Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Res. 1130, and for our Nation's teachers. Their hard work and dedication to the students of this Nation is exemplary, and I commend them for it. If the United States is to remain competitive, if our economy is to continue to grow, our children must have access to quality education, specifically in the areas of science and mathematics. One of the best ways to stimulate the economy is through a well-rounded and well- educated workforce. A quality education provides options for students to achieve the skills necessary to successfully compete in today's demanding job market. And our students would not be able to obtain a quality education were it not for the dedication of America's educators. Teachers in this Nation are over-worked, and under-appreciated. Teaching has never been an easy profession. The work of teachers extends far beyond the time spent in the classroom, preparing lessons, grading papers, and looking for additional ways to enhance the educational experience in the classroom. We in Congress have not made their jobs any easier. In our, albeit laudable, effort to enhance the performance of our students, we have placed additional requirements on our teachers that demand more and more of their time. Federal regulations place additional pressure on both teachers and students. Our teachers do not receive nearly enough recognition for the care and concern they show for their students. So today, I take the time to thank the many teachers who helped educate a restless boy that now has the honor of serving in this remarkable institution, the teachers who have guided my children and given them the skills to pursue their dreams, and also my beloved wife, Vicki, who has used her many talents to help teach children with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to show their support for America's teachers by voting in favor of this resolution.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. As many of my colleagues are, no doubt, aware, the rupture of the housing bubble in this nation has had a ripple effect across our economy. The student loan industry has not been immune to these economic difficulties. In fact, in recent months, 57 providers of student loans have announced that they will no longer offer loans to students. This legislation is a good effort on the part of Congress to address this situation. We should delude ourselves by believing that this legislation is a panacea, bringing a complete solution to the circumstances we find ourselves in today. By and large, the lending market will need to take actions of its own to right the tottering ship. These efforts are things that Congress is not, and should not be, in the business of mandating. But this legislation does take steps to protect students and their families by providing assurances that the opportunities to finance a college education are not jeopardized while the lending market is in flux. Presently, experts in the field are unsure that the situation is, in fact, a ``crisis,'' pointing to a number of additional factors that may have contributed to the narrowing of the market. We will not know for several more months, when requests for student loans reach their peak, just how serious a problem we are facing. That is exactly the reason this legislation is the correct approach. It takes preventive steps to ensure that funding is available to students and their parents, if a crisis does arise. It does not create new mandates, but instead gives the Secretary of Education the authority to address potential problems. Ensuring access to affordable student loans is of great importance to this nation, to our economy, and to our millions of students in college. I appreciate the efforts of Mr. McKeon and Mr. Miller to bring this legislation to the floor in such a timely manner, and hope that this bill will be enough to stave off larger problems down the road.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of H.J. Res. 70, congratulating the Army Reserve on their 100- year history. The U.S. Constitution of 1789 and the Militia Act of 1792 officially reaffirmed the continued reliance of the new Nation on the citizen-soldier for defense. According to Army Reserve Historian Lee S. Harford, Jr., the antecedents and heritage of the current United States Army Reserve are found in the tradition of the ``federal'' or ``national'' American citizen-soldier, dating back at least as far as the French and Indian War (1756-1763). America would be a very different place were it not for the patriotism and dedication of these citizen-warriors. Members of the Army Reserve bring maturity, experience and civilian- acquired skills to the active military components and since September 11, 2001, over 188,025 soldiers have been mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Army Reserve provides trained and ready soldiers and units with the critical combat service support and combat support capabilities necessary to support Nation strategy during peacetime, contingencies and war. They are a key element in the Army multi-component unit force, training with Active and National Guard units to ensure all 3 components work as a fully integrated team. Since September 11th, the Nation's Reserve Components have evolved from a strategic force in reserve to an operational force that is constantly deployed. Gone are the days of working 2 weekends a month and 2 weeks in the summer. The on-going Global War on Terrorism has seen citizen-warrior deployments go from 1 in every 5 years to now 1 in every 2-3 years. Army Reserve members are deployed all around the world and fulfill a wide range of capabilities that include war-fighting, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and post-conflict and transitional operations such as democracy building, stability efforts and peace-keeping. Many of my fellow Kansans share in this tremendous Army Reserve tradition, as members of the 89th Regional Readiness Command. Their mission is to help train and deploy America's most effective supporting ground forces. Army Reserve soldiers must balance military obligations with family obligations and also manage a delicate balance with their full-time civilian careers. Employers must cope with these year-long deployments and balance the instability created from having one less employee to conduct business. Additionally, we as a Nation must ensure that these Army Reserve heroes are taken care of when they return from deployments. We must properly treat returning soldiers for post traumatic stress disorders, and ensure their transition back to civilian life is as smooth as possible. I encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution and am pleased that today the House recognizes the role of the Army Reserve.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of H. Res 265, honoring military children during ``National Month of the Military Child.'' While we understand and praise the personal sacrifices our brave men and women make in defending our great nation, we frequently forget about the sacrifices and burdens that children and families face while their parents are serving in the United States Armed Forces. In peacetime, children of military parents bear the burdens of numerous military moves, both overseas and in the United States. In these moves, they cope with attending several different schools, losing good friends, leaving good communities, and typically have parents who cannot attend their sporting events, music recitals, and other after school activities. The military duty is a 24-7, 365-day commitment for the soldier and also their families. In wartime, children of deployed military parents spend every day living in fear of the unknown. When will my mom or dad return? Will they be severely injured? Will they be killed? In years past, military children often faced one deployment lasting anywhere from 4 to 18 months. However, in today's long Global War on Terror, many military members and families are facing their second, third, or fourth deployments. The impacts of these additional and prolonged separations are not clear and may have lasting adverse effects on military children and families. When military members return from deployments, we focus on the impact of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; we also need to study and analyze the impacts of traumas created by war and deployments on the children of these military parents. The children of military members play a vital role in the defense of this country. Their contributions and sacrifices have not gone unnoticed. This is our opportunity as a Nation to recognize their dedication and support. We honor our brave men and women in the Armed Forces who have dedicated their lives to defending our freedoms, but we must also pay great tribute to the children and the families of soldiers, who bear the burden of their tremendous sacrifice. I encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution and am pleased that today the House recognizes the role of the military children.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1020, a resolution recognizing the tremendous service that members of the Armed Forces, especially those who have been wounded in combat, have given. As an original cosponsor of this resolution, I want to thank the lead sponsor, Mr. Welch, for bringing this resolution to the floor and his leadership on this important issue. I also want to thank Mr. Walberg and Mr. Higgins for joining Mr. Welch and me in spearheading this effort to honor those who have given so much in service to our country. Only 1 percent of Americans serve in the military. Only 1 percent have answered the call to arms in defense of our Nation, our values, and our freedoms. To this 1 percent, we owe so much; so much that can never be fully repaid. Throughout our history, many Americans have given the ultimate sacrifice for this Nation, and many more have had their minds and bodies wounded for the same cause. In the current Global War on Terror, around 30,000 servicemembers have been wounded, including almost 400 from Kansas. Their lives and those of their families have been dramatically impacted. I have had the honor to meet with many of these wounded warriors, both in Kansas and at Walter Reed. Though their lives have been forever changed, they continue their commitment to duty, country, and family. They are a great inspiration to me and those who are blessed to meet them. Every American has a responsibility to thank these brave Americans. We must vocally honor them. We must honor them by providing excellent medical care, access to quality jobs and education, support for their families, and the resources to live fulfilling and productive lives. But, we also need to remember to say ``thank you.'' ``Thank you'' for your service and your sacrifice. This resolution is just one more way the House of Representatives can say ``thank you'' to our Nation's veterans. In addition to this resolution, Misters Welch, Walberg, Higgins and I are helping organize an April 16th reception for Members of Congress and wounded warriors from Walter Reed. This reception will provide Members of Congress the honor to personally meet with these brave heroes. I encourage all my colleagues to attend. This reception will encourage you, humble you, and challenge you to push harder in support of our veterans. We can never fully honor or repay the sacrifice made by our Nation's veterans. Our veterans deserve so much, and, in comparison, we have so little to offer. But, I hope that this resolution and upcoming reception will take a step in the right direction. I ask that all my colleagues support this important resolution.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. And I also want to thank Mr. Inslee for his leadership in trying to bring some common sense to the procurement process down at the Department of Defense. Madam Speaker, Americans are outraged by the Air Force outsourcing our national security to the French. This contract award to a foreign manufacturer is wrong, and it makes us less, not more, secure. As my chart to the left here shows, we should have known that we had a problem when the President's helicopter replacement, the VH-71, went to a foreign manufacturer. We should have suspected it again when the light utility helicopter went to a foreign manufacturer. And now with the KC-X program going to be a manufacturer, it's as plain as the nose on your face. We have three of the last four major contract awards now going to foreign suppliers. Here's how this works: The Department of Defense and the Air Force really have bent over backwards to give this contract to the French, but they've been very sly. They first, as a foreign supplier, find an American front company, and then they employ tactics like waiving regulations that our Department of Defense gladly awards them. They use illegal subsidies. They employ illegal subsidies. And then they buy into defense contracts, knowing that further on down the line, there won't be the ability to have an American manufacturer beat them out in any competitive bid. And then further, as was pointed out by Mr. Inslee, they make promises in their proposals, and then the contracts are awarded by the Department of Defense, but they change their mind about the work content and they keep the work in Europe. Let me just talk for a brief minute about why this was such a shock when this contract went to a foreign supplier. The Air Force tanker roadmap is a chart that was given to us by the Air Force. I sit on the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations, and in December of last year, December of 2007, this was the chart that they said was their roadmap to replacing the tankers. On the left-hand side here, we have 2006. This is where this chart begins, fiscal year 2006, and it runs out to fiscal year 2007. They have two tankers in our stock now. They have two versions of the KC-135. They have the older KC-135Es, which are the first ones to go out of the inventory. Next we're going to replace the KC-135Rs. ``R'' stands for the re-engine version of the KC-135. And at the bottom, we have our very largest tankers, the KC-10s, built on a DC-10 airframe, almost as large as a 747. But that's the larger airframe. This is the medium-range tankers, according to the Air Force. The KC-135s, as you can see, in 2006 we started to take them out of the inventory. And as time goes on, you can see this little yellow triangle getting smaller and smaller. That means the KC-135s are going to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base into what we call the ``bone yard.'' They're no longer flying. We're still flying the KC-135s. The average age is about 45 years of age, and they need to be replaced. We have then the KC-10s. They're the newer version and the larger tanker. So what the Air Force told us is that they were going to replace this KC-135 medium-sized tanker over the next 15 years. Actually, it's going to run about 20 years with all that's said and done on the current schedule. But we were supposed to start out here in 2011 by having them first delivered. So when the contract was awarded, did we get a replacement for the KC-135? No. The Air Force bought an airplane larger than the KC-10. So, naturally, everybody was shocked all across America. And then when they found out that the KC-10 replacement is the KC-30, a variation of the Airbus A330, a French airplane, they were shocked and outraged. We're outsourcing our national security to the French. So what is behind this decision? How could this possibly have happened? Well, if you look at the contract scenario, we find out that there were waived regulations, waived regulations by our own Department of Defense. They waive them for our NATO allies. And if you go to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations, paragraph 225, it will tell you which of the 20 nations have waived regulations when they bid on defense contracts. Those 20 nations include the four ownership nations of Airbus and the parent company of EADS. They include the United Kingdom. They include Spain. They include France, and they include Germany. These are the regulations that are waived, and they're very costly, very expensive. Let's just look at the first one on the list here: Cost Accounting Standards. Now, Cost Accounting Standards say basically that you have to include all the costs that it takes to make a product that you're going to supply to the Department of Defense. And if you miss a cost or shift costs in and out of a contract, it could be a violation of the Cost Accounting Standards with very high penalties. It could be determined that it was fraud, and people could go to jail. Or it could be determined that you tried to give the government the slip on some data, and you would be barred from doing business with the Federal Government. You can't shift cost on cost accounting standards. They are very costly to comply with. You have to have people hired to keep track of all costs. They must track them, compare them, report them as far as their relationship with schedules. If you don't have to do it, like EADS, in the case of this tanker, then it's much cheaper as far as your proposal. So cost accounting standards were waived by the Department of Defense for EADS, but they were required by the Boeing Company. Now what does this mean for the Boeing Company? It means they have to include all their costs, including health care costs. Health care costs that they pay for their employees, workmen's compensation costs that they pay to cover the employees are all included in these costs. They have to be included in their proposal. If you don't do it, it is a violation of the cost accounting standards. But those costs are not in the EADS proposal. Health care costs, workmen's compensation costs are picked up by the government, so they don't have to pay for those. Again, that gives a lower bid to EADS for this kind of a cost.

Mr. TIAHRT. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. TIAHRT. You make a very good point about the net cost to the taxpayer. Getting back to these accounting standards which you are pointing out, the net cost is very high to the taxpayer. If EADS violates the cost accounting standards, we will never know it because they don't have to report it. And the cost of reporting this, the Boeing Company had to include. So it's really a difficult time for any American company to compete with a European company when you waive this first standard. The next standard is a specialty metal standard, called the Berry amendment. This is where our manufacturers are required to track from the time a metal is mined from the ground and processed, until it's riveted onto an airplane. Tracking. That means people are sitting somewhere at a desk and they are spending time trying to keep track of who is processing this and what procedures were put in place. It's very costly. But it was waived for the European manufacturers by our Department of Defense in DFARS 225, that's the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations again. The next one that was waived by the Buy American provisions. Buy American provisions basically say 50 percent of this product has to be made in America. Now the goal in this proposal for Northrop Grumman, the EADS proposal, said 58 percent was their goal. If you look at previous contracts with the Department of Defense, like the light utility helicopter, which EADS also won, their goal there was 65 percent. But they had some American suppliers in there that were included in the bid, and as a second thought EADS said, well, we have got a production line in Europe. Things are going pretty well. We think we will just keep this work here. So there are companies in Kansas that were cheated by this. There was a Spirit Aerospace Manufacturing, which lost the fuselage of the helicopter. There was Command Aerospace, which lost the floor board of the helicopter. Then there was ICE, Incorporated, which lost the wire harnesses for the helicopter. All American work content in the proposal that was then awarded as a contract and then that work was pulled back to Europe. When I asked the Army about this in an open hearing, their response was, well, we have no enforcement mechanism to make sure that these jobs remain in America. No enforcement mechanism. So we waive these kind of standards and regulations that would allow us the knowledge of where these jobs are actually going. And we will never know.

Mr. TIAHRT. That is exactly right. This is a question that has been put directly to not only the Army, but also the Secretary of Air Force and the head of procurement for the Air Force. It's common knowledge over in the Pentagon they tell us these things and we evaluate them based on these jobs being in America, and low risk, but then there is really no way of enforcing if these companies decide to keep the jobs in Europe. If you look at this very same contract, the air refueling tanker contract, the first five airplanes are currently planned to be built in Toulouse, France. Then they are going to change the manufacturing procedure and start taking parts and shipping them to Mobile, Alabama, to assemble them. This is a similar scenario to the light utility helicopter. When it came time to ship those jobs to America, they decided to keep them in Europe. There's no guarantee in this contract that has been awarded by the Air Force that says, yes, you plan on doing this in Mobile, Alabama, but there's no enforcement mechanism to make sure the jobs actually come to America.

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Iowa. He is representing one of the 42 States that is impacted by this decision. Getting back to the statement that the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee, said about cleaning up the act, there is a report that really highlights why it is so important that it is such a travesty that foreign corrupt practices is one of the regulations that is waived. We can't track what EADS is doing when it comes to their interface with foreign suppliers and foreign countries. But there is a report that was put out by the Center for Security Policy in April 2007. The name of the report is: ``EADS is Welcome to Compete for U.S. Defense Contracts--But First It Must Clean Up Its Act.'' Then it goes through and highlights some of the corrupt practices that EADS has been known for across the globe, and their problematic issues. Issue number one, espionage, bribery and other dirty practices; issue number two, Russian ownership and influence of EADS; issue number three, trying to supply America's adversaries with weapons. The report goes on, but in the section called ``Bottom Line,'' it says the six things that EADS must do before they should be allowed to bid on government contracts. Madam Speaker, those six issues are: Number one, resolve espionage problems; number two, correct the bribery problem; number three, remove the Kremlin from the company; number four, prevent other ambiguous or known bad actors from owning EADS stakes; number five, resolve the proliferation problem; and, number six, resolve anti-American workforce problems. This is what the Center For Security Policy suggests to the Department of Defense and to Congress, it is a public document, that we should do before we should allow this European manufacturer to supply products for our defense. And we won't ever know what they are doing right, because the foreign corrupt practices regulations are waived by our own Department of Defense. That is another reason why this is such an outrageous practice.

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Washington. When talking about risk, the Air Force has done studies as to what is the best manufacturing technology that we have when we are building a complex, single point of failure system like the tanker. They say the best way to do it is to have an integrated production line, where you build your commercial off-the-shelf item and integrate in that very same production line those things that you need to make this a unique product for the Department of Defense. That was what was employed by the Boeing company in their proposal to the Air Force for the KC-767 tanker. What we find out after looking at and listening to the Airbus or the EADS proposal is that they had this disjointed thing, as the gentleman from Washington pointed out very well, multi-country, multi- manufacturing sites, starting four new facilities that have to be FAA certified and they have to find qualified workers for. This develops a tremendous amount of risk in the proposal that the EADS company was putting forward, as compared to what the Air Force actually asked for in their own studies. Somehow in this convoluted process of trying to decide which product to buy, they overlooked the fact that the Air Force said this is what we wanted, an integrated production line. We didn't want a multi- facility operation in multi-countries. We wanted it all to happen in one place, where we could keep track of the product and the quality. And yet when it came time to risk, they gave an equal amount of risk to both companies. It just doesn't make any sense. The other point that the gentleman from Washington made that I would like to add to is what is the net cost to taxpayers? There are some things that the Air Force follows in their Federal acquisition regulations as part of their cost evaluation process, but there are some things they don't consider. For example, they didn't consider outsourcing our national security. They are just based on their rules and regulations. They look at cost and their key performance characteristics, et cetera. But if you look at other things that need to be taken into consideration in Congress, like how do we secure the national defense industry, the defense base, well, we have to take these things into consideration. If you look at the $35 billion contract and say what is the real net cost to the taxpayers, the $35 billion contract we know is what was awarded. But if you looked at the fuel savings that was pointed out by the gentleman from Washington, the KC-767 is 24 percent more fuel efficient, and that saves taxpayers $30 over the life of this program. So you take your $35 billion contract and you have to subtract that from the Boeing bid. So what is the net cost to taxpayers? It is $5 billion. Then you take the comparison of American jobs versus French jobs. One thing unique about French jobs is they don't pay any American income taxes, but American workers do. So you take the 19,000 lost aerospace jobs in America and say what would they have paid the Federal Government over the life of this program in the form of income taxes? Well, 19,000 workers, which is the difference between the two proposals, times about $11,000 a year, which is the average that an aerospace worker pays in federal income taxes, and you take that over the life of this program, it comes out to $8 billion. So you have got $35 billion. You take away $30 billion worth of savings on the fuel and you get down to a $5 billion net cost to the taxpayer. Then you add back what you would get from the lost American jobs paying taxes if they were employed with the American contract than they would have gotten to pay these taxes. That is $8 billion. So the net cost is actually a $3 billion advantage. In other words, if we would have issued this to a American company with American workers paying American Federal income taxes, and you take into consideration the fuel savings, it would have actually brought in $3 billion more in revenue in the net cost to the taxpayer than what it had under the circumstances that they had given it to the foreign supplier. Then you look at the lost revenue from corporate tax by having 90 percent of this airplane built in France instead of built in America, and you get another $1 billion. So what is the true cost to the taxpayers? It is positive $4 billion for the American company employing American workers to make an American tanker, versus $74 billion if you add all these costs up to the foreign supplier using foreign manufacturing workers. So what would you do if you were a taxpayer? For me, a $74 billion cost or a $4 billion savings, I would take the $4 billion savings, and that says we buy an American tanker made by an American company with American workers. So this decision doesn't make sense just on the net cost to taxpayers, let alone all these other things that we are talking about.

Mr. TIAHRT. Another thing Congress must consider in this whole scenario is, looking back over history and saying, when we do have a difference of opinion between our European allies and our own country and we employ our young men and women to carry out the will of this country, will our foreign suppliers be there to supply us in our time of need? During the Gulf War, we had allies that disagreed with what we were doing and they failed to supply the parts that we needed to keep our young men and women safe while they carried out the will of this Nation so they could come home safely to their families. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, again, our European allies failed to support us when, in our time of need and through great diplomatic strains and a lot of harsh words, finally we were able to find suppliers that were going to give us the parts that we needed so that our young men and women could carry out the will of this country and come home safely to their families. Once again, in this system, it is a single point of failure system. It is a system that, if it is down, everything does not function. We cannot transport aircraft from the East Coast to the West Coast for our military without tankers. We cannot supply our troops or carry our troops anywhere outside the continental United States without aerial refueling tankers. If we are going to respond to a natural disaster like the tsunami in southeast Asia, we have to have air refueling tankers. So, we cannot have such a critical item that is so vulnerable to our foreign suppliers when they may disagree with us politically and withhold the parts we need to have this very critical, single point of failure weapons system. So if you look at our ability to protect our families, like my chart has here, it is an immeasurable cost. What is the dollar value when we have to protect our families and our military doesn't have the supplies they need to carry out that task? What about the loss of defense workers? That is another immeasurable cost. Once we lose part of our national defense industry base, it is gone apparently forever. For example, if this contract goes through, never again in America will we rebuild an air refueling tanker. I can give you the technical reasons why, but basically aircraft are built on an improvement curve. And the thought of an improvement curve is a theory, which is reality, is that the second unit costs less time to build than the first unit; the fourth unit costs less time than the second unit; and the eighth unit costs less time than the fourth unit, and on down. Every time it doubles, there is less time to build that next aircraft. After you build 179 aircraft, like in this air refueling tanker contract, you are bidding for the follow-on procurement at unit 180. In other words, you are 180 units down the improvement curve. It is a lot cheaper than if you are building the first unit. An American manufacturer bidding on the follow-on contract would have to bid a number one unit. They cannot keep up, once again, with our foreign suppliers because they are bidding a number one unit and our foreign would be bidding the 180th unit. So we never again will build air refueling tankers here in America if this contract goes forward. And what does that do? It is a loss to defense workers; it compromises our ability to protect our families; and, it is a loss of defense manufacturing capability. Those are things that are immeasurable in cost, but it is something that Congress must consider when we vote on whether this contract should go forward or not.

Mr. TIAHRT. If you look at all the data involved, from the employment of illegal subsidies that you pointed out so clearly and how our United States trade representative is taking the European companies to task for these illegal subsidies, when you take into consideration the lost tax revenue, when you consider the costly one-sided regulations that are granted by our own Department of Defense and the loss of our industrial base and the loss of our national security, this is a bad decision, and it appears that the Air Force had to bend over backwards to give this work to the French company EADS. And it is heartbreaking in one sense, outrageous in another. But, for me, it came in the form of outrage. I know that one of the Senators from Washington State has set up a Web site where you can fill out a survey. I know, on my own Web site at www.house.gov/tiarht, you can get on my Web site and fill out a survey about your feelings on us outsourcing our national security to the French. It is I think a bad decision. It is one that needs to be reviewed by Congress. I am hopeful that the Government Accountability Office will look at these inequities, these disparities, this unlevel playing field, and correct this before we have to take action on the floor of the House. But I think it is clear from the people that we have spoken with here in the 42 States that have lost workers because of this contract going awry, that there will be something happening on this contract this year, either through the Government Accountability Office or through actions of the Congress, because it is too outrageous to allow our national security to be outsourced to the French.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 119, I was unavoidably delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I was very excited to be part of this ethics task force. And led by the able leadership of Chairman Mike Capuano and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, I was very hopeful that we could work in a bipartisan fashion to come up with a good, solid ethics bill. We held over 30 hearings. We worked very hard. And I believed we were on track until about last August. And sometime during last August, the outside special interest groups got to the Democrat leadership, and this whole effort was derailed. And what came out of this was terrible and I will just give you one specific example. This whole thing puts all of us in a vulnerable situation, but in this one specific instance there are six members appointed to the Office of Congressional Ethics, the OCE, and there are supposed to be joint appointments with the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader. But there is a caveat. If you cannot get an agreement, and just hold off for 90 days and get your respective appointee in this position as one of the six members of the OCE. Now, why should we be concerned that this was hijacked by the outside groups? These outside special interest groups exist to chastise and press charges against Members of Congress. That's how they raise their money. That's why they exist. And they're on both sides of the political spectrum; so all of us are vulnerable. These groups take sides in political battles, and use any scrap of evidence they can find to try to press charges against Members of Congress. In fact, if you have ever amended your FEC report, there are examples of how they've used that as alleged unethical charges against Members of Congress. And nothing disqualifies these members of outside groups from sitting on the OCE as one of six members. So we're all vulnerable by these politically motivated people being incorporated into this whole process to make sure that all of us have a chance to face charges, whether justified or not. Now, just think of your worst critic. They're out there in the blogs. They're in the call-in for your newspapers. These are the types of folks that you will be confronted with if we allow these outside groups to inject themselves in this process. And how will you respond? Well, the first thing you will have to do is go out and hire a lawyer, and those lawyers are about $1,000 an hour; and a minimum investigation, even when you're innocent, is going to a quarter of a million dollars. Now, some people don't mind that. Some have plenty of money to burn. But I think a majority of Members here in this Congress realize that even a false charge can bankrupt them and force them into a position where they have no financial substance. That will happen in this ethics bill. This is just the tip of the iceberg of how this process got hijacked and how this ethics bill is not fair to Members of Congress. It's unconstitutional. And I think this rule ought to be defeated. And if you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you will vote ``no'' for this rule and vote ``no'' against this unconstitutional bill. Mr. Speaker, rise today with reluctance and regret that I am unable to support the House rule change before us today. Exactly 12 months ago I was both honored and excited to receive the appointment from my leader to serve on the Speaker's Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement. At the time, like my Republican colleagues, I was excited about the possibility of forging together a bipartisan piece of legislation that would address the fundamental issues that are currently plaguing our ethics system in Congress. Under the capable and civil leadership of Chairman Mike Capuano and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, I was hopeful of what we could achieve. For the past 13 years I have observed the House ethics process and came to the conclusion early on that our system was not transparent enough, not efficient enough, and simply not effective. In a word, our system was broken. Sadly, today, I am forced to accept that the Speaker's Task Force has failed its mission and has produced a partisan, undemocratic, and unconstitutional bill that I am convinced will only compound our current problems--and further frustrate the wishes of the American people for this House to clean up its act. While the Democrat proposal is flawed in several substantial ways, its biggest and most glaring failure is that it turns a democratic ethics process into an undemocratic and partisan one where justice can be easily denied. Under the proposal before us today, an investigation can he initiated by the action of only two of the six members of the new independent Office of Congressional Ethics, OCE. The legislation also mandates that names of the two members remain secret and kept from the American public and the accused Member of Congress. An earlier version of this legislation required a majority vote of the new committee before proceeding to a second-phase review of the pending matter. However, under the version we are debating today, a full-fledged review and investigation may occur without a majority vote of the OCE. This proposal jettisons the basic and fundamental right of democracy and fair play. Mr. Speaker, in addition to being undemocratic, this proposal also contains several provisions which are most likely unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The most egregious provision is the creation of the OCE. In its 200+ years of existence, Congress has never seriously contemplated handing over one of its most important responsibilities-- that of regulating and disciplining its own Members--to an outside entity that is unaccountable to the American people unlike elected Members of Congress. The legislation before us today would do just that. However, instead of abdicating our constitutional responsibility as specified in article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution, I propose that our task force goes back to work--and finds a solution which bridges our partisan differences while adhering to our constitutional obligations. Our Ethics Committee is broken--so why not focus on and fix the problem instead of creating a whole new set of problems that will only serve to further undermine our ethics process? If Members of Congress are truly interested in repairing our ethics process--if Members of Congress are truly committed to restoring honor and integrity to this House--it's essential that we come together in a bipartisan spirit and develop a package that both sides can agree upon and support. Unfortunately, today's legislation falls way short of hitting that mark. Mr. Speaker, in addition to abolishing basic rights of democracy and fair play--this proposal promises to undermine ongoing Ethic's Committee investigations and will likely impede Department of Justice investigations. In just one example, this legislation imposes an unreasonable period of time to investigate unethical conduct. Quick and incomplete investigations can lead to unjust results-- including charging the innocent and letting the guilty off free. It's imperative that our processes of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior supports and complements the House Ethic's Committee-- regrettably, this bill will only undermine its ability to do its job. On September 26, 2007, David H. Laufman, a former Investigative Counsel for the House Ethics Committee from 1996-2000 and a former federal prosecutor opined the following in Roll Call: ``[T]he creation of an outside ethics panel will not solve the core problems that currently afflict the House. Real ethics reform in the House begins with willingness on the part of both party leaderships to refrain from political intervention in the ethics process and give the ethics committee the independent, professional resources it needs to do its work. . . . Creating an outside panel, moreover, would simply create another layer of ethics bureaucracy that further slows down a process already characterized by sluggishness.'' At this time I would like to submit Mr. Laufman's entire Op-Ed into the Record. Mr. Speaker, instead of maintaining and fostering the cause of justice and ethical behavior in Congress, this piece of legislation may actually thwart the efforts of the Ethics Committee and Justice Department to investigate unethical behavior and punish Members appropriately. Again, if the Ethics Committee is broken lets fix or replace it--but why in the world would we want to ignore the problem by creating an additional layer of legislative redtape--which will only serve to work against the purposes of the Ethics Committee--instead of enhancing its ability to get its job done fairly and expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, it was an honor to serve on this Task Force and work with my 7 distinguished colleagues. Over the past 12 months I participated in over 30 hearings, listening to testimony from a wide variety of interests on this important matter before us today. While various organizations expressed their support for the concept of creating an independent body--and their endorsements have been promoted today in this debate--it would be unfair to not recognize that several witnesses expressed their misgivings and concerns with the direction this legislation would take the House ethics process. Witnesses I suggest were more qualified then others to testify to the pros and cons of creating a new independent body. Last March the task force met in private with former Congressmen Bob Livingston, R-LA, and Louis Stokes, D-OH, regarding their experiences from serving as cochairs of the last House Ethics Task Force in 1997. Both men had served on the House Ethics Committee and were highly esteemed by their colleagues. Congressman Stokes was a former chairman of the House Ethics Committee and shared the following statement with our task force members: I strongly believe the current Ethics Committee structure should be preserved. I think Congress has a constitutional obligation to police its members. The mechanism exists to hire outside counsel whenever necessary, as the Committee did in the Abscam cases and also in the sex and drug investigations. In both cases the House received accolades for its work. A dangerous aspect of investigations by either a House Committee or an outside panel is interference with Justice Department investigations. At this time I would like to submit Mr. Stokes entire written statement into the Record. Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise one additional point that warrants discussion. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, I believe it is important that this House give serious consideration to providing attorney's fees for Members of Congress that may become the subject of an OCE or Ethics Committee review in the future--but are subsequently cleared of any baseless charges. Under the OCE structure set up in this rule, it will be very easy for any two members to initiate an investigation--for any reason--without any real evidence--which in turn will force any discerning Member to hire a DC attorney to make sure their rights are protected and their name is not damaged in the process. Colleagues do not be fooled--this will become inevitable if this rule is enacted today. I want to thank Chairman Capuano for highlighting the issue of attorney's fees in his Report and also commend him again for his leadership and hard work with the task force. While I am unable to support its outcome today, I know that every member of the task force is sincere in their desire and efforts to help fix what's wrong with our current ethics process. Unfortunately, today's rule change falls way short of our goal. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge that we started out on a great glide path of bipartisanship--but eventually the Democrat leadership was influenced by various outside organizations that refused to accept any compromise that involved maintaining the current democratic rules of justice and fair play. For example, the task force members--both Democrat and Republican--had agreed in principal to allow outside entities the right to submit ethics complaints to the OCE. In fact, this provision was requested by these various organizations and highly promoted as a vehicle to bring much needed credibility to the current ethics process. And, while I had some reservations about it I was willing to support this provision. Unfortunately, these same organizations were not willing to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and transparency they wished to impose upon Members of Congress--namely the disclosure of their largest donors who may or may not have an ax to grind with a Member of Congress. One official quoted in an article on the issue stated: ``you can. imagine how upsetting this [provision] is to the donor community.'' Indeed. And that was the end of that. In closing Mr. Speaker, let me also thank Ranking Member Lamar Smith for his leadership, experience, expertise, and tireless efforts that he brought to this important effort. Let me also thank the capable staff that assisted us throughout this process, including: Paul Taylor, Chief Republican Counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution; Ed Cassidy, Senior Advisor and Floor Assistant to the Republican Leader, and my Chief of Staff, Jeff Kahrs. Before I end I can't help but note the irony in spending well over 100 hours of my time hearing testimony and discussing the significant ramifications of each provision within this legislation--the most sweeping ethics legislation in over 10 years--and the Democrat leadership decision to bring this bill to the floor--under the cover of darkness--and under a closed partisan rule which only allows 30 minutes of debate on each side--that's less than 30 seconds for each Member of this House to be heard on this topic. Mr. Speaker, I hope that Members will not be fooled by the lack of an open and full debate on this important issue. I strongly oppose this rule change and respectfully urge all Members--Democrats and Republicans--to reject this proposal. It's time for the Ethics Task Force to get back to work and find a bipartisan solution to our failed ethics process that is supported by a majority of both Republican and Democrat Members. Anything less then a bipartisan solution will result in partisan failure. [From Roll Call, Sept. 26, 2007] Outside Panel Won't Resolve Core Ethics Problems (By David H. Laufman) Now that President Bush has signed into law S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, it is fair to ask what sort of enforcement regime for the new rules Members of Congress can expect from the Senate Ethics Committee and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also known as the House ethics committee. As in so much of life, the answer is: It depends. The Senate Ethics Committee has long functioned quietly and methodically to evaluate ethics complaints and allegations of misconduct in a professional, nonpartisan manner. That track record reflects the relative collegiality of the Senate and the inclination of the respective party leaderships to leave ethics matters ``to the professionals'' for sorting out. There is every reason to expect that the Senate committee will bring the same balanced enforcement to the new rules that has characterized its operations in the past. The House ethics committee, however, is a different matter. Although the committee has undertaken some tough investigations in recent years--most notably, its inquiries regarding former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and former Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.)--it has been cleaved by partisan turmoil and deadlock for much of the period since the conclusion of the cases against former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1997. The nadir of this devolution occurred in 2005, when two seasoned attorneys on the committee's nonpartisan staff were fired in apparent retribution for their work on the DeLay investigation, and two committee members believed to be ``politically unreliable'' by their party leadership were summarily jettisoned. Now, there is potential for even further disequilibrium in the House ethics process. At issue is the pending determination by the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement as to whether an outside panel should be established to conduct preliminary review of ethics complaints and make recommendations to the House ethics committee on whether investigative action should be undertaken. As a former investigative counsel to the House ethics committee who investigated both Democrats and Republicans-- and as a former federal prosecutor--I fully appreciate the importance of conducting thorough, independent investigations. I also appreciate that the establishment of an outside ethics panel might enhance public confidence in the integrity of the House ethics process. But the creation of an outside ethics panel will not solve the core problems that currently affect the House. Real ethics reform in the House begins with a willingness on the part of both party leaderships to refrain from political intervention in the ethics process and give the ethics committee the independent, professional resources it needs to do its work. All the new ethics laws and rules in the world will amount to nothing unless the party leadership on both sides refrain from politicizing the ethics process, the committee members ultimately charged with implementing them are committed to consistent, nonpartisan enforcement, and committee members do not have to worry about retaliation from their party leadership or fellow members. Establishing an outside ethics panel also would constitute a historic abdication of the House's constitutional responsibility for self-regulation. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that ``Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' Although the drafters of the Constitution chose the permissive ``may'' rather than ``shall,'' it is clear that they intended to create a system of peer review where Members of Congress shoulder the responsibility for weighing allegations of other Members' misconduct. The establishment of an outside panel to evaluate ethics complaints would be an unprecedented deviation from more than 200 years of self-regulation. Moreover, it would be tantamount to an admission that the House is now unable to fully govern itself and needs protection against its own improper impulses. Nor, if established, would an outside panel likely improve the House ethics process. First, none of the publicly reported proposals under consideration to establish an outside panel divests the House ethics committee of ultimate decision-making discretion as to whether ethics violations occurred or what sanctions to impose if a violation is found. Creating an outside panel, moreover, would simply create another layer of ethics bureaucracy that further slows down a process already characterized by sluggishness. Second, making informed assessments of allegations of misconduct requires more than the mere application of law or rules to facts: It also requires a nuanced understanding of the institutional context in which the alleged misconduct occurred. Arguably, the need for such a nuanced understanding is particularly great in the case of a political institution that has its own unique cultural attributes. It is possible that retired Members of Congress could bring the necessary perspective to bear if appointed to an outside ethics panel. It is less likely that retired jurists, academicians or individuals from other professions would be equally capable of making the necessary contextual judgments. That the committee would retain autonomy to reject the recommendations of an outside panel ignores political realities surrounding ethics scandals. If, for example, the outside panel recommended that the committee initiate an investigation--a recommendation that almost certainly would become publicly known--the pressure on the committee from interest groups and the news media to accept the panel's recommendation would be formidable. Clause 1 of House Rule 23, which comprises the Code of Official Conduct, states that ``A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.'' The special task force would bring credit on the House by rejecting the idea of an outside ethics panel and recommitting the House to ethics enforcement marked by bipartisanship and consensus.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 105-107, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 105, ``no'' on rollcall 106, and ``nay'' on rollcall 107. Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Kuhl of New York

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged tonight that we are outsourcing our national security. Today, in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, we heard testimony that the Department of Defense has modified the Buy American Act with a memorandum of understanding that exempts our allies in Europe from the same requirements we demand of U.S. manufacturers. The results are that in the last three major contracts, we've lost them all to European manufacturers. Marine One, the replacement of the President's helicopter, went to a foreign manufacturer. The Light Utility Helicopter went to a foreign manufacturer. Last Friday, the Air Force announced that we are going to send the air refueling tanker to a foreign manufacturer. Today, in testimony on the other side of the Capitol, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said in a subcommittee that, according to the news, the European-made A330 airframe selected for the new refueling airplane could be used to replace a fleet of air control surveillance and other special mission aircraft. That would mean 200 more aircraft and 40,000 more jobs going to Europe overseas. Mr. Speaker, we've got to stop this today. Rebid the tanker contract because we need American tankers made by American companies with American workers.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we should all be deeply troubled by last week's decision by the Air Force to choose a French-built air refueling tanker. The European Aeronautics Defense and Space Team, known as EADS, found a front American company, Northrup Grumman, to bid their foreign-built tanker. When the Air Force chose this French tanker, they chose to outsource our national security and to send American jobs overseas. This contract award has rightly created outrage all across the United States. It is just another example, and perhaps the best example, of how our own government is putting the United States at an economic disadvantage. At a time of economic insecurity, it is mind-boggling that the Department of Defense would send at a minimum 19,000 jobs overseas. We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. Instead, the Air Force awarded this contract for a French tanker built by Europeans. How could this happen? Well, first, the Department of Defense has created an unlevel playing field that favored foreign companies. We should have known something was wrong when the replacement for Marine I, the President's helicopter, was awarded to a European company. If that wasn't enough, we should have known it was fixed in favor of foreign companies when the Army awarded a French company the contract to build the light utility helicopter. The light utility helicopter is for domestic use here in America, awarded to a French company. And, now, the third big contract in a row goes to a French company to build a French tanker. First it was the Presidential helicopter went to a foreign company, then it was the light utility helicopter went to a foreign company, and now our air-refueling tanker. We need an American tanker built by American companies with American workers. The Air Force rules do not consider the loss of American jobs. The Air Force rules do not consider illegal subsidies given to foreign companies. The Air Force rules do not consider that NATO allies, the French company, do not have to comply with the same American regulations as American contractors do. The Air Force does not consider the loss of Federal revenue, because French workers do not pay American taxes. But the Air Force will have to consider the outrage of outsourcing our national defense. The Air Force will have to consider that we need an American tanker built by American companies with American workers. To help the Department of Defense and the Air Force understand this nationwide outrage, I have set up an online petition that all Americans can participate in. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to go to the Web site, www.House.gov/Tiahrt, and sign a petition expressing their own outrage at outsourcing our national security and outsourcing American jobs. We need an American tanker built by an American company with American workers.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill, and 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 do to protect Americans. We do not need another delay of much needed FISA improvements. The Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive FISA bill 68-29. That is the bill that we should be voting on today, and not this temporary extension. It is not the bill that I would have written, but it does give our intelligence community many important tools they need to protect our Nation. Instead of taking up a perfectly good, well- thought-out bill, we have another delay tactic by the House Democratic leadership that insists on catering to special interest groups like the trial lawyers and the hard left of the Democrat Party. Mr. Speaker, we have had leaks in the way we collect information on individuals through electronic conversation; we have had leaks about how we collect e-mails on terrorist Web sites; we have had leaks that have caused our allies in Europe to no longer cooperate when it comes to tracking terrorist financing. Instead of prioritizing arguably the most important security issue, the majority party has delayed and failed to focus on how we can help the community in the 21st century against enemies who utilize the latest technology against our country. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have been very disturbed this past year to see the anger against our President cloud the judgments of its members. In an effort to embarrass the President, they have weakened our intelligence gathering capabilities and caused long-term damage to the security of this Nation. We do not monitor phone conversations like we should, we do not monitor e-mails like we should, or finances like we should. And the enemy knows it. It is time for us to strengthen and not weaken the terrorist surveillance program. Enough is enough. We all know that if we simply pass an extension for 21 days, it doesn't solve the problem. It is time for us to stand up and force the Democrat leadership of this House to do their job and bring the FISA modernization bill before this body, the one that was passed by the Senate by a wide margin, so that the intelligence community can have every tool at its disposal to protect the United States. The Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, the man in charge of overseeing the intelligence community, has repeatedly told us of the urgency to modernize the FISA law. He said, ``We must urgently close the gap in our current ability to effectively collect foreign intelligence. The current FISA law does not allow us to be effective. Modernizing this law is essential for the intelligence community to be able to provide warning of threats to this country.'' Mr. Speaker, what the Senate passed does exactly what Mr. McConnell talked about. We should bring that vote to the floor and vote it up or down.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas for their assistance in helping me with this very fine piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, last summer, one of my constituents, Randy Cabral, president of the Kansas Braille Transcript Institute, e-mailed me with an idea, to place an American Braille flag at Arlington National Cemetery. Today, we see the fruition of one man's idea. Prior to the creation of the American Braille flag, the American flag was not accessible to the blind. This flag was created by the Kansas Braille Transcript Institute in Wichita, Kansas. As you can see on this poster to my left, the flag has been specially designed in a way that informs the blind of the full color of the American flag, the 13 stripes and the 50 stars on a blue field. Additionally, this tactile flag bears the Pledge of Allegiance, both in raised print and in grade one Braille. Few know that our Nation has more than 1 million 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 to 12 million Americans are blind or of low vision. The American Braille Flag Memorial Act authorizes the placement of an American Braille flag at Arlington National Cemetery, a national place of remembrance and honor for our Nation's veterans. The cemetery is visited by an estimated 4 million people annually. The American Braille Flag Memorial will bring honor to our Nation's blind community and allow our blind veterans to see the American flag again. In order to ensure that this effort will enhance and not detract from the cemetery, I have worked with the superintendent of the Arlington National Cemetery, John Metzler. Mr. Metzler believes that a 15-inch by 17-inch bronze replica of the American Braille flag would be a wonderful addition to the visitors center at the cemetery. This is a unique bronze replica, and, as such, this new drawing and special casting had to be commissioned. The drawings for the bronze replica were completed by Kevin West, a student at Wichita Area Technical College. Kevin is a specialist in the Kansas Army National Guard. He is also a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He served in the 778th Combat Heavy Equipment Transport Group, or HET, out of Kansas City, Kansas, as both a convoy security and a HET operator. Let me take this moment to thank Kevin for his service to the Nation. The actual bronze flag memorial will be cast free of charge by the Truxes Company of Oswego, Illinois. The Truxes Company was founded by another American hero, Mr. Bill Truxes. Mr. Truxes joined the Army Air Corps during World War II and served as a B-24 pilot. While serving in World War II, he was shot down during the Battle of the Bulge and became a POW in Germany in 1944. He was liberated at the end of the war. I greatly appreciate Mr. Truxes' patriotism and generosity in agreeing to donate the bronze casting, and I also want to thank him for his service. With Mr. West and Mr. Truxes both donating their service, and the Kansas Braille Transcription Institute donating the transportation, this entire project will be provided to the government free of charge. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 16 cosponsors and the Blind Veterans of America for their endorsement and support of this effort. But more importantly, I want to thank those who served this Nation. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our veterans, and this simple action will mean much more to our patriotic blind veterans. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting this effort and placing the Braille flag at Arlington National Cemetery.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for carrying this bill and also the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding to me and for the great job he's doing here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I am also honored to have to carry this bill. And, today, Congress has the honor to approve the bill, naming the post office in Derby, Kansas, after a true American hero, SGT Jamie O'Dell Maugans. Sergeant Maugans was the first casualty of the global war on terror from the 4th District of Kansas, a district that has experienced 12 casualties in this war. A Derby native, Sergeant Maugans graduated from Derby High School and attended Cowley County Community College and the University of Kansas before joining the Army. When the terrorists attacked our Nation on September 11, 2001, Jamie was serving as an ordnance disposal specialist stationed in San Diego, California. Shortly after those attacks, he was deployed in Afghanistan in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom. On April 15, 2002, while disposing of ordnance near Kandahar, Afghanistan, Sergeant Maugans was killed. The explosion also took the lives of three other soldiers, including fellow Kansan, SSG Justin Galewski from Olathe. Jamie was only 27 years old. Sergeant Maugans left behind a loving family and friends in Kansas. I know his mother, Kathy Wurdeman, and his father, Bryce Maugans, his step-mother, Mary Maugans, and his brother and four sisters are very proud of Jamie and his service to this country. I am honored to have worked with the Maugans family and the Derby community on this effort. Although this bill names the Derby Post Office building after Sergeant Maugans, this endeavor is not only a way to honor Jamie, but a way to honor all those from Kansas who have died in defense of this Nation from radical Muslims. As the first casualty from my district, Jamie's life and memory are a representation of all those who have lost their lives in the global war on terror. I hope this effort will be a reminder to everyone in south central Kansas of the sacrifice that so many veterans have made for our country and our freedoms. Let me take just a few moments to read the names of all those from the 4th District of Kansas who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so that their sacrifice is honored: SGT Jerry W. Mills, Jr., from Arkansas City, Kansas, died on November 29, 2005. SGT Evan S. Parker, also from Arkansas City, died on October 26, 2005. SGT Alexander J. Funcheon from Bel Aire died on April 29, 2007. PFC Class Ryan R. Cox from Derby died on June 15, 2001. SPC Joseph F. Herndon II, also from Derby, died on July 29, 2004. SPC Dustin K. McGaugh from Derby died on September 30, 2001. SGT Willsun Mock from Harper died on October 22, 2006. SPC Eric C. Palmer from Maize died on June 24, 2007. SSG David R. Berry from Wichita died on February 22, 2007. PFC Chad E. Marsh from Wichita died on February 17, 2007. And 1SG Timmy J. Millsap from Wichita died on April 25, 2005. In addition, at this time I will submit a statement for the Record and include all the names of Kansans who have died in the global war on terror. Mr. Speaker, below are the names of the fallen heroes from Kansas who have died in the global war on terror. These brave men paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to a grateful Nation. Although we are naming the post office after one of their comrades, I hope this effort honors all those who have died in defense of America. Staff Sergeant Clinton Lee Wisdom from Atchison died on November 8, 2004. 2nd Lieutenant James Michael Goins from Bonner Springs died on August 15, 2004. Lance Corporal Brian A. Escalante from Dodge City died on February 17, 2007. Private 1st Class Shane R. Austin from Edgerton died on October 8, 2006. Staff Sergeant Dustin W. Peters from El Dorado died on June 11, 2004. Corporal Juan C. Cabralbanuelos from Emporia died on January 31, 2004. Sergeant Christopher R. Kruse from Emporia died on November 13, 2007. Specialist David J. Lane from Emporia died on September 4, 2007. Sergeant 1st Class Travis S. Bachman from Garden City died on August 1, 2007. Specialist Clinton R. Upchurch from Garden City died on January 7, 2007. Corporal Richard A. Bennett from Girard died on May 27, 2006. Sergeant William W. Crow Jr. from Grandview Plaza died on June 28, 2007. Sergeant Jessie Davila from Greensburg died on February 20, 2006. Specialist John Edward Wood from Humboldt died on October 7, 2006. Sergeant Christopher S. Perez from Hutchinson died on May 23, 2005. Sergeant Courtney D. Finch from Leavenworth died on July 24, 2007. Corporal David M. Unger from Leavenworth died on October 17, 2006. Lance Corporal Jose S. Marin-Dominguez Jr. from Liberal died on May 14, 2006. Staff Sergeant Henry W. Linck from Manhattan died on December 7, 2006. Lance Corporal Christopher B. Wasser from Ottawa died on April 8, 2004. Staff Sergeant Kevin L. Zeigler from Overland Park died on August 12, 2006. Private 1st Class Peter D. Wagler from Partridge died on January 23, 2006. Specialist Joseph L. Lister from Pleasanton died on November 20, 2003. Sergeant Ian C. Anderson from Prairie Village died on January 15, 2007. Corporal Michael Raymond Speer from Redfield died on April 9, 2004. Private Dustin L. Kreider from Riverton died on March 21, 2004. Specialist Lucas A. Frantz from Tonganoxie died on October 18, 2005. Private Jeremy L. Drexler from Topeka died on May 2, 2004. Specialist Kyle G. Thomas from Topeka died on September 25, 2003. Specialist Don Allen Clary from Troy died on November 8, 2004. Sergeant Jacob Lee Butler from Wellsville died on April 1, 2003. Specialist Michael D. Brown from Williamsburg died on October 16, 2007. Sergeant Benjamin C. Morton from Wright died on May 22, 2005. Staff Sergeant Justin J. Galewski from Olathe died on April 15, 2002. Sergeant Michael C. Barry from Overland Park died on February 1, 2003. Specialist David E. Hall from Union Town died on February 25, 2004. Corporal Jeremiah S. Cole from Hiawatha died on August 16, 2006. Sergeant 1st Class Bernard Lee Deghand from Mayetta died on September 15, 2006. Sergeant Charles J. McClain from Fort Riley died on October 31, 2006. Sergeant Jeffery S. Mersman from Parker died on November 9, 2007. Sergeant Jerry W. Mills, Jr., from Arkansas City died on November 29, 2005. Sergeant Evan S. Parker from Arkansas City died on October 26, 2005. Sergeant Alexander J. Funcheon from Bel Aire died on April 29, 2007. Private 1st Class Ryan R. Cox from Derby died on June 15, 2003. Specialist Joseph F. Herndon II from Derby died on July 29, 2004. Specialist Dustin K. McGaugh from Derby died on September 30, 2003. Sergeant Willsun Mock from Harper died on October 22, 2006. Specialist Eric C. Palmer from Maize died on June 24, 2007. Staff Sergeant David R. Berry from Wichita died on February 22, 2007. Private 1st Class Chad E. Marsh from Wichita died on February 17, 2007. 1st Sergeant Timmy J. Millsap from Wichita died on April 25, 2005. Mr. Speaker, by naming this post office building the Jamie O. Maugans Post Office, I hope that everyone in south central Kansas will come to know and remember this young man and his sacrifice. Furthermore, I hope that we can all recommit ourselves to honor those who have fallen in battle in defense of this Nation. I ask my colleagues to support this important effort.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. This bill takes significant steps to make the dream of a college education a reality for America's young people, and I am very pleased that we are considering it today. H.R. 4137 addresses a number of aspects of higher education, but there are two provisions in particular that I would like to commend. First, I am pleased with the inclusion of section 706, which establishes grants for urban-serving universities. Our cities are facing unique challenges that require solutions that are tailored to their needs. Urban secondary schools have higher dropout rates and lower test scores than their suburban and rural counterparts. Urban schools struggle to recruit and retain teachers, especially in areas like mathematics and science. A larger proportion of urban populations are uninsured or under-insured. Urban research universities, like Wichita State University in my district, are well positioned and equipped to find real, meaningful solutions to these issues. They are uniquely qualified to train teachers for urban classrooms. They are able to use their strategic location to develop community-academic partnerships to develop effective treatments for diseases in urban populations, and rectify health disparities in their communities. The magnitude of these issues requires an investment by the Federal Government to encourage urban universities to coordinate, evaluate, and disseminate solutions to key urban problems related to education, community revitalization, and health and quality of life. The grant programs in section 706 are a solid first step towards this end. Secondly, I am pleased with the promotion of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, STEM, fields. Success in these fields is critical to the continued economic dominance that the United States currently enjoys. The United States has the No. 1 economy in the world. For almost two centuries, we have been the envy of the world--a dynamic economy, a hardworking, motivated workforce, truly the land of opportunity where innovation has thrived. That status is changing, however. While our education system is languishing, especially in STEM fields that are so critical to our continued economic growth, China, India, and other nations are preparing for the future. They are educating their students in math, science, and technology and pumping out record numbers of engineers. Language included in this bill will help American students keep pace with their international counterparts. I urge my colleagues to support these measures in particular, and the underlying bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, today I have the honor to introduce a bill naming the post office in Derby, KS, after a fallen hero, SGT Jamie O'Dell Maugans. Sergeant Maugans was the first casualty of the Global War on Terror from the 4th District of Kansas. A Derby native, Sergeant Maugans graduated from Derby High School and attended the University of Kansas and Cowley County Community College before joining the Army. Sergeant Maugans was an ordnance disposal specialist and stationed in San Diego when our Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. He was deployed to Afghanistan in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom-- Afghanistan. On April 15th, 2002, while disposing of ordnances near Kandahar, Afghanistan, Sergeant Maugans was killed along with three others, including fellow Kansan SSG Justin Galewski, from Olathe. He was only 27 years old. Sergeant Jamie Maugans' family, including his mother Kathy Wurdeman, his father Bryce Maugans and stepmother, Mary Maugans, his brother and four sisters, are very proud of him. His commitment to family, friends and country are well known. By naming this post office, I hope that everyone in South Central Kansas will come to know and remember this young man and his sacrifice. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Sergeant Maugans and his fellow servicemen and women. Naming the post office in Derby after Sergeant Jamie Maugans is but a simple way we can honor his memory and the memory of all those who have fallen in battle for the defense of this nation. I ask my colleagues to support this important effort.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Robert F. Riordan, who is retiring after many years of active involvement in the Kansas business community. Bob is set to retire at the end of the year as the head of government relations for Black & Veatch, a leader in energy and water industries, and one of Kansas's largest businesses. Bob is the eldest of Francis Xavier and Elizabeth Parris Riordan's four sons. He was raised in Wichita and Salina, KS. Despite the loss of his father when Bob was only 13 years old, he excelled in academics and sports while at Sacred Heart High School in Salina. At Sacred Heart, he was captain of the basketball team, a member of the 1958 American Legion State Champions, and valedictorian of his class. Upon graduation from Sacred Heart in 1960, he attended the United States Naval Academy. Bob received his commission as an ensign in 1964 upon his graduation from Annapolis. He married Pamela Elizabeth Sutton, and together they have three children and three grandchildren, with two more grandchildren on the way. Bob served his country for 11 years while on active duty as a naval officer. He made numerous deployments to Vietnam and saw much combat. His deployments included serving on the USS Haverfield (DER 393) and the USS New Orleans (LPH-11). While on active duty, he achieved the rank of lieutenant commander, a rank he made as an early selectee. Wanting to spend more time with his family, Bob returned to Kansas after 11 years of service. Bob has always put his family first, and is a loving and caring husband and father. Throughout the years, he made financial and professional sacrifices to make sure that his relationship with his family came first. Bob spent 3 years in Salina, working for Marymount College and the engineering firm of Wilson & Sons. While in Salina, he became interested in our Nation's energy policies and alternative energy. He started his own business for alternative energy in Salina before being appointed to a position with the then Kansas Department of Energy. After leaving his appointment, he moved to Lawrence, KS, and spent several years with the University of Kansas developing various forms of alternative energy. In 1982, Bob began doing government relations work for Kansas Power & Light, and was central to the development of their energy policies. While at Kansas Power & Light, Bob became vice president of operations, and helped to create a successful strategy to bring economically efficient power to Kansas. In 1991, Bob left Kansas Power & Light to help create a fuel-cell company based out of Connecticut. He then came to work with Black & Veatch, starting with a project to build a power plant in Florida. He returned to Kansas in 1994 as head of Black & Veatch's government relations, and has continued in this position to the present day. Throughout his time at Black & Veatch, I have had the opportunity and privilege to work with Bob on a wide range of exciting projects. Throughout his life, Bob has always been a man of integrity, honor, and loyalty. Bob's word is his pledge. More importantly, Bob will do something or take some action simply because it is the right thing to do. Bob never carries a grudge, and he never keeps score of what he has done for others. Through his service to his country, dedication to his career, and devotion to his family and friends, he exemplifies all that is best about Kansans. I would like to wish Bob, and his wife Pam, all the best as they enter this new chapter of their lives.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today to honor a great American. Henry Hyde was a true gentleman and a greatly respected Member of Congress. Many words come to mind when I think of Mr. Hyde: leadership, aggressiveness, determination, dignity. Many sought counsel from him, including me. He was a tremendous orator, with a keen mind and a silver tongue. Members of both parties liked and respected him, because they knew that, regardless of party or ideology, they would be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, Henry Hyde has been criticized in the press for leading the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton, but the most important cause he led was to protect life. His political career was comprehensive, but it is his work to protect and promote the dignity of human life that has had the greatest impact. His efforts in this body are unmatched, and he leaves a profound legacy of challenges met, obstacles overcome, and grace in tumultuous times. He will be deeply missed, and our prayers go out to the entire Hyde family during this difficult time. I join many of my colleagues in praising the life and work of Henry Hyde. The greatest tribute we can give him is to carry on his efforts to acknowledge the worth of every single human being, born and unborn. I encourage members of this body and our constituents to follow Henry's lead and make sure that we honor the value of life.