Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my concern regarding the provisions of this bill relating to the National Bio- and Agro- defense Facility, NBAF. The threats facing this country are numerous and varied. With the intention of closing the research facility at Plum Island, NY, it is imperative that a new research facility be constructed as quickly as possible. This is one of the many reasons why officials at the Department of Homeland Security selected Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new NBAF research center. Kansas State University is already home to a Biosafety Level 3, BSL 3, research facility, which means that right this minute the Plum Island facility could be relocated, with minimal disruptions in its critical research. Construction is ready to begin on the new BSL 4 NBAF facility. State and local funding is already in place to assist in the development of the facility. The only thing lacking is action by those in Washington. This bill, however, ignores not only the requests made by myself and other Members representing the great State of Kansas, but also the decision of the Department of Homeland Security. By not funding NBAF, this bill leaves our nation and its food supply vulnerable to dangerous diseases, including Rift Valley Fever and African Swine Fever. Furthermore, it allows live cultures of these and other dangerous diseases to remain in facilities at Plum Island that DHS defined as, ``reaching the end of its life cycle.'' In refusing to fund construction on the new NBAF site in Manhattan, the Committee raised concerns over the risk of diseases, particularly Foot-and-Mouth Disease, FMD, being released into the heart of livestock country. On that issue let me point out that DHS was aware of this risk when Manhattan, Kansas, was selected as the new site, and is already taking steps to address these concerns by an anticipated threat assessment which should be released shortly. I sincerely hope that as this bill works its way towards the Conference Committee that funding for construction of the new NBAF facility can be included. I have spoken with the Chairman and Ranking Member, and have their assurances that once these concerns are addressed, they will take steps to fund this critical program. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to ensure that our nation remains protected from dangerous diseases.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 415, 416, 417, and 418, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all 4 articles of impeachment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2487--the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. H.R. 2487 includes $650,000 in the COPS Tech account for the Kansas Regional Community Policing Institute. The entity to receive funding for this project is Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmont St., Wichita, KS 67260. The funds will be used to continue the operation of the Kansas Regional Community Policing Institute (KsRCPI) to provide training and technical assistance to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Kansas.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in response to the devastating attacks of September 11th 2001 our nation was forced to take strong and decisive action in Afghanistan and throughout the world with the Global War on Terror to protect and defend the values and national interests of the American people. For eight years, Congress has dutifully provided the resources our troops need to carry out the will of this nation. Today we are considering H.R. 2346, the FY2009 War Supplemental Appropriations bill, to once again provide these resources our troops require. Sadly Congressional Democrats have chosen to use this vitally important funding bill to advance the Obama administration's reckless national security and economic policies. I cannot support a bill that places our citizens and military servicemembers at risk, as well as advances irresponsible economic policies that put our economy at risk. The detainees currently housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are among the world's most dangerous, hardened terrorists. These detainees masterminded the September 11th terrorist attacks, plotted numerous terrorist attacks around the world, and killed American troops and civilians. In developing a policy to deal with such dangerous people, though, the Obama administration has focused on one single goal: close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Although the facility at Guantanamo Bay is the world's most secure prison, the administration has instead developed a two-pronged plan to abandon these facilities and bring detainees to the United States either for release into our streets or release into our prisons. I do not want terrorists to come to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, or any American town. Bringing detainees to Fort Leavenworth would conflict with its primary mission of being the educational center of the Army and is impractical from a facilities and logistical perspective. Most importantly, it would place the citizens of Leavenworth, Johnson County, and the greater Kansas City metro area at unnecessary risk. Unfortunately, this policy, which is designed to placate anti-war activists, fails to address the serious national security concerns that are clearly seen by the American people. In multiple opinion polls, the American people overwhelming reject the notion of bringing terrorists- detainees to the U.S. They know that bringing terrorists to our street or prisons places our nation at risk. Democrat leadership has rejected the views of the American people and included a provision to create a process for the administration to bring terrorist-detainees to the United States. This provision provides little of the protections and guarantees the American people expect. Let me be clear, this provision will do nothing to prevent the Obama administration from moving terrorists from a secure military facility to our hometowns. In addition to placing American citizens at risk, this legislation also places American military servicemembers in harm's way by the removal of the bi-partisan Lieberman-Graham amendment. This critical amendment would have blocked the release of photographs of individuals captured or detained by the U.S. military during overseas operations. Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who sponsored the original amendment, clearly stated, ``the release of the photos will serve as propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists who seek to attack American citizens at home and abroad.'' Even President Obama has said that the release of these photographs would ``put our troops and civilians serving our nation abroad in greater danger.'' Instead of acting in the best interests of our troops, however, Congressional Democrats have sided with the extremist left and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) by removing this important provision. Although Congressional Democrats left out language to prevent terrorists from being brought to our shores and to protect our troops, they found room to add two unrelated provisions that continue this administration's favorite cure-all for our economic woes: bailouts. Perhaps most concerning, the War Supplemental Appropriations bill contains a $108 billion loan authority for the International Monetary Fund (IMF)--a Global Bailout. Unrelated to the war effort, this Global Bailout represents a ten-fold increase in the U.S.'s current IMF contribution to fund an expansion of IMF lending. In addition, through the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), countries that oppose U.S. values and national interests would receive access to additional hard currency. Iran will receive a benefit up to $1.8 billion, Syria $305 million, Venezuela $3.2 billion, and Sudan $202 million. I find it very disturbing that Democrats would use a war spending bill to prop-up state sponsors of terrorism. Finally, I object to the ``Cash for Clunkers'' provision included in H.R. 2346. The automobile manufacturers have already received $110 billion in bailouts from the federal government. Yet, Congressional Democrats have decided to funnel another $1 billion in bailout dollars to the very same industry. I have opposed the bailouts from the beginning. Instead of enacting real solutions to address this economic crisis, Democrats are again pushing their tired, old ideas of more and more government spending. Bailouts and more government spending have proven ineffective in jump-starting the economy. These are the wrong solutions for our economy, and however well-intentioned, will only prolong our economic woes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. As currently written, this bill offers the wrong solutions to real problems. It places our citizens, troops and economy at risk. H.R. 2346 should instead return to the Conference Committee and focus on funding our troops and keeping the American people safe.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, authorizes funding for the Department of State, the United States Peace Corps, and various international organizations. I cannot support H.R. 2410. This legislation recklessly overspends American tax dollars, fails to enact any much-needed reforms of international organizations, and actively supports a radical social agenda that conflicts with the majority views of the American people. By authorizing more than $40 billion over five years, the House Democrats are again recklessly spending money that the American people do not have. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, exorbitant increases in foreign policy spending are absolutely inappropriate. H.R. 2410 authorizes additional funding of 13 percent for the State Department, 32.4 percent for the Peace Corps, and 35 percent for State Department salaries. These types of increases clear demonstrate that Congressional Democrats are failing to be good stewards of the nation's treasury. H.R. 2410 also provides billions of dollars for the United Nations and other international organizations without demanding any reforms. Without serious reforms the United Nations will continue to fail to meet the challenges facing our world. This legislation does nothing to reformulate the U.S. payments to the United Nations to more accurately reflect current economic conditions. It fails to implement a code of conduct for UN employees, does nothing to reform UN procurement or budgetary procedures, fails to freeze the UN budget, and does not address the UN's continued push for an international tax. Providing billions of American tax dollars without conditions weakens any effort to bring about meaningful reform. Most concerning, though, is that H.R. 2410 aggressively advocates for a radical social agenda. American foreign policy should advocate for the national interests of the American people, not a divisive, extremist policy to placate liberal activists. First, this legislation establishes an Office for Global Women's Issues to promote the task of ``women's empowerment internationally.'' Given the rescission of the Mexico City Policy and this administration's strong commitment to abortion, there were serious concerns that this office will be used to promote the legalization of abortion abroad. The Obama administration and Democrat leadership clearly intend to use this office to promote international abortions. All doubt was removed when Republicans offered a substitute amendment to ensure this office would not advocate for international abortions. It was defeated on a party-line vote. H.R. 2410 also takes an extraordinary step to require the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to track violence or restrictions based on ``perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.'' The bill would also require that the annual human rights report include information about violence or discrimination based on ``perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.'' Finally, the bill would require Foreign Service officers to take instruction on identifying violence or discrimination based on ``perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.'' Our tax dollars are not well spent monitoring the treatment of homosexuals worldwide. This legislation furthermore mandates that American diplomats make overturning other country's laws regarding homosexuality a foreign policy priority. During committee consideration of the bill, Rep. Mike Pence offered an amendment that charged the State Department with continuing in their work to ``to protect all people against gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, as described in section 116(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.'' This language would have committed the U.S. to the protection of homosexual people-- as they would any person--against torture, cruel, inhuman treatment, or ``other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.'' Unfortunately, this amendment was voted down by committee Democrats. U.S. foreign policy should be focused on progressing clear national security interests of the American people. Carving out special considerations regarding homosexuality, irrespective of larger foreign policy goals, could hinder vital diplomatic efforts. U.S. foreign policy should not be used as to promote special interests concerns, but the vital common strategic interests of this nation. Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2410.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I think it's very important that we understand what is at play here. The current plan by the President through executive order is to close Guantanamo Bay down. Now, this facility is a state-of-the-art, modern facility. It includes the right strategy as far as the layout of the facility. It also has a modern, new courtroom--a state-of-the-art courtroom--well-suited to handle the challenges that we have in trying to deal with these detainees, these self-proclaimed terrorists. Now, I've been to Guantanamo Bay twice. I've been to other facilities, like Fort Leavenworth. The idea of moving these self- professed terrorists to American soil is a bad idea. It is a worse idea to put them in our prisons. We've had two incidences within the last month where American citizens have been recruited by radical Islamists in our own prisons. When they were released, they committed acts of terror in our country. It is a bad idea to send these detainees to our prisons. It is a terrible idea to send them to our American streets. Now, this prison cost less than $100 million to build. Yet the President's plan, as reported, is to send some of these Uyghurs, some of these Chinese terrorists, to Palau, and we are going to give the Nation of Palau $200 million to take care of the Uyghurs--only 17 of them. This does not make financial sense. It does not make sense for our culture or for the safety of our people here in America. One of the excuses that I've heard is that, Well, we've got to close Guantanamo Bay because it's used as a recruiting tool. Well, let me tell you: On September 11, 2001, Guantanamo Bay did not exist. It was not used as a recruiting tool. What have been used as recruiting tools are the pictures of these detainees, themselves. Yesterday's bill, the supplemental, which was passed by this House against my vote, did not prevent the release of detainee photos. Those will be used. Those will be used to recruit other terrorists, so don't give us that as an excuse as why you've got to close Guantanamo Bay. Financially, it makes sense to keep it open. As far as the safety of our country, it makes sense to keep it open. So pass this amendment. Do the right thing for our country. Vote for the Lewis amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Obama administration told us the stimulus bill was going to be the salvation of our economic woes. They predicted unemployment would top out at 8 percent, and they claimed that jobs would be created or saved immediately. Well, there has been a significant amount of time since it was passed, and our economic woes haven't changed. In fact, the numbers are in stark contrast to what we see today. Unemployment now is at 9.4 percent, and it is headed toward double digits. Just this week, CNN reported that Americans saw $1.3 trillion of wealth vaporize in the first quarter of 2009. Despite the massive government spending, foreclosures continue. Car dealerships are closing and layoffs continue. Home values have continued to decline, and the stock market is down 40 percent from last year. Our government is borrowing money it does not have. It is inflating programs and projects we do not need. Recently, it was reported that over 100 wasteful projects were funded through this stimulus bill. There is a project that includes thousands of signs, at $300 each, to brag about the projects paid for under this bill. There are projects here that could have been funded under regular order. There is $2.2 million for a State-run liquor warehouse to put skylights in the installation. There is $3.4 million for road tunnels for turtles. Tunnels for turtles. Now, it seems like maybe the turtles will need the signs to find the tunnels. There is over $40 billion in a State slush fund, and there is money for education. Secretary of Education Duncan has admitted he doesn't know how to spend it. This is your stimulus money at work here in America. Taxpayers don't understand why so much money is being wasted so quickly with nothing to show for it. My amendment on the floor today would keep a quarter of $1 billion from our deficit by taking the stimulus dollars to pay for this legislation and for other legislation. Now, at a time when Americans are pulling back on their spending and are saving more, our government should do the same. In the first quarter of this year, household debt fell by an annual rate of 1.1 percent, which is $13.8 trillion. Instead of following our constituents' actions, though, our government continues to spend money that we do not have. When our government spends money that we do not have, one of two things happens: either we borrow it from countries like China--and since China isn't buying our debt now, the other solution is that our Federal Government prints money. We have had the Fed pump over $1 trillion of new money into our economy. The problem with the infusion of new money into our economy like this is that it causes inflation. When you have more money available for, roughly, the same amount of goods, you get inflation. The equation is very simple. The more money we print, the less our money is worth. Inflation hits our retired Americans the worst. They're on fixed incomes. It hits the working poor the hardest--people who are just getting by. When you take purchasing value away from them, they're worse off. These Americans have worked too hard for their money to see the actions of the Federal Reserve drastically reduce its value. Our economic instability and uncertainty is making America's bonds toxic. Even countries like China and Brazil are turning up their noses at U.S.-held securities in favor of International Monetary Fund bonds. Let's follow our constituents' lead. Let's slow the Treasury's printing press. Let's cut up our Chinese credit card and act responsibly by repealing the portion of unobligated funds in the stimulus and pay for the portion of this bill today before us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, the reason that we would repeal the Recovery Act, or the stimulus bill, is that it simply doesn't work. In the 1930s, we tried a similar philosophy. We borrowed money from other countries and we started programs that had never before been tried, and throughout the 1930s, we had double-digit unemployment. In May of 1939, Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau said that we have borrowed all of this money; we have spent all of this money, and we have nothing to show for it. The Recovery Act does not work. In the 1990s, Japan tried the same thing. They had a recession. They borrowed money. They started government programs, and it didn't work there either. They call that their ``lost decade'' where the average per capita income in Japan went from 2nd in the world to 10th in the world. If you want something that works, it's not borrowing money and spending money. Instead, we need to provide opportunity for our economy. Four out of five jobs in America are small business jobs. We need to provide small business jobs. Remember, General Motors started out in a garage, Boeing started in a barn, Pizza Hut started in a building that's smaller than your office, because they had opportunity. And we can provide opportunity without borrowing money from China or printing new money at the Treasury. We can do it by reforming our regulations, put them on cost-based analysis. We can do it by reforming our health care, making it market based. We can do it by reforming our litigation policy, using loser pays. We can do it by lowering our taxes and making capital welcome in America. Capital is a coward, and we are scaring it off. And you can't create an economy that is strong and recoverable if you don't create small business jobs. So if you really want to do it, you can do it on the cheap and do it successfully. If you want to borrow this money and force this debt on our kids, this $250 billion, then you can go ahead with this plan. But there is something better. There is an alternative that actually works, and historically it's proven. So what we want to do is repeal the Recovery Act, the stimulus bill, and provide the opportunity to allow America to grow because when America grows and our economy grows, the Federal revenue grows. That's how we balanced the budget in 1990s. It wasn't Bill Clinton's budget. It was the House of Representatives coming up with opportunity for small businesses. We limited the growth in government, and we saw our economy expand at over 7 percent per year. And that's how we balanced the budget. We can do that again if we just start by getting some common sense and repeal the unobligated funds in the Recovery Act.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Obama administration told us the stimulus bill was the salvation to our economic woes. They predicted, if passed, unemployment would top out at 7 percent and claimed jobs would be created or saved immediately. It was passed, but yesterday's promises are in stark contrast to what we see today-- unemployment is at 9.4 percent, and just this morning CNN reported that America saw $1.3 trillion of wealth vaporize in the first quarter of 2009. Despite massive government spending, foreclosures continue, car dealerships are closing, layoffs continue, and the stock market and home values continue to decline. The government is borrowing money it does not have, inflating programs it does not need and making promises it cannot keep. Taxpayers don't understand why so much money is being wasted so quickly with nothing to show for it. I understand. This week I offered a simple solution. Rescind unobligated money from the stimulus bill and save the taxpayers over $250 billion. That's money we won't have to borrow from the Chinese. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a party-line vote. Today I am introducing the Repeal the Stimulus Act of 2009, and I urge my colleagues to join with me to repeal the stimulus bill and the spending schemes of the current administration and cut back on the amount of money we have to borrow from China.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 311, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today is Cuba Solidarity Day, marking the anniversary of Cuba's independence from Spain. It has now become a day when people across the world stand with the people of Cuba who are waiting for their day of freedom from 50 years of brutal communist repression. Last month President Obama reversed the course of American policy towards Cuba, one of only four state sponsors of terrorism. America is a beacon of hope, and we should resist funding Castro's regime or turning a blind eye to their atrocities against the Cuban people. Those wanting to increase trade with Cuba should be reminded that all money flows through Cuba's state-owned monopoly, and they don't pay their bills. Cuba has defaulted on more than $30 billion of its obligations. Easing sanctions on Cuba does not make economic or humanitarian sense. It only lines the pockets of the Castro brothers who want to hold onto their power by suppressing their people. Today I am introducing a resolution to restore the sanctions on Cuba. The Cuban people deserve our support and continued condemnation of the Castro regime. I encourage all my colleagues to honor Cuba Solidarity Day and stand with the Cuban people by cosponsoring my resolution.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``No Welfare for Terrorists Act of 2009.'' This legislation would proactively prohibit detainees currently at Guantanamo Bay from ever receiving government benefits at the federal, state and local levels. Today at Guantanamo Bay there are around 240 hardened terrorists who have killed and/or plotted to kill Americans. These terrorists are among the most dangerous people in the world, and the Obama administration wants to bring them here to the United States. Earlier today in the House Committee on Appropriations, Congressional Democrats, in a party-line vote, agreed to support the administration's policy to bring terrorists currently detained at Guantanamo Bay to our soil. Homeland Security personnel are working hard to keep terrorists from entering our country and now the president wants to make special arrangements to bring these proven terrorists here. The Obama administration has already authorized the release of 30 detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, has said that these terrorists should receive welfare benefits: ``If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life. You can't just put them on the street.'' We must not fool ourselves--those held at Guantanamo Bay are unrepentant terrorists determined to pursue their long held violent goals. Of the detainees already released from Guantanamo Bay, we know that over 60 have returned to a life of terrorism. Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar was captured in early 2002 and held at Guantanamo Bay for eight months. After his release, Ghaffar became the Taliban's regional commander in Uruzgan and Helmand provinces, carrying out attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces. In September, Saeed Shihri was responsible for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen that killed nearly a dozen people. This was barely a year after he was released from Guantanamo Bay. Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti, was repatriated from Guantanamo in 2005, and transferred into Kuwaiti custody. After he was acquitted of terrorism charges in Kuwait, he committed a successful suicide attack in Mosul, Iraq on March 25, 2008. Ibrahim Shafir Sen was transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Turkey in November 2003. In January 2008, Sen was arrested in Van, Turkey, and charged as the leader of an active al-Qaida cell. These are just a few examples of the activities of the terrorists who have been released, thus far. The ones remaining at Guantanamo Bay are arguably even more dangerous. The administration must be honest with the American people that they want to bring terrorists to the United States. By bringing these terrorists to America, the Obama administration will provide them with legal status. This would then qualify them for food stamps, cash assistance and health care--paid for by you and me, the very people they desire to kill. The American people have spent billions trying to protect this country from terrorists before they can kill innocent Americans, and now the administration is laying out the welcome mat for terrorists to roam our streets. The ``No Welfare for Terrorists Act'' will prohibit any government benefits from being granted to any terrorists brought to the United States from Guantanamo Bay. The American people have already paid--with blood and lives. We're done. The American people, under no circumstance, should be required to pay welfare benefits to terrorists. I ask all my colleagues to join me in bringing sanity to this debate and prevent our constituents' hard earned money from going to put terrorists on welfare rolls.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California for his tremendous leadership. Mr. Speaker, when approaching national security issues, Congress has always acted in a prudent bipartisan manner to protect the American people. Last week, however, in a straight party-line vote in the Appropriations Committee, Democrats rejected both Republican alternatives to prevent terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay from getting a plane ride to the United States. Then yesterday, the Democrats on the Rules Committee rejected my amendment to prohibit terrorist detainees from being transferred or released in the United States. Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team are refusing an up-or-down vote. Do we allow hardened terrorists to be transported to the United States knowing that eventually some will be released to the streets of America? Democrats have instead offered a fig leaf. Their provision simply delays; it does not prevent. It delays the Obama administration's plan to release terrorists onto our streets. The administration has already authorized the release of 30 detainees. This is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is happening. And unfortunately my colleagues are simply delaying the real problem. Seventy-five percent of the population do not want terrorists released in the United States, and 20 percent don't even realize it's a possibility. Congress should not abdicate its responsibility to provide for the common defense of this Nation. We should be able to speak on this issue. Americans deserve an up or down vote on the question, do we welcome terrorists on the streets of America or not? This will simply sweep the question under the rug, hoping the problem will go away. The gentleman from Colorado mentioned that we could send them to Fort Leavenworth. I have been to Fort Leavenworth. I am from Kansas. We do not want terrorists in Fort Leavenworth or in Kansas, and I don't want them on any street in America. So I think it's only fair that we reject this rule and give us an up or down vote on whether we want a plane ticket for terrorists to get from Guantanamo to America. I would encourage my friends to vote ``no'' on the previous question to allow Mr. Wolf an opportunity to present his language and vote ``no'' on the rule so we can have a chance for an up or down vote on whether we bring terrorists into our Nation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, this supplemental does many good things for our troops. It provides needed equipment and services so our men and women in uniform can carry out the will of this Nation, and hopefully and prayerfully, will help them to come home safely to their families. But it does present a hole in the safety for this Nation. After October 1, hardened terrorists can come to America and eventually can be released to our streets. If they do come to America, where are we going to take them? Earlier in the discussion on the rule, the gentleman from Colorado mentioned that they could go to Fort Leavenworth. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been to Fort Leavenworth to inspect the facilities. It is the premier training base for the United States Army. We invite many troops from other countries to come to America to Fort Leavenworth to train, to become allies, to learn how to work together to keep this country safe. Bringing these terrorists to Fort Leavenworth would actually prevent that from happening in the future. Some nations would not send their troops to America because of it. So Fort Leavenworth should not be a selected base for that purpose. Neither do they have the facilities in the prison to house these terrorists. One of the things that was designed in the Guantanamo Bay facility is to separate the leaders from the foot soldiers because they stir up the foot soldiers should they be connected either verbally, visually, or in any method of communication. So that is prevented in Guantanamo Bay. It is created for that purpose. We've even created and built the most modern court facility so that these hardened terrorists should never have to set foot on American soil. Now, when we have people in our own court system that we know are sexual predators, we warn people in the neighborhood to protect their children from these known sexual predators. But in this legislation, we have no notice when a hardened terrorist is going to be released on American soil, and we do know that 30 of these terrorists have been slated for release.

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California. We have a policy in America that if a terrorist is going to be returned to their country of origin and that country of origin is going to either torture or terminate them, we won't send them back. That's the problem we have with terrorists known as Uyghurs, terrorists of Turkish descent that are Chinese. So they are going to be released where? Back to the streets of America. This bill does not prevent that. We had legislation that would have given us that opportunity for an up- or-down vote, but it was denied by the Democrats in the majority. Americans want to have a voice in this. Do we want terrorists on American soil or not? I say ``no.'' I want them on no Main Street in any city or town in America, but I was denied the opportunity to have that vote. I think that even though this bill does many good things, we should remember that before October 1 we need to have a clear up-or-down vote in this Chamber on whether or not we want to allow known hardened terrorists to be released on our streets. Mr. Speaker, in the bill itself we have a list of the top 10 toughest terrorists that are housed in the Guantanamo Bay facility on page 112.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last year should be remembered as the year of the bailout. This year is not much better under the current leadership in Washington. Incredibly, banks that want to repay the money they got from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, as it is referred to, are being stopped by the Obama administration from repaying the funds. After accepting TARP bailout funds and, in some cases being forced to accept bailouts, many banks have had enough and they are ready to return the money. You would think that would be easy, but the government won't let them pay back the TARP funds. The vague guidelines provided by the Obama administration for returning TARP funds are creating a regulatory uncertainty that is bad for our economy and bad for us taxpayers. We deserve to get the bailout money back from the banks as quickly as possible, which is why I have introduced the Bailout Freedom Act to ensure sure we have a clear and timely process for making that happen. Once banks are certified to be well capitalized by the regulators, the Federal Government should allow the TARP bailout funding to be paid back. From the beginning, I have opposed the bailouts and the growing encroachment of the Federal Government in our daily lives. Now we must reverse that course of the current trend and allow TARP bailout funding to be paid back. Please join me in supporting the Bailout Freedom Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, yesterday the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913. The bill reminds me of a passage from George Orwell's book, ``Animal Farm,'' where he wrote, ``All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.'' Under this legislation, all people are equal. Some people are more equal than others. This bill attempts to create a new class of people with a new category of punishment that is determined by the thoughts and words, as well as other actions. It's based on the premise of a hate crime, a hate crime. If one assumes there is hate crimes, isn't it logical to assume that there is just the opposite, love crimes? Well, the concept of love crimes doesn't hold, and neither should the concept of a special class of citizens created by hate crimes. But it is true that crimes are committed. And if you are a victim of crime, whether it is motivated by hate, greed, envy or whatever the driving force is, you, as a victim, deserve equal justice under the law. Equal justice under the law is an old and very well accepted concept in America. Where we are a Nation of equals, a Nation of men and women who bow to no man, to no king, we should expect equal treatment under the law, equal justice. This legislation places into the judicial system and into the hands of a jury the determination of the thoughts of the criminal and the responsibility to determine were these actions different if the victim has a certain sexual orientation? However, the term sexual orientation is not defined. This is very vague. But the term gender identity is defined as actual or perceived gender-related characteristics, perceived. This is also very vague. In fact, the whole legislation is so vague that a minister today, reading aloud the book of Corinthians from the New Testament, could be prosecuted because it could be perceived as inciting violence. Whatever happened to free speech in the first amendment? The amendments could have been offered to clarify some of the passages but were rejected by the Democrats. Amendments were offered in the Judiciary Committee to extend special victims status to veterans, the elderly and pregnant women. All were rejected. No amendments were allowed on the floor. Madam Speaker, I believe this legislation is, in fact, unconstitutional, violating the freedom of expression and equal protection under the law. I fear for this Nation as Congress continues to ignore and abuse the foundation and the principles that built this great Nation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Americans have a long history of volunteerism to better their communities and help their fellow citizens. Benjamin Franklin created one of the first volunteer fire departments in Philadelphia in 1736. In 1881, Clara Barton created the American Red Cross to provide assistance in response to disasters. Six years later, the first United Way was created in Denver to help plan and coordinate local charitable services. In each case, people sacrificed their time and money for a cause in which they believed. This model has not only served our nation well for over 250 years, but has also taught generations of Americans the value of sacrificial actions. The vast majority of charitable programs still operate with great success using unpaid volunteers. After centuries, some now believe that government should take over this practice and pay people to ``volunteer.'' In 1993, AmeriCorps was created, implementing this backwards notion. Today's bill, H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, continues this failed policy of ``paid volunteerism.'' I oppose H.R. 1388. When the government pays ``volunteers'' and determines which programs will benefit, this sends the wrong message. ``Paid volunteerism'' cheapens the honest efforts of millions of people who volunteer at their local church, food hank, or after-school program. It teaches future generations that volunteerism should result in material reward. The basic principles of volunteerism are lost. ``Paid volunteerism'' also picks winners and losers among charities-- allowing the government, instead of the American people, to determine which charities hold value in our society. H.R. 1388 allows politically motivated liberal organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, Legal Services Association, and ACORN, to receive ``paid volunteers'' to advance their radical agenda. Not only does H.R. 1388 distort the value of volunteerism, but it proposes spending $6 billion over five years to expand and authorize programs that have been audited and considered ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget. In a time of spiraling deficits, I believe we must look for ways to cut the deficit--not increase it with wasteful programs. I am proud that America is the most compassionate and generous nation in the world. Our shared value of giving back to our communities has made this nation great. Encouraging volunteerism is a wonderful thing for our people and society. H.R. 1388, unfortunately, does the opposite. Therefore, I ask all my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation and upholding the principles of charity.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 85 Democrat budget resolution. Our economy is in chaos, every day more Americans lose jobs, and our retirement savings are dwindling. The only response Democrat leadership and this White House seems to have is to spend more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have forgotten that a successful economy comes from the ground up, not from the government down. Do I have to remind the Speaker that ``money doesn't grow on trees?'' This money comes from the American people, directly from their wallets which are growing thinner and thinner by the day. What they need from us isn't a larger government, but a government that tightens its belt as they are forced to do. A government that helps the private sector get back on its feet and prosper. A government that creates a level playing field for American employers on the world market. The past few months we have all become economics majors as we try to interpret and make decisions on complex financial markets. There is no question in my mind that everyone in this body wants to return to our country's historic economic success. I think there's considerable disagreement on how we get there, but I think at least we can start with the statement that we all want to end up in the same place. A place where our children can start a business or find a high quality, high paying job. Today's discussion--and indeed the focus of the entire Congress--should be on how to renew the American Dream. I do not subscribe to Keynesian economics. Every thin dime this Congress spends--or more appropriately borrows--is the functional equivalent of a thick quarter the children of Kansas and the rest of America have to pay back later, and I have yet to see a government job that pays for itself. I don't believe that massive deficit spending as we see in this budget proposal is going to create private sector jobs in the short-term or revive our economy. In the short time he has been in office, we have already amassed $3 trillion in debt for a total of $8.7 trillion. $8.7 trillion is a lot of money, money we don't have and money that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay back. One of the very worst things that we, the Congress, can do is follow economic policies that result in raising taxes on American citizens and employers. We have enjoyed economic success in the past in large part because of our relatively low tax rates. To raise taxes will, in my view, not only hurt American wallets immediately, but also stifle the prospect of economic prosperity in the near future. Sadly this is where the administration is headed. The president has made a big deal recently about Republicans being the ``party of no.'' I am ready to say ``yes.'' To say yes to policies that will help rebuild a sound economy for today and the future. We need to pursue common sense economic policies that work--while reducing the size and scope of a government that has strangled growth. We need to move toward competitive business tax rates to compete with the rest of the world. Ireland, though it too has been caught up in the worldwide downturn, is well poised to recover as it welcomes companies and fosters growth. We desperately need a common sense approach to regulation, with cost-based justification of the rules our bureaucrats impose on those who create jobs. We need to be energy independent. It's well past time that we adopt a ``loser pays'' approach to litigation as the United Kingdom follows. Finally, I hope we discuss the rising cost of health care (in addition to ensuring health care access), which is one of the biggest burdens on our economy. I believe a consumer-based approach to health care delivery will benefit patients and our economy. These ideas build the fundamental strength of our economy. That is how we can and will renew the dream and renew opportunity for ourselves and our children. I'll close by saying that, although we are struggling today, I am confident and optimistic that the American people will overcome this downturn, as we always have. My concern is that borrowing and spending will prolong the pain instead of fixing the problem. I look forward to our discussion today.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 170, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the February 2008 New Republican Earmark Standards Guidance, I submit the following in regards to the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act found in H.R. 1105: Energy and Water--Arkansas River Fish Habitat, Kansas H.R. 1105, the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act contains a line item for the Arkansas River Fish Habitat in the Army Corps of Engineers' Section 206 account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District located at 1645 S. 101 East Ave., Tulsa, OK 74128. The funding will be used to address the feasibility of improving 122 acres of various types of habitat along the Arkansas River in Kansas. This money could be used to complete Plans and Specifications for this proposed restoration site. This project complies with matching fund requirements.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 133, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Loebsack