Robin Hayes

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a steely-eyed fighter pilot. But before he begins, I wish to identify myself with the most kind and appropriate and very worthwhile remarks of my airborne friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall), a former Marine.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for his leadership and for his cooperation and for being a part of this memorable resolution. Let me pause for just a moment, if I may, to particularly thank the moms and the dads, the husbands, the wives, the children who lost loved ones fighting the wars of this and other centuries. I lost an uncle flying the Hump in Burma, Charles A. Cannon, Jr. I never will forget that my grandfather never forgot. When the door bell rang or the phone rang, he always hoped it was some word that they had found his son. So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring to the floor a resolution that declares the American G.I. the person of the 20th century. As we reached the end of 1999, people throughout the world had reason to celebrate. Mankind had progressed into a new year, a new century, and a new millennium. Such occasions provide an opportunity to reflect upon our past so that we may remember the people, places, and events that have shaped our culture and our future. Over the past 100 years, we have enjoyed advancements in almost every facet of our daily lives. In our Nation in particular, the end of the 20th century served occasion to celebrate an era marked by American accomplishment. We, as a Nation, tackled and overcame challenges deemed insurmountable by our forebearers. Most notably, the American commitment to liberty, justice, and freedom has served as a model for democracy for peoples around the globe. Our achievement has not come without its price, however. As former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell has expressed, the 20th century can be called many things, but it was most certainly a century of war. Throughout this period, the forces of tyranny and dictatorship rose time and again to wage war on an unsuspecting world. How easy it is to forget those dark moments of our past. But we must not. We can never take for granted the freedom we, as Americans, enjoy. Our liberty is not free and always comes with a price. It has been secured through the years of American sacrifice and American bloodshed. That is why I put before the Congress a resolution to recognize the American G.I. as the most influential figure of the 20th century. I offer this legislation not to glorify war and the atrocities that accompany it. To do so would be an insult to every American who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation. Instead, I wish to commemorate the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and coasties, collectively referred to as the American G.I., who left their families and their homes to fight on foreign soil for a nobler cause. I offer my resolution to celebrate generations of Americans who refused to live in a world where wrong prevails. Without their sacrifice, the history of the 20th century would have taken a very different course. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the soldiers and airmen stationed at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. I visit these installations regularly and over the last 18 months have enjoyed getting to know the young men and women who proudly serve our Nation. Their patriotism and sense of duty reflects the same spirit of generations who served before them. These young men and women would in a moment's notice defend our Nation from her foes. In honoring these courageous Americans who fought for this Nation during the 20th century, we also honor all those who serve today.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding group of student athletes from Concord in North Carolina's eighth district. Several weeks ago, the Central Cabarrus High School men's basketball team completed a truly amazing season by winning the North Carolina High School 3A Basketball Championship. The Vikings successfully completed the near impossible, defeating favored Greensboro Dudley. Led by seniors Mickey Mickens, David Hardy, Clayton Russell, Dough Naumann, and sophomore Nathan Cranford, Coach Scott Brewer's Vikings stepped up to the challenge. These players are not only winning on the basketball court, they are also excelling in the classroom. Eight of the players' grade point averages are over 4.0 and the team's average is 3.71. Clearly, these young men excel in the classroom as well as on the basketball court. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the students, teachers, parents, head coach Scott Brewer, his assistant coaches, and the 2000 North Carolina State 3A basketball champions, the Central Cabarrus High School Vikings. This is a tribute to their entire school and their team work.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to address the Members of the House regarding a very fiscally responsible bill, and I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). As he said, I did spend a year in Alaska; and it was a wonderful time. But as a part of spending that year in Alaska, Mr. Chairman, I learned a lot about fish and wildlife and misappropriations of funds. It appalls me the way that fishermen and hunters pay willingly, in fact eagerly, excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment in order to preserve and to provide conservation programs for fish and game, nongame species, for badly needed habitat. But having said all this, I find, after being in Washington for a short time, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes sometimes, it seems to me, pride in misusing these funds; using them on projects that were never intended, using them on junkets, traveling around the world, not supporting habitat and wildlife and hunters and fishermen, but doing things that bear no resemblance to what this bill has been asked to do. So I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and other supporters of this bill to lend my voice, because sportsmen in America are and always have been the original environmentalists. When we talk about clean air, when we talk about clean water, there have never been people who are more concerned and who have a more common sense approach to maintaining the beauty and the natural wonder of our habitat and our wildlife than sportsmen. So again, I applaud the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for bringing to the attention not only of sportsmen, but the American people, how their money has been misspent, even on antihunting programs, turning the Fish and Wildlife Service into an extension of the endangered species service, turning this into an environmental organization. Again, let me reemphasize, the environment is something about which I and any sportsman cares very deeply about. But to use this money in ways other than the enhancement and the protection and the future of our wildlife and habitat is simply wrong, it is unacceptable. We want to be fiscally responsible. We have collected this money. We have the trust of our constituents when we collect Pittman-Robertson money, and it is up to us to make sure that that money is spent to preserve habitat, to protect wildlife and to create opportunities for present and future generations to enjoy the out of doors. So again, let me lend my strongest and most enthusiastic support to the gentleman's efforts and commend this bill to my colleagues, and I ask for their support. I am proud of my colleague, Chairman Young and his staff for protecting our sports men and women around the country, and preserving the original purposes for which Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson were enacted. In 1937, a federal-state government cooperative program was begun for wildlife restoration. Monies are collected by the federal government from excises imposed on firearms, ammunition, and bows and arrows. These taxes are returned to the states and territories for wildlife restoration or hunter safety and education programs. Sportsmen are a unique group of people. How many people would voluntarily support and additional tax on themselves and send their money to Washington. On this side of the aisle were fighting everyday to help trim down the size of government and reduce our constituents taxes. I have not heard from one sportsman from my district to eliminate this excise tax. I have however heard from sportsman to return this program back to its original intent. Sportsman support this program--or the intent of this program because--they are the true environmentalist. They want to preserve as wild life and natural habitats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife has over stepped there bounds in administrating these funds. This legislation seeks to fix the loopholes that the Fish and Wildlife Service uses to justify the frivolous expenditures to quote/unquote administer this trust funds. I certainly understand and support the staff that helps distribute these funds back to our states, but the flagrant abuses and mismanagement of these funds has caused Congress to help U.S. Fish and Wildlife--follow the intent of the original Act. This bill will streamline the use of the administration funds and define the how they can be used. This bill reduces bureaucracy in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, increases accountability, and puts our conservation dollars into conservation projects back home. I would ask that my colleagues support Mr. Young's bill and his amendment.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his great efforts in providing us with an excellent bill. I rise today to voice my enthusiastic support for his efforts, particularly as it relates to North Carolina. This supplemental calls for $94 million in unobligated balances for the emergency conservation program to be used to repair damage done by Hurricane Floyd to buildings and farm equipment; provides $13 million in Federal crop insurance assistance; provides $81 million in relief for marketing loans for farmers in North Carolina; provides $43 million in rural water projects; $29 million for rural housing; $5 billion for peacekeeping in Kosovo, $2.2 billion more than the President's request. This supplemental fills in a lot of holes that have been created by this administration. Additional funding is appropriated to stop the administration's practice of asking our soldiers to do more with less. And if the Spence amendment is accepted, and I certainly hope that it is, and support it, the supplemental will include an additional $4 billion in emergency, badly needed defense funding. This funding includes $750 million in military health care for active duty and veterans, $230 million to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses, $600 million to address recruiting shortfalls, $1.2 billion to meet funding requirements for our forward deployed forces, and $1.2 billion to meet critical shortfalls in equipment maintenance. Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and rise in enthusiastic support. I would respectfully urge our friends in the Senate to move forward on this bill with all dispatch.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to speak about what is an excellent Republican budget. This is a good budget. Maybe it is not a perfect budget, but it has balance. It meets critical needs. It addresses crucial policy issues. It saves every penny of Social Security for our seniors. This budget provides generously for education, while stressing local decisions, local control, assuring opportunities for our public school system and for our children. This budget wipes out the national debt in the very near future. This budget restores our national defense and begins to mend broken promises made to our veterans and active duty personnel by this administration. This budget addresses vital health care needs, strengthens Medicare, and provides assistance for seniors with prescription drugs. Last but not least, the theme of my friends on the left is that Washington is more wise than the taxpayers are; Washington can spend taxpayers' money more wisely than they can. I respectfully disagree with this position. It is my belief that Americans can make better decisions than Washington can about how they spend their own money. Americans, and my folks in the 8th District, deserve tax fairness, and they deserve more of their own money to spend on their own needs. This budget is good for North Carolina's 8th District and it is good for America. I recommend a ``yes'' vote for this fine Republican budget.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize and to make further improvements to the Impact Aid Program, Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As you know, Impact Aid is part of the basic financial support for local school districts whose boundaries include military bases and other federal lands in lieu of local taxes which ordinarily support public schools. In my congressional district, Impact Aid is an element of the basic financial support for schools in Cumberland, Robeson, Hoke, Richmond and Scotland Counties, just as local taxes support other school districts. In some cases, Impact Aid supplies a significant portion of school districts' operating budgets. For example, in Cumberland County, home of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, over one-third of the school district's budget comes from Impact Aid and other Federal education programs. In fact, the Cumberland County school system receives the most Impact Aid of any other school systems in North Carolina. The ``Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000'' builds on key improvements to the Impact Aid program enacted during the 103rd Congress. At that time, the program was rewritten so it would focus Impact Aid dollars on those school districts most heavily impacted by a Federal presence. Those changes have been extremely successful in getting funding to schools in greatest need of assistance, thus enabling them to improve the quality of education provided to students. In addition, those amendments created greater support in Congress for funding Impact Aid, and we have seen consistent increases in the Impact Aid budget ever since. The legislation I am introducing today will further improve the program, and should lead to even stronger support among colleagues for funding key needs in federally impacted school districts. As in my Congressional district, many of the children affected by this law are the children of members of the Armed Services. And, I believe all of you will agree that we should provide the best possible education to the children of those individuals who put their lives on the line to protect our great Nation. Key provisions of the bill I am introducing today would: 1. Change to formula for payments for federal property to insure a more equitable distribution of funds. 2. Incorporate into the Impact Aid law the pilot program for heavily impacted school districts included in the past two Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bills. 3. Insure equitable payment for children living on land formerly owned by the Federal Government. As the military privatizes more and more housing for military personnel, it is expected that school districts will not receive adequate funding under Impact Aid to make up for the difference in the amount of taxes paid on such property and the amount they would have received for each child if the property had retained its non-tax status. This provision would continue to count such children as on-base children, but would reduce the amount of their Impact Aid payment by the actual amount of the taxes used for educational purposes. 4. Require the Department of Education to provide a notice to schools that miss filing deadlines and provide them a period of time within which to submit applications for Impact Aid. This change would address the growing number of yearly Impact Aid amendments necessary because school districts have missed filing deadlines. 5. Revise the construction provisions of the Impact Aid to allow Federally impacted school districts with no bonding capacity or with schools that have health or safety hazards to apply for the existing Impact Aid construction program, and shift some of the existing construction money to serve these districts. The Secretary would then fund the highest priority projects. 6. Provide a funding floor to small school districts with fewer than 1,000 children who have a per pupil average lower than the state average. This provision would guarantee them a foundation payment of no less than 40 percent of what they would receive if the program were fully funded. As one of the over 150 Members of the House Impact Aid Coalition--one of the largest bipartisan coalitions in Congress--we have worked together to support our local school systems that provide support for military men and women and those citizens that are affected by Federal properties. This bill has the support of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, the association that represents over 1600 school districts nationwide that will benefit from this legislation, and the National Military Impacted Schools Association. I would like to submit their letters of support for the Record. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to assist those school districts impacted by a Federal presence. The ``Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000'' will help insure school districts receive the support they need to provide children with the best possible education. These are thoughtful improvements to a very important law. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. National Military Impacted Schools Association, Bellevue, NE, February 10, 2000. Chairman Bill Goodling, House Education and the Workforce Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Goodling: The Military Impacted Schools Association (MISA) is extremely proud of the leadership you and your staff have demonstrated in developing the legislative proposal to reauthorize the Impact Aid Program. There has been a real sensitivity to the needs of military children and your support is greatly appreciated. Your discussion on the proper weight for a military (b) child is also appreciated and I hope this can be discussed further. On behalf of the public schools serving the educational needs of over 550,000 military children, we wholeheartedly endorse and support your Impact Aid reauthorization proposal. Warmest regards, John F. Deegan, Ed.D., Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to rise today and submit for the Record the initiative that my own Cabarrus County in North Carolina has taken to promote the School-to-Work partnership with JobLink. I am thrilled that the Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce has developed these innovative strategies to better our community. The benefits that our neighbors, friends, and families will gain from the Workforce Development Week 2000 will be life long. Workforce Development Week 2000 Whereas, Workforce Development issues impact every facet of our community and are at the forefront of American Society in the new millennium; and Whereas, the School-to-Work Partnership of Cabarrus County and the Cabarrus County Job Link Center work together, with and through a medley of agencies to provide opportunities for the future and present workforce; and Whereas, the School-to-Work initiative is a partnership between Cabarrus County Schools, Kannapolis City Schools and the Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce; and Whereas, the Workforce Development Steering Committee of the Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce promotes dialogue between the Chamber and top administrators from the school systems and colleges, as well as implements community wide workforce development initiatives; and Whereas, businesses, jobseekers, and others will be supported by employment and training services, information in a customer friendly manner, and staff who are caring professionals from various assisting agencies, and Whereas, on January 29, 2000 the Cabarrus Career Fair 2000 will be held at the Carolina Mall in Concord from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm, and will provide students and citizens of all ages positive interactions with over 50 different careers in the Cabarrus Region; and Whereas, on February 2, 2000 the Cabarrus Region will team with the National Groundhog Job Shadow Day initiative to place students during the month of February with a mentor in the ``World of Work''; therefore, students are able to experience the importance of academics, communication skills and teamwork; and Whereas, on February 3, 2000, the Cabarrus County JobLink Center, which was presented a charter on October 19, 1999 from the Centralina Workforce Development Board, will host an Open House Celebration from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm at 2275 Kannapolis Highway, Concord; and Whereas, the School-to-Work Partnership and the JobLink Center will provide Cabarrus County with training, information and services vital to a competitive workforce that will be successful in a global economy. Now therefore, be it resolved, That the Week beginning Saturday January 29, 2000 to Friday February 4, 2000 is hereby proclaimed as ``Workforce Development Week 2000'' in the Cabarrus Region, and urge our citizens to become familiar with the services and benefits offered by the School-to-Work Partnership and JobLink Systems in our community.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a legislative hawk from North Carolina who is going to be moving out of our state in just a few days. June Horovitz from Raleigh, has worked hard for the people of North Carolina. Although she has never been elected and she has never been paid a lobbying fee, she has worked for over 17 years to make North Carolina a better place. I first met June in 1992 as a state legislator in North Carolina's General Assembly. June does not drive, so she would ride the bus or catch a ride with a friend down to the legislature building and attend committee meetings and visit with members. We became fast friends due to her hard work to eliminate the state sales tax on food. June's cause prevailed. Last year, the General Assembly repealed the final two cents of the state's portion of the food tax. Since moving on, June has kept me informed of the issues in the North Carolina General Assembly. June is moving to Boca Raton, Florida on Thursday, November 18 to be closer to her brother and his family. I expect she will continue to fight high taxes and wasteful government in her new state of residence. I thank her for all her support and wish her all the best.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, I began traveling the 8th district of North Carolina, and I made two particular pledges; one was to save Social Security and the other was to do everything I could to balance the budget. Well, here we are with the appropriations bills passed, we have stopped the raid on Social Security, and we have balanced the budget. It is that simple. Our spending appetite has been decreased, our priorities have been very clearly outlined. Social Security will be saved because we have stopped the raid, and I applaud those for making the tough choices and making that possible.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me the time. Hurricane Floyd swept through North Carolina on September 15, 1999, over 6 weeks ago. In September of 1989, when Hurricane Hugo batted the Carolinas, President Bush requested disaster relief, and it was provided by the Congress in less than 2 weeks. Later, Hurricane Andrew devastated Florida and the Gulf States. Within 30 days a bill had been signed into action. My colleagues, I am here to say today that this delegation from North Carolina has worked together tirelessly to bring the results and the help that North Carolina needs. They have worked around the clock, and we appreciate that. The private sector broadcasters had a telethon and raised millions of dollars. Personal calls have been made by Senators and House Members. The private sector, FEMA, the Department of Agriculture, VA-HUD, this Congress has worked to bring aid and relief and money to North Carolina. The missing ingredient now, Mr. Speaker, that we need is that bill from the White House that will help put the final piece to this puzzle together. As others have said, this is unprecedented. Fifty confirmed fatalities, thousands of displaced families, 30,000 flooded homes. I cannot help but remember on visits to North Carolina several weeks ago, the looks in the eyes of the people who had lost everything. The Jones family in Pitt County who had been thinking of their tobacco crop at 4 a.m. in the morning, worrying that the power would go out. They went to check, to see if the power was on and they found the water rising in their garage. From there it rose into their living room and on up it went. True, the Coast Guard ended up rescuing these people because of the water. I have a picture here, Mr. Speaker. We have had instances in the past where crops were lost. But this flood was so bad that even the farm equipment was lost. We see a tractor underwater. The President can come to the table to meet this unprecedented need by putting forward a request for the additional emergency aid that is so essential. In Duplin County as I spoke to a farm family there, I have a sequence of pictures showing the water rising on their poultry houses. It rose, the birds got up on the edges of the house, finally they were all drowned. Unprecedented disaster. We need the President to come forward with that piece which is an emergency supplemental bill that addresses the needs that have been so carefully and well outlined by my colleagues. I am disappointed that the lack of the initiative has been there. We need help for victims of Hurricane Floyd. President Clinton came to North Carolina, promised relief, and gave us a Federal lawsuit to finish off the tobacco farmers. Mr. Speaker, the need is there. The people are looking to us. Sixty- five or more State legislators along with the governor have come to help make the case that this help is needed. People in North Carolina are watching and listening. We have helped people all over the world. We are trying to meet every need with every possible source of funds. Now is the time, and I hope the President will respond immediately, if not sooner, with that additional supplemental bill that will provide the relief for North Carolina that we need.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 534, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and I have slightly different accents, but we have the same understanding of the effort here to secure the future for America's children, and that is what this amendment does. That is what this amendment is all about. My friends on the left would erect an invisible shield and call it protective. This is not protective, it is destructive, to take the opportunity from parents to choose for their children. The Federal Government has the opportunity here to accelerate and enhance learning in public school, not continue to be a massive roadblock for learning. There are those who would unfairly and incorrectly mischaracterize the Armey amendment. I even heard the term voucherize used. This is untrue. The amendment gives hope to parents and children, especially disadvantaged children; hope by knowing that they are not trapped in a school where they will not learn the skills that they need to succeed in life; hope because they can choose a better opportunity for their children, safe and sound. That is what this is all about. Beside me on the left is a quote from our President in which he says, ``Parents should be given more choice.'' He stood in this room before this body not long ago and said this; and we agree, and we are working hard to help provide those choices for parents that will help those children succeed. Just last week I was in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in the 8th District, and there was a school where choice was given. Over 1,800 applicants for 600 spaces. Discipline, respect, uniforms. In other words, a different way to give children and teachers the academic environment in which they could learn. This choice has created an opportunity, an enthusiasm, a momentum, an energy that was exciting to see. It shows what can be done in public schools if we dare to be different, if we dare to move ourselves out of the trap created many times by the Federal Government in the past. So, yes, I support this amendment. I would encourage everyone here to support the opportunity for parents to do the best for their children. Support the Armey amendment.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I probably somewhat reluctantly rise in opposition to the Mink amendment. I have a number of friends here who are ladies, and there is no question in my mind that they are here because of their ability and their desire to do a good job. I think that H.R. 2 is a great bill. It does things that are badly needed, but as I sit and listen to the debate, I wonder do we really have a gender equity problem? I do not think so. In the past, there have been serious problems. These problems have been addressed in the process of governmental reform. If we have problems with equity now, it seems to me that this is a management problem, not a legislative problem. It is very clear in the law that we will treat everyone fairly. If someone does not know that by now, then management in the school system certainly is well equipped to deal with what is a management problem and not a legislative problem. I hope we would not distract from the many fine qualities and features of H.R. 2 that are before us today by going off in a direction that ultimately may not be positive for all of our students. Let me talk just briefly about H.R. 2. Recently, as recently as last week, I had the experience and pleasure of being in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in my home district. I witnessed the choice school, a local community addressing the needs of their children. It is known as 71st Classical Middle School. It is a school for middle schoolers sixth through eighth grades, a school that parents and students choose to go to in the public school system. This school is in its fourth year of existence and is already ranked as one of the top 20 middle schools in the State of North Carolina. There is a competitive, random selection application process that is used to select students for this school. Parents and teachers sign a contract, as do the students, in which they agree to strict adherence to discipline, prescribed codes of dress, high expectations, rigorous academic standards; in other words, the kind of flexibility that we all aspire to with H.R. 2. Wonderful atmosphere, young people who are excited about learning, teachers who are committed to the process; a building, interestingly, that was built in 1924, in pristine condition, restored at a cost of some $500,000, which is a stark contrast to a replacement of probably $15 million. My point is, this was an atmosphere in which learning was taking place because local parents, teachers, superintendents had the flexibility to make choices that really worked for their young people. Let me read just a portion of what that contract says: ``In order to maintain a positive academic environment conducive to high standards in teaching and learning, students will be accountable for responsible, respectful behavior. Students must adhere to the rules contained in the Cumberland County Schools' Student Code of Conduct, the 71st Classical Middle School Dress Code. If failure to abide by these rules results in a 3-day suspension or more, the student shall be transferred to his or her home school unless disciplinary action results in a long-term suspension from all schools.'' As I say, what a wonderful atmosphere where learning was taking place. With this contract comes accountability, just what H.R. 2 is about, both from students and from teachers, and even more importantly, respect. They wear uniforms. The school is pristine. They have seminar classes in which students gather to talk about subjects across the academic spectrum. They develop life-long learners. They utilize a variety of instructional methods, stimulate creative and critical thinking through seminars. They emphasize positive character development, ensure strict adherence to a code of conduct, mandate prescribed standards of dress. There is no peer pressure there. I would read the code in part, if time would permit. Again, the goal is to have all of the schools in Cumberland County to have these kind of choices that result in this sort of atmosphere and give these kinds of results. Madam Chairman, I recommend H.R. 2 and support it strongly.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, thank goodness the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) has said no to the President's taking money from our farmers in North Carolina who have lost their homes, small businesses. The President has said, no, our farmers do not matter. He does not mind, and they do not matter. That is what he said. But the committee of the gentleman has said, our farmers and our seniors matter. I thank the gentleman very much for saying yes to our people.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I spent a considerable amount of time last week touring the flood ravaged farms of eastern North Carolina. And what the people of North Carolina cannot understand, is how the President can advocate policies that legalize marijuana and reward junkies with free needles, while at the same time, pledging to use the resources of the federal government to wipe out tobacco farmers with a federal lawsuit. Mr. Speaker, this policy says, if you want to smoke pot--okay; if you're a junkie and you need another needle to shoot up--come on down and the government will give it to you. But if you want to plant an acre of tobacco, you are public enemy number one and we are going to get you. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously wrong, and it shows how far off track our government has fallen. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do what is right and take a stand against this ridiculous policy by voting for this bill.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from New York for a bill that really speaks to the needs of Hurricane Floyd victims in North Carolina. I toured last week on behalf of this Congress, and I saw the tragedy in its worst possible case. People can look to us here in Washington, the Federal Government. Because of this bill they know we care, they know we are going to do something to help them rebuild their lives and their businesses. They know that we are aware and will move as quickly as we can to help them in their hour of need again. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for their efforts. A good bill. I heartily support it.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Anson County, North Carolina chapter of the Jaycees. The Anson County Jaycees were recognized as the number one chapter in North Carolina Jaycees Parade of Excellence. The Jaycees are a national organization of men and women between the ages of 21-39 who want the best opportunities for leadership development, volunteerism, and community service. At the fall convention of the North Carolina Jaycees, The Anson County chapter also was awarded first place out of approximately 90 chapters. Individual members were also recognized for their successes: Ken Caulder, Mark Snuggs, and Jennifer Tucker were 3 of the Anson Chapter's 48 members who were singled out for their good deeds. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Anson County Jaycees on the difference they are making on our community and I wish them continued success as they look forward to the next convention in February 2000.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. and Mrs. John K. Edmond, Sr., founder of the Genesis Family Home in Concord, North Carolina. The Genesis Family Home's philosophy is to create a new beginning for young adults, ranging from 9 to 17. The Genesis Family Home provides a residential setting for these young adults for whom removal from home to a community-based residential setting is essential to facilitate treatment. Treatment is targeted to those who no longer meet criteria for in- patient psychiatric services or intensive residential treatment and need a step-down placement in the community, or those who have been placed in non-residential community setting and need a more intensive treatment program. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are responding to the children in need in our community that need our help in the transition back into family life. Positive role models are often hard to find, the Johnson's aren't only role models--they are the boost these young adults need to survive. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Genesis Family Home on the difference it is making on our community.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, this morning I rise to simply say that the people in the 8th District of North Carolina care about access, they care about quality, they care about affordability. That is what we on our side of the aisle care about this morning. We want to provide that. The language that some of my liberal friends use may be good politics, but it is bad medicine for the people in the 8th District. Support the bill that gives access, that gives affordability, and give quality to the people of America. Support Boehner. Support Shadegg/ Coburn.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, over the August recess, I had the opportunity to meet with a number of health care providers in my district, the 8th district of North Carolina. Without exception, these care givers share a common concern. Hospitals and clinics in rural America appear to shoulder a disproportionate share of the spending reductions agreed to in the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. Now why do I bring up this subject today. Because our hospitals are currently providing health care for the more than 43 million uninsured Americans and have to absorb the cost. Hospitals and clinics are faced with the untenable position of having to scale back services or closing their doors altogether. In fact, many of our providers have trimmed services to such an extent that in the near future they may be forced to turn away critically ill patients. As you can imagine, further cuts in Medicare spending expected for next fiscal year will only exacerbate the current problem, leaving our hospital administrators braced for the worst, but financially unable to respond to needs. If we do not address the desperate situation in which our health care providers find themselves, my constituents, both individuals and businesses, will not have any choice when it comes to health care-- hospitals, doctors, nursing homes. I am hearing from hospital and nursing homes that they will be closing their doors within the next year if immediate relief for these budget cuts are not addressed. Elements of all three health care bills that are being debated later today will become obsolete if our hospitals and clinics begin to close, including: Rural Americans diminished access to health care because they will have to drive too many miles to see a primary care physician; emergency care that will be so far away that patients could die before ever reaching a hospital; and less access to local pediatricians, obstetricians, and specialists. Bottom line the health care services will be unavailable. I support the intentions of the underlying health care bills, but at what cost? I cannot pass along these costs to the consumer. Let's pass H.R. 2990--Quality Care for the Uninsured to give small businesses, individuals and early retirees the access to affordable health care. But, let's please be careful how we pass along the cost to consumers. Let's allow patients to speak freely with their doctors. Let's be sure there is accountability. Let's provide choice in primary care physicians and specialists, and give employers the opportunity to provide affordable benefits to their employees. But, if we pass costly new mandates--won't we be passing along the cost to the consumer that we are trying to help with H.R. 2990? I would also like to urge the Speaker--Let's address Medicare reform this year--so that both of these bills do not become null and void in Rural America.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this resolution to the floor, thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her commitment and energy in providing much needed help, and to all our delegation and Members up and down the East Coast who are affected, I am here today to speak on behalf of the many victims of Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina and also tornado victims in Stanley and Anson County who are looking to us for help. As a member of the North Carolina delegation, I am going to work hard to make sure their needs are met, but I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that one way we can assist the many people who are in distress in North Carolina is to not use the Federal Government to wipe out their local economy. Mr. Speaker, the President went to eastern North Carolina recently and told farmers that he feels their pain, and he pledged his support in the wake of this disaster. However, as soon as he returned to Washington, we learned that he had instructed the Justice Department to do its best to wipe them all out with a Federal lawsuit. Mr. Speaker, the ultimate loser in this process will be the tobacco farmers, their families, workers and manufacturing facilities and others who work long, hard days to put food on the table and provide for their families. The fact that the administration has chosen to launch this action in the wake of a devastating natural disaster might be comical were it not so tragic. Mr. Speaker, members of the North Carolina delegation and I have sent a letter and personally contacted the President asking him to reconsider his plan and drop this lawsuit against the very people we are here to express sympathy for today. I hope other Members of this body will join us in this effort to not penalize victims with an additional Federal lawsuit.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for putting this special order together tonight. As I listen, this is not about setting the Record straight, this is about re-confirming what the Record really says. This body is properly called the People's House, and since it is elected by the people, it offers a fairly good cross-section of America. Our Members come from every conceivable professional background, from numerous ethnic groups, from rural, suburban and urban areas, and we hold views from conservative to ultra-liberal and everything in between. We seem to represent a cross-section of America on everything except religious faith. In fact, on that subject it seems that some Members of this body demand that we misrepresent the views of American people. We have heard them in a number of our debates in recent weeks objecting to any acknowledgment of God and even objecting to permitting citizens to choose faith-based programs. Ironically, our longstanding constitutional guarantee for a freedom of religion has been twisted by some in this body into a demand for a freedom from religion. These Members demand that this body represent itself in its practical policy as being atheistic, as excluding all mention of God. The ridiculous nature of this demand was exposed over a century ago by Princeton University President Charles Hodge. He explained, and I quote: ``Over the process of time thousands have come from among us from many religious faiths. All are welcomed, all are admitted to equal rights and privileges. All are allowed to acquire property and to vote in every election, made eligible to hold all offices and invested with equal influence in all public affairs. All are allowed to worship as they please or not to worship at all if they see fit. No man is molested for his religion or his want of religion. No man is required to profess any form of faith or to join any religious association. More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false. The atheist demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God. The sufficient answer to all this is that it cannot possibly be done. The demands of those who require that religion should be ignored in our laws are not only unreasonable, but they are in the highest degree unjust and tyrannical.'' Even though a century has passed since Charles Hodge delivered this speech, many in this chamber are still making the same unjust and tyrannical demands. Although national studies consistently show that only 6 to 7 percent of Americans have no belief in God, critics among us want to cater solely to the 6 or 7 percent and to sacrifice the beliefs of the 93 percent at the feet of the 7. It should not be done. During our debates on allowing individual States to choose whether or not they wish to display the Ten Commandments, many in this body objected to those voluntary displays arguing that our policies should reflect the religion-free beliefs of the 6 or 7 percent who do not believe in God. Fortunately, this body chose otherwise, and during our debates on encouraging a day so that people who wished could join together across the Nation to humble themselves, fast and corporately pray for national reconciliation, again many in this body objected to that, wishing to see our policy reflect solely the anti-religious wishes of those in this Nation who do not believe in God. Again, fortunately the majority of this body chose otherwise, even though we fell short of the necessary two-thirds margin for approval. Although we continually hear that with government-funded medical care there should be citizen choice when it comes to allowing similar citizen choice in selecting social service programs or criminal rehabilitation programs or educational programs, Members of this body insist that faith-based programs must be excluded from their choices. Interesting. We encourage participation in religion-free programs, but we penalize involvement in faith-based programs. This is simply another example of catering to extremists. Frankly, despite what some Members of the body may claim, we are not required to conduct government as if God did not exist. In the first official speech ever delivered by President George Washington, he urged us to seek policies which openly acknowledge God. He explained, and I quote: ``It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that almighty being who rules over the universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious, favorable smiles of heaven can never be expected on a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.'' And in his farewell address 8 years later, he reiterated his policy declaring, quote: ``Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. The mere politician ought to respect and cherish them. Can it be a good policy which does not equally include them?'' Patrick Henry, one of the leading individuals responsible for the Bill of Rights similarly declared: ``The great pillars of all government and of social life are virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible.'' Even Benjamin Franklin reminded the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, quote: ``All of us have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor, and have we now forgotten that powerful friend, or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance? Without his convincing aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages.'' Very simply, it was never intended and never envisioned that this body should pursue its policies with the practical denial of the existence of God. Yet this is what many in the body are demanding. We heard their criticism during discussion on the Ten Commandments bill, on the resolution calling for a day of humiliation, prayer and reconciliation and on the juvenile justice bill; and not only did they criticize these measures, they even had the shameless gall to tell us that the Constitution demanded that we show favoritism toward nonreligion. They told us that the First Amendment mandate on separation of church and state could not be satisfied if we passed policies which acknowledge God. It is time for those critics to reread the Constitution which they swore to uphold. Nowhere does the First Amendment, or, for that matter, any part of the Constitution, mention anything about a separation of church and state, but it does guarantee in its own words the free exercise of religion. Yet some in this body would deny citizens rights which do appear in the Constitution because of a phrase which does not. It is time for this body to get back to upholding the actual wording of the Constitution, rather than the wording of revisionists who would reread our Constitution.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I am from North Carolina. We have a serious problem, a huge problem; but this bill helps our farmers now. We can do more for them later, and we will. But, please, support this conference report. It helps North Carolina farmers and it helps them now. I come to the floor today along with my fellow colleagues from North Carolina to educate Congress on the state of dire emergency in North Carolina. I support this conference report. As you know, Mr. Speaker, North Carolina has experienced the most destructive natural disaster ever to hit our State, It is already estimated that damages from Hurricane Floyd will exceed $2 billion in agricultural losses alone, not to mention loss of homes, businesses, roads, schools and other services. The extent of damage is currently still being assessed and will not be known for sure until the water recedes. It is for that reason that I implore this body, as Representatives of the United States, to work with us from North Carolina, as well as with those suffering in New Jersey, New York and other States from the destruction of Hurricane Floyd, when we came back to you in the upcoming weeks and ask for your assistance in passing a package which will accurately address the needs of these people who have literally lost everything. In light of the fact we do not have a clear idea of how much money will be needed to aid these hurricane victims, I believe it is wise for us to press forward with the emergency farm assistance package we are voting on today. Farmers from North Carolina, as well as farmers from all the nation, will greatly benefit from this bill. We need to pass this bill and pass it quickly so that farmers can begin receiving assistance as soon as possible. I urge you to vote in favor of this conference report.