J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, and I thank my friends, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who have brought forth this commonsense bipartisan piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend, the minority leader, and coincidentally, I want to wish him well in future endeavors that may extend beyond this House, as the Vice President of the United States may be looking for a partner in the upcoming general election, and want to salute him for coming out with a poll-tested speech. Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, I rise in opposition to the Democrat alternative and rise in strong support of our bipartisan bill with 200 cosponsors. I sympathize with the minority leader, because he is finding himself in a situation where we have sought consensus and compromise, we have come up with a commonsense piece of legislation that encourages savings accounts, that protects and builds pension plans. So with this constructive piece of legislation, and now confronting an election, what is a minority party to do? Well, of course, stand and offer the curious paradox to say, we want cooperation, but this is not good enough. Therein lies the fundamental problem. We encourage personal savings for every American. Our friends on the left in the substitute say, if you are American, you exist; therefore, you are entitled. It is not enough for one's personal initiative. No, the Federal government needs to step in with a plan that, by the way, as cobbled together here, is eminently unworkable. They ask their friends at the Internal Revenue Service to stick their magnifying glasses and microscopes into the affairs of Americans, because this very provision invites fraud. It appeals to what is the wrong course of action for Americans. We have a simple, straightforward plan. We strengthen pensions, we build retirement savings accounts, and we do not set up a Rube Goldbergesque machination of entitlement that over the next 10 years will cost close to a quarter of a trillion dollars. Support the underlying bill and reject the desperate Democrat substitute.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means, who serves as one of our representatives to the Committee on the Budget, for yielding me this time; and I would note for this House, mindful of the remarks of my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means from Washington State, my remarks in response to his comments in June that also appeared in the Congressional Record where we offered the popular definition of insanity. The popular definition of insanity is, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a substantially different outcome. And therein we find the horns of the dilemma for our friends on the left. Because they come to this floor and speak disdainfully of process, indeed, Mr. Speaker, inviting our constituents to believe that this is somehow a flimflam. But, Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is the flimflam came in the 40 years of one-party dominance that this Congress saw where our friends on the left continually spent not only the money raised in revenue for general purposes but revenue intended for Social Security, revenue intended for Medicare, revenue that drove us deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. And, Mr. Speaker, while we welcome their support, disdainful though it may be, while we welcome their support here and we also welcome their rhetorical endorsement now of debt retirement, we also point out that we stand in support of today's resolution because we intend to retire the debt. We have listened to the folks back home, Mr. Speaker; and, moreover, we understand this fundamental truth that fails to be grasped by our friends on the left: the money in the United States Treasury, Mr. Speaker, belongs to the American people, the American taxpayer. And, yes, we proudly stand and say that the American people ought to hold on to more of their hard-earned money instead of sending it here to Washington. Now, it is a legitimate debate. My colleagues on the left believe the highest and best use of taxpayer money, of the American people's money, Mr. Speaker, is to keep it here in Washington for more and more expenditures, for more and more grand schemes, because the Washington bureaucrats know best. We know exactly the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. That is the voice of fiscal sanity here. We say let the American people hang on to their money and let us take a portion of that money that remains in Washington and use it to pay down the debt with this particular resolution to the tune of $25 billion, paying down the debt, in effect lowering the debt ceiling, for the second time since 1917, and thereby making history. No, Mr. Speaker, it is not gimmickry. It is something that is unique and novel to our colleagues on the left. It is sound accountancy and ultimately being accountable to the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today this House can take another important step toward tax fairness for the American people. When couples stand at the altar to marry and each says ``I do,'' not contained in their vows is any acknowledge of an additional payment in taxes. And yet that is what we have, my colleagues, for average Americans, for working Americans, a penalty in our Tax Code, roughly $1,500 a year. Rather than talk about politics or political conventions or gamesmanship, Mr. Speaker, to the American people this is not a game. These are people who work hard, who play by the rules, who every week sit around their kitchen table trying to make ends meet; and they need to be able to keep $1,500 of their own money. Now, it is true my friends on the left, in a half-hearted way, offer a substitute. But again it points out, I guess, a legitimate difference, Mr. Speaker. My friends on the left honestly believe that the highest and best use of the money of the taxpayers of America is in the coffers of Washington, D.C., spent by Washington bureaucrats. And that is fine. They are certainly entitled to that point of view. And to the extent that they now join us in talking about debt relief and paying down the national debt, they now join us in talking about prescription drug benefits, they now join us in wanting to strengthen and save Social Security, we appreciate that. What we say, Mr. Speaker, is not for partisan purposes. In fact, we hold out the hand of bipartisanship with bipartisan sponsorship of this legislation. We invite our colleagues to join with us for real marriage penalty relief for America's working couples. And, Mr. Speaker, we do something more. We invite the President of the United States to join us. Because here is a chance to do something good for every working couple in America, to strike this blow for tax fairness. No, far from being irresponsible, this is one of the most responsible things we can do in a bipartisan fashion to reaffirm our belief in the institution of marriage, to reaffirm that we value the contribution of working families, to reaffirm that the money belongs to the people, not to the Washington bureaucrats. Join with us, my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, let us again pass this marriage tax penalty relief. The American people deserve a divorce from high taxes. They deserve to have a chance to hold on to more of their own money.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my good friends from New York and Nevada, Chairman Jack Quinn and Congressman Jim Gibbons, on introducing this important legislation that will help veterans infected with the hepatitis C virus to be treated and compensated by the Veterans Administration. Hepatitis C is a potentially life-threatening disease that can affect the liver and lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death. It is a slow, progressive disease that advances over 10 to 30 years. It is no wonder that hepatitis C wasn't identified until 1989. Hepatitis C is a blood- borne disease that is transmitted through blood contact. Those at high risk include patients who had hemodialysis, patients who had blood transfusions or organ transplants, and healthcare professionals (such as health care workers or medics) who may have come in contact with infected blood, instruments or needles. Another high-risk population is our nation's military veterans. In fact, hepatitis C continues to be diagnosed at an alarming rate among our veteran population. The Veterans Administration estimates that 6.6 percent of veterans are infected with hepatitis C, a rate more than 3 times that of the general population. Of all of the military veteran populations who tested positive for hepatitis C throughout VA medical facilities nationwide in March 1999, Vietnam-era veterans accounted for 64 percent of the cases. What prevents the VA from treating and compensating these infected veterans is the slow progression of the disease and the recent discovery of it. In most cases, more than a decade has passed from infection to discovery. For example, a medic treating a wounded comrade in Vietnam in 1967 could have been infected with the virus, but not tested positive nor shown symptoms until some 10 to 30 years later. The 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis and less-than-stellar military personnel record keeping only compounded the problem. Our legislation gives presumptive service connection to hepatitis C infected veterans who most likely contracted it through handling blood, blood transfusions or hemodialysis. These criteria will cover combat field medics, doctors or medical personnel who handled blood, and soldiers who gave blood to save a buddy's life or received blood to save their own. Studies show that 365,000 blood transfusions were performed among U.S. personnel in Vietnam between 1967 and 1969 alone. At the same time, blood supplies shipped to Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s had a high rate of infection. An NIH study at this time showed that 7 to 10 percent of all patients who received a blood transfusion during surgery developed hepatitis C. Chairman Quinn, Mr. Gibbons and I applaud the VA for its outreach program to identify and treat veterans. We also commend the VA's attempt to address the hepatitis C problem through regulation, but we believe statutory relief may be the only remedy that will truly help thousands of veterans. While regulations are a good start, the VA is not mandated to ensure that these veterans are treated and compensated. It can, at any time, change the regulations or refuse treatment if it runs low on discretionary funds. Only through statutory relief will we ensure that the VA has the dedicated resources and funding to handle all of these claims. Also, having a statutory requirement will put this major disease on par with other major presumptive diseases. Finally, at the April 13th Veterans' Benefit Subcommittee hearing, several veteran service organizations, including the American Legion and the VFW, complained that the VA has already denied too many service connection claims by veterans with hepatitis C. In their testimony, AMVET stated that, among its members, the number of veterans being diagnosed with hepatitis C by the VA has increased, but the number being treated by the VA has not risen at all. While Chairman Quinn, Mr. Gibbons and I offer this bill as a remedy, we also offer it as a working document. We are willing to work with members of the Veterans Affairs Committee and our colleagues in this body as well as the Veterans Administration and veteran service organizations to produce a consensus bill. I am hopeful that we will be able to work out any differences and pass this legislation for our veterans. In the heat of combat, we ask our young servicemen and women to risk exposure to unknown danger to save others with the understanding that we, as a nation, will take care of them in the future should they become sick. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to fulfill that promise.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, autism is a severe, lifelong neurological disorder that usually manifests itself in children during the first two years of life and causes impairment in language, cognition and communication. For over forty years autism was thought to be an emotional disorder caused by trauma or bad parenting. This tragic mistake resulted in the loss of an entire generation of children to medical progress. Now that we know that autism is, in fact, a medical disorder for which medical treatments and a cure can and will be found, we must devote appropriate resources. Autism is the third most common developmental disorder to affect children, following mental retardation and cerebral palsy. Autism currently affects over 400,000 individuals in the U.S. and I in every 500 children born today. Autism is more prevalent than Down syndrome, childhood cancer or cystic fibrosis. Because we currently don't know what causes autism, it is imperative that we seek a better understanding of its origins. Some believe passionately that vaccines cause autism. Some evidence links the disorder to environmental factors, as evidenced by autism ``clusters''. Others point to genetic causes, and still some others to a combination of the two. The bottom line is that we just don't know. This illustrates the need for a greater federal commitment to epidemiological and basic clinical research to get to the root cause of this devastating developmental disorder. I strongly support legislative efforts to improve surveillance of autism and enhance federal research to prevent, treat and one day cure this developmental disorder. H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act, would expand research and prevention activities in a number of childhood diseases. Importantly, H.R. 4365 would help unravel the mystery of autism. This legislation would create up to five Centers of Excellence for autism. The bill would create a centralized and open facility for gene and brain banking, which is essential for scientific progress in autism. H.R. 4365 would also develop an autism awareness campaign for the public and physicians. Finally, it would bring together the resources of NIH, CSC, and DHHS to attack the problem of autism. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward the enactment of this important legislation and other measures that will help move us toward finding a cure for autism.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health for yielding time to me. I would echo the words of our speaker, that no senior should be forced to choose between putting food on the table or paying for the prescription medications they need. That is just plain wrong. But by the same token, the question we need to ask today, and why I rise in support of our bipartisan plan, is that we need to fairly ask, who is in charge? Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to reassert the authority of seniors to choose the type of benefit they want. That is the major difference. Our friends on the left, advocates of big government, say, let the Washington bureaucrats do it. Let us put the bureaucrats in charge of the pharmacies. Let us put the bureaucrats in charge of the plans. We say no, let us ensure freedom of choice. Give seniors choices and let them decide what is best. Mr. Speaker, simply stated, the plan on the left would fill the medicine bottles of America with red tape. We do not need that. Our seniors need choice. Support the bipartisan plan.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear some of the protests from the left. My good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), professionally trained as a psychiatrist, seemed to suggest that somehow this was pretend. Mr. Speaker, I believe a common definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. And if we take a look at the history of the late 20th century, when this House was in different hands, Mr. Speaker, the folks on the left spent and spent and spent and spent and spent some more and raided Social Security and took everything not nailed down and added inflation and did the whole thing, the whole bit, spending money we did not have and yet would return home, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the importance of debt relief. Let no one be mistaken. This is not delusional. This is not pretend. It is not a political stunt. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1916 we are voting to lower the debt ceiling. We have heard loud and clear from our constituents that they are tired of seeing deficit spending; that as we have put our House in order, by reducing taxes and thereby increasing revenues to the Federal Government, by actually generating more business in the free market and more commerce, at the same time we need to get our fiscal House in order and the gentleman from Kentucky has offered a device to do exactly that. It is not symbolic. In fact, it is historic, because we lower the debt ceiling. We signal our commitment to reduce deficit spending; and unlike those who have tried different outcomes over and over again expecting a different result, we make a difference today.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for yielding to me, and I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant). Mr. Speaker, I think it is important just to summarize where it is we believe this bipartisan plan is headed and what it is we are trying to do. Mr. Speaker, as we pointed out earlier, it is a sad fact that too many senior citizens and disabled Americans are forced to choose between putting food on the table and being able to afford the prescription drugs they need to stay alive. That is morally wrong. So we want to take action in a bipartisan way to strengthen Medicare by providing prescription drug coverage for seniors and disabled Americans so that no one is left behind. While ensuring that all Medicare recipients have access to prescription drug coverage, we must make sure our senior citizens and disabled Americans also maintain control over their health care choices. It is fundamental that we cannot force folks into a government-run one-size-fits-all prescription drug plan because, in reality, that becomes one-size-fits-some. That type of approach would be too restrictive, too confusing, and would allow Washington bureaucrats to control what medicines one's doctor can and cannot prescribe. It is our intent with our plan to give all seniors and disabled Americans the right to choose an affordable prescription drug benefit that best fits their own health care needs. Our plan will help the sickest and the neediest on Medicare who currently have no prescription drug coverage while offering all others a number of affordable options to best meet their needs and to protect them from financial ruin. By making it available to everyone, Mr. Speaker, we are ensuring that no senior citizen or disabled American falls through the cracks. Because our plan is voluntary, we protect seniors already satisfied with their current prescription drug benefit by allowing them to keep what they have while expanding coverage to those who need it. We will not, Mr. Speaker, we will not force senior citizens or disabled Americans out of the good private coverage they currently enjoy. I would point out, again, nearly two-thirds of today's seniors have some form of prescription drug coverage. Again, our plan emphasizes individual freedom, giving individuals the power to decide what is best for them, not to rely on Washington bureaucrats. The task is daunting. The details, we are in the process of hammering out as we move to markup in the Committee on Ways and Means shortly, but it is our intent to reach across the aisle as we have already done with sponsorship of this plan on a bipartisan basis because the stronger Medicare with prescription drug coverage is a promise of health security and financial security for older Americans. And it is our intent to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that promise is kept. Our parents and grandparents sacrificed much for this country. As we have been given charge by the people to come to this floor to do the people's business, to be about the work of preparing for a new century, we understand that America's seniors and disabled deserve no less.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania who preceded me in the well. So we have not only eastern and western Pennsylvania, but the east and the west united in this bipartisan effort to find a solution that helps America's seniors with prescription drug bills. I thought it was very instructive to hear the comments of the lady from Pennsylvania in the letter to our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood); and I thought it was equally instructive to hear our friends on the left precede us this evening on the floor, focusing on process and politics instead of on problem solving, because, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: we are committed to forging a bipartisan plan. Indeed, sponsors of both political parties have stepped forward and said, even though this is an even numbered year on the calendar, even though it is the nature in this institution to realize that about 5 months remain before an election, some issues are too important even in an election year to simply preen and posture and, yes, politic. Mr. Speaker, not only was that letter from the lady in Pennsylvania very poignant, it was also very practical. I think, Mr. Speaker, another difference that we see in terms of approach is a question of trust. Our bipartisan plan trusts America's seniors with an aspect of freedom that has been their birthright. My folks are now in their late sixties; my grandfather is 96. Choice has been a part of their life in a variety of settings. Why then take away choice when it comes to prescription drug coverage? I hold a number of senior coffees in my district to sit down with constituents who are articulate, informed, and very interested in a multitude of topics. When this first appeared on the radar screen of the body politic, a lady from my district summed it up very nicely when she said to, ``J.D., whatever you do, please don't increase my Medicare premium so that I have the honor of paying Ross Perot's prescription bill.'' Now, think about that. Despite all the sophisticated talk that comes out of Washington, D.C., my constituent really defined the issue. She says, ``Number one, keep Medicare affordable. Don't needlessly raise my premiums. Number two, don't force me into a plan that Washington sometimes seems to gravitate toward, which in intent is one size fits all, which in reality,'' as my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, ``is one size fits very few, and yet everyone is compelled, indeed, coerced by law, to be involved in the plan.'' That is not what we want to do. We want to champion choice and the marketplace, and we want to make sure that the nearly two-thirds of America's seniors who have existing prescription drug coverage can keep that current coverage if they so desire. The letter read by the gentleman from Pennsylvania from his constituent reminds me of another real-life story involving one of my constituents from Apache Junction, Arizona. Like the lady from Pennsylvania, she too faced tough choices for herself and for her husband. She told me that the prescription bills had become so cumbersome that she was not able to qualify for a plan with prescription drug coverage; that she, in her 70s, was employed at the drive-through window of a prominent fast food chain, one of their outlets in Apache Junction and, at that time, paying a penalty for working, because of the earnings limit for seniors. But she was doing so out of necessity, to deal with the prescription bills that she and her husband were facing. So let us state a broad objective and observation that most Americans can agree with, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, and it is this: no senior should be forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. That is fundamentally wrong. It is our intent to make sure that those who heretofore have not had coverage, the one-third of current seniors without a health insurance plan, without a prescription insurance plan, should have that type of coverage. We want to take action to strengthen Medicare by prescribing prescription drug coverage that is available to all seniors, but undergirded with the principles of freedom and choice, that no one in this country, I believe, wants to abandon. Even though it was disturbing to hear earlier tonight the chief administrator for the Health Care Financing Administration basically say that seniors could not make up their own minds, I find that nothing could be further from the truth in my district. As I said earlier, at town hall meetings, at senior coffees, at the grocery store, at church, at the softball and T-ball games when grandparents come to watch their grandchildren play and visit with me, I find that our Nation's seniors are among the most engaged, the best informed. Now, at the dawn of the new century, there is unparalleled health and prosperity for today's seniors, and indeed, this is a blessing, and it is an opportunity. Yes, problems exist, as I pointed out, the situation for the lady in Apache Junction and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania read the letter from his constituent and the tough decision she has been forced to make without prescription drug coverage. But we want to make sure that we embrace and bring to the floor a plan that gives seniors the right to choose an affordable prescription drug benefit that best fits their own health care needs. Mr. Speaker, this bulletin just in: we are all unique. We all have different health challenges, different problems, different prescription bills, different treatments. Why would we choose a plan that would allow Washington bureaucrats to bring their red tape and regulation to America's medicine chests? That is not what we want to see. We want, again, to embrace the notion of freedom and opportunity and choice for our honored citizens, for our senior citizens, for people who take the time, as every senior in my district has, to intimately understand their own challenges, their own health needs, their own prescription needs, and to deal with it. We do not want to force the two-thirds of seniors already covered out of coverage if it works for them. The real challenge with the one-size-fits-some approach is that in an effort to have the heavy hand of government and the Washington bureaucrats take the role of the corner druggist, that when government inserts itself into that dynamic, we have very serious problems, and we would hate to see those plans abandoned. Let us make sure that good coverage is maintained for those who want the private coverage that they currently enjoy; let us have a variety of plans based on the free markets that are there; and yes, in those circumstances, in some rural areas, in some areas that have been deprived of coverage, yes, there is a role for government to play, not a game of ``gotcha'' or bureaucratic intent, but by focusing on what works. That is what we are about in this bipartisan plan. Again, our mission is clear here, defined by my constituent and her very simple and direct statement: please do not increase my Medicare premiums so that I have the honor of paying Ross Perot's drug bill. Make sure the plan focuses first on those seniors and disabled Americans who have fallen through the cracks, who do not have the prescription coverage, who find themselves working a couple of jobs in their senior years to make ends meet, who find themselves currently making a difficult choice between food and medicine. It is those seniors to whom we should turn first. But also, in the spirit of competition and choice and option, we should allow folks to take a look at their plan to determine which is best for them and find the plan that is right, rather than one-size-fits-some. We should not force seniors into a Washington bureaucrat-run, one-size- fits-all prescription drug plan that has too many rules, regulations, restrictions, and allows politicians and Washington bureaucrats to make medical decisions. Indeed, this is something that I believe every Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, ought to be able to agree on, as we debate the many facets of health care, the many different challenges we face. The last thing on earth we should do under the guise of helping the American people is to decide on a course of treatment or action that violates the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that prompts bureaucrats, whether Washington bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats, to try and make health care decisions. The principles we embrace, the plan that we will bring to the floor in short order will make sure that there is choice, will make sure that the two-thirds of seniors with current coverage can continue to enjoy that coverage if that is their want, but also provide other plans and other availabilities, and that is what we need to do. Again I would call on my colleagues to make sure that even in this even-numbered year, that even with that great exercise, unique in our constitutional republic where we, as constitutional officers, stand at the bar of public opinion, the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, even with the temptation of some to turn this into a bumper sticker issue, to come to the floor and impugn the motives of others. Mr. Speaker, we understand that oftentimes free discussion in our constitutional republic and in this chamber can bring out both the best and, sadly, the worst in people. So tonight, Mr. Speaker, our call is to every Member of this institution and, Mr. Speaker, to every American to put aside the partisanship, to embrace the principles of freedom and choice, and to focus on what works, making sure that seniors have choice in prescription drug plans, that the one-third of seniors currently not covered by a plan have options available to them, options that will also exist for those currently covered by insurance, but that we do not throw away or get rid of that coverage as a Washington-run compulsory, coercive plan would do. So I would challenge my friends on the left to put aside the venom, the vitriol, and the predictable political speeches in search of a bumper sticker solution, and join with us in a plan that is already bipartisan, that already has the support of Republicans and Democrats from across the country, folks who have listened to their constituents and heard loud and clear. Put aside partisanship, focus on what works. That is our challenge. Mr. Speaker, I believe we will meet that. I would simply say to my friends in Arizona to keep those cards and letters coming. We appreciate their insight. We understand that they are on the front lines in this battle and their initiative, their input, their wisdom will help us solve this problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise as part of this bipartisan opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). Mr. Chairman, here we go again. It would be especially appropriate to remember the words written in this document, in article I, section 8, where the Constitution states as follows, ``the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.'' Mr. Chairman, that articulation, that enumeration, gives tribes sovereignty and sovereign immunity. What is disturbing to hear from my good friend from Nevada earlier is the notion that somehow we should short-circuit or circumvent the process that involves the Federal Government, quite rightly, not only a body of subsequent case law but also in what this Congress has passed through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. And when it comes to Class III gaming IGRA was never intended to give the States absolute authority in this. My friend from Florida admits it is before the courts right now. The process is working. I need not lecture my friends in elementary civics. We understand the separation of powers. Tonight we can reaffirm that separation, the sanctity of the judicial process and the promise already given by the appropriate authority vis-a-vis IGRA when we reject the Weldon amendment. Stand for sovereignty. Stand for economic opportunity. Stand for the separation of powers to let the courts do their work and work their will. Reject the Weldon amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier from another Member that we were going to attempt to inject a little reality into the debate. The preceding attempt was in vain, so let me do it for us assembled here tonight. My colleagues, there are differences of opinion honestly held. But I would caution us all not to become so obsessed with process that we fail to deal with the issue at hand. The reality is the gentleman from Washington has offered an amendment that I think is all together proper and one that we should all support because it adds greatly needed funds in an area where the need is acute: $24 million for the--I am sorry, $2 million--$22 million, forgive me, I stand corrected, and I thank my colleagues for that really unprecedented bipartisan cooperation to get the numbers right here tonight, $22 million to help Americans who have been ravaged by a horrible disease. That is the question. Not the other process, not the alleged road map of intrigue. This is the simple question, an up or down question on helping these Americans. Now, something else important to remember with reference to Indian Health Service budgeting and what has been appropriated. We have, in fact, added $30 million to that process. But this is a House where we do take into account different priorities and differences of opinion honestly held, so I will resist the temptation to go into a barn burner and just point out the facts. Twenty-two million dollars to Indian health services for the most vulnerable Americans, the most vulnerable to diabetes, the first Americans, who are too often the forgotten Americans, I think, is all together proper. And those who want to impugn others with political intrigue can do so. And some have said in this Chamber that life is tough. But I think all of us, regardless of our party affiliation or political dispensation can stand here in good conscience and cast an ``aye'' vote because it is the right thing to do for the people who need the help.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and I would simply say to the House that, sadly, what the preceding speaker is telling us is that the ends justify the means. If we mean well; if we, through good intentions or perhaps a form of arrogance, say we are better than others, that our motives are more pure than the Constitution of the United States, well, then, the law really makes no difference. Perhaps, my colleagues, it would be good to actually listen to the words of the Constitution that we all swear to uphold, protect and defend; article 4, section 3, the second paragraph. ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' My colleagues, the history was laid out correctly by the gentleman from Utah. The Antiquities Act was designed to protect archeological treasures and, really, in the fullness of time, to jump start a national parks system. The problem we have is not the Antiquities Act, it is not living up to the Antiquities Act, not setting aside the smallest amount of land possible and ignoring the process of turning to the Congress for Congress' constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Indeed, to see a friend from Arizona, the Secretary of the Interior, testify in front of a congressional committee and to have the Secretary of the Interior asked what his intention is regarding these lands; could he tell this committee what lands he plans to designate, and then to have the Secretary of the Interior say no, my colleagues, that is contempt of Congress. That is contempt for the Constitution. That is not love of the land. This is not a question of preservation and conservation. We all believe in that. There are ways to do that. And whether it was Franklin Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt, other presidents have acted in consultation with the Congress. That is what is important. And in our drive to preserve and protect lands, let us not destroy the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, on another note, if my friends on the left want to acquiesce here, then none of them should ever stand in the way of any president who wants to usurp his constitutional authority vis-a-vis our military.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let me assure this House and the American people that there will be full disclosure, and it will not be limited to 527 organizations. No, we will turn to those on a bipartisan basis, I might add, who willfully reach into the pockets and paychecks of union members, and we will make sure that real reform takes place. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of full disclosure, we should point out another discharge petition, not on the floor of this House as apparently been put in motion, the effort by the Clinton-Gore administration to discharge all of our military secrets to foreign powers, the latest revelation, our most sensitive nuclear secrets of Los Alamos. By the way, they were swiped 4 days before the fire, Mr. Speaker, and of course, Bernard Schwartz, the largest contributor to the Democrat National Committee and his firm, Loral Aerospace, giving nuclear technology to the Communist Chinese. Oh, yes, my colleagues, the discharge has started, the discharge of our military secrets.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, certainly every Member of this House has a right to weigh in on issues no matter how they fail to affect that particular Member's district. Just as I do not claim any authority over the boroughs of New York City, so, too, do I think it is important that we understand precisely what it is we are talking about. We are talking about jobs. But more importantly, we are talking about forest health. I have heard some interesting claims tonight. One of my friends from California again says we need more and more and more and more money; and yet this House, against the better judgment of some of us, enacted CARA, calling for an additional $900 million a year over the next 15 years to purchase even more land. I would invite my friends from the east coast metropolises and also those who hail from coastal districts from the West in urban areas to come visit the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona to understand the very clear and present forest fire danger that exists because we fail to employ effective forest management techniques. Oh, we do have one rallying cry that comes from the inner cities of the East. Over 30 years ago, the cry ``burn, baby, burn'' has now been inflicted into this debate, because people seem to think let us let the forests go up in smoke; that is the way one controls this renewable resource. That is wrong. This amendment, though well intentioned, is wrong, because it does not protect the fish and wildlife its sponsors would purport to protect. It, instead, sets up a situation for ecological disaster. Those of my colleagues who say they embrace the notion of balance and ecological principles, Mr. Chairman, I implore my friends on the left to withdraw this amendment, to work in a constructive way with the ranking member of this subcommittee and the subcommittee chairman, to strike that true balance. While, again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and we certainly rejoice in that fact, I would, Mr. Chairman, ask my colleagues to think of the people who live in the districts whose homes and livelihoods are affected and the very wildlife they purport to want to protect. Sadly, we see a situation where some in this Chamber and around this Nation cannot see the forest for the trees. No to this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, how sad and how cynical that the left can only embrace the politics of envy. How sad that today they rely on tired, shopworn old arguments attempting to divide Americans, when we will see in this Chamber later today a bipartisan majority standing up for tax fairness intent on putting the death tax to death. Our constitutional republic was founded, in part, because the people in that time stood up against taxation, no taxation without representation was their rallying cry. Today, all Americans stand up to say no taxation without respiration, because it is fundamentally unfair, regardless of your economic station in life, to have this tax visited upon the American people. And here is why for the disconnect that seems to affect my friends on the left when they lament the facts that this affects only 2 percent of the populace, a little economic primer, friends. Mr. Speaker, government does not create jobs. The American people, through their entrepreneurial endeavor and spirit, create jobs; and in the private sector, we should not inhibit that. That is why the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, that is why the Black Chamber of Commerce understands that the color of economic opportunity in this country is green, in terms of capital, to create jobs, to create growth and economic opportunity, to let families hang on to their farms and ranchers and small businesses and, yes, to succeed. This is the fundamental difference, Mr. Speaker. We embrace the principles of prosperity. My friends on the left embrace the politics of envy.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by the ranking member of our committee. Here is the fundamental reason why I rise in opposition: Mr. Speaker, this would leave in place all the intricacies, the infrastructure, if you will, in law of the death tax. There are those, as has been aptly illustrated in this body, there are those intent on raising taxes. There are those who believe in a radical redistribution of wealth, and those who have stood to defend the death tax essentially are accepting the notion of double taxation. This keeps in place all of the complexities, and it would actually raise taxes on families by repealing the current tax credit for State taxes. So that is something very, very important to remember. The other thing I would point out today to the body, Mr. Speaker, is that having listened with interest to my good friend who joined us from Indiana and who offered his point of view on this, if the substitute is such a good idea, why does the American Farm Bureau embrace the complete repeal of the death tax? Why does the National Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, why does the National Black Chamber of Commerce join with a bipartisan majority to embrace total repeal of the death tax? It is because of efforts, well-intentioned though they may be, by some on the left to leave in place the infrastructure and bit by bit, brick by brick, element by element, reintroduce and expand the death tax. I would remind our body collected here today, Mr. Speaker, that during a previous Congress, indeed, the 103d Congress, there was a move afoot to expand death taxes. We do not want that. Let us repeal the tax and vote against the substitute.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I welcome people of all points of view to this Chamber and to this well, but facts are stubborn things. Perhaps if the Washington bureaucrats at the Department of Education were better educated in mathematics, they could tell us where $18 billion appropriated by this Congress ended up. Here is a major hint: it did not end up in the classroom helping teachers teach and helping children learn. So when we have the litany of shame, remember the real shame is the people who ask for more and more and yet less and less responsibility in actually helping our children learn with the money we send to Washington. Mr. Speaker, another case in point: a lady now in her 80s, dependent on Social Security. Twenty years ago, her husband died and the IRS came to her and said she owed Uncle Sam $800,000. The family business was sold. Is that compassionate? Is that an irresponsible thing? I think it is irresponsible, not compassionate. Let us put the death tax to death and ask for more responsibility.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, later this week we will come to this floor to vote on putting at long last the death tax to death, and we will be offered a clear choice. Some in this chamber will embrace the politics of envy, but, Mr. Speaker, I believe a bipartisan majority will embrace the principles of fairness, hope and opportunity, for that is what we seek. As my good friend from Illinois just pointed out, there is no tax more unfair than this death tax. Stop and think about it. Think back to the very foundations of our Nation, to one of our founders, Benjamin Franklin, who had a gifted and diverse career, who indeed won much public acclaim and a fair amount of his fortune as a social commentator in Poor Richard's Almanac when he observed, ``There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes.'' But even Dr. Franklin, with all his wisdom, with his ability to seemingly see into the future, not even a person as impressive as Dr. Franklin do I believe would realize that one day the constitutional republic that he helped to found would literally tax its citizens upon the day of their death. The rallying cry is simple, my colleagues. The American people instinctively understand it. No taxation without respiration. And here is why. This vast Federal Government, accumulating revenue in much the same way as I, before I went on my diet, would go to a buffet line kind of piling it up, searching for it in every nook and cranny, this ravenous Washington bureaucracy seeking revenue, when all is said and done, picks up precisely 1 percent of its revenue through the death tax, and yet three-quarters of that 1 percent is spent badgering widows and children and survivors of those who embraced the American Dream, who built up small businesses, who fed and clothed Americans on farms and ranches. Indeed, my colleagues, perhaps nowhere is it more dramatic a dilemma than on the family farm or on the family ranch across the width and breadth of our great Nation. This is a classic dilemma. Those who have the family farm could be accurately called cash poor and land rich. When there is a death, it is quite simple, Uncle Sam comes to the survivors and says, here is an expensive tax bill, pay it. How then is it paid? Well, the family farm is sold. And one of my friends who chooses to embrace the politics of envy, who preceded me in this well, claimed there were no statistics to offer on this. Well, I know that there are those who long for the soul of the accountant in all of these transactions, but I do not want to besmirch the profession of accountancy. I simply want to point out that especially my colleagues from suburban and urban districts might be compelled to realize that there is life outside the major metropolises; that power does not come from a light switch; that milk does not come from the corner market; that America's farmers provide these things, and the death tax absolutely pummels rural communities and family farms and ranches. We feel that acutely in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, a district in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from the small hamlet of Franklin in Southern Greenlee County, north to Four Corners, west to Flagstaff, and south again to Florence, really all the way south to San Manuel, site of the largest underground mine in North America. Hard working people who play by the rules and a multitude of small towns are ravaged by this death tax. Because those who have spent their time building businesses, who helped provide for the farmers and ranchers, are forced to sell those businesses. Perhaps my colleagues have seen it in their communities. Perhaps those in larger cities would see it if they could take off their blinders and resist for a time the politics of envy. Perhaps they too could realize that, yes, more often than not, when a family loses control of a business, there is a reassessment and, yes, long-time valued employees are let go. Under new management often means faithful employees are out the door. And even as we champion new economic opportunities, why add to uncertainty? What crime have these families committed that would prompt the Federal Government to say to them, ``Sell your business; pay Uncle Sam.'' They have committed to crime. But under our curiously misguided Tax Code, as it stands today, they have committed an offense in the eyes of those who always embrace the radical redistribution of wealth. Mr. Speaker, those folks worked hard and succeeded and they are being punished for succeeding. And it is wrong and it has cost America too many family farms, too many family ranches, and too many small businesses. No matter the platitudes of the left and those who preach the politics of envy, it is common sense, Mr. Speaker. Across the width and breadth of the Sixth Congressional District I have held many town meetings. My colleagues who join me tonight will attest to the fact that there is no greater thrill than meeting with constituents and listening to what is on their minds. And how many times have I heard the story of a family ranch being sold to satisfy the tax man. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we hear these stories even as we return to this capitol, ofttimes referred to as the crossroads of America because we meet so many people from so many other places. A gentleman stopped me just last night, told me the story of his 83-year-old mother who, some years ago, upon the death of his father, was told by the Washington bureaucrats, ``You have a tax bill of over $800,000. We don't care how you pay it, you just pay it.'' And, just like that, the family business was gone, Mr. Speaker. Now, some of my friends in accounting might say, oh, that lady had the assets to sit down with a tax attorney or an accountant. Certainly she could have provided some sort of means to hold on to the family business. She is to blame for not doing so. No, Mr. Speaker. No, the blame is not on that lady in her 80s, now forced to subsist on Social Security. The fault lies in a Tax Code that punishes people for succeeding, that deprives other Americans of jobs, that inhibits the very free market principles and the notion of rewarding ambition and success and prosperity upon which this country was built and upon which this country can prosper. But we can change that this Friday when we put this death tax to death. I mentioned a second ago, Mr. Speaker, town hall meetings. Another thrill we have, those of us who are honored to serve in the Congress of the United States, comes on those occasions when we are able to appoint young men and women to our military academies. I was in Winslow, Arizona, where two young men who aspired to attend one of those military academies received permission from their high school principal to leave during the lunch hour and join us at city hall for a town hall meeting. And there in Winslow, Arizona, the farmers, the ranchers, and the small business people were lamenting this death tax. And one of those young men, just really the epitome of all that is good in young people wanting to serve their country, one of those young men stood ramrod straight and said, ``Congressman, sir, do you mean to tell me the Federal Government taxes you when you die?'' Now, initially, there was laughter among the older members of that audience in that town hall meeting. But then, upon further reflection, my constituents decided that really was not funny; that it epitomized just what was so unfair, just what was so unjust, just what was so unproductive about continuing to punish people for succeeding and trying to pass on their businesses, their dreams, to their heirs. Now, again, my colleagues, we have a choice. There will be those who continue to propagate the fiction that we should rely on the politics of envy, but a bipartisan majority will emerge this Friday saying we embrace the policies of hope. And the first step we take to do that is to put this unfair, unjust death tax to death. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I realize that Americans are flocking to the beaches and taking with them a variety of reading materials. And so I guess in that sense, Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise that we are treated to the latest fiction and rhetorical terror from the leftists in this community who always trust Washington bureaucrats instead of the people. As I listened to the litany of fiction just a few moments ago preceding me in the well, I noticed with interest that nowhere in any of the statements of the gentleman from California was there one scintilla of a request for accountability. Not in the litany of alleged shortages was there a simple request to have an accounting. Now, I guess it should come as no surprise because under the Clinton- Gore administration, Mr. Speaker, do we realize that the Department of Education cannot account for $18 billion of our money? The books of the Department of Education are unauditable. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Riley, President Clinton, Vice President Gore would be well-advised to take a mathematics refresher course. No one doubts that children are our future. No one doubts that education is vitally important. But, Mr. Speaker, how do we serve the people when $18 billion is not accounted for? That is real money. Worst still is the notion that somehow by supplying more and more dollars, even when they cannot be accounted for, to Washington bureaucrats that somehow that magically by osmosis fixes our public schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. We understand in this common sense Congress with an emerging bipartisan majority that the best way to help teachers teach and help children learn is to call for accountability, first and foremost with parents and teachers and local leaders. That is the key and that is the major defense. That is why our majority in this House of Representatives time and again has asked for dollars to get to the classroom. That for every dollar of Federal taxpayer money devoted to education, 90 cents go to the classroom; only 10 cents be left for the care and feeding of Washington bureaucrats. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that every Member of this House last summer joined me in voting for the New Education Land-Grant Act that helps local school districts in 44 of our 50 states receive at low cost, $10 an acre, up to 100 acres of federally controlled land that is not environmentally sensitive so that precious resources within those communities can go to what is really important, helping teachers teach and helping children learn. But again it becomes a question of accountability. So when we hear the litany of fictions brought to this well, and when we hear the recitations of the gloom and doom, understand this: How can we entrust the Washington bureaucrats when these folks cannot even account for $18 billion of our money? We do not put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, nor do we solve problems always by throwing money. Spending money wisely, empowering parents, teachers, local leaders, Mr. Speaker, that is the way we improve education, and by getting dollars to the classroom instead of the bureaucratic cesspools where they remain unaccounted for.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I salute my colleague from Ohio and my colleague across the aisle from California for bringing this forward. Credit is also due to a new Member of our institution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller), who brought this to our attention last year. As the chairman of our committee pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is an object lesson on tax policy in our constitutional Republic. One is almost tempted, Mr. Speaker, to return to my profession of broadcasting, ``This bulletin just in. The Spanish-American war is over. We won. But in the process American consumers lost.'' As my colleague from California correctly points out, this has been a stop-start, on-again off-again procedure. Yet it is compelling because it was a tax levied for the most noble of purposes over a century ago; but it has stayed around and, far from a luxury, we know today the telephone is a necessity. We know today that as we live in the information age, as we depend on computers more and more, information so vital to our everyday lives need not be taxed. Especially egregious, these funds from this luxury tax are not even devoted to the telecommunications process. No, they go into the general fund. And so it is long overdue that we repeal this Spanish-American War telephone tax, this tax on talking; and in much the same way, we need to continue our review and one day reform our overall tax policy because historians note that the current taxation on personal income made possible by the 16th amendment to our Constitution was preconditioned through judicial review on the notion that it is temporary. Well, today the temporary century-plus telephone tax will be repealed. Again, as we congratulate each other in a bipartisan fashion, Mr. Speaker, the American people ask, What took you so long? We are finally getting the work done for the people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the profound and positive impact that Salt River Project has had on the state of Arizona for nearly 100 years. Accordingly, SRP has a deserving place in the Library of Congress' Local Legacies. SRP is the oldest multipurpose federal reclamation project in the nation, older even than the state of Arizona. Named for the major river that supplies much of the water to the region, SRP is the Phoenix area's largest supplier of water and among the largest public power utilities in the United States. SRP's history links people, events, and projects that have defined the progress and prosperity of Arizona. Its legacy includes the cooperative water management efforts of late nineteenth-century settlers, President Theodore Roosevelt's passage of the National Reclamation Act of 1902, and the construction of major dams throughout the state. SRP continues to power the state of Arizona today, providing reliable and affordable electricity and water, and extraordinary community service. Its canals are an integral part of our environment and serve as a lasting reminder of SRP's importance to the future of our state. For these and many others reasons, SRP is a fitting and valuable addition to the Library of Congress' Local Legacies.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee, the dean of our delegation, for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, thanking the chairman of the subcommittee for his comments, thanking the ranking member for his comments, and acknowledging that, in a free society, dealing with difficult questions, at times there are those who are frustrated because, in their minds, perfection is alluded. Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, to all those within the sound of my voice, and especially my colleagues here today, we will never achieve perfection. Indeed, one of the challenges we confront is how to best shape and prioritize the very serious constitutional missions that we have. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important for this Congress to reaffirm support for men and women in uniform who confront shortages in terms of ammunition, in terms of training, in terms of their dependence, and those are other questions with which we must deal. Would, Mr. Speaker, that all of us here could show the same allegiance to those currently wearing the uniform as we profess for veterans. But let us turn to the question of those currently in uniform and one of the reasons I rise in strong support of this legislation. It is something that my colleague from New York, the chairman of the subcommittee, pointed out; the fact that now we have provided provisions for those service members who are unable to convert their funds to the Montgomery GI Bill during the 1997 open window to do so with this. First, individuals who had no money in their VEAP accounts, often because their service branch advised them to transfer their VEAP dollars to an interest-bearing account; and secondly, those who had some money in their VEAP account and did not convert because they did not know of the opportunity. So it is in this spirit that we take that step today, not only mindful of our good friend from Mississippi who joins us, the former chairman of this committee, but also speaking volumes about the leadership of my good friend from Arizona and the ranking member from Illinois, and that we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, but we stand tall for this important legislation to help current service members and veterans receive the educational benefits they deserve.