest and best use of your money is by Washington bureaucrats. We believe every American family should hang on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it here to Washington. That is why our colleague from South Dakota outlined the fact that just last week, we decided to say good-bye to the marriage penalty. We decided to raise the per child tax credit an extra $100 this year to $600 retroactive, eventually up to double what it was, to a full $1,000. We went back earlier as my colleague outlined and reduced the tax rates, the margins for every American paying income tax because we realized to reduce the tax bill, that is an important step. And now we come to this juncture, where last week the Committee on Ways and Means on the same day when on this floor we voted to get rid of the marriage penalty, we voted to increase the per child tax credit, we voted for common sense, family-friendly policies. We went back last week into committee and passed out of committee and will bring to the floor here tomorrow another common sense piece of legislation to put the death tax to death, because it is fundamentally unfair. It is a job killer. It is a business killer. It drives a stake through the heart of family-owned enterprises. And it is patently wrong. How wrong? Simply stated, for all the headaches, for all the hassles, for all the heartaches, for all the turmoil, when you take a look at the vast expanse of Federal revenues, Mr. Speaker, the death tax brings into our Treasury about 1 percent of the total take from American citizens in terms of taxation. Yet three-quarters of that 1 percent is spent in hot pursuit of those families who are grieving, of those families who are trying to deal with the estates, of those families who are trying to come to grips with a fundamental change in circumstance, and that leads to the unfairness. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and several others, the death tax deserves to be put to death. We will take a very important step here tomorrow in that action.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota, and I would say to the gentleman from Illinois, he sells himself short, Mr. Speaker, when he supposed a lack of eloquence on his part, because nothing is more eloquent than the real-life experiences of fellow citizens that he outlined for us. The gentleman from South Dakota has followed suit. Then, of course, we have the gentleman from Pennsylvania here who built a business, a grocery store in his hometown, employing local folks. Talking about the local perspective is so vital. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the gentleman in the chair, the Speaker pro tempore, from the first district of Arizona, we can claim a unique vantage point because the Speaker pro tempore hails really from the 6th congressional district, the town of Snowflake, named for the founding families, the Snow family and the eponymously named Flake family. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we understand how this affects rural and small town America. But as we have seen in Arizona, with the incredible growth and, indeed, over the last 10 years, the equivalent of the State of Nebraska has moved to Arizona; we have growing urban areas, we have people coming in from all over the United States. One lady stopped me in one of our cities the other day and she talked of the experience of her father who was a milkman in post-World War II America. He got up every day very early, ran his route, saved what he could, invested wisely, and built what some would call a nest egg, but what the Federal Government calls a substantial estate in the millions of dollars. The lady who stopped me, Mr. Speaker, said, you would never have thought that. My father was a hard-working man, but even he said about his profession that he was blessed to live in America and to have those opportunities, but in much the same way our colleague from Illinois outlined the problems, in much the same way our colleague from South Dakota read of the plight of a farmer in his home State, so this was this suburban housewife, the beneficiary, if you will, of her father's estate, having to grapple with this incredible problem. She and her siblings were bearing the brunt of liquidating their father's estate. His hard work, the wages on which he had been taxed, his very success was being penalized. My colleague from Illinois had it right when he talked about a grand debate, a fundamental difference of vision. When it comes to the notion of wealth, there are those in this chamber who honestly believe, as difficult as it is for most Americans to grasp this, they honestly believe that the Federal Government, that the Washington bureaucracy should have first dibbs on your money, and that death is a watershed event, and that the family should pay up, oftentimes in excess of 50 percent. My friend from Illinois brought up another topic that bears amplification because, Mr. Speaker. In this town, there is the punditocracy. There are special interest groups who step forward with the most curious ideas, and the irony we have seen of the mega rich stepping forward to say that this death tax should be enforced deserves some comment. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Speaker, was exactly right. If our friends who are mega rich, billionaires and in some slang gazillionaires, if they believe that their progeny would receive the fruit of their labors as some ill-gotten gains, if they honestly believe that sending their wealth to the Federal Government is the highest and best use of their funds, then by all means, Mr. Speaker, they should find their attorneys, they should prepare their estates or perhaps have the check ready right now to hand over the bulk and entirety of their estates to the Federal Government. But for the milkman who passed away, whose daughter, the proverbial soccer mom is having to deal with this real problem, to the family rancher in the 6th district of Arizona, to the small business owner in the town of Snowflake, I respectfully say, let us restore some fairness. Is it fair to expect those people who survive to liquidate assets and send over 50 percent to the Federal Government? No, that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, tomorrow we will take steps to address this fundamental issue of fairness when we take the steps to eventually put this death tax to death.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and welcome my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, to this Chamber and to service in the United States House. My friends from Missouri often say, Show me. Sadly, the Federal government has taken a slogan that Hollywood popularized a few years ago, show me the money, and taken it from family enterprises. It has been noted before, Mr. Speaker, that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Mr. Speaker, nowhere have we seen it with a more egregious impact, with a more unfair specter, with a fundamental departure from our values and ethics, than we have seen with this death tax. Yes, for years it was called an estate tax, offering this type of placid, pastoral recognition. But what it is in reality is the death tax: the destroyer of jobs, the destroyer of economic opportunity, the destroyer of communities and a way of life. Some have come to service on this Hill offering a slogan and a written word, It takes a village. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to ask, what happens when we tax the businesses and farms and ranchers in said village literally to death? What happens when we abandon the notion of basic fairness and penalize people whose only offense is to succeed? Why punish those who have worked to establish a growing business, an agricultural or economic enterprise creating jobs, generating wealth, and not coincidentally, Mr. Speaker, paying taxes on those funds even as they are accumulated? Why then turn around and tax the survivors, and destroy the businesses or drive them into arcane policies where time and money is drained from job creation in the conventional sense, instead to go to lawyers and accountants, and to drain the productivity of the economic enterprise? Now, Mr. Speaker, we will have those who come to the floor, and we should acknowledge the fact, as my colleague from Illinois and now Missouri has done standing on that side of the aisle, there will be those who will join with us in a bipartisan way tomorrow, but there will be others who say, ``Yes, this tax is unfair, but we cannot vote to do this now;'' or, ``not this way;'' or maybe, ``There is a cheaper way to do this,'' for political advantage or partisan embarrassment. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the American people on the eve of this historic debate, accept no cheap substitutions. Join with us to put this death tax to death, because the power to tax has in this instance for too many families, for too many farms and ranches and small towns and essential businesses, become the destroyer of their worlds and their vision and their very livelihoods.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, let us say that John Taxpayer earns $30,000 a year with his teaching job at Madison Elementary School. Wendy makes $32,000 a year working to help older Americans as a home health care assistant. Together they pay a $732 marriage penalty, paying more in taxes just because they are married. That is wrong. This bill ends that marriage tax penalty so that John and Wendy can keep that $732 of their money each year to help pay for all the clothes, food, and other items that we all know goes into raising a family. And that $732 over time is going to add up to big savings. But then here comes the real help. This year we will also increase the child credit by $100 to the Taxpayer family. That means that John and Wendy will have an additional $500 to help all those little growing Taxpayers. And once the bill is fully phased in, the Taxpayers would get an additional $2,500 to continue to help with their growing family. The AMT relief we include in this bill will ensure that the Taxpayer family gets the full benefits of the doubling of the child credit. My colleagues, that is what this debate is about, not budgets and not rich versus poor, not anything else. This is about families. This is real tax relief for American families who need it now more than ever. Stand up for families; stand up for reduction of the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, do I control the time?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for yielding me this time. And, Mr. Speaker, in response to my two colleagues on the other side of the aisle who previously spoke, we would be very happy to ask them to join us in marginal rate reductions, because that helps every taxpayer. We have a simple disagreement: Should families control their money, or the government? And I think that addresses that. My colleagues, I bring yet another family to the well of this House. For our purposes today, we will call them the ``Taxpayer'' family. They will be especially helped by this tax relief plan because this is a growing family with five children. Let us say that John and Wendy Taxpayer both work.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I do not have the time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am very happy to show it to the gentleman.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the full committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 801, the Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001. H.R. 801 makes a number of improvements and expansions to VA's benefits and services, some of which I would like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight. With respect to educational assistance, this bill increases from $2,000 to $3,400 the maximum allowable annual Senior ROTC award for benefits under the Montgomery GI bill; expands VA's work-study program for veteran students; provides the inclusion of certain private technology entities, such as Microsoft and Novell, in the definition of educational institution; and permits veterans to use VA educational assistance benefits for a certificate program offered by an institution of higher learning by way of independent study. H.R. 801 also enhances and clarifies VA's outreach services to separating servicemembers, as well as the spouse, surviving spouse, children and dependent parent of a veteran, and requires VA to provide full benefits and health care eligibility information to a veteran and dependent whenever that person first applies for any benefit. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) for working with the subcommittee on those aforementioned outreach provisions. We also make a number of program increases, including raising the burial and funeral expenses for service and nonservice connected veterans and increasing the plot allowance. The automobile and adaptive grant for severely disabled veterans is increased from $8,000 to $9,000, and the specially adapted housing grant is increased from $43,000 to $48,000. We also propose to expand the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program to include coverage for the spouse and children of a servicemember enrolled in the insurance program. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, within the last few months, we have lost far too many servicemembers to plane crashes, training accidents and, of course, an act of terrorism at sea. Just yesterday, it appears we lost two pilots in a U.S. Army plane crash in Germany. Two F-15s are missing after taking off yesterday from Lakenheath Air Base in the Scottish Highlands. Mr. Speaker, sadly, I was informed this morning that one of the missing pilots could very well be from my home State of Arizona. Last year, Congress approved legislation to increase the maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance from $200,000 to a quarter of a million dollars, $250,000. Even though the bill was signed into law on November 1 of 2000, this particular provision would not have gone into effect until April 1 of this year. So the bill we are discussing today would change the effective date to October 1, 2000, for those servicemembers who died during the performance of their military duties and had previously elected the maximum insurance amount. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time to thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits, a Vietnam combat veteran, for helping us bring this provision to the table. Credit should also be given by this House to a newcomer to this institution, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), for working with the full committee on this issue. Both of these Members deserve acknowledgment for their steadfast support to this issue and the bipartisan way in which we have worked. Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record we hear so much on the cable gab fests and on the Sunday shows about the need for bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, at this time, in this place, we reaffirm the notion that those who sign on in our all-volunteer force do not check a box for partisan preference. They go not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans to serve our country, and today we reaffirm that. Let me thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), for working with me on crafting this legislation in a bipartisan fashion, legislation which will benefit many active duty servicemembers, veterans, and dependents. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of our full committee, for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, once again, for the reasons outlined in the aforementioned comments, I would urge my colleagues to support the Veterans Opportunity Act of 2001.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Phoenix, Arizona, has now grown to be the sixth largest city in our country. Yet over the course of the last 7 days, the entire city and surrounding areas have seen the frenetic pace of life come virtually to a standstill as the community has paused to honor one of our fallen fire fighters. A week ago today, in responding to a blaze at a supermarket, Phoenix fire fighter Bret Tarver gave his life. For his wife, Robin, for their three young daughters, for the Phoenix Fire Department, for brother and sister fire fighters across the country and for all Arizonans, this is an exceptional loss. Bret Tarver was born 40 years ago in what is now the 6th Congressional District of Arizona in Cave Creek. He and his wife, Robin, and their daughters recently made their home in another area of the district, Queen Creek, Arizona. That is because Bret was a lifelong outdoors enthusiast. He loved hunting and fishing. He loved nature. But most of all, he loved his family, and he loved being a public servant. Mr. Speaker, all too often, during the course of political discourse, we describe elective office as public service. Mr. Speaker, how incomplete a definition that is. Public service can take many forms. The citizen can volunteer. He can be involved in civic clubs or spiritual organizations. Yet the ultimate public service all too often comes from our public safety officers who here at home are called upon to put their lives on the line. So it was one week ago on a Wednesday with the sun shining and the flowers blooming and spring training and all the frenetic activity so common to the desert southwest that an event sadly too common, a fire in uncommon and tragic fashion, ended the life of an uncommon man. Colleagues describe Bret Tarver as a gentle giant, a man who stood over 6 feet 3 inches, who tipped the scales at well over 200 pounds, who had tremendously big hands, but often would envelope the tiny hands of his daughters and other kids on their soccer team in his own, one who inspired trust, one who worked tirelessly in his chosen profession as a fire fighter. Mr. Speaker, when so many of that calling have come to Washington this week, perhaps the greatest tribute we can pay to the memory of Bret Tarver is to pause and appreciate the service and the sacrifice of every one of those fire fighters who put their lives on the line who in so many ways, in so many manifestations, work for the public good and the public safety, and who sadly, in the case of Bret Tarver, pay the ultimate sacrifice as a part of public service. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in expressing sympathies and encouraging prayer for Bret's widow, Robin, for his three daughters, for the strapping brothers that made up an active household years ago who mourn his loss, for his parents, for his fellow fire fighters, and for the people of Phoenix and the surrounding area. Mr. Speaker, we pause to remember Bret Tarver, his sacrifice, his legacy, and the shining example of true public service that he represented so well and so faithfully.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend from California (Mr. Matsui) on the other side of the aisle acknowledging what we all know, none of us here have the gift of clairvoyance. Indeed, the other side did not have the gift of clairvoyance when they disregarded budget rules, waived budget rules and spent and spent and spent and spent more of your hard earned money. Now to hear my friends on the other side with this born-again devotion to passing a budget first, I simply say, Mr. Speaker, what about the family budget? What about your constituents working hard to make ends meet? What about your constituents sending up to 40 percent of their income in taxation to some form of government? What about your constituents paying more in for taxes than for food, clothing and shelter combined? What about your constituents who you have asked time and time and time again to sacrifice so that Washington can do more? Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that is exactly backwards. Washington should live within its means so that American families can have more in this year. For a married couple, an extra $400 this year, I know to big spenders it does not sound like much, but it helps pay down credit card debt. It helps buy new clothes for the kids or a new set of tires. In short, it is real money for real people, and it is money that belongs to the people, not to the government. Mr. Speaker, what we see here in this debate this afternoon is really a conflict in philosophy. Some folks here honestly believe Washington needs the people's money more than the people do. We respectfully submit that is exactly backwards. The American people need more of their hard earned money especially in these times of economic uncertainty, and joining together with the passage of H.R. 3 this afternoon, we take this important step. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in the affirmative.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Speaker, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, this Congress remembers President Ronald Reagan, celebrating his life and his legacy. In the current time, where some confuse legacy with licentiousness; when some confuse notoriety with being notorious; when some, regardless of partisan stripe or political philosophy, so confuse the notion of leadership to be poll-driven rather than principle-based, we celebrate the life of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Prime Minister Thatcher said that one man more than any other was responsible for the spread of freedom and the embrace of democracy in the world. His name is Ronald Reagan. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the dominant media culture castigates simplicity for lacking in intellectual rigor, the triumph of Ronald Reagan is the notion that simple beliefs sincerely held are not only eloquent, they are eminently practical: faith, family, freedom; the notion that individual spirit outweighs the heavy hand of bureaucratic government; the notion to first provide for the common defense to ensure not only national security, not only personal security, but financial security. These are the lessons of Ronald Reagan. Mr. Speaker, those who hear me come to the well from time to time note my fondness for an observation of Mark Twain. Quoting Mark Twain, now, ``History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.'' Our greatest leaders, regardless of political pedigree, were those brave souls who unflinchingly embraced a set of principles and knew the true meaning of leadership: that leadership is not the searching for a legacy, it is the creation of a record; that history is best served by working with the energy and intellect and all we can bring at this time, in this place, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, understanding that the Constitution is not just a document to be put on the shelf to collect dust, but the very cornerstone of our liberty, and if you will, in the parlance of the 21st century, the mission statement that defines us. Ronald Wilson Reagan, called by some a revolutionary, instead went about the business of restoration, restoring more than our pride, restoring a sense of national purpose. That is what we celebrate, and that is what we remember, and that is what will sustain us in the days ahead, celebrating his life and his accomplishments, and learning from the rhythm and rhyme of his days in Washington the example that can motivate us in what he called the last best hope of mankind.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Colorado is caught up in collegiate revery for what was for the gentleman a political epiphany in the campaign debates of 1980, I thought back in my own memory to a brilliantly beautiful day in late October in 1992 when former President Reagan, answering the call of duty to his party and to his Nation, hit the campaign trail. It was my honor to serve as a master of ceremonies at a time, while as a public figure, as a broadcaster, still ostensibly was a private citizen, not a candidate for political office, not an office holder. In that appearance, one of his last public campaign appearances, the genius of Ronald Reagan came through. And, again, it was not something that would please the intellectual elite, but it was the simplicity of his optimism. Another great President, Dwight David Eisenhower, noted that the most important component of leadership is optimism. In contrast to those who came before who, in a moment of introspection and personal disappointment, referred to a national malaise, Ronald Reagan championed the essential goodness of the American people. That notion that tomorrow would bring a better day, that notion that this constitutional republic represented the last, best hope of mankind, that vision of a shining city on a hill was more than poetic license. For Ronald Reagan, it was a vision that he championed every day to make reality. The lessons are legion and the examples are great. When professional diplomats of the State Department said, ``Oh, no, do not give that speech,'' Ronald Reagan went to West Berlin and in the sight of the terrible wall, Mr. Speaker, said, to the general secretary of what was then the Soviet Union, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' His sense of purpose and his clear and unmistakable call led eventually to The Wall coming down and opportunity and freedom being swept up, not only across what was called East Germany, but all of Eastern Europe. When he said the Soviet Union would be relegated to the dustbin of history, he was not disdainful of the Russian people but instead of the tyranny and the ultimate unworkability of their system. And Ronald Reagan was right. When those in this town championed, oh, we must have a nuclear freeze, we must be subservient to the Soviet Union, we must throw up our hands in hopelessness and despair, Ronald Reagan believed in the goodness of the American people and the constitutional charge of this unique, grand experiment. And his vision, his prophecy was correct. A British writer today put it, talking about other contemporary leaders, saying of those who may have sat in seats of power here or in the halls of Parliament from our British allies, lesser men who easily enjoy the fruits and labors of a greater man with firm conviction. That is what we remember and that is what we champion and that is why the American people, regardless of political party, rise as one, Mr. Speaker, to say'' ``Happy Birthday, President Reagan.''

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. As the gentleman discussed, those who have crossed his path who have run for public office, whether in this country or beyond these borders, I think of the scores of young people who apply for internships or that first job here in Washington or back in our districts who unfailingly cite the example of Ronald Reagan coming to political awareness, whether in elementary school or junior high, looking to that example of leadership. It is an example which will continue to inspire and motivate what he called the last, best hope of mankind. Mr. Speaker, it is the optimism that this noble experiment would continue. That despite the travails and the challenges we face, our basic goodness as a people and our reliance on principle and the notion of limited government will prevail. We shall not see his like again, though he will be emulated, though he always will be remembered. Mr. Speaker, the special nature of the leadership of Ronald Reagan, his optimism, his eloquence, his leadership ability, his foresight give us all reason to pause on this, his 90th birthday, not only to remember the past, but to pledge ourselves to work in the present, to provide for a glorious future. For as he said, America's greatest days are still to come.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a few short moments ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) stood in the well of this Chamber, raised their right hands, and, as over 400 of us did earlier this week, swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, the American people will see us again today uphold and defend that Constitution through the electoral vote count. Mr. Speaker, some preceding speakers have voiced their displeasure with the process. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that, while passions run high, we never let those passions overtake our purpose, that we remain men and women of high principle and purpose. Though we will have disagreements that may be played out later today, we attempt to restore civility and forsake the vicious and vituperative name calling that taint so many.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reading that into the Record. I think it points out that the mantra that was heard heretofore, indeed the mantra that some of our friends on the left came back with tonight of a ``do nothing Congress,'' even our own President, who happens to be a member of the other party, said that this has been one of the most productive sessions. I think that is something upon which we ought to agree. Certainly we moved in a bipartisan fashion with a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We moved, as I mentioned earlier, to end the unfair, in essence, tax on Social Security in terms of an earnings limit for those seniors who continue to choose to work past the age of retirement. We have moved in many different areas in terms of educational flexibility, a bill that was backed by every one of the 50 Governors in our United States regardless of whether they are Democrat, Republicans, or Independents. So we have had consensus, compromise and progress. And it is unfortunate that at this time, at this juncture, when agreement can be so close, and perhaps it is inevitable it is a function of the calendar, that there are those who are tempted either to play a game of gotcha or one-upmanship to say we want to work but instead turn home to campaign. The President, who we hoped was here to finally work this out, chose to go overfly my State and go to California again to campaign. We respect the fact that people want to get the issues to the folks, but it seems to me they are putting the cart before the horse. Our most important job is to be true to the oath of office that we have taken to be here doing our work regardless of the date on the calendar.