Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. I wanted to congratulate the gentlewoman on a fine amendment. We have no problems with it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not have any objection to this amendment, and I would commend the chairman on his leadership in this area.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and give recognition to the life and continued service of the honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States District Court judge for the District of Kansas. Since Judge Brown's appointment to the Federal bench by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, Judge Brown has served his beloved State of Kansas and this Nation with great distinction. And after 45 years of service on the bench, Judge Brown continues to serve as a senior judge, coming in each morning and carrying a full caseload. In fact, the Federal courthouse in Wichita could not manage its caseload without Judge Brown's service and his commitment. Prior to his judicial appointment by President Kennedy, Judge Brown managed to work his way through law school by taking classes at night in Kansas City while working during the day assembling model A cars for the Ford Motor Company. After losing his job at Ford during the Great Depression, he served as Reno County Attorney in Kansas and later enlisted in the United States Navy to serve in World War II as a lieutenant, stationed at Commander Philippines Sea Frontier. Today I have the honor of introducing a House resolution which not only recognizes Judge Brown's distinguished service to our Nation as the longest-serving Federal judge in Kansas, but also celebrates his 100th birthday today. Judge Brown, your State of Kansas and this Nation wishes you a very happy birthday today and thanks you for your continuing service.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 476, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I was very pleased to help honor America's fathers by voting for H.R. 2356. This bill amends title 4 of the U.S. Code that governs how and when it is appropriate to fly the flag of the United States. I recently introduced similar legislation in this Congress, and I am pleased to work with other Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to move this idea forward. Prior to 1923, flag etiquette was not established in U.S. law. Handling of the flag was done in accordance with traditions that traced back to service procedures in the Army and Navy. These procedures were codified during the National Flag Conference in 1923. Congress solidified these procedures in a joint resolution in 1942. Contained within this code is a list of holidays on which it is especially appropriate to fly the flag. Independence Day, Memorial Day and Veterans' Day are among the holidays listed. Mother's Day is rightfully on the list of recognized holidays. Unfortunately, Father's Day is not. This idea was actually suggested to me by Mr. Joe Beffer's 8th grade civics class at Roosevelt Middle School in Coffeyville, Kansas. The students had a six week assignment to replicate the legislative process, complete with elected Representatives, Senators, and a President. One young man noticed that our flag code did not recognize Father's Day as a holiday on which it is especially encouraged to fly our Nation's flag. He offered a bill to add Father's Day to the honored holidays and it passed their replica Congress. I was honored when the class passed their idea to me. I am pleased to be a part of this Congress' efforts to help honor the contributions America's fathers continue to make to our strong Nation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, February 5th, the Department of Defense made a request for the resources and flexibility required to successfully prosecute the Global War on Terror. For 3\1/2\ months Congress has failed in this fundamental, constitutional responsibility. Today, I am pleased to finally support H.R. 2206, the FY 2007 Iraq and Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriations bill. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance of unfettered access to resources by our military and the establishment of guiding benchmarks for the new Iraqi government. In addition, I applaud the inclusion of disaster relief funding for Greensburg, Kansas, and an increase in the Federal minimum wage. I want to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for their hard work on this legislation. Putting aside political grandstanding and maneuvering, we have finally come together to produce legislation that provides our soldiers with the funding they need, while providing the flexibility our commanders in Iraq require--showing the commitment of this Congress to success in Iraq and the broader War on Terror. Our Soldiers and Marines are in desperate need of funding for essential procurement items, operations and maintenance, and military paychecks and benefits. Among other things, this legislation will fuel our trucks, feed our soldiers, provide imminent danger pay, and arm them against our nation's enemies. This funding comes without unrealistic and dangerous strings that could have placed lives of our servicemen and women in jeopardy. This Congress is finally showing its commitment to success in the Global War on Terror. We must never forget that this war was started by Muslim extremists and has been waged against the United States and its citizens since the 1970s. However, almost every skirmish and battle prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 found the United States on the defensive and on the losing side. Does this House remember the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983? The U.S. Embassy bombing in Lisbon in 1986? The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996? The bombing of our U.S. Embassies in Africa in 1998? Or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? Our ignorance of these events culminated in the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Each one of these was a battle in this war we now face. I hope this House finally understands we cannot win this war on the defensive. The terrorists took the fight to us for decades; now we must take the fight to the terrorists. I do not want this war. But rest assured--this war will happen regardless of our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. The question is, ``Does this fight happen on the streets of Bagdad or the streets of New York City or Wichita, Kansas?'' We must take the fight to the enemy. We must stay on the offense. Fortunately, this legislation now allows the United States to stay on the offensive in this global struggle. In addition to providing critical funding for our military, this legislation provides $40 million of disaster relief funding for Greensburg, Kansas, which was completely destroyed during a recent tornado. The most devastating natural disaster to strike Kansas in years, Greensburg is a city without schools, businesses, or houses. However, the people of Greensburg have a passion and vision to rebuild their town, and I am pleased that this Congress is committing the resources required to begin that process. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for working with me and the Kansas delegation to include this funding for Greensburg. The tornado took away so much from this community, but it did not take away the Kansan spirit of big dreams and hard work. Greensburg will be rebuilt, and the funding provided here today will help make that happen. Not only do the people of Greensburg receive support in this legislation, but the workers in Wichita and around the country will receive a well-deserved pay raise. I stand in support of raising the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour in conjunction with providing associated tax relief for small businesses. However, when dealing with the minimum wage, it is imperative that small businesses be provided with associated tax relief. When small and family-owned businesses are forced to shoulder increased costs, they have no choice but to hire fewer workers, reduce current worker benefits, and pass along the costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. Therefore, providing associated tax relief will allow the workers we intend to help keep their jobs. I applaud this bill for providing the minimum wage increase with the associated tax relief Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing great challenges from fighting the Global War on Terror to rebuilding communities devastated by natural disasters. By working together in a bipartisan approach, Congress can do the right thing. This Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations bill provides our troops the resources they need, helps rebuild Greensburg, and gives a well-deserved raise to $5.6 million people. For that, I am pleased to offer my support.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to fuel shortages, waiting in long lines to purchase gas, price controls and H.R. 1252. I rise in support of lowering fuel prices for consumers, creating more jobs for Americans, opening new sources of energy and encouraging investment in innovative energy technologies. Today the House will be voting on H.R. 1252, a bill that would impose price controls on free-market energy products and would create hardship on Americans during a national emergency. Guised as a price gouging bill to protect American consumers, H.R. 1252 would actually create hardship for Americans. I do not support price gouging. Taking unfair advantage of consumers, especially during an emergency situation, is wrong. Those who engage in this type of behavior should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Kansans are already protected by state law that prohibits price gouging during a time of disaster. In a free market economy, when supplies become limited or scarce, prices rise to curb demand and help ensure product remains available. When artificial fuel prices are set by the government, demand remains high and supply will not be able to keep pace. Consumers will be faced with gas rationing and standing in long lines. Consumers who need fuel could be faced with gas stations running out of gasoline. There is no question my constituents in Kansas are angered by high fuel prices. We all feel the pain in our wallets. High energy costs effect everyone from families to small businesses to large corporations. However, voting to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to enforce price controls on a free-market energy produce like gasoline will not provide relief at the pump. If anything, it could restrict consumers from purchasing fuel during times when it is needed the most. Returning to a 1970s era where consumers are forced to wait hours in line just to purchase fuel is not a solution. H.R. 1252 does not help lower the cost of fuel for Americans today or long-term. It is not an effective solution to high gas prices. Congress should instead offer real solutions like encouraging more investment in innovative energy technologies, supporting clean and safe access to petroleum resources off our Nation's shores and on public lands, spurring investment in renewable sources of energy, and expanding domestic refining capacity. These are solutions that would help lower energy costs and create American jobs. This week I introduced The Refinery Streamlined Permitting Act of 2007, a bill to help increase America's refining capacity and lower gas prices. My bill streamlines the federal permitting process for new or expanding domestic refineries. It creates a framework for all parties involved to understand what actions need to be carried out for an expeditious permit approval to be granted. And it requires that such actions be completed within one year. My bill will require agencies to give high priority to refinery applications that would result in greater capacity, a cleaner-burning fuel, or a reduction in a refinery's pollution output. And it will require Federal agencies to more carefully examine the impact a proposed rule would have on energy supplies and provide that information to the public. Instead of bringing an artificial price-control bill to the House floor that could lead to gas rationing and long lines, Democrat leaders should instead offer real solutions. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1252 and in support of policies that will lower the cost of gasoline for the American people.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I strongly oppose oil-producing and exporting cartels setting artificial limits on the production of oil. Infamous cartels, such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, have manipulated the supply of oil and helped worldwide gasoline prices soar. This harmful collaboration to limit oil production has led to hardships for the American economy. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders have brought a misguided bill to the House floor this week to supposedly bring an end to cartels such as OPEC. While I support the dismantling of cartels that manipulate oil production, I have serious concerns about negative consequences the United States would face if this bill were enacted. I rise to oppose H.R. 2264 because of the impact it would have on our national security, trade security and energy security. If the United States should bring an antitrust lawsuit against an OPEC member country, restrictions could be placed on our ability to station and activate troops in the Middle East. We rely on cooperation from countries that are members of cartels for assistance in the global war on terror. We should carefully consider what retaliatory actions or restrictions these countries could place on the United States if we were to pursue actions authorized in H.R. 2264. These foreign governments could also levy trade sanctions against American products and businesses or choose to employ another oil embargo like the one that occurred in 1973. By cutting off oil supplies, they could cause gasoline price increases for American consumers. Americans do not want higher gas prices, which is the direction H.R. 2264 could take us. The Democratic leadership should have waited until the Government Accountability Office is able to study the likelihood of retaliatory actions against the United States and any negative impact those actions would yield if H.R. 2264 became law. American security is not something we should treat glibly. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2264. The uncertain impact this bill could have on America's national security, energy security and economic security is not worth risking for hasty passage of a bill that will yield no short-term benefits for the American people.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in sympathy of the citizens of Greensburg, Kansas. On May 4, 2007 a devastating tornado ripped through the community and destroyed 95 percent of the town. Ten lives were lost and 1,500 people were directly affected by this deadly terror. Greensburg was a quiet and charming town surrounded by pasture land lush and fertile. This town was preserved by generations of hardworking people who valued what they had and worked to keep it. In the heartland, people know what it means to be a good neighbor. After this deadly tornado ripped through the community, there were countless examples, of strength, compassion and perseverance, traits we often see in Kansans. As people sifted through the shambles and rumble of what had been, at one time, their homes and personal belongings, wheat trucks and regular old four wheel drive pick-ups from neighboring towns drove in to lend a hand and a shoulder of comfort. It is heartwarming to witness how Kansans have come together in response to the Greensburg tragedy. Mr. Speaker, my heart and prayers go out to all the citizens in Greensburg. Progress is being made and being made daily. They are picking up the pieces of their lives from what was left from this horrible force of nature and are moving forward. The people of Greensburg obviously have tough days ahead, but I know with the resilient spirit they have demonstrated, they are up to the challenge and they will not be alone in overcoming it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 376 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against this rule. There are two provisions in this bill regarding specialty metals that will make a bad situation worse. I offered two amendments to help correct this problem but, unfortunately, the majority did not allow either of the amendments. As a result, the Democrat majority will force high quality union jobs overseas. My amendment would have also addressed the problems with the specialty metals and the country of origin specialty metals problem. Can you believe that today we simply exempt foreign suppliers from the specialty metals provisions. If a product containing specialty metals comes from 18 other countries like France, Germany or Canada, they simply do not have to comply. This provision is a competitive disadvantage for American industry and American workers. And here's how it works today. Caterpillar makes diesel engines for the Army. These are very common, commercially available engines that operate in civilian construction and trucking industry all over the world. This engine is manufactured by American workers in their Greenville, South Carolina plant. But Caterpillar also manufactures the very same engine in Belgium. Because of the world demand, Belgium is also a qualifying country. That means that if Caterpillar makes an engine for the MRAP in South Carolina, they must go through the expensive process of documenting the nation of origin of the specialty metals content of every component in the engine. Or they could simply shift the production to Belgium and avoid the process and save money. This puts American jobs at risk because of this outdated legislation, and this rule denies us the ability to protect American workers in this bill. It's simply unconscionable that we would legislate a competitive disadvantage upon American companies and American workers. And it's even more disheartening that Congress refuses to address the unintended consequences of this decade old problem. DOD should be leveraging the industrial might of the United States to provide the best technology for our soldiers. But we're denied that ability in this rule.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, being the gentleman from Kansas here, I would like to address the mention of the Kansas National Guard. I was in Greensburg, Kansas, where the tornado occurred, four times since it has occurred and on Saturday the day after the tornado occurred, General Tod Bunning, the Adjutant General of Kansas, said he had all the equipment needed to respond to emergencies in Kansas. This was restated by him again on Monday and again Wednesday when the President visited. So the Army National Guard in Kansas has plenty of equipment to respond to emergencies, and to reference that it does not have the equipment would be a mischaracterization of the facts in Kansas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, on February 5, the President sent a request to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to the House. This week, Majority Leader Hoyer said to a C-SPAN audience, the Speaker's plan was to get this supplemental funding to the President by Memorial Day. That means it will take 120 days to fund the President's request. In the meantime, not one penny is going to make its way to the troops. Why? Well, the President has said, in its current form, this bill is going to be vetoed. He will veto this bill because it funds the troops on a contingency basis for only 60 days; 120 days to get the request funded, and then it only funds it for 60 days. It will be vetoed also because Secretary Gates says the Pentagon cannot manage a 60-day appropriations bill. The bureaucracy simply will not move that fast. This bill will also be vetoed because it has too many strings attached. They are attached in the form of benchmarks. And there are more than a dozen of them, 17 to be exact. It will take more than 60 days just to see if the benchmarks have been accomplished. In the 120 days we have spent haggling over this bill that funds the troops for only 60 days, we know it is going to be vetoed. In the meantime, the troops are waiting for the mine-resistant equipment that is funded in this bill to be manufactured and to be sent to Iraq. They are waiting on the equipment that they need. They are waiting on the equipment they need. The majority should withdraw this bill and send back a clean appropriations supplemental bill that funds the troops without the 60-day contingency, without the strings attached so we can meet the needs of our troops. This bill does not do it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Madam Chairman, this bill reduces our human intelligence capabilities. Human intelligence is one of the primary tools used to keep us informed about the plans and intentions of our adversaries. Human intelligence keeps our families and our military personnel safe. Today, we are faced by many threats around the world, from radical jihadists to the emerging threat from rogue nations. One of our primary ways to combat these threats is with human intelligence, but this bill distracts us from that. And we have been in this predicament before. It is entirely probable that the downsizing of our Intelligence Community, and specifically the Central Intelligence Agency, during the decade of the 1990s contributed to the intelligence breakdown often associated with 9/11. We should have learned that lesson, but instead of putting more resources into human intelligence, this bill redirects resources to a new top priority. The bill requires that the Intelligence Community determine the impacts of global warming. How could we have overlooked this? I thought the enemy was al Qaeda, who claimed responsibility for September 11, 2001. I thought it was Iran, who calls us ``the Great Satan'' and is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. I thought it was the Islamic terrorists that are attacking our young men and women every day. Now we find out it is global warming. Now, I know that the world is warming. Kansas used to be covered by a sheet of ice 14,000 years ago; now it's not. But for the record, I would like to point out that the United States has 13 Federal agencies currently studying the effects of climate change. In fact, the President's 2008 budget request has nearly $7.4 billion associated with studying climate change. And according to the Congressional Research Service, since 2001, the Federal Government has devoted $37 billion to study climate change activities. Why is this an intelligence priority? Is it really responsible to shift our resources, currently focused on North Korea and Iran and other threats, to the impacts of global warming? Madam Chairman, this bill is not the right approach, and it does not provide the tools to protect our Nation's security. Intelligence is the first line of defense. Now is not the time to let down our guard. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2082.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 344, congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers and administrators across the U.S. for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes. This resolution, offered by Representative Charles Boustany of Louisiana, is a great way of acknowledging the excellent service charter schools provide to students and parents across the Nation. This is National Charter Schools Week and over 1 million students are receiving an outstanding education through the thousands of charter schools in the United States. Offering choice, accountability, flexibility and local control, charter schools are a great educational alternative choice for students and parents. I congratulate the 27 charter schools in Kansas and the over 3,600 charter schools across the Nation for their continued focus on giving students a quality education and helping to keep America competitive in the global economy. Equipping America's young people with a sound education is vital and charter schools are doing this with excellence. Today, I will vote in favor of H. Res. 344 and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I was proud to stand up for the equal protection of all Americans by opposing H.R. 1592, the so called ``Hate Crimes Bill.'' I abhor bigotry and discrimination, and I look forward to an America where no one is physically harmed for any reason. However, creating a special protected class within this country is poor public policy and contrary to the founding principle that all Americans are equal in front of the law. First, this bill is unnecessary. State and local laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crimes defined in H.R. 1592. Many of the current state and local laws carry stricter penalties than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts already have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. The proof is that the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that bias-motivated crimes are decreasing. In fact, less than 17% of all law enforcement agencies reported a single hate crime in 2005. No evidence exists that states and localities are failing to prosecute hate crimes under existing statutes. There is simply no need for the Federal government to impinge on the manner in which state and local agencies are attacking these concerns. Second, there are Constitution questions concerning this bill. The 14th Amendment affords equal protection under the law to all citizens. H.R. 1592 defies this principle by ranking victims according to nebulous categories like ``sexual orientation'' and ``gender identity'' that are based on behavior and are not easily definable. All violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victim, and should be punished firmly. It is ironic that this bill came to the floor on the National Day of Prayer. I am worried that this bill will unfairly target people of faith. Under this bill, Christians and clergy may be targets for prosecution if their traditional teachings on sexuality are considered an inducement to violence of people based on ``sexual orientation'' or ``gender identity'' whether real or perceived. Typically, members would have the opportunity to offer amendments to fix omissions such as this. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership railroaded this bill through the floor with absolutely no opportunity to offer amendments, denying us the opportunity to protect traditional American values. Instead of passing laws which violate long-standing principles of good government, we must instead continue in our efforts to make sure that criminals understand their behavior will not be tolerated. Individuals caught committing a crime must understand that conviction will be certain, sentencing will be swift and punishment will be severe. Creating classes of victims, as this bill surely does, based on broad indefinable categories makes certain citizens more equal than others, substitutes a federal mandate for local expertise, and fails to protect traditional American values.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize some of the outstanding volunteers in my district who dedicate their time to serving women and their unborn children. Together, Choices Medical Clinic and the Pregnancy Crisis Center have over 80 volunteers that serve as support to women and families in the community. It is an honor to recognize their work and dedication to offering women healthy choices for themselves and their unborn children. Dr. Scott Stringfield, Volunteer Medical Director, Dr. Cindy Nash, Volunteer Physician, and Dr. Lydia Dennis, Volunteer Physician, as well as over 40 others, provide support as volunteers at Choices Medical Clinic in Wichita, Kansas. Since its opening in December of 1999, Choices Medical Clinic has served 6,075 women and saved 1,500 babies from abortion. Without these caring individuals, Choices would not be able to serve the number of women they do and prevent the loss of life in the same capacity. Choices are able to offer women a snapshot of their child through their 4-D sonogram machine. They also inform women about the harmful effects of abortions. Women deserve to know the truth about abortion-- the physical and mental consequences of this violent procedure, and Choices allows them this information so they can make the healthiest choice for themselves and their baby. The Pregnancy Crisis Center has served over 40,000 mothers and families since it opened in 1985. The volunteer services they provide are of no cost to the patients and clients. In 2006 alone, 6,000 services were provided to young women aged 15-25 years of age. The Pregnancy Crisis Center has been blessed over the years with wonderful, caring volunteers. Currently, they have 40 volunteers, including three special ladies who have been long serving volunteers, Mary Power, Kay Esau and Shirley Moler. All three serve as Client Advocates, who meet with young ladies, hear their stories, and then match them with assistance. All of the volunteers at Choices Medical Clinic and the Pregnancy Crisis Center deserve to be recognized throughout the year for their excellence in giving back to the community. Today, during National Volunteer Week, I thank you all for caring for others and bringing hope and restoration to families in need. May you know the impact you are having on the well-being of women and the unborn and may you never tire of this excellent work. God Bless You.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Chisholm Middle School in Newton, Kansas, for a prestigious award they recently received. Chisholm Middle School was one of only 16 schools selected by the Intel Corporation and Scholastic for their Schools of Distinction Awards. Chisholm received this award under the category of Collaboration and Teamwork. They were also awarded the ``Best of the Best'' award in part for their impressive academic record and exceptional staff, as well as their engaged and involved parents, community leaders, and local businesses. Intel and Scholastic sponsor the awards and honor those schools which demonstrate academic excellence in the areas of science, mathematics, technology, literacy, and leadership. They reward the selected schools with $10,000 as well as other wonderful prizes to acknowledge their achievement. The school chosen as ``Best of the Best'' also receives an additional $15,000 grant from the Intel Foundation and other prizes such as computer software. What an accomplishment it is for Chisholm Middle School to receive these grants for new technology and software. It is wonderful to see families and communities come together to support the youth of America. The students, parents, educators, community leaders, and local businesses should all be commended for working together to improve education, for bringing excitement to learning, and for investing in the future of our generations. The grants Chisholm Middle School received will go a long way in bringing new and exciting technology into the classroom. In fact, on Monday, April 30, they are hosting a reception in their media center to demonstrate the new technology that they have purchased with this award. That will be an interesting and exciting day at Chisholm Middle School. In order to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy, America's schools need to provide quality education to ensure the next generation is well prepared. Schools across the Nation are striving for this kind of quality education. It is evident that through the dedication of teachers, parents, communities, doors of opportunities are opening for America's young people. I encourage you to keep striving for excellence, and you will reap the benefits of hard work and perseverance. I would like to also note that Ogden Elementary School in Ogden, Kansas, received a School of Distinction Award in the Mathematics Achievement category. The State of Kansas had two schools that were recipients of the Schools of Distinction Award for 2006. We are proud of our students at Chisholm and Ogden for this high honor, and today I am pleased to offer congratulations on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Volunteer Week. Our communities across the country are a better place because of the commitment of America's volunteers. Being a volunteer means giving your time unconditionally and having a heart full of compassion. Many times this giving person doesn't receive any sort of thanks or gratitude, but still continues to give what they can to their community without receiving recognition. Today, I would like to recognize and thank Treatha Brown-Foster from the 4th District of Kansas for all her diligent work. Treatha has a diverse portfolio of programs and activities for which she volunteers. A few programs she participates in include: procuring funding for the Christmas Treasures Fund for the Boys and Girls Club, motivating the public to cooperate with law enforcement agencies as a member of the Crime Stoppers Board, and serving on the Board of Governors for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Excellence in Public Service Series. Treatha's commitment to her community is remarkable. At a time when it seems many people are focused on themselves, it is refreshing to see people like Treatha, who want to do more for others and do so with joy in their hearts and smiles on their faces. Much of this service goes unrecognized, so today I thank Treatha and others like her for their hard work and compassion. I encourage my colleagues to promote National Volunteer Week and thank the many millions of Americans who dedicate themselves to bettering our communities. As the saying goes, ``Volunteers don't get paid; not because they're worthless but because they're priceless.'' God bless Treatha Brown-Foster and America's priceless volunteers.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2008. At a time when we need to be fiscally responsible, the Democrats unveiled a budget plan that would increase taxes and increase spending. Cutting taxes, not increasing taxes, is the solution to spurring economic growth. Our economic recovery after the $2 trillion of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was directly related to these creative tax cuts. We have witnessed more money being kept in the taxpayers' pocketbooks and more small businesses being established due to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. In fact, my district, which was hardest hit community after September 11, 2001, is now recovering due to accelerated depreciation and other tax incentives. Instead of recognizing this truism, the Democrat budget will impose the largest tax increase in American history. The tax relief Americans have been enjoying would cease to exist under this legislation. The Marriage Penalty Relief would be eliminated and 23 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase by an average of $466 in 2011. As we continue on down the list of tax hikes, 31 million taxpayers would be affected by the Child Tax Credit being cut in half. Their taxes would increase by an average of $859 in 2011. These tax increases are not for a greater good of reducing the deficit but to allow Democrats the freedom to spend more and expand the government. My colleagues seem to be living up to their moniker ``Tax and Spend'' Democrats. This budget is above and beyond the President's request and would amount to some $22.5 billion in spending in 2008 alone for nondefense and nonemergency appropriations. The bill also does not include any meaningful entitlement reform--the most problematic detriment to our deficit. This is not a plan for fiscal responsibility. This is a plan to spend the taxpayers' money flippantly. We need to be conscious of how the American taxpayers' money is spent. As Members of Congress we were sent here to look out for the best interests of our constituents and this budget resolution in not proving to do that.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this supplemental funding is one of the most important bills that Congress will be considering this year, and I am very disappointed that the Democrat leadership has mandated that this bill come to the floor under a closed rule. I have heard the Democrats say that this is not a perfect rule. It is perfectly wrong; that is what it is. What does a closed rule mean? It means voices will not be heard. It means ideas will be silenced. A closed rule means that no amendments will be allowed to the bill, that no alternative plan to fully fund the troops will be allowed. I only have 2 minutes to discuss this, not enough time to explain to the American people how this puts our troops at risk or question why the Speaker believes she has the right to micromanage the war in Iraq. We spent a whole week debating the nonbinding resolution on Iraq, and now we have only 4 hours of how to best fund and support our troops. It is not enough time to explain title IX, where the language of the bill prevents our troops from receiving reinforcements or replacements. It is not enough time to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the supplemental will fulfill the goals of al Qaeda's leader al-Zawahiri. It is not enough time to show the American people how this supplemental replaces the Iraqi National Congress by imposing on their government demands, demands to change their Constitution, demands to change their laws. This is an unfair rule that represents broken promises for a more open Congress made by the Speaker. This is a rule that should be defeated. I am going to vote ``no'' on this, and I encourage my colleagues to also vote ``no'' on this rule. It is an unfair bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a terrible bill. It is only allowed 4 hours of debate. We could have had more debate, but according to the Congress Daily P.M., the Speaker of the House is in New York City tonight at a fund-raiser. So we could have spent the time debating tonight. Instead, we are waiting until tomorrow and the time is limited. Our soldiers are in need of our support, and they have sacrificed greatly and given their support to us, and they have kept us safe. We have been safe since September 11, 2001, but instead of providing only what the troops need in this bill, it funds domestic spending with $24 billion. In addition in Title IX of this bill, the language will effectively deny our troop reinforcements or replacements. The language says that no unit may be deployed without being fully mission-capable. If this language were law during World War I, none of the troops would have been fully mission-capable, and we could not have deployed our troops to rescue Europe, and the world would be a very different place. If this language had been law during World War II, our troops would not be fully mission-capable, and they would not have been available for the victories in D-Day or Iwo Jima, and the world would have been a very different place. If this language were law during the Korean War, our troops would not have been able to leave the country because they were never fully mission-capable. They were using broken-down World War II equipment, and if they had not gone to rescue the South Koreans, the world would be a different place. Mr. Speaker, this bill will not let our troops in Iraq receive the reinforcements and replacements they need, and let me tell you why. To be fully mission-capable, there are three areas of judgment: personnel, equipment and training. Personnel, we can be fully mission- capable. We have the best soldiers in the world, and our units have the right number of people. Training is a little more subjective. Most people say that they would be ready to be fully mission-capable. However, they do not train on the very same equipment that they use in the field. So there is some contention whether they are actually fully mission-capable or not. Some would say they are not, but definitely in the area of equipment we are not fully mission-capable. The reason: We take the best equipment we have and we put it in the field to protect or troops. We know it is the right thing to do, but our troops do not train on the same equipment they operate in the field. In fact, they could not leave the United States under this language. Right now, they go to Kuwait and they train on equipment. It is not the same equipment but it's close, it is not the same level of protection that they have when they get in field in Iraq. So they will never be fully mission-capable. According to the Congress Daily A.M. this morning said Pentagon leaders have repeatedly told Capitol Hill they need additional war funds by the end of April. If they do not receive those funds by April, it will delay repairs, would exacerbate the readiness problem facing nondeployable units which already have equipment shortfalls. In other word, they would not be fully mission-capable, and the results of that, of not being fully mission-capable, is that our troops cannot receive the reinforcements and they cannot receive replacements. Our troops will be stuck in Iraq. Vote ``no'' on this bill. The language in this bill ties the hands of our military, and it says that none of the troops that are in America today will ever have the ability to leave this country because they cannot be ``fully mission- capable.'' The Title IX language must be struck from the bill because it is very clear that if we do not strike the language, we cannot get any reinforcements out of the country, we cannot get any replacements out of the country, and therefore, our troops will be stuck in Iraq. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the additional time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on March 6, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 121 and 122. Rollcall vote No. 121 was final passage of H. Res. 98. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote No. 122 was on final passage of H. Res. 149. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''