J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all of us pause to remember the reason why we are preparing to take a break from our activities here in Washington, the reason why the highways will be filled with vacationers in just a couple of hours. The reason why has more to do with the history of this country than any type of chronological observance on the calendar, for we approach Memorial Day. Mr. Speaker, I have a special wish for this coming Memorial Day, that those who are wrapped up in the ball games at the beach and the fun and the activities that surround this time of year, that those who pause not even a New York nanosecond to remember the significance and the history of this holiday, I would ask that perhaps they would pause to remember and reflect on what we approach. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, I would remember one for whom this Memorial Day will carry a special significance, because he no longer walks among us. He passed away in February of this year. His name is Dr. Carl Gorman, one of my constituents from the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. Dr. Gorman has a very interesting story, because Dr. Gorman, born in 1907 in Chinle, Arizona, in the sovereign Navajo Nation, overcame many obstacles to have a chance to serve this Nation in the military. First and foremost, we should note that the Navajo Tribal Council in fact set the pace for this Chamber, for it was the Navajo Tribal Council in 1940, over a year before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the Navajo Tribal Council passed a resolution asking the United States to enter World War II on the side of the Allies. Then following that attack, December 7, 1941, Carl Gorman, who was older than what would fit the profile, got a little creative about his age, said he was a younger man, drove all night to the Navajo capital of Window Rock to enlist, and he and 28 others formed an elite unit, a unit so elite that its activities were not declassified until 1968. Mr. Speaker, they were known as the Navajo Code Talkers. Dr. Gorman and his Navajo brethren went into the South Pacific using terms from their unique language, and so befuddled and confused the enemy that the code, the Navajo language, was never interpreted. That code was never broken, and it reigns as one of the great successes of World War II. The Marine Corps high command, in looking back at the activities of Dr. Gorman and his comrades, considered the Navajo Code Talkers heroes. They determined that the Code Talkers saved hundreds if not thousands of American lives because of the success in the South Pacific. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, were it not for the actions of Carl Gorman and the Navajo Code Talkers, our Marine Corps high command believes that perhaps the battle of Iwo Jima would have had a far different outcome. Like for so many who returned from World War II, life went on for Carl Gorman following that war. He went to art school in Los Angeles. He taught Navajo art at the University of California at Davis. He went on to work again in his home State down in Douglas, Arizona. But always and forever on this Memorial Day and those that follow, we should remember all our veterans, yes, those who fell on the field of battle, but those who continued to contribute to their Nation, like Dr. Carl Gorman. We honor his memory and those of all veterans this Memorial Day.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. My colleagues, I too rise in support of this rule, and I listened with great interest to the minority leader decry the current state and the perception of running for political office and raising funds. Mr. Speaker, I think there are three words that sum up the essence of what is transpiring in the body politic today, and that is: Obey existing laws. That is what should be done. Sadly, because of an association with foreigners and foreign money, we now have serious allegations. Rather than changing the rules, although I think we are all happy to do so under an open fashion, in stark contrast to what went on for some 40 years here before the new majority took control, we will have a chance to openly debate this, but make no mistake, my colleagues, the most radical reform would be for my liberal friends and those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to obey existing laws.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues from Wisconsin, because a bit of recent history may be in order here. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my friend on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to restate what essentially we have done. I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that in passing the rule for the authorization bill there was a self-executing amendment sponsored by myself, by the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and my colleague the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Redmond) celebrating his one year anniversary of service in this House today. Perhaps this will afford other Members who perhaps failed to vote for the rule an opportunity to join with us to stand firm to protect veterans' programs, as we stated in the rule. So, in that spirit of bipartisanship, if this would afford Members who avoided voting for the rule on authorization, if they want a second bite at the apple, well, that is fine, because it also restates the intent of a majority of us who have gone on record in this House with a vote to say absolutely, keep veterans' programs intact; do not even contemplate spending any of that money. So, in that sense I am very grateful if Members from the other side want to join with us, and perhaps some of those Members have reconsidered their notion with the rule. So I say thank you, and I look forward to having so many other Members stand with us.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that I am pleased so many want to join us again in restating our intent to say that veterans' funds are off limits. I have no quarrel with that with the gentleman, but, again, we may differ on our interpretations of history. I came to the well of this House and offered this amendment specifically for this reason. To the extent my friend wants to join me now and restate it in a motion to instruct conferees, I welcome that.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time. I listened with great interest to my friend from Texas and his very unique perspective, and he raises an interesting question that I think we should all take into account: workers' rights versus workers' responsibilities. I was intrigued to hear many Members of the minority even offering that predictable cacophony of complaints prompted by the Washington union bosses, and I have a couple of letters here urging opposition to this legislation. But I think it is a fair question to ask: Do workers' responsibilities ever rank preeminently as opposed to coexisting with workers' rights? Because what we have, my colleagues, is a full-fledged crisis. And even though our drug czar, General McCaffery, today would criticize us for using the term ``war on drugs,'' Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we should be committed to do. If we are serious about stopping this flow of drugs, that means that all available personnel should be called into action to do their jobs. And when it comes to collective bargaining, though I am pleased to admit the JD in my name does not stand for Juris Doctor, I am not a lawyer and never played one on TV, and I consider that an asset, but it is a well-held legal fact that this body can change the terms of any agreement involving Federal workers and workers' agreements. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a chance to go on record. What do we hold in higher esteem: A collective bargaining agreement or the future of our children and interdicting drugs? This should be all about drug interdiction and it has very little to do with workers' rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for his hard work on this legislation. I am pleased to come to the well today to speak in behalf of passage of this legislation because, Madam Speaker, I had a chance to listen to a young man from my State recount the very real difficulties that he confronted from receiving a transfusion of HIV-tainted blood. His name, Jeremy Storms. Jeremy lived the Scriptures in which he so fervently believed. He let his light shine among men and, despite all the medical difficulties he encountered, many times he traveled here to Washington to tell us of the challenges he faced. He had a wisdom beyond his years. He would joke, you know, I used to be upset that I was a hemophiliac. Now I wish it was the only problem I had. Jeremy passed away a few short months ago, but he did not live in vain. For his mother and father and family and for countless other families, this House on this day at this hour acknowledges the role of the Federal Government in public health and, yes, in personal responsibility. I would urge this body, adopt this legislation in memory of Ricky Ray, Jeremy Storms and so many others.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate because I would echo what my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), on this side of the aisle has had to say. Despite my deep personal affection for my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Rules, what my colleague from California points out is quite true. What, in essence, the Moakley amendment allows to have happen is for this Chamber to continue the culture of spending and raise barriers to the American people hanging on to more of their hard-earned money. Indeed, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am challenged and chagrined by the fact that our existing budgetary rules already raise so many hurdles, where if to offer tax cuts to one segment of the American population, we must have, in fact, revenue offsets. What we should be about in this Chamber, my colleagues, when we strip away all the discussion of rules, all the inside baseball, all the legislative minutia with which we deal here, the fact is we should make it easier for the American people to hang on to what they earn; and we should reject any language, no matter its intent, that makes it tougher for the American people to hold on to their hard-earned money. The American people are already overregulated and over taxed, and we must do all we can to preserve the notion that they should hold on to more of their money and send less of it here to Washington. Accordingly, my colleagues, I would ask that we reject the Moakley amendment, stand in favor of families, stand in favor of families holding on to more of their hard-earned money. I could not help but note the difference to hear my colleague from Massachusetts refer to those who might receive a tax cut as ``fat cats.'' I do not believe that the working family in Payson, Arizona, one of my friends who owns a print shop there who has a family of four who now, through our historic agreement to offer tax relief at a $400 per child tax credit this year that increases to $500 next year, can be called a ``fat cat'' because he and his wife hold on to $1,600 dollars of their income to spend on their families as they see fit. So we are witnessing here in this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, a great cultural and philosophical divide among those who favor the culture of tax-and-spend and Washington-knows-best and those of us who believe that no matter how well-meaning a Washington bureaucrat may be, no matter how well-meaning my friend on the other side of the aisle may be, Mr. Chairman, when this comes to our pocketbook, no matter our economic station in life, no one knows better how to spend for their family and save for their future than they do. That is the essence of this debate. That is why the Moakley amendment must be rejected, to reverse the culture of tax-and-spend and stick up for American families.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio on the other side of the aisle for offering the proper picture here. Mr. Speaker, I rise without venom or vitriol tonight. My colleague from West Virginia is correct. These are serious allegations that go to the heart of our constitutional republic. This must transcend partisanship. This Congress must do its constitutional duty. Our founders wisely granted this branch oversight over the executive branch. Accordingly, these witnesses should be granted immunity for all the right reasons, because, as Republicans and Democrats, we recognize that we are Americans first, and we owe it to the citizens of this Nation to get to the bottom of these disturbing allegations.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I, along with many of my colleagues, had an opportunity to hear the Vice President of the United States speak on foreign policy matters last night; and, Madam Speaker, the Vice President went into great detail of his concern and disdain for the transfer of missile technology from the Russians to the Iranians. But, Madam Speaker, not one word was uttered by our Vice President about concerns of the transfer of our own missile technology to the Chinese government. There are serious questions that exist, Madam Speaker. Indeed, The Washington Post reports this morning that $632,000 in donations to the Democrat party were given by Loral Missile Defense System CEO Bernard Schwartz, the party's largest single donor in the 1996 election. Madam Speaker, this transcends the issue of Democrats versus Republicans. As Americans, this Congress needs to investigate the unlawful transfer of missile technologies from this government and from our defense capabilities to the People's Republic of China. Madam Speaker, this House must investigate. There is no other choice.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings held during the recess be printed in the Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the recess have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would note for the record that less than one-half hour ago, among the former Members of this Congress stood the former Senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, who was recognized for his distinguished service. I would ask all of us who serve in this chamber to remember the example of Howard Baker and put principle ahead of partisanship when we deal with awesome questions of constitutional authority. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I noted with great interest yesterday that the President held a ceremony dealing with international justice and the pursuit of international justice as our Nation's leading law enforcement officer. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the President could allow his actions to speak louder than words if he and members of his party would seek the testimony of those over 90 individuals who have either taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country, because, Mr. Speaker, if we want true international justice, it should begin there.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding; because, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very interesting case study here. We have here on the floor of the Congress, under the ostensible notion of nonpartisanship or bipartisanship, a very clever and very lawyerly-like dissemination and dissection on technical figures of speech. Indeed, to be completely accurate, if we want to indulge in these types of statements, I would have to gently correct my friend from Michigan; because the accurate statement from the gentleman from Wisconsin was that he could not respect anyone testifying, as my friend from Georgia said. So we could be awash here in technicalities. But it is very instructive to listen to the tenure and tone of the preceding hour and indeed those characterizations that come to us, with apologies to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson and others, in this Washington merry-go- round; because it sadly reduces to farce some very important concepts. I listened with interest to the concerns of our friends from the other side about the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and let me commend them for being rather clever and I believe being totally partisan, while standing there cloaking themselves in the veil of nonpartisanship. But there is a larger question tonight, Mr. Speaker; and it deals not with the chairman of any House committee, nor on the technicalities of parsing statements and trying to out-lawyer each other. Though, for the record, I should point out I am not an attorney. ``JD'' does not stand for ``juris doctorate''; and I consider that to be an asset, quite frankly. No, the larger question has to do with the rule of law in a society and a truly bipartisan attempt to get to the bottom of some very serious, serious allegations. Indeed, if history is our guide, a quarter century ago, we saw bipartisanship when there were genuine concerns and indeed a constitutional crisis surrounding the White House, when the President made a claim of executive privilege that was overruled by the judicial branch. Well, this Chamber and the other Chamber moved forward to solve that problem. So the bigger question tonight, as I am happy to yield time back to my colleague from Georgia, has nothing to do with the technicalities and the character questions of any Member of Congress. It has everything to do with over 90 witnesses who have either taken the fifth amendment or fled the country. And indeed, in that context and the serious, serious allegations surrounding not only those actions but what has transpired perhaps at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I would submit to my colleague from Georgia, my friends from the other side of the aisle, that this has little to do with the chairman of any committee here and everything to do, sadly, with this administration and the curious behavior and the curious defenses offered by the left.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, I thank my friend from Georgia because, since we sadly have lapsed into hyperbole and always want to be mindful of the technical requirements of our good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, we can indulge in an institutional memory in this Chamber long before I arrived here. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal opined on this subject this morning, discussing the tactics of previous chairmen in this House, how one gentleman ``used to arrange to have full, detailed news stories appear the same morning his victims were scheduled to testify.'' It is very interesting to hear these protestations of a lack of fairness when history is replete with so many abridgements, so many convenient sharings of facts from so many committee chairmen for so long under a previous majority. Again, while we could score debating points, that simply only serves to distract us and play tit for tat when there is a larger question at stake. Though the truth may ultimately turn out to be uncomfortable perhaps for us all, indeed for us all, why would anyone choose to obfuscate and call into question fellow Members of Congress when, instead, the problem, as much of the evidence indicates, has little to do with the rules of this House and everything, sadly, to do with the reported practices, questionable practices of fund-raising and relationships, and sadly what in fact could turn out, Mr. Speaker, to be crimes. Why not get to the heart of the matter? The people in my district want to know.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my friends from the other side for again trying desperately to shift this focus to another Member of Congress, who has endured great criticism in the media, as have other people who are not Members of Congress. The name Kathleen Willey comes to mind and many others who have been placed in a situation where, if they appear to make statements that are contrary either to the minority on this Hill or to those who now reside at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, are called into question, their character is called into question. But I think it is worth noting, if we accept for just a minute the premise that----

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for being so judicious to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I will sit back and listen with great interest to what the gentleman has to say.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Can I just make a point? This is a very serious question for the American people. I appreciate the comity and the civility, but I would hope on this issue and many others it would never degenerate into levity because what we are discussing is very serious. It goes to the heart of our constitutional Republic. My friend, the gentleman from Michigan said the ends do not justify the means. Accepting that, then all these matters could be cleared up if over 90 witnesses had not either taken the fifth amendment or fled the country. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if the President of the United States who several weeks ago told the press corps and, by extension, the American people that we deserve the facts sooner, not later, would simply come forward and share those facts with the American people. Again, I would remind my friends who remind us that the ends do not justify the means, who are quick to point to our Constitution that, indeed, the Constitution of the United States gives this branch of government, the legislative branch of government, oversight of the actions in the other two branches. Oversight of actions in the executive branch of government. And, indeed, I am sorry my friend from Michigan did not stay with us, Mr. Speaker, because there is one question that is out there. For if the ends do not justify the means, how then do we reconcile not only the gulf between the statement of our President, who said the American people deserve the facts sooner, rather than later, how then do we also reconcile, Mr. Speaker, the statements of the Vice President of the United States, who in meeting the press after allegations, and indeed later substantiated that fund-raising phone calls were made on Federal property from the White House, then attempted to tell the American people at a press conference that his legal counsel informed him there is no controlling legal authority? You see, Mr. Speaker, and my colleague from Georgia, this goes to the heart of the matter. There is a controlling legal authority. It is called the Constitution of the United States, and, by extension, the Constitution articulating that it is the Congress of the United States that shall have that oversight. Indeed, the question remains, as I listened with great interest to my friend from Wisconsin, at long last, is there not one, is there not one member of the minority, who would step forward to vote to grant immunity, as advocated by the Justice Department, so that these serious allegations can be addressed? Is there not one who is willing to step forward? Is there not one who can heed the lessons of history? And I think, Mr. Speaker, of the former Senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, who put principle above partisanship, who was willing a quarter century ago to let the chips fall where they may. And I just wonder Mr. Speaker and my colleague from Georgia, have our friends on the other side taken a profoundly different lesson from that history, that the notion of stonewalling and obfuscation and changing the subject can somehow resonate? Good people can disagree, but the truth should be our guide.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Again we should point out that since there was the great brouhaha between the alleged discrepancies in the transcript from the majority and the minority version as sent out by the ranking minority member, Mr. Waxman of California, both transcripts contained that verbiage. Again, my colleague from Georgia, would you repeat the comments of Mrs. Hubbell and the comments of Mr. Hubbell? Because I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that the American people take note that even amidst the great hue and cry and wailing and gnashing of teeth and technical arguments offered by the other side, these statements appeared in both transcripts and directly on the audio tape. Those statements again, Mr. Kingston, were?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague for yielding. Again, I am not an attorney, I never played one on TV, but there is an expression in the law dealing with a preponderance of physical evidence. Now, Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating. Despite the valiant efforts at misdirection to focus attention on a committee in this House, again, what is at stake here is the rule of law and, yes, sadly, alleged law breaking within the executive branch of government, with actions taken by those involved in fund-raising for the reelection efforts of those involved in the executive branch of government, with apparent foreign donations. From where I hail, Mr. Speaker, the Sixth District of Arizona, we are always on the watch for wildfires in our wooded areas in the northern part of the district. The expression ``Where there is smoke there is fire" often, often, appears to be true. Now, Mr. Speaker, what the American people need to keep in mind is more than a curiosity, how a disgraced former Justice Department official could, between the time of his sentencing and his arrival in Federal prison receive $720,000 in income, that is a major question, and how over 90 witnesses in the committee's investigation of these matters have either taken the Fifth Amendment against self- incrimination or have fled the country. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Sixth District of Arizona, whom I am honored to represent, offer this common observation: Is there not fire where the smoke appears; or at least should not that be investigated? And indeed there are pressing problems, problems I am prepared to address from the well of this House with my voting card in terms of the issue that confront us. But our constitutional charge, Mr. Speaker, is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Do we sacrifice the Constitution to convenience, or to the predictable cacophony of protests from left- leaning newspapers and editorial boards across the country? I would say no, that principles should always eclipse polling, and that principles should transcend popularity. This, Mr. Speaker, goes to the fundamental question of the rule of law. Dwight Eisenhower offered a guide for those of us involved in public life. President Eisenhower's admonition was to never indict personalities when dealing with subjects of interest; never to engage in personalities. By Ike's standard, Mr. Speaker, indeed by the standards of the American public, what we have seen with the spirited campaign of disinformation, whether it comes against Katherine Willey or a chairman of a committee of the Congress of the United States, celebrated in a book written by a Washington Post journalist as being the spin cycle, what we have seen, sadly, in our public discourse and dialogue, is every effort to engage in personalities, and, indeed, through spin, one could fancy that someone as virtuous as Albert Schweitzer could be transformed in the spin cycle to someone as loathesome as Charles Manson.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague for yielding. The irony of some of the point-counterpoint, Mr. Speaker, is nothing short of breathtaking. Indeed today, as Members of the press faithfully reported, our President held a conference and invited the press corps in to talk about international justice and the pursuit of those who had allegedly committed crimes against this Nation beyond our borders and the concern of the pursuit of international justice. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the most meaningful first step that our President could take toward preserving international justice would be to use the considerable power of his good offices to persuade over 90 individuals who have either taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country to testify and cooperate fully and/or to return to these shores so that they might be questioned. Again, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Sixth district of Arizona who have contacted me on this issue say, hey, listen, where there is smoke there is fire, or at least you should check these things out; respectfully request that if, in fact, there is nothing to these stories, and indeed we all share the notion of a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, why then is there such stonewalling? Why then is there such a reluctance to have at the truth? Why then are we subjected to the cavalcade of personal attacks based on whomever may level an accusation or make a charge at that particular moment within the press corps? The expression has to do with a preponderance of physical evidence. Indeed, sadly, there is a preponderance of rhetorical evidence and a cycling of the spin cycle which indicates sadly that behavior seems to be contrary to the desires the American people have for a full, fair disclosure of the facts.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, indeed, as my colleague from Georgia points out, how profound the gulf between the assertion of the then President-elect in late 1992 that it was his intent to have the most ethical administration in history. How wide the gulf between that assertion and promise and sadly, what has transpired, because not only 900 FBI files, not only serious questions involving foreign donors to political campaigns, not only straining assertions of no controlling legal authority from other members of the administration, but the fact that 5 current or former members of this President's Cabinet are under investigations, either former or ongoing by independent counsels.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Indeed, if we wanted to compare independent prosecutors, one need only look so far as the efforts of one Lawrence Walsh in the so-called Iran Contra affair, an investigation that continued, if memory serves me correctly, for upwards of 7 years and cost several additional million dollars than any funds spent here to date on this modest attempt to get at the truth.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, this comes back to a point that I believe needs to be reinforced, Mr. Speaker, the point that my colleague from Georgia makes so eloquently. Every time I am home in the Sixth district of Arizona, every week I appreciate the bipartisanship, and just the common sense of the citizens whom I am honored to serve. And these questions as they are addressed to me do not come up as questions of Republicans versus Democrats or Congress versus the White House per se; the people who contact me have a legitimate concern about knowing the truth. And that is what this should be about, despite the best efforts to change the focus, to denigrate the actions of others, to complain about substance or complain about time and ignore substance and substantive facts, that remains the mission. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in this hour of difficulty, I think it is incumbent upon us all to simply ask a question: Are we prepared to defend the rule of law? Are we prepared to find out the truth? Regardless of political philosophy or partisan stripe, are we prepared to do those things? Should we not do those things in this society? Should we not reaffirm that no person is above the law? Should we not reaffirm that there is a controlling legal authority in our society? It is called the Constitution of the United States. Woe to us as a constitutional republic, woe to us as a society if we say, no, it is really not important. It has everything to do with the future of our constitutional republic and fairness and the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for sharing this time, and I know he has some closing thoughts.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), my friend and the chairman of the subcommittee; and I am pleased to join my friend, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to discuss how this amendment may have been modified. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the Riggs amendment has been modified to exempt tribal colleges. Could the gentleman confirm that for me?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.