Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to a group of Americans who made a significant sacrifice for this country. In 1979, as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter boycotted the summer Olympic Games in Moscow. The American led boycott was supported by Japan, West Germany, China and Canada. As we all know, these games occur only once every 4 years. The investment of time and effort required of an Olympic caliber athlete is extraordinary. Because of this investment, many of these athletes sacrificed a once in a lifetime dream of competing on this world stage. To recognize their sacrifice, the 96th Congress awarded the Olympic athletes the Congressional Gold Medal. Unfortunately, due to a clerical interpretation, these Americans were not listed as recipients by the Clerk's office. This year I was pleased to assist the U.S. Olympic Committee in correcting this error. The 1980 Summer U.S. Olympic Team is now officially recognized as a recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal. I pass along special thanks to Mr. Ron Neugent of Wichita, Kansas for his dedicated efforts to ensure we properly honor these 1980 Summer Olympians. As a proud member of the 1980 Olympic Swimming Team, Ron identified this oversight and brought it to my attention. This group has waited a long time for this recognition, and I believe that the individual athletes that made up this team deserve to be recognized. To honor their individual sacrifice, these outstanding Americans are listed below so that Congress and the American people can give them the thanks they deserve. Ableman, Randolph Phillip Wm., Adams, Judi C., Aguirre, Mark Anthony, Alexander, Gwen Cheeseman, Allen, Francis E., Allen, Lee, Allsopp, Christopher Reid, Altekruse, Charles, Anders, Elizabeth R. (Beth), Anderson, Colin C., Anderson, Jodi, Anderson, M. Lynne, Anderson, Ron, Anderson, Terence M., Andrews, Ann Turbyne, Andrews, Mary Osborne. French, Diane McCormick, Fuller, Mark Albert, Gable, Danny Mack, Gaines IV, Ambrose Rowdy, Galimore, Ron, Gambril, Donald Lee, Gansler, Robert, Gardner, Gwen, Gardner, Peter Van Wyck, Gault, Willie, Gee, Darryl Lester, Geer, Charlotte Mosher, Geer, Julia Hand, Gerard, Larry D., Gilder, Virginia Anne, Giordano, Robert J. Neel, Earnest W., Nehemiah, Renaldo, Neugent, Ronald Kingsley, Newland, Robert Warren, Neyer, Megan, Nieman, Robert Lee, Nitz, Leonard Harvey, Nitzkowski (Monty) Kenneth, Nonna, John Michael, Norelius, Kristine Lee, Nyquist, Dwight A., O'Brien, Mark Edwin, O'Brien, Ronald Shay, O'Connor, Daniel Martin, O'Connor, Mary Irene, O'Leary, Elizabeth Hills. Angelakis, Jana Marie, Arnautoff, Peter, Arnold, Homer Stuart, Atwood, Duncan Fuller M., Auriol, Yves Leon, Azevedo, John, Bailey, Peggy Mccarthy, Banks, W. Augustus (Willie), Barber, Valerie Ann, Barczewski, Leslie, Barnes, Hope, Barnicoat, Stephen Douglas, Barrett, William Melvin, Baston, Lynette Rae, Baughman, Richard Wayne, Baxter, Terri Lynn, Beardsley, Craig Russell, Becker, Carolyn Marie, Beglin, Elizabeth Anne (Beth), Belden, William Thomas, Bell, Richard, Belle, Roberta J., Bellinger, Tony, Benjamin, Stephen Delancey, Bennett, Robin Campbell, Bergen, Paul David, Bertrand, John (Joseph), Bessette, Andrew, Bishop II, Washington D., Blackman, Rolando, Blatnick, Jeffrey Carl, Blazejowski, Carol, Bolden, Jeanette, Borchelt, E. Frederick, Borchelt, Mark Raymond, Borysewicz, Edward, Bossett, Henry Peter, Bottom, Michael Leo, Bower, Carol Ann, Bowie, Sam, Brandel, Terry Ann Place, Brooks, Michael Anthony, Brown, Carol Page, Brown, Debra Landreth, Brown, Doug Charles, Brown, Julie Ann, Brown-Harris, Alice, Bruner, Michael Lee, Buchan, William, Buck, Marrita N. Crockett. Glance, Harvey Edward, Glass, Timothy Carrigan, Glenesk, Dean William, Goldsby, Boyd D., Goldstein, Jesse H., Goodell, Brian Stuart, Gorski, Mark, Grant, Jill Evans, Graves, Carrie Brand, Gray, Landon Fentress, Green, Debbie B., Green, William Earnest, Greene, Pamela D., Gregorek, John Stanley, Gribble, Matthew O., Griffin, Lorna Joann, Gros, Vonnie, Grylls, David Miles, Gust, Brian B., Haines Jr., Robert Bentley, Haines, George F., Hamann, Stephen Walter, Hamilton, Donald Leslie, Hannan, Jerry B., Hartung, James N., Harville, Janet Christine, Hatton, Hollis S., Hauserman, Cindy Noble, Hayes, John Patrick, Hazeltine, Thomas, Heffner, Kyle Daniels, Heiring, James Anthony, Hellickson, Russell Owen, Hencken, John Frederick, Hightower, Stephanie, Hill, Denean E., Hingley, Susan Tuttle, Hintnaus, Tomas, Hogshead-Makar, Nancy, Homfeld, Conrad E., Howard, James A., Howard, Sherri Francis, Howard, Terry M., Howes, Janet Baier, Howes, Thomas Andrew, Hull, Thomas W., Huntsman, Anita Miller, Huntsman, Stanley Houser, Hyman, Flora Jean, Ibbetson, Bruce Bernard. Orban, Alex, Pace, Darrell Owen, Page, Nathaniel, Paige, Donald James, Palchikoff, Jan Louise, Palles, Lee Nicholas, Paulus, William George, Pennington, Mary (Joan), Pesa, Njego, Pesthy, Paul Karoly, Peterson, Ben L., Plant, Mary Meagher, Plucknett, Ben (Walter), Plumb, John Michael, Potter, Cynthia Ann, Powell, John Gates, Prioleau, Paul Edouard, Prudent, Katherine Monahan, Puleo, Joseph Robert, Purdy, William David, Parsley, Dennis C, Rademaker, Sperry Jones, Reese, Randolph Howard, Reilly, Philip Vincent, Reiter, Steve Frank, Rheingans, Brad Bert, Ripley, Dan, Ritter, Louise Dorothy, Robertson, Kevin George, Robinson Jr, James, Rocca, Peter D., Rodda, David Lee, Roney, Brian Kelly, Rudd, Teresa Lee (Terry), Salazar, Alberto Bauduy, Salvemini, Daniel Michael, Sandoval, Anthony, Santa Maria, Mitch James, Santos, Jim, Sayner, Daniel Kevin, Schake, Callen N., Schmidt, Kathryn Joan, Schmitz, James William, Schnugg, Peter Hayden, Schroeder, Terry Alan, Schubert, Mark Edward, Schueler, Carl Francis, Schuler, Thomas Jay, Scott, Steven Michael, Scully Jr., Clark Todd. Buerkle, Richard Thomas, Buese, Elisabeth Anne (Lisa), Bungum, Brian, Burgering, David Earl, Burley, Michael E., Butler, James, Cahoy, Philip Michael, Caldwell, Gregory Donnell, Cameron, Mark, Campbell, Anthony E. (Tonie), Campbell, Chris L., Cara, John P., Carey, Richard John (Rick), Carlisle, Kimberly J., Carlton, Guy Albert, Carnes, James Jerome, Case, Nathaniel Hathaway, Cashin Jr., Richard Marshall, Cavanaugh, Chris, Centrowitz, Matthew, Chandler, Dan C., Chatzky Jr., John, Cheeseborough, Chandra D., Cheris, Elaine Gayle, Christensen, Steven Erik, Chyzowych, Walter S., Clark, Dean Owen, Clark, Timothy, Clarke, Kathy Johnson, Coffee, Paul, Coffman, Robert Edward, Cohen, Michael M., Colgan, Sean Padraic, Collins, Steven Keith, Collins-Cumming, Luci A., Conner, Bart, Cook, Robert, Cooper, Dedy, Corbelli, Laurie Flachmeier, Cruz, Christina Ann, Curry Jr. James (Butch), Curry, Denise Marie, Dabney, Sharon Ann, Darling, Thomas Ward, Davis, Roderick Hopkins, De Frantz, Anita L., De Nemethy, Bertalan, Dello Joio, Norman, Derwin, Brian P., Desautels, Denise. Iversen, Laurel B., Jackson, Robert Scott, Jaugstetter, Robert C., Jezek, Linda Louise, Johnson, Mark Anthony, Johnson, Sheryl, Johnson, Stacey Rita, Johnson, Wayne, Jordan, Paul, Karchut, Michael, Keeler, Kathryn Elliott, Kehoe, David Michael, Kelly, Timothy James, Kemp Jr. Leroy Percy, (Lee), Kennedy, Bruce Graham, Kent, Elizabeth Cryer, Kent, Jeff, Keough, William Tyrone, Kertson, Scott Michael, Kiesling, Stephen Howard, Kimball, Richard John, Kimes, David W., King, Paula Girven, Kinkead, Elizabeth, Kirchner, Kris, Klaja, Luke David, Kline, Beth, Koopman, Amy Richelle, Korzeniowski, Krzysztof (Kris), Laberge, Karin Anne, Lacy, Steven M., Lane, Kim Thomas, Larrieu Smith, Francie Ann, Larson, David Erwin, Larson- Mason, Christine, Lattany, Melvin, Lawson, Adolphus (Doc), Le Goff, Jack Louis, Le Mond, Greg, Lee, David Kenneth, Lekach, Stanley V., Leusenkamp, Carl Adrian, Lewis, Bradley Alan, Lewis, Carol L., Lewis, Frederick C., Lewis, Randall Scott, Lindgren, Kenneth Edward, Lindroth, Eric Emil, Linehan, Kimberly Ann, Lippe, Nancy White. Seek, Steven E., Seidler, Maren Elizabeth, Selinger, Arie, Setterberg, Kurt Nils, Shapiro, Douglas Craig, Shelton, Karen C., Shmock, Peter Carlton, Sholtis, Christina Seufert, Siman, John O'Connell, Simons Jr., John N., Sims, David Edward, Slaney, Mary Decker, Smith III, Willie J., Smith, Karin Kiefer, Smith, Mark Jeffrey, Sokolitz, Karen, Somerville, Kurt, Stayer, Julia Ann, Stekl, Phil W., Sterkel, Jill Ann, Stetina, Dale Emery, Stetina, Wayne Douglas, Stewart, Randy W., Stives, Karen Elizabeth, Stock, Thomas David, Stockebrand, Gwen Elaine, Stockwell, Tracy Anne, Storrs, Nancy Hitchcock, Strong, Judith Ann, Svendsen, Jon Howard, Swain, Michael Lee, Talavera, Tracee A., Taylor, Frederick G., Taylor, Melanie Smith, Tellez, Tom, Temple, Edward S., Terwilliger, John Richard, Thayer, Susan Stuart, Thompson Bruce Jerome, Thornton, Richard Walker, Tippett, Cathleen Thaxton, Trevelyan, Edward Norman, Tudela, Miguel Angel, Tully, Michael Scott, Van Beaumont, Will, Van Blom, Joan Lind, Van Blom, John, Van Breggen, Melle Roelof Fra, Van Der Beck, Perry J., Van Haute, Daniel Frank. Di Bernardo, Angelo, Dicken, Amy McGrath, Dietz, James W., Dixon, Fred, Djerassi, Boris Dov, Donaghy, Bruce M., Donovan, Anne Theresa, Dorst, Christopher Taylor, Dorst, Marybeth Linzmeier, Doughty, Thomas Neil, Dowdell, Patricia T., Drewsen, Karla Hull, Dryke, Matthew Alexander, Duane III, John Marshall, Durden, Benji Ray, Durkin, Michael Kevin, Dziedzic, Stanley Joseph, Ebert, Donald, Edmondson, Martin Dewayne, Elkins, Stephanie Wynn, Elthes, Csaba, Emery, Brent Robert, Epke, Bruce Edward, Ernst, Robert Gardner II, Espeseth Jr., Robert Douglas, Etem, Patricia Spratlen, Everett, John G., Evoniuk, Marco Ray, Ewaliko, Rod J., Feuerbach, Allan Dean, Fields III, Benjamin F. (Benn), Figueroa, Gary Lee, Fitzgerald, John David, Fitz-Randolph Jr., Roderick M., Flanagan, Jeanne Ann, Float, Jeffrey James, Floyd, Stanley, Foreman, Kenneth Everett, Forrester Jr., William Ronald, Fowler, Neal Lawrence, Franke, Nikki Valeria, Frazier, Herman Ronald, Frederick, Marcia Jean, Fredericks, Gregory Lynn. Loeb, Michael Leshine, Losonczy, Thomas John, Louganis, Gregory Efthimios, Lubsen, Jr., Walter Harry (Chip), Lundquist, Stephen K., Machemer, Kevin Scott, Maclellan, Gay K., Marcellus, Susan, Marden, Anne R., Marquez, Pamela Spencer, Marsh, Henry D., Martin, Tommy Gerard, Maruyama, Paul Kuniaki, Marx, Michael Anthony, Massialas, Gregory David D., Matthews, John Kelly, McArdle, John E., McChesney, William Edward, Mccoy, Walter Lee, McDonald, Andrew John (Drew), McGrath, Barbara Weinstein, McKeon, William (Bill), McKibbon, Thomas Douglas, McMillan, Kathy Laverne, McNamara, Julianne Lyn, Meade, William Thurbon, Meislahn, Findley, Mello, Daniel Alan, Mills, Gene, Mills, Glenn D., Milne, Leslie W., Mims, Madeline Manning, Minkel, Thomas Austin, Mitchell, Kelly Rickon, Moffet, John C., Morehead, Brenda Louise, Morett, Charlene F., Morrone, Joseph (Joe), Moses, Edwin Corley, Mosley, Benita Fitzgerald, Moyer, Diane M., Myricks, Larry Ellwyne, Nakasone, Keith, Nanchoff, Louis. Vargas, Joseph Michael, Vassallo, Jesus D. (Jesse), Ventura, Vincent James, Vespoli, Michael Louis, Vespoli, Nancy Parssinen, Vidmar, Peter Glen, Villa, Greg, Virgin, Craig Steven, Walker, James Andre, Walker, Larry A., Walsh, Susan, Waltman, Linda C., Ward, Valerie McClain, Warner, Anne Elizabeth, Watkins, Torrance, Weaver, Andrew Telsher, Weaver, Ernestine Jean, Weaver, Robert Brooks, Wells, Christopher, Westbrook, Peter Jonathan, Wigger Jr., Lones Wesley, Wilcox, Marlene R., Wiley, Clifford A., Wilkins, Mac Maurice, Williams, Barton, Williams, Diane, Williams, Randy Lavelle, Williams, Willie, Wilson, Michael Gower, Wilson, Randy Byron, Winnett Jr., John, Winfield, Wofford, James Cunningham, Wojciechowski, Gregory Martin, Wood, Christopher R., Woodard, Lynette, Woodhead, Cynthia Lee (Sippy), Woodman, Thomas H., Woodstra, Susan Jean, Yagla, Charles E., Yonezuka, Nicholas K. (Nicky), Yoshida, Toshi, Young-Sanders, Candy, Zang, Linda Louise, Ziert, Paul Frank.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise with disappointment in the lack of pro-energy and pro-consumer provisions contained in the Democrat energy bill being considered on the House floor today. I strongly oppose passage of the House Amendment to H.R. 6 and urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this bill. We should work in a bipartisan manner to pass real solutions for America's growing energy needs. The American economy has ups and downs. But overall it continues to grow, producing jobs for American workers. To keep pace with our economy, more reliable and sustainable sources of energy are needed. Conservation, innovative and efficient energy technologies, renewable forms of energy and of course traditional sources of energy all must play a role in our energy future. I am pleased the bill included an increase in fuel efficiency standards from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. As a cosponsor of H.R. 2927 that would increase the corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards for automobiles, I believe we must not waste any more time in making our vehicles more fuel efficient. I support increasing the CAFE standards and hope we can work together with the private sector to achieve this worthy goal. Unfortunately, the Democrat's closed-door energy bill containing more than 1,000 pages is not the kind of solution the American people deserve. Rather than work together to pass a more complete and comprehensive plan to address our energy needs, Democrat leadership has chosen to forego their pledge to work with Republicans on important policy matters. The result is an energy bill that will lead to higher electric utility bills, drive up gasoline prices at the pump, discriminately raise taxes on manufacturers of domestic energy and depress exploration efforts to find additional sources of domestic energy. The bill fails to include proven, reliable energy production methods such as nuclear energy for lowering emissions into our atmosphere. Instead, the House Amendment to H.R. 6 mandates a one-size-fits-all Renewable Portfolio Standard for some electric utility companies while exempting other electric utilities. I support utility companies investing in and offering renewable energy to customers, and I support incentives for increased production of renewable energy. Many Kansas farmers and landowners are already participants in wind and bio fuel production, and Kansas has potential to do even more. But Congress must exercise great caution when attempting to mandate levels of renewable fuels that must be used by electric power companies. Many of our Nation's electric companies are presently investing billions of dollars in renewable energy projects--not because they are mandated by the Federal Government, but because market forces have led them to do so. By mandating higher levels of renewable energy for power generation than the market naturally supports, ratepayers are going to be stuck with higher electric bills. I cannot think of a single constituent who has asked me to support higher electric bills. This Democrat bill is not an energy solution that is good for Kansas, and it is not a good solution for America. Great harm will particularly fall upon America's poor and middle class customers as a result of increased electric rates. Senior citizens who are living on fixed incomes and families on tight budgets should not be forced to suffer because of ill-thought Federal mandates on select electric utilities and their customers. Another section of the House Amendment to H.R. 6 mandates a Federal Renewable Energy Standard that will require unrealistic quantities of biofuel. For example, the Democrat energy bill mandates that 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel be included in our fuel supply by 2010. However, commercially viable production of cellulosic fuel is only projected to be 27 million gallons by 2010. As a strong supporter of cellulosic biofuel, I hope American ingenuity will help us surpass current projections. The Federal Government should encourage private- sector innovation that has long been a hallmark of America's history. But the Federal Government should not be mandating on the private sector requirements that are not commercially tested and far exceed industry projections. Reckless mandates will result in increased fuel costs for consumers. I am also disappointed that the House Amendment to H.R. 6 contains more than $21 billion in tax increases that will negatively impact American jobs. By raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, we are driving up manufacturing costs making domestic companies less competitive. Raising taxes on oil and gas companies will not reduce prices at the pump, and it certainly will not help ease our dependence on foreign oil. If anything, it will make us more dependent on foreign oil and will cause energy prices to increase. Raising taxes on the energy sector will inevitably be passed to consumers at the pump. If the Democrat energy tax increase is passed, motorists will consider today's $3 gasoline to be a cheap deal. Families and small businesses in Kansas do not want higher fuel costs, which is why I refuse to accept a plan that raises the price of gasoline. By raising billions of dollars through tax increases imposed on the oil and gas manufacturing industry, but not raising taxes on other manufacturing sectors, Congress picks winners and losers and American manufacturing jobs suffer. Instead of encouraging more domestic energy exploration, production and investment, the Democrat energy bill instead makes these activities more expensive for American companies trying to supply America with energy. This bill is woefully inadequate when it comes to American energy independence. It harms consumers by raising energy costs. And it wreaks havoc on American manufacturing jobs. I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending Alternative Minimum Tax relief to millions of American taxpayers. Congress never intended for the AMT to hit so many people. The Senate has already passed a clean bill to provide a one-year AMT patch for the 2007 tax year. I urge my colleagues in the House to do the same and pass AMT relief for the nearly 20 million new taxpayers who will otherwise be subjected to this tax increase if Congress fails to act. While I rise in strong support of extending AMT relief, I rise in opposition to the AMT bill being considered on the House floor today. H.R. 4351 would not just provide a one-year AMT patch; it would also permanently raise billions of dollars in new taxes on other citizens. Rather than provide a stand-alone patch or offset the costs by reducing federal spending, the Democrat leadership solution is to pay for the AMT fix by raising taxes on other taxpayers. Instead of debating a bill that will never be signed into law, we should be working together in a bipartisan way to take actions similar to what the Senate has done. Because of the ineffectiveness of Democrat leadership decisions, millions of American taxpayers will either be forced to pay an average of $2,000 more or have their tax refunds delayed next year. A delay in tax refunds could have been avoided by earlier congressional action, and we must act swiftly to ensure the tax increase does not become a reality for millions of American families. The AMT tax was created nearly 40 years ago to ensure a small number of very wealthy taxpayers would pay a fair portion of taxes. Because the AMT was not indexed for inflation, millions of Americans are now being threatened by the higher AMT tax, which effectively takes back tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 for those taxpayers. The Federal Government should be finding ways to lower the burden on American taxpayers. Instead, H.R. 4351 would permanently raise taxes. This proposal to address the government's shortsightedness to index the AMT for inflation should be soundly rejected in favor of a permanent AMT fix or a patch that does not raise taxes on others. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 4351 so we can begin consideration of a real solution that we can send to the President for his signature. Providing a one-year AMT fix is the least we can do as an alternative to a permanent solution. The time for partisan tax-shifting games has concluded. Let's put the American people first and defeat this massive tax increase bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on Monday, Kansas lost a coaching legend. Ed Kriwiel, who passed away in his sleep at the age of 81, coached for more than 50 years in the Wichita area football city league. Mr. Kriwiel was a phenomenal coach. During his head football coaching years he hailed 297 wins, 9 State titles and 8 city league championships. In addition, Mr. Kriwiel spent 2 years coaching at Wichita State University in the late 60s, including 1 year as head coach. He continued coaching high school golf until his passing. Not only was he a superb athlete and coach, he was a father of nine children and a husband to his wife Mary of 53 years. Mr. Kriwiel has influenced countless lives through the years--from players to coaches to his ever-growing fan base. I am thankful for all the joy and memories he brought into our lives. He will be greatly missed. To the Kriwiel family: Thank you for sharing your husband and father with Kansans for so many years. May God bless you. My thoughts and prayers go out to you during this time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me. I rise in opposition to this bill. I am really surprised by the procedure we have gone through to get to this point in this legislation. You know, under the underlying bill we had open hearings, we had closed hearings, we looked at a lot of the details and openly debated them and I thought we were making pretty good progress. But then, in the self-enacting rule, we have a whole bunch of new language that is dumped into this bill that has had no hearings. In fact, section 18 says in this bill now, no rights under the RESTORE Act for undocumented aliens. It says: This Act shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of an alien not permitted to be in the United States. Undocumented aliens, no rights. Then we get to what, the rights that the terrorists have in the underlying bill. Section 3 has procedures for authorizing acquisitions of communications, and there are 8 pages telling how we are going to protect the terrorists. They have got some rights protected under this bill. Then we get to section 4, the emergency authorization. We have 8 more pages explaining how terrorists have more rights than undocumented aliens right here in the United States. So then we listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), who is the former Attorney General of the State of California, and he explains that, through the minimization procedures, that we are actually giving terrorists more rights than we do our own U.S. common criminals. So what is the deal with this? It is really a mess. You have got terrorists at a higher status than undocumented aliens that are here in America and a lot of them just trying to make a living, and then you have got a higher standard for terrorists than you do for our own criminals. Now, why don't we balance things out here? Why don't we balance things out? You have tried to push this thing through without hearings, you have hodgepodged it together, and it truly is a mess. We ought to send this back to committee and do the right thing on this. We want to protect the rights of American citizens, and we think that humans have a certain set of rights, too. But this bill does not provide it. It has mixed standards. It is a mess, and I think we should vote it down.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, our Nation has over 1,000,000 blind and low-vision veterans, and those numbers continue to rise. The Department of Defense estimates that 16 percent of those injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom suffer from severe vision loss. An additional 10-12 million Americans have blind and low vision. Prior to the creation of the Braille American flag, the American flag was not accessible to the blind. This flag, created by the Kansas Braille Transcription Institute in Wichita, Kansas, has been specially designed in a way that informs the blind of the full color of the American flag, 13 stripes, and 50 stars on the blue field. Additionally, this tactile flag bears the Pledge of Allegiance in both raised print and grade one braille. Today, I am introducing legislation that calls for the Army to place a Braille American flag at Arlington National Cemetery. Arlington National Cemetery is a national place of remembrance and honor for our Nation's veterans and is visited by an estimated 4 million people annually. Placing the Braille American flag there would bring honor to our Nation's blind community and allow our blind veterans to ``see'' the American flag again. Madam Speaker, I am honored this legislation has been endorsed by the Blind Veterans of America, and I look forward to quick action by the Congress on the bill. We owe a huge debt of gratitude towards those who have served, and this simple action will mean much to our patriotic blind veterans. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort in placing the Braille American flag at Arlington National Cemetery.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish ``a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.'' Although I join with all my colleagues in abhorrence to bigotry and discrimination, this disingenuous and vaguely-constructed overhaul of labor law is inconsistent with the free exercise of religion and weaken the fundamental Defense of Marriage Act. The right to the free exercise of religion found in the Constitution, and as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), must be firmly upheld. It is a cornerstone of our Nation's founding and our future. Our Government must not take any action that unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. Unfortunately, the ENDA does not live up to this constitutional standard. America's churches, synagogues, and religious non-profit organizations must maintain the right to employ those that share their particular religious or moral worldview. Although the sponsors of this act claim that the religious exemptions found in the legislation are adequate, they are simply not strong enough to pass constitutional muster or fulfill legislative intent in the RFRA. Madam Speaker, ENDA would also weaken the landmark Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by giving Federal statutory significance to same- sex marriage rights under State law. Federal law states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Maintaining DOMA is essential in defending the sanctity of marriage. However, the passage of ENDA will provide activist judges around the country the legal ammunition to undermine state and federal marriage laws. Courts in New Jersey, Vermont, and Massachusetts have all used state legislation similar to ENDA as a springboard for mandating same-sex marriage or civil unions. In 2005 Kansas overwhelmingly passed the Traditional Marriage Amendment by 70 percent. The people of Kansas have spoken. With the path is so clearly defined in history, it would be irresponsible for Congress to pass ENDA. Madam Speaker, bigotry and discrimination is clearly wrong. However, tampering with such bedrock legal and constitutional standards such as the freedom of religion and DOMA is not the right solution. I urge my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we must help ensure our communities are protected during times of severe flooding that can lead to loss of life and destroyed homes and businesses. This summer we have witnessed devastating floods all across America, including in central and eastern Kansas. Thousands of my constituents lost their homes and their businesses, many of which have not yet fully recovered. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 1495) authorizes many new projects that will afford our communities protection from catastrophic flooding for generations to come. It will also help ensure that existing flood control structures are properly cared for so our economy can continue thriving in areas currently protected from floods. We must prepare for the future rather than merely respond to disasters after they occur. Prevention is much better than responding to a natural disaster, especially when loss of life occurs. A WRDA bill has not been enacted for the past 7 years, which helps explain why the price tag is so significant. While I would have preferred to see a less expensive authorization bill, I believe it is time we move forward with many of the needed flood control projects included in H.R. 1495. Having witnessed the severe flooding in my district this year, I am reminded of the critical need for flood prevention that saves lives and protects communities. I have seen first-hand what a flooded community looks like when adequate flood control is not provided. And I have seen how well Corps of Engineers levees have worked to keep high floodwaters out of homes and businesses. This is why I support overriding the President's veto. I would have preferred for a compromise to be reached with the Administration; but in this instance, we need to move forward without further delay in the process. Protecting our homes and businesses from flood waters is a bi- partisan priority that trumps Washington politics.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. I am pleased today to have the privilege of honoring the 2007 National Championship Wichita State University women's bowling team. House Resolution 472 congratulates and commends the Wichita State University's bowling team for winning the 2007 United States Bowling Congress Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship. Though known for its baseball and lately its basketball teams, the Shockers have had a long tradition of championship bowlers, and last year's team again made the region proud. The Wichita State University's women's bowling team has won eight intercollegiate bowling national championships, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2005, and now 2007, and has advanced to the national tournament a record 31 times. On April 21, 2007, the Wichita State University's women's bowling team won the 2007 United States Bowling Congress Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament in Wichita by defeating Central Florida University four games to one in the semi-finals and McKendree College of Illinois two games to zero in the finals. Wichita State University earned the second seed on the day after completing 32 baker games. On day two, the team defeated Ohio State University four games to one in the best of seven series, Purdue University four to one and Newman University four games to two to advance to the semi-finals. On the final day of the tournament, the Wichita State University women defeated Central Florida University four games to one in the semi-finals and McKendree College two games to zero in the finals to win the national championship at home at Northrock Lanes. Despite having a top caliber team, the championship was not assured going into the season because the Shockers had lost seven players from their top-ranked team from the 2006 season. The 2007 additions included six new members and three international players, Wichita local freshman Ricki Williams and two transfers. None of the bowlers had been in a championship game before nor a televised game. Yet they did not let the hype overpower them and instead let their talent shine through. I want to congratulate WSU President Don Beggs and athletic director Jim Schaus for their leadership by creating a great university and an excellent athletic program. Wichita State is blessed to have two coaches, Gordon Vadakin and Mark Lewis, who are themselves members of USBC Hall of Fame. Head coach Gordon Vadakin has coached the team since 1978, leading it to the Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament 29 times and has coached the team to six national titles. Women's coach Mark Lewis and assistant women's coach Kristal Scott directly coached the 2007 WSU women's team to the national championship in Wichita, Kansas. The 2007 national championship team is comprised of the following members: Daniela Alvarado, Ashley Cox, Elysia Current, Sandra Gongora, Melissa Hurst, Samantha Linder, Emily Maier, Rocio Restrepo, Ricki Williams and Felicia Wong. WSU juniors, Elysia Current and Emily Maier, were named the First Team All-Americans, and Maier was named as the member of the All-Tournament team of the Intercollegiate Bowling Championship Tournament. I also want to thank Amy Skeen of my staff who worked on this resolution and getting it to the floor. Once again, I am very pleased that today the United States House of Representatives will congratulate and commend the Wichita State University's women's bowling team for winning the 2007 Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament. Go Shox.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Washington. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I am extremely concerned about our national security and I am deeply troubled that our intelligence community will be prevented from doing the job they need to do to protect Americans by this bill. For that reason, I strongly oppose the RESTORE Act as it will only further tie the hands of our intelligence community. If this bill passes, Congress would depart from the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by making it more difficult and cumbersome to gather intelligence on Islamic terrorists. Our most important job here is to provide the tools to those charged with protecting our Nation and keeping us safe from those threats. In the last 6 years we have been kept safe in this country because we have had a sharp edge on the tools that we have been using to peel back the layers of secrecy on terrorists and terrorist organizations. This bill requires a court order to gather communications when a foreign terrorist in a foreign country tries to contact somebody in the United States. Since 1978, from President Carter to President Clinton, there was never a concern. Yet now, after we have had attacks on our U.S. soil and are well aware there are terrorist cells in our homeland, the Democrats want to prevent the intelligence community from intercepting communications of foreign terrorists. To my knowledge, no violation of civil rights has occurred in the FISA process. However, as this bill is written, the Democrats have opened the door for alarming violations of civil liberties by requiring the intelligence community to compile a database of reports on the identities of U.S. citizens that have inadvertently been accumulated in the process of gathering information. As the Washington Times noted this morning, apparently pandering to the left-wing blogosphere and the ACLU is a higher priority than the safety of Americans and even American GIs fighting al Qaeda. Normally, under current guidelines, the intelligence community blacks out all these names and they never get distributed anywhere. They are just simply eliminated from the database. But now, under this bill, we see the Democrats requiring a list be sent to Congress. And we all know that we have had leaks here in Congress. You would think the ACLU would be opposed not only to compiling such a list but distributing it to Congress. We have had leaks related to the way we collect information on individuals through electronic conversations, we have had leaks about how we have e-mails that have been reviewed on terrorist Web sites, we have had leaks that caused our allies in Europe to no longer cooperate when it comes to tracking terrorist financing. For us to give this type of information to Congress would almost certainly guarantee a leak and a violation of the civil liberties of those individuals who it inadvertently picked up in the process of trying to find terrorists working within our country trying to do harm. This is a bad bill. It goes back and dulls the tools, this edge that we have been using to keep the country safe. If it is passed and it becomes law, I would fear for the safety of this country because dulling the tools that have kept us safe for 6 years would put us in a much more vulnerable position than we are today. Over 2 months ago, the DNI, Mike McConnell, the man charged with overseeing the intelligence community, urged us to modernize the FISA law. But this does not do it. This sets us backwards.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3432, an excellent bill that commemorates the abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. This year marks a very important anniversary in history--the 200th anniversary of the enactment of the Transatlantic Slave Trade Act. It was in 1807 when then President Thomas Jefferson signed into law this vital Act. Nearly 200 years prior, in 1619, twenty Africans arrived in Jamestown, Virginia aboard a Dutch ship. This was the beginning in America of the atrocity of slavery which unfortunately lasted for more than 2 centuries. While America was in deep turmoil over the morality of slavery, William Wilberforce, a Member of the U.K. Parliament, led the campaign to abolish the transatlantic slave trade in Britain. This great man was a statesman, an avowed and practicing Christian, and a champion of the underprivileged. Early on, Wilberforce wrestled with whether he should pursue a calling from God or serve as a driving force in the House of Commons. He successfully accomplished both. Wilberforce was an example of faith in action, modeling that we do not have to abandon our values to be effective in our jobs--whether as a business owner, nurse, mechanic, working mom or Member of Congress. We must stand up for our beliefs and fight passionately for our causes. We must not betray our values or our faith, and never cease to help those in need. On the 200th anniversary of the 1807 abolition of the U.K. and U.S. slave trade, we should reflect on the greatness of those who stood up for what was right and true--even though it was not popular. It wasn't until 1865 that slavery in the United States was abolished through the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment. Then President, Abraham Lincoln, helped push the bill through Congress. Earlier in his presidency, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves. He believed this was ``the central act of my administration, and the great event of the nineteenth century.'' While slavery ended, discrimination continued. It is my hope that we will remember the struggles of this great Nation and continue our efforts to stand for what is right. We can build momentum and engage communities to find new ways to improve our culture. I am honored each day to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and stand faithfully for what is right. It is a privilege to cast my vote in favor of a bill that honors a great moment in our history. I look forward to today's passage of H.R. 3432.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for his contributions and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) in helping me through this process of getting recognition to the people of Kansas who have suffered under this flood. Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of trouble in Kansas this year. Out of our 105 counties, 102 have been declared a disaster at one time or another. It started in January with a 100-year event, an ice storm. We lost a lot of cattle. Power was down in half of the State. It was a very difficult time. Later on in the year we had a series of tornadoes that were considered another 100-year event. It included a level 5 or T-5 tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas, and the small community of 1,500 was completely wiped out by that tornado. This was the third wave of natural disaster that has hit Kansas this year. It actually encompassed about 21 counties when it was all said and done. As you heard earlier, we lost 3,100 homes. I have been in this flood area about five times since the flooding has occurred. I have been through the refinery that is now back up and running. The small community of Coffeyville seemed to be the worst hit. We have had quite a bit of difficulty getting through the problem, complicated by the oil that was spilled into many homes in that area. Coffeyville resources is in the process of trying to rectify that situation; but I am very pleased that the jobs have never ceased at that refinery. They started the cleanup process right away, and they will continue to remain in that community. It is one of three refineries that we have in Kansas, and it does bring a lot of jobs to the area. It is also unique in that it is one of two refineries in the world that takes the by-product of making petroleum or gasoline from petroleum and it turns it into fertilizer for farmers in the area. So it is a very progressive refinery, and it has been a good source of jobs in that area. I would like to acknowledge a few people who were very instrumental in bringing that community and other communities, like Independence, Kansas, back to their feet: Independence Mayor Rick Mott; Independence City Manager Paul Sasse; Independence Police Chief Ken Parker; Independence Fire Chief Dale Rail; Coffeyville Mayor Virgil Horn; Coffeyville City Manager Jeff Morris; Coffeyville Police Chief Joe Humble; Coffeyville Fire Chief Greg Allen; State Senators Derek Schmidt and Dwayne Umbarger; Kansas Adjutant General Maj. Gen. Tod M. Bunting; Governor Kathleen Sebelius; State Representatives Jeff King, Virgil Peck and Kasha Kelly; and Montgomery County Commissioners Billy Lewark- Wood, Tony Fowler and Gene Tucker. There are other people that were involved like Jim Miller with Emergency Management and the Kansas National Guard and the Kansas Highway Patrol that did a great deal of work during that time to make sure we had minimal casualties. The one story I remember is the gentleman who was notified to get out of the area because the floodwaters were rising. He chose to go back to his home to save his coin collection. I don't know what he was carrying his coins in, but he was later rescued by the Coffeyville Fire Department, and he lost all his coins. So I think there was a good time for people to respond to the need, the disaster, and get out, but those that chose to stay behind did so at their own peril. I think it's a good lesson for all of America when emergency situations arise and our first responders are telling you to please leave the area, don't go back for your coin collection or anything else. Your personal safety is first. Coins can be replaced, possessions can be replaced, but our human lives are one thing that cannot be replaced. So I'm very pleased that we had minimal casualties and only one fatality in that situation. Incidentally, that one fatality was a gentleman who chose not to respond to the warnings and stayed in his dwelling against the will of the people who were trying to rescue him. There's another piece of legislation that I would like to mention that is the first step of reaching out to other areas, other Members of Congress who have had similar flooding since July. Now, they have been in States like Indiana, in their counties. It's been in Illinois, been in Texas, Nebraska. I have a bill that will help Kansas get back on its feet, but I would like to reach out to the other Members of Congress who have experienced flooding and ask them to join with me to help Kansas, as well as their areas. I think we should have one bill that would address all the needs because they're very similar. The communities need to have the cleanup. They need to have some rehabilitation of historic buildings. They need to have infrastructure rebuilt. They need to have businesses supporting the cleanup. So the bill that I have is H.R. 3444, and if we can work with those Members of Congress, Madam Speaker, that have had similar flooding problems and have one bill, I think it would be easier for the House to schedule. Plus, we would meet the needs of all our communities. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia. There was one thing that I failed to mention, and that is that Coffeyville Resources, which is the refinery, has made plans to make things right. They've responded to the community. Those homes that were damaged by the spilt oil, they have asked to purchase those homes. They're going to turn that land back over to the city. They're going to make a park in that area. So I think it's significant to note that when some corporation is a good public citizen, a good corporate citizen, that we ought to acknowledge that publicly because we need more of that. I thank you for the time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Although I join with all my colleagues in steadfast opposition to pay discrimination, this ill- advised, over-reaching, and disingenuous overhaul of civil rights law is the wrong approach. Pay discrimination is not a partisan issue. Pay discrimination strikes at the heart of the American Dream. For more than 40 years, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay-scale based on his or her gender. I whole-heartedly agree and support this law. Every American should be able to work hard, play by the rules, and make a living for his or her family. We do not stand for gender discrimination in the workplace. This legislation is bad politics rather than good policy. H.R. 2831 was supposedly written to remedy a sad situation for one person--Lilly Ledbetter. She was apparently paid significantly less than her counterparts at Goodyear Tire Company during her tenure there. Decades later Ms. Ledbetter filed a claim of discrimination. Taking her claim through the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2007, that the statute of limitations had unfortunately run out. Despite saying that H.R. 2831 simply restores prior law, by overturning a Supreme Court ruling against Ms. Ledbetter, in reality, Democrats will gut a decades-old statute of limitations that prevents the filing of ``stale'' claims and protects against abuse of the legal system. Current law rightly provides a statute of limitations to file a discrimination claim, up to 300 days after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. However, under this bill, employees or retirees could sue for pay discrimination years, even decades, after the alleged discrimination. How can a company defend itself when the accused offenders left the company decades before? The answer is--they can't. And that is exactly the answer desired by the trial lawyers who support this legislation. This legislation will not end pay discrimination, but it will certainly encourage frivolous claims and lawsuits. It is inevitable that under this legislation employees will sue companies for reasons that have little if anything to do with the accused discrimination. Not only is H.R. 2831 the wrong approach to deal with this serious issue, but this legislation also has the threat of a Presidential veto. A Presidential veto means there is no chance action will be taken on this important issue. If Democrats were serious about dealing with this issue, they would work with the President and Republicans to draft serious legislation rather than move forward with this political stunt. Madam Speaker, the issue of pay discrimination is too important to consider this poorly crafted, politically motivated piece of legislation. However, as much as we sympathize with Ms. Ledbetter, H.R. 2831 is bad legislation for our Nation. Let us join together, work in a bipartisan manner, and craft legislation that addresses pay discrimination while not destroying decades-worth of solid employment discrimination law. Until then, I ask my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3159, the so- called ``Ensuring Military Readiness through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007.'' This ill-conceived and dangerous piece of legislation will lead to American troops stuck in Iraq with no reinforcements and no replacements. All Americans long for the day when our troops can return from foreign lands. With U.S. troops deployed in over 35 countries around the world, their families count the days until their loved ones come home. However, our Nation must never lose sight that each soldier, sailor, airmen, and marine has a mission to complete: to protect the citizens and interests of the United States. H.R. 3159 has a lofty goal that is supported by every American, every Member of Congress, the Secretary of Defense and the President: to provide time at home to Iraq for our men and women in uniform between deployments. This legislation would require a one-to-one ratio between deployments in Iraq and home station for active duty forces, and a one- to-three ratio for National Guard and Reserve. However, the Department of Defense, DoD, currently has higher standards of a one-to-two ratio between all deployments, regardless of location, for active forces and a one-to-five ratio for Reserve forces. So, the question must be asked, why has H.R. 3159, with its lesser standards than DoD's own standards, elicited a Presidential veto, opposition from the U.S. Military leadership, and widespread resistance in Congress? Because this legislation is a political ruse and would do serious harm to our troops in Iraq and our national security. Although this legislation would prohibit back-to-back deployments to Iraq, H.R. 3159 still would allow troops to deploy to Iraq and then to another nation, such as Afghanistan or the Philippines, without restriction. Let me be clear, contrary to the arguments of the Democrats, this legislation would not ensure dwell times for our troops. However, it will do real harm to our troops in Iraq--leaving our troops without reinforcements and without replacements. H.R. 3159 would hinder the flexibility of Pentagon leaders to place troops where they are needed, and when they are needed. This legislation would not change the mission in Iraq or decrease the required number of troops. But it will force our troops to stay in Iraq longer--waiting for their replacements. And if additional troops are required--this bill would hinder any reinforcements from arriving in a timely fashion. Holding our troops without replacements or reinforcements does not constitute support, as Democrats have asserted. Although it is true this bill includes a waiver provision--it only allows troops to be deployed after a 30-day congressional notification. During war, time is always of the essence. Throughout history, many battles and lives have been lost due to delays in reinforcements or replacements. When our military commanders urgently request a special operations or explosive ordinance disposal team, our President and military leadership needs to have the flexibility to send that team immediately. Under this legislation, the President would have to provide notification to Congress, wait 30 days, and then send these urgently needed forces. This is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous times for our troops and for our Nation. Our military commanders need the flexibility to effectively and safely carry out the will of this Nation. We must not hamstring our Nation's warriors. Therefore, I ask all my colleagues to join with me in opposition to this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. This bill is a good bill and it is needed to fill the gap. I have heard a lot of hate for Attorney General Gonzales and the President tonight, but legislation should not be written based on one individual or two individuals. In 1995 the Republican majority didn't pass legislation because Attorney General Janet Reno took credit for the fiasco in Waco when more than 20 children were burned to death. We didn't write legislation because government agents shot to death a woman holding her child in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Instead, we went ahead and did the right thing. And tonight, Attorney General Gonzales shouldn't have anything to do with the legislation we are going to pass because the leaks and the lawsuits that have occurred from liberal Democrats have placed this country in jeopardy. Do you realize we don't listen to the terrorist calls like we used to, we don't listen to e-mails or follow e-mails like we used to, we don't follow terrorist finances like we used to because of these leaks and lawsuits from liberal Democrats. But this legislation tonight will pass and it will fill the gap. If you don't pass this legislation, you will be responsible for any attacks that could occur on America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I am extremely concerned about our national security and deeply troubled that our intelligence community has been prevented from doing the job they need to protect Americans, For that reason I strongly oppose H.R. 3356 as it will only further tie the hands of our intelligence community. The latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) clearly states that we are at risk of an attack. We have all read the reports this week about the very real concerns that our enemies intend to attack the in the next month or so. Police forces in the nation's capital have beefed up security in response to these perceived threats. But without good intelligence, they will not know when or how we may be attacked--never mind having a chance to thwart any plots. Due to Democrat undermining of our intelligence of our intelligence community and our military for the past couple of years--through leaks and political games--we are less prepared to uncover terrorist plots and prevent such attacks. We need to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) so that the intelligence community can do its job. The American people know we need to fix the loopholes in FISA implementation that allow terrorists to bypass our intelligence capabilities. For several months Administration and Republican Leadership have repeatedly asked the Democrats to address this problem, and they have ignored these requests. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence I have been very disturbed by what I have seen this past year. The vitriol that Members on the other side of the aisle have for the President has clouded their judgment. In an effort to embarrass him, they have weakened our intelligence gathering capabilities and caused long term damage to the security of this nation. We do not monitor phone conversations, emails or finances of suspected terrorists and terrorist allies as we used to and the enemy knows it. It is time for us to strengthen, not weaken, terrorist surveillance. Unfortunately this bill does not address the needs of the intelligence community. The Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is strongly opposed to this bill: I have reviewed the proposal that the House of Representatives is expected to vote on this afternoon to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House proposal is unacceptable, and I strongly oppose it. The House proposal would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially in our heightened threat environment. I urge Members of Congress to support the legislation I provided last evening to modify FISA and to equip our Intelligence Community with the tools we need to protect our Nation. I trust the DNI far more than the Democrat leadership that has clearly chosen to put politics over security. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and encourage the majority to bring a true FISA reform bin before this body so that the intelligence community can have every tool at its disposal to protect the United States of America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great reluctance that I am not able to support the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, H.R. 2419. The Agriculture Committee worked for many months in a bipartisan manner to craft an omnibus farm bill that would have achieved broad support in the House. H.R. 2419 was not a perfect bill, but it was a compromise that I would have supported in hopes that an even better package could be produced during conference negotiations with the Senate. Unfortunately, Democrat leadership decided to insert a last-minute tax increase into the farm bill after the bill had left the House Committee on Agriculture. The tax provision represents a $7.5 billion increase in taxes on companies that supply high-quality, high-paying jobs for American workers. These are often union jobs held by hard- working men and women trying to earn a living for their families. Instead of producing a farm bill that meets the needs of America's farmers, ranchers, landowners and those who rely on nutrition programs, the Democrats have instead resorted to a tax-and-spend policy instead of an invest-and-create-jobs policy. The $7.5 billion tax increase on foreign-owned American businesses inserted in H.R. 2419 could result in more jobs being sent overseas. In a time when the United States should be encouraging investment in our country and in American jobs, this kind of tax policy takes our economy a step backward. The last-minute Democrat tax increase will make it less attractive for foreign companies that employ American workers to initiate or expand operations in the United States. And that means bad news for American workers. The United States has negotiated 58 tax treaties with 66 different countries. The Democrat tax proposal applies a tax increase on companies located in countries with which we have a tax treaty. This calls into serious question the United States' upholding our end of the treaties, which could invite retaliation. Aside from the damage H.R. 2419 would do to American jobs, the Democrat's farm bill would cut a total of $3 billion from the crop insurance program compared to the 2002 farm bill. Most troubling, is that $1 billion of these cuts were made without consideration by the full Agriculture Committee to determine how this will effect risk-management services farmers in Kansas rely upon. With nearly every county in Kansas being declared as a federal disaster area in 2007, we should think long and hard about cuts to the federal crop insurance program. It is disappointing that Democrat leadership chose to make this cut without first considering what it will mean for America's farmers. Another harmful provision included last-minute in the farm bill would apply Davis-Bacon act wages to new ethanol plants being built if those plants utilize loans or grants from the USDA. This provision negates any positive benefit that would have been provided by the USDA's loan guarantee program. By artificially dictating what wages have to be paid to workers constructing a new ethanol plant, the farm bill will result in increased ethanol costs. This translates to higher costs at the pump for consumers of ethanol-blended gasoline. Instead of allowing price competition for newly constructed ethanol plants that access USDA loans or grants, this artificial wage provision is another example of unnecessary federal manipulation in a private-market matter. I am also disappointed the bill included a prohibition on States being able to use private contractors to perform administrative functions for the food stamp program. States that choose to enact reforms within their systems to provide better food-stamp services at a savings to taxpayers are denied that ability under H.R. 2419. Rather than defer to States and allow some common-sense savings for taxpayers, the Democrats have drafted a farm bill that restricts certain reforms at the State level. The commodity title of H.R. 2419 proposes a commodity spending cut of 42 percent compared with the 2002 farm bill. The 2007 farm bill proposes $42 billion in baseline spending on commodities, representing just 14 percent of the entire farm bill. I think Kansas farmers deserve better. As a State that is renowned for being the breadbasket of the world, Kansas and its farmers deserve a farm bill that provides a solid safety net while remaining fiscally responsible to taxpayers. I do not believe this $297 billion farm bill meets this standard. And as my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Moran, has pointed out, this farm bill fails to fully implement a revenue counter-cyclical program that would better respond to Kansas farmers in times when they need support the most. I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against H.R. 2419. The American farmer, the American taxpayer and the American worker deserve a better farm bill. I can only hope negotiations with the Senate will address this bill's shortcomings and that the House will have another opportunity to vote on comprehensive farm policy that is good for all Americans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington. I rise in opposition to the rule and also to the underlying Ag bill for a couple of reasons. One is the current trend that we're seeing played out on the floor of the House. We saw it last week as we addressed the farm bill, and it seems like the bill that once was designed to make sure that we had a low-cost, stable food supply is moving money out of the rural areas and being hijacked into the urban areas. And you look at the pie chart of the total funding of the Ag appropriation that was used earlier, you can see that 35 percent of this pie chart is the agricultural side of the programs and 60 percent, almost two-thirds, is the domestic food assistance. Now, nobody thinks it's bad to feed people who are having a tough time, and we must be doing a very good job of it because the number one problem for people in poverty today is obesity. Maybe we're giving them the wrong foods. We should go back to the basic foods that we present them, but this big shift in funding is accentuated in the current farm bill that was passed last week. The farm commodity portion in the bill that we passed last week is only 14 percent of total spending, and if you look at how it's been reduced in this Ag appropriations bill, it's a continuation of movement from helping the rural areas, moving it into the urban areas. And I think that's a reflection that only 2 percent of our population are farmers in America today. In small States like the ones that I represent, in Kansas with only 3 million people, we only have four Representatives. And when we try to fight for rural development and for rural agricultural programs, we hope that we can keep our economy strong in those rural areas. But we also want to make sure that the benefits that were designed to keep a low-cost, stable food supply don't get hijacked and sent to the urban areas. This is something that I believe has developed just over this last year. In the past, just a short story, how we have given farmers more opportunity in the past, now that has changed in Ag policy. Opportunity is dwindling for farmers. In 1996, we had four farmers in Kansas who raised cotton. The farm bill then, the Freedom to Farm Act, allowed farmers to expand their product lines. Now we have over 50,000 acres of cotton in Kansas. We have a dozen cotton gins. We expanded their financial base a lot by giving them more opportunity. Under the current plan, which is exhibited here with the shifting of emphasis to the urban areas, we're taking a lot of the opportunity away from the farmers and giving them less opportunity, while more opportunity is going to the urban areas. So I'm opposed to this bill. I'm opposed to the rule because I don't think it gives us an opportunity to turn this trend around. I don't think it gives us an opportunity to get the assistance where we need it in the rural areas so we can develop the infrastructure necessary to build a strong economy to allow the agriculture to grow for the future so we have a low-cost, stable food supply well into the future.

Mr. TIAHRT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington, and I would like to respond to the gentlelady from Connecticut. It is true, the Carsey report is true that 40 percent of rural America does rely on food stamps. The problem is, there is a lot of poverty there because we have not done the right thing on building infrastructure in the rural areas. It's the shift from this low-cost stable food supply we have had in the past and the help we had to build that infrastructure. The finances are now shifting to the urban areas because we have so many urban Members of Congress. The Democrat leadership has been allowing that to happen. It's true there are $940 million put in this bill for the rural areas, but it's an $18 billion bill. It has $18 billion; $940 million of it is not a very big chunk of that. I just think that we are seeing a bad trend here in America. The Democrat leadership is allowing this trend to continue where resources are being shifted out of the rural areas, because there are a high number of urban Members of Congress, and they are leaving farmers vulnerable who are trying to keep this low-cost stable food supply available, and trying to keep the agricultural exports growing.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on July 18th, I inadvertedly voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote No. 662, it was my intention to vote ``nay.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2956, the so-called ``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.'' This legislation is short-sighted, dangerous, and will not bring our Nation closer to success or Iraq closer to security. The only likely result would be to appease the anti-war activists and damage the national security of the United States. Throughout this country, Americans are growing weary with this war. No one likes war, and every loss pains us. Unfortunately the arguments from the anti-war activists are becoming persuasive. These activists have been able to shape the debate on the war by focusing on the number of U.S. military casualties and the level of violence in Iraq. I do not trivialize these issues. Every soldier's death is a horrendous tragedy for our Nation and a family. In the 4th District of Kansas we have lost 11 young men in the Global War on Terror, and we must never forget their sacrifice. However, focusing solely on these grave issues does not address the most basic question facing our Nation in Iraq. The fundamental question of Iraq is, ``what are the consequences of success and failure?'' Unfortunately, the consequences of losing this war are rarely discussed, and I fear this legislation will likely be passed by this House. The Democrats are fond of saying that we have ``lost'' in Iraq. While I do not agree with this assessment, I think they need to answer who we lost to. If we lost, who won? Can the Democrats answer this question, and if they do, can the American people live with the answer? The reality is that this ill-advised approach will have dire consequences on Iraq and the United States. With the premature withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq this legislation accomplishes the first step in al Qaeda's four-prong plan in Iraq. Starting with forcing the U.S. military out of Iraq and ending with the use of Iraq and the wider Middle East to launch additional attacks on Western governments and the U.S. homeland, al Qaeda has a clear plan for global terrorism. Unfortunately, the Democrats only provide the American people with a clear plan for defeat. Throughout the Iraq War, the President and his military commanders have continually altered both strategy and tactics to meet the changing threats posed by our enemy. The latest strategy, called a ``New Way Forward,'' was outlined by the President at the beginning of this year. This strategy included an additional 21,500 American troops in order to achieve a six-part strategy, which involves letting the Iraqis lead, isolating extremists, and create space for political progress. This new strategy acknowledges that the Iraqis must ultimately take responsibility for the security and stability of Iraq while understanding that the Coalition Forces have an integral role in helping to provide security for the country in order to allow the Iraqi government and military to succeed. Since January, steps have been taken to fully implement the New Way Forward plan, and only in the last month have all additional forces finally been put into place. There is still much work to do, but coalition forces are seeing some early signs of progress from this approach. Sectarian murders in Baghdad are now down from January, and because U.S. and Iraqi forces are living among the people they secure, many Iraqis are now coming forward with information on where the terrorists are hiding. Progress is being made at the local level, including more tribal sheiks joining the fight against al Qaeda, citizens forming neighborhood watch groups, young Sunnis signing up for the army and police, and more Shia rejecting militias. Although progress is being made, it is certainly not moving at the speed I, nor the American people, want. However, the reality is that the ``New Way Forward'' strategy has only recently entered full implementation. It has not had a chance for success or failure. To change course at this time will only resolve us to defeat, while not providing us an opportunity to succeed. We must give the ``New Way Forward'' a chance, and not just resign America and its military to failure and Iraq to civil war and a potential genocide. The Democrats may not understand the dangers of a withdrawal approach, but the Iraqis do. Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, recently said of the dangers of a premature U.S. military withdrawal, ``The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country or maybe to regional wars. In our estimation the danger is huge. Until the Iraqi forces and institutions complete their readiness, there is a responsibility on the U.S. and other countries to stand by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help build up their capabilities.'' Madam Speaker, this is a delicate and dangerous issue. It is essential that we have all the available facts before making decisions on how to move forward towards success. This is why I am looking forward to the September report from General David Petraeus, the U.S. Commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. The progress report will provide essential information on the current situation so Congress and the President can make an informed decision on the next steps in Iraq. The Democrat plan has real consequences: the likely collapse of the Iraqi state and the creation of terrorist havens. It will embolden the terrorists and endanger the security of our homeland. Now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions. Now is the time for thoughtful consideration, examination of the options and consequences, and creating solutions that will make America more secure, not less. Although patience is not the word Americans want to hear, the consequences are too high to make uninformed decisions prior to reviewing the September progress report. For if we bring the troops home prematurely, we also risk bringing the war home. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join with me in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, contains language that undermines the Mexico City Policy. While the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nina Lowey (D-NY) drafted a bill that included excellent funding levels for foreign nations in need of assistance, her amendment would essentially gut the Mexico City Policy. This will have a devastating effect on women and families overseas. The Reagan administration, in 1984, restricted U.S. population aid by terminating USAID support for any foreign NGO that was involved in promoting or performing abortions as a method of family planning in other nations. This was called the ``Mexico City Policy,'' named after the location of the United Nations population conference where the policy was first announced. In 1993, President Clinton rescinded the policy imposed by the Reagan and Bush administrations. As his first act in office, President George W. Bush restored the Mexico City Policy on January 20, 2001 and released a letter stating, ``I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.'' The Mexico City Policy should not have been weakened. Taxpayer dollars should not, in any way, be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning. The United States should never be active in promoting abortions overseas. Instead, the U.S. should offer family planning programs that support the health of the mother, child and family unit. There are several known organizations that use U.S. foreign aid funding to promote and provide abortions, as well as sterilizations, overseas. In 1998, newspapers were filled with stories of women participating in U.S. funded family planning programs who were forced to undergo sterilization procedures, especially in Peru. There were also stories of women coerced to participate in family planning programs by threatening to withhold food, clothing and shelter from their family. In response to these atrocities, I introduced an amendment to the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill in 1998 that defined the meaning of ``voluntary participation'' in family planning programs. It was to ensure the NGOs receiving USAID funding for family planning programs understood what voluntary participation meant and required informed consent for women on the benefits and risks associated with different family planning methods. Since it was enacted for fiscal year 1999, there have been several violations and vulnerabilities in countries receiving funding. These violations and vulnerabilities were identified and corrected by USAID. Without strong direction from the United States on how taxpayer dollars are spent, we will continue to find violations that are destructive to women and families. It is due to the Lowey amendment, which undermines the Mexico City Policy, that I will be voting against final passage of a bill that contained important foreign aid for countries in need, such as Israel. It is unfortunate this amendment was adopted, and organizations that promote and perform abortions to the women overseas will be able to receive U.S. taxpayer funding. It is my hope the Senate will take up this bill and strike this harmful language. Tonight, I will vote against H.R. 2476 on the basis that it clearly undermines good policy and subjects what could have been a good piece of legislation to a veto by the President. I urge my colleagues to vote against final passage of this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for this. I want to point out that we did a joint review process of each of these earmarks to make sure that they were within the guidelines of what we have done in past precedence in the House. This particular earmark, like the other earmarks, passed this process. This is part of the Save America's Treasures program, authorized by the Save America's Treasures Act. It is a 50/50 match on a small portion of a larger project. It is also on the National Registry of Historic Places. I think the fundamental question that we have is, do we think it is proper for Federal dollars to be part of this effort? I think that is what Members should base their vote on, whether we think that this should be a part of the Federal effort to save a historic place like this. The gentleman from Arizona brought up a very good point. He said that we can't fund every request. That is true. I think that some requests we have had were culled from this because they didn't meet the past precedent or the standards that we had left in place before. Just by sheer limits on the number of amendments and the dollar amounts available, we have also created limits for this process of selecting these treasures that are part of our history and to save them. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding time.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. I think the gentleman from Michigan has done his research and prepared this well. I think this is a part of the EPA that needs attention and needs a little reinforcement. I congratulate him on his amendment and I have no objection to it.