Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on March 5, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 119 and 120. Rollcall vote No. 119 was final passage of H.R. 995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote No. 120 was on final passage of H.R. 497. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, I stand in opposition to the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800, and ask my fellow colleagues to join with me in supporting every worker's right to a secret ballot. I am appalled that this House would bring forth legislation that eliminates free speech and contradicts our system of democracy. H.R. 800 goes against the principles hard-working Americans stand for: openness, fairness, and freedom. The United States Congress is charged with upholding the Constitution, not undermining it. I have the honor of representing the Fourth District of Kansas, which includes Wichita and is the air capital of the world--home to Cessna, Hawker-Beech, Bombardier LearJet, the Boeing Company, Spirit Aerosystems, and scores of small aviation machine shops and supplies. It is a leading center of aviation research, training, manufacturing and modification. During my time in Congress, I have had the privilege to work closely with the machinist and engineer union members on common goals and concerns--from the extension of jobless benefits to securing the continuation of the E-4B modification program, which will support many union jobs in south-central Kansas. I know the value that unions bring to workers, their families, and a community. I will continue to fight for my district, and support every Wichita worker. H.R. 800, which some have aptly termed the ``worker intimidation act,'' would limit the choices of employees in Kansas. This legislation would replace the fair, time-honored, government-sponsored secret ballot elections with an inherently corruptible card signing system. Employees should have the right to decide on unionization in a non- coercive environment. I am shocked and dismayed that the Democrat majority would act so recklessly as to remove the fundamental and basic labor rights of free choice and free election from our hard-working men and women. Every worker has a fundamental right to a secret ballot. Congress does not have a right to take that away. In the card-check system proposed in this bill, workers would be publicly pressured--before friends, co-workers and union organizers--to sign a card. Once labor union bosses get a simple majority of employee- signed cards, the union would be formed. There is no ballot and no democratic system. Almost one-half of all employees would never be given a chance to say whether they want to join a union. H.R. 800 takes away their voice. Currently, 28 States do not have ``right-to-work'' laws; meaning that once union organizers have a simple majority of check-cards, all employees, without a right to vote or express their views, would be forced to pay union dues. Then, on top of this insult, newly unionized members would not be guaranteed the right to vote on the new union contract. H.R. 800 also strikes our first amendment right to freedom of speech. This legislation would bar employers from telling their employees about the true consequences of unionization. It is unconscionable that Congress would violate the first amendment and limit the access to information by employees. Some Democrats in this House believe that workers are not capable of making a decision when presented all the facts. Every worker should be insulted by the underlying premise of this legislation. At this point, if anyone still questions whether H.R. 800 would help or hurt workers, let me point out that this legislation would make it illegal for employers to give increases of pay or benefits during the card-check process. Proponents of the legislation say that increased benefits could influence the process. However, let me be on the record as saying that I will always support a company's right to increase the pay and benefits of its employees. A couple weeks ago, this House voted to increase the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years--an increase which I support. However, to now vote to ban a company from increasing wages on its own accord is hypocritical. I have yet to find one worker who did not want a pay raise. In addition to restricting pay raises, this legislation will have a dramatic and dangerous impact on jobs across this Nation. Small business owners create up to 80 percent of all new jobs in this country. This legislation will limit the growth of small businesses and drive these good paying jobs overseas. Many in the Democrat party pay lip-service to wanting to stop the exodus of American jobs overseas, but, if enacted, H.R. 800 will actually encourage employers to relocate their businesses. Giving employees less choice, killing the right to a secret ballot, keeping employees from critical information, making it illegal to provide increased benefits, driving jobs overseas. Does this sound like the United States of America? These are the real results of this ill- conceived, politically motivated bill. This begs the question, why would labor unions and their allies push for such an antiworker and undemocratic bill? The official reason is that because employers are illegally coercing employees to not join a union; that union organizers are illegally fired or punished. Regrettably this activity has taken place to some degree. In 2005, there were 62 cases in which companies had illegally fired a worker for union organizing activities--62. In a country of 140 million workers. And, as I said, this is already illegal. Employers should be, and are, held responsible for all illegal activities. However, a few bad actors should not result in the destruction of a cornerstone of our Nation's union laws.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding United States Air Force Reserve senior noncommissioned officer, Chief Master Sergeant Jackson A. Winsett, upon his retirement from Air Force Reserve after more than 28 years of honorable service. Throughout his career, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett served with distinction, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Air Force Reserve and our Nation. Chief Master Sergeant Winsett is a native of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and currently lives in Lenexa, Kansas. He entered the United States Army in October 1966. His assignments took him to the Republic of Vietnam and the Federal Republic of Germany where he served his Nation as an administrative and personnel assistant. In September 1969, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett was honorably discharged from the United States Army as a Sergeant E-5. Chief Master Sergeant Winsett joined the United States Air Force Reserve in October 1981 as an administrative specialist in the 442nd Fighter Wing, Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Missouri. During his tenure with this organization, he served in numerous positions, including a 2-year assignment as the consolidated base personnel office career adviser, 2 years as the unit career adviser for the 442nd Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 4 years as the first sergeant for the 442nd Combat Support Group, 7 years as the first sergeant for the 442nd Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 2 years as the senior enlisted adviser for the 442nd Fighter Wing, and 2 years as the command chief master sergeant for the 442nd Fighter Wing. Chief Master Sergeant Winsett applied for and was selected in July 2000 to be the command chief master sergeant for headquarters, 10th Air Force, at Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas. During this assignment, which increased in scope and responsibility, Chief Winsett was responsible for providing advice on personnel matters concerning the welfare, effective use, and progress of the 10,000- member enlisted force to the 10th Air Force Command. Chief Master Sergeant Winsett most recently served as the command chief master sergeant at headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, where he continued his personal tradition of excellence, service and integrity. Through frequent communications, Chief Winsett maintained liaison between the commander of the United States Air Force Reserve Command and the 60,000-plus member enlisted force and key staff members. He communicated to the commander problems and solutions, concerns, morale and attitude of the enlisted force, and ensured the commander's policies were known and understood by them. Additionally, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett evaluated the quality of noncommissioned officer leadership, management and supervision. He monitored compliance with various Air Force instructions, including conduct and performance standards. Within his functional area, he issued directives and other guidance ensuring policy compliance. During his incredible career, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett has served the United States Air Force Reserve and our great Nation with excellence and distinction. He provided exemplary leadership to the best trained and best prepared enlisted citizen-airmen force in the history of the United States. Chief Master Sergeant Winsett is a model of leadership and a living example of our military's dedication to our safety and security entrusted to them by each of us. Chief Master Sergeant Winsett will retire from the United States Air Force Reserve on March 7, 2007, after 28 years and 3 months of dedicated service. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Chief Master Sergeant Winsett the very best. Congratulations on completion of an outstanding and successful career.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the brave men and women in our military. Thank you, and thank you to the families who have made so many sacrifices. Today we are taking the first step towards defeat. No one likes where we are today, but our goal should be success, not to accept the defeat the Democrats are leading us towards. I am very disappointed that the new Democrat leadership will not allow a true debate on what should be our focus today: what can we do to help achieve success in Iraq, and what metrics should we use to measure that success. That is the debate we should be having on the floor this week. Our military, our children, our fellow citizens, and the people of Iraq deserve nothing less. Instead, this Democrat leadership is telling the brave men and women who serve in our military that their efforts have not been good enough and that they do not think they deserve the tools to fight this war. We've been safe in the United States since September 11, 2001. But that is only because the Bush Administration and Congress and our brave troops took the fight to the terrorists. But it is by no means over. The United States remains a Nation at war. It's hard for Americans who do not have loved ones in the military to remember that sometimes. We are not safe simply because we have not seen an attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. We are safer today because of the professionals of the worldwide network of intelligence, military and law enforcement officials who continue to pressure and strike al-Qaeda and its followers. September 11, 2001 showed us the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also taught us that we can't wait for them to come to us. We have to go to the root cause of terrorism and sever the root. We are blessed with an outstanding military that has taken the battle to the enemy. It is very important that we take the fight to them in places where fortunately every American carries a gun--rather than on the streets of New York, Washington or Wichita, KS. And make no mistake, Iraq is where the terrorists have to come to fight. Our most important duty as Members of Congress is to protect our Nation from ever experiencing the lesson of 9/11 again. For that reason, we must continue to focus on improving our national security, our homeland security and our intelligence systems. Today's resolution does the opposite and sends the exact message the enemy wants to hear. Our enemy is not going away. The war in Iraq is a tough one, as is the overall Global War on Terror, GWOT. That is what the terrorist have promised in their letter, written by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Just because it is tough does not mean that it is not worthwhile. The Democrat approach is dangerous and naive. We cannot put our heads back in the sands. Our enemies are ready to strike. Leaving Iraq will not mean the end to our troubles or to our enemy's plans. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, has stated again and again that Iraq is the centerpiece of Al Qaeda's strategy to establish dominance in the Middle East and beyond. A July 9, 2005 letter from al-Zawahiri listed al Qaeda's objectives in Iraq. Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle what those objectives are: 1. Expel Americans from Iraq. 2. Establish an al Qaeda ``emirate'' in Iraq. 3. Extend a jihad from Iraq to secular states neighboring Iraq. 4. Clash with Israel. Senator Feingold and many other Democrats can't wait to pull out of Iraq and have introduced legislation to that effect. While I would like nothing more than to see our men and women home safely, I know that pulling out now would be a disaster for U.S. security and would only mean that those men and women would have to go back to the Middle East to fight a stronger, recharged enemy. Because the enemy knows that all he has to do is make life difficult for a couple of years and the United States will back down in retreat. In this resolution, where is the Democrat plan for success, where is their plan to fight terrorism? What is the Democrat plan to stop al Qaeda from turning Iraq into a base of operations for worldwide terrorism if we leave? What is the plan to deal with Iran, who has already targeted the Shia majority, when they fund allies against Israel, America, you and me? These are the questions the American people need answers to. Unfortunately, we have seen how the Democrats respond to terrorism, to those whose stated goal is to kill Americans and destroy our Nation. Their response is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. September 11, 2001 was not the first time this enemy attacked us--there were numerous attacks preceding that horrible day--the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Our enemies are looking for signs that we will resume that attitude of ignorance. Today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are telling our enemies that the United States does not have the wherewithal to fight the Global War on Terror. In fact, today's resolution will carry no weight--except with our enemies. Let me put this war in perspective. On June 6th, 1944, General Dwight David Eisenhower sent 156,000 allied troops ashore in Normandy in the D-Day invasion. That is about 7,000 more troops than we will have in Iraq after the surge. Now, Eisenhower was coming off of three pretty rough years in North Africa. The campaign there displayed the serious shortcomings in the Allies' ability to diplomatically engage the Vichy French, establish and maintain lines of communication and hold terrain in key locations. The Allied Forces were forced to retreat from engagements with the Germans in battles like the Kasserine Pass. What if Congress, after assessing the difficulties in the North Africa Campaign, called on President Roosevelt to tie Eisenhower's hands? What if they asked Ike to pare back the D-Day landing party because it was just too risky? We didn't have that problem because in 1944 Congress, like President Roosevelt, knew that we were fighting to secure the future of the world. After reading this resolution, I am convinced that the Democrats have yet to grasp the importance of today's struggle. What will happen if we pull out now? What will the Middle East look like? Iraq will become utter chaos, violence will only increase and terrorists will have an unchallenged base of operations. It is likely that Shia extremists would dominate Iraq. Iran is eager for this to happen so that it can control Iraq. This is extremely worrisome. President Bush was correct when he labeled Iran one of the axes of evil. We know that Iran is gaining the capabilities to become a nuclear power. Iran is also collaborating with many radical Islamist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas. With Iraq also under its thumb if the U.S. pulls out, this could cause a regional war that threatens Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is hard to see how the U.S. could avoid being drawn into such a conflict. This would put our troops in an even graver situation than they are today, with less hope for success. It also will reverberate through our economy at home, with skyrocketing oil prices. The Democrats need to understand the reverberations of defeat. House Republicans take our role in Iraq seriously, and we want to see success. Our leadership has called on the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan select oversight committee to monitor and implement the effectiveness of the President's new strategy. Instead of taking this responsible suggestion, what is their response? Spending a week on a do-nothing resolution to embarrass the President and encourage our enemies. Even in the majority, they are still more comfortable with being the party of ``no'' rather than the party that governs. Republicans on the other hand have a plan, because we know that success in Iraq means a safer, more secure America. We have proposed strategic benchmarks to measure our effectiveness. We are prepared to work with the Democrats to construct a plan for success in Iraq. The Democrat leadership will not allow us to present our plan this week because they do not wish to see success in Iraq, they want to pull out despite its effects on Iraq and the United States. We need to support our military, our new Secretary of Defense, and our Commander-in-Chief as they work to achieve success in Iraq and the Global War on Terror. I leave you with a question a constituent asked me recently: If the Democrats get their wish and we pull out of Iraq without attempting to achieve victory, what happens the next day? Unfortunately, we know that answer because our enemies have made it clear: they bring the fight to the United States.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Con. Res. 5, a resolution supporting ``Hire a Veteran Week.'' Supporting our troops should not be confined just to the battlefield; supporting our troops extends beyond their time in active duty. The liberties we enjoy today were earned through the bravery and sacrifice of patriotic Americans. America must never turn her back on her veterans. Historically, unemployment of veterans is higher than in the civilian populations. This is a national tragedy. Veterans are hard-working, self-sacrificing patriots. Unfortunately, many employers simply do not understand the skills, capabilities, and tremendous value that veterans bring to any workplace. Through efforts such as ``Hire a Veteran Week,'' coupled with those of the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Labor, Veteran Service Organizations, and various non- profit groups, we will bring attention to the benefit of hiring veterans. I am very pleased to see that the unemployment rate for veterans has fallen by one-third since 2005. Although the unemployment rate is still higher than the civilian population, these new numbers are clear evidence that progress is being made. As with most progress, we must not be content to rest on past accomplishments. I will not be happy until every veteran who wants to work is able to make a good living for themselves and their families. To those companies that have hired a veteran, I say, ``thank you.'' I have never met a business owner who has regretted hiring a veteran, and appreciate their willingness to understand the value of our veterans and make room for them in their organization. While I say it all the time, I can never say it enough. ``Thank you'' to the men and women of our Armed Forces for guaranteeing freedom for all Americans. May God bless you, and may God bless America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush sent us his budget request for Fiscal Year 2008. This request includes his spending priorities for each federal agency. I applaud his efforts to balance the budget by the end of the decade, and to do so without raising taxes on American families. I also applaud his recent efforts to reduce the burden of agency guidance documents through the Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices that was published on January 25th. In addition to federal regulations, which are burdensome enough, the past decade has seen an explosion in ``guidance documents'' that are not legislated but have the same effect as regulation on American employers and can stifle their growth. As OMB itself noted: The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases, ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining, interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without public participation, and without publication in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations. In this spirit, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to examine the agency budget requests not only with regard to fiscal matters but also with regards to how spending priorities affect our economic competitiveness. Taxpayer dollars should be used to benefit the public good. Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again that--often with good intention--agencies instead use taxpayer money to impose and enforce regulations that literally strangle businesses and impede job growth. Regulation imposes its heaviest burden on small and medium sized businesses because it is harder for them to handle the necessary overhead costs of paperwork, staff time and attorney and accountant fees. Richard Vedder, an economist at the Center for the Study of American Business, finds that federal regulations cause $1.3 trillion in economic output to be lost each year. This is roughly equivalent to the entire economic output of the mid-Atlantic region. I have to imagine that processing this paperwork also requires a lot of agency time and reduces their ability to clean up the environment, provide better health care, improve labor conditions, make our transport systems more efficient, etc. If the government instead worked with employers to create a better work environment and a cleaner and safer nation, both sides could better accomplish their goals. The real winner would be the American people. As we go through the budget and appropriations process, I hope that we do so with an eye towards keeping our nation economically competitive now and in the future. We should look for ways in which the government can better work with employers, and also for the best programs to fund to train our children and children's children for the 21st Century economy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, today's Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on the benefits of trade agreements. It is clear that additional trade agreements are an essential part of our economic future if we want high-quality, high-paying jobs for ourselves and our children. Several years ago, I formed the Economic Competitive Caucus to reveal the barriers, created by Congress, that keep us from bringing jobs back to America. Lack of free trade agreements is one of those barriers, and it is clear that from the information from the U.S. Trade Representative's office that our trade has increased 26 percent with 10 of the countries that we signed trade agreements with since 2001, compared with the rest of the world, which has only grown by 13 percent. This success has meant more union jobs at U.S. manufacturers like Caterpillar, Boeing, and Cessna. Madam Speaker, I believe America would have a stronger economy and more high-quality, high-paying jobs, including more union jobs, if Congress had approved 40 trade pacts like the Chilean Government has over the past 15 years. Madam Speaker, let us tear down the trade barriers for American working families.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill being considered before the House today that would raise taxes on the energy industry, encourage American jobs to go overseas and cause us to become more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. H.R. 6 can only make energy more expensive for the American people. And I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this anti-manufacturing bill. Raising taxes on a legitimate American manufacturing industry, regardless of its size or profitability, is not good for our economy or for creating and retaining more domestic jobs. H.R. 6 would siphon billions of dollars out of the energy economy that otherwise could have been reinvested into jobs and domestic energy projects. In the past few years when fuel prices skyrocketed, I heard regularly from my constituents who were experiencing financial hardship due to these high energy costs. Farmers and ranchers were stuck with rising energy bills, small businesses were forced to raise prices for their products and services and American families were forced to spend more of their disposable income on gasoline. Rather that focusing on ways to continue lowering energy costs, the Democrats are intent on doing precisely the opposite. Raising taxes on the American manufacturing industry that produces our oil and gas is not the way to help lower energy costs for consumers. Not only could H.R. 6 lead to higher gasoline prices by raising taxes, but it could also bring about more expensive natural gas. Higher natural gas prices are a very real possibility if natural gas investment, exploration and production fall. Americans already pay more for natural gas than any other country in the world. Higher natural gas will not just be an inconvenience; it will cost more American jobs. Because we pay as much as 600 percent more for natural gas than other countries, American businesses are often at a competitive disadvantage when trying to compete with foreign businesses. As elected officials sent to Washington to represent the interests of our constituents, we cannot afford to pass legislation that harms jobs and raises the cost of doing business for domestic manufacturers of energy. Singling out one domestic industry and excluding it from manufacturing tax breaks that other manufacturers are entitled to use is nothing more than pandering by the Democrats for political gain. Instead of voting to raise taxes on energy manufactures, we should instead be considering proposals today that would encourage more domestic energy, which in turn would produce more American jobs and would boost our economy. We should be voting on legislation that would help America increase its refining capacity. We should be making it easier for energy companies to invest in American jobs by exploring for new sources of domestic oil and natural gas. Instead, we are voting on a Democrat energy bill that will encourage more dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. This bill is especially harmful for small and medium refineries that are reinvesting their profits to expand refining capacity. In a time when America imports 10 percent of its refined fuel, we should be encouraging expansion of our own refining industry, not raising their cost of doing business. When we raise taxes, we discourage reinvestment and make it more likely the United States will become more dependent on foreign countries for our refined energy products. As many have already pointed out, the United States dependency on foreign oil is already more than 60 percent, and growing. When we become even more dependent on unstable regions of the world for our oil and gas energy needs, we are placing more of our security into the hands of unpredictable and often hostile foreign governments and dictators. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I can tell you placing more of our energy security into dangerous regions of the world is the wrong path for America. I am a supporter of both using and investing in alternative forms of energy as one way to decrease American dependency on foreign oil. The State of Kansas has great potential for being a leader in wind energy production and being a supplier of biomass for biofuel production. But while our present economy depends largely on safe access to dependable sources of oil and natural gas, we must not penalize these manufacturing industries that provide us with the energy we all use. I urge all my colleagues who care about keeping American jobs, boosting our economy and treating manufacturers tax equity to vote against this misleading Democrat energy bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for our Nation's seniors. In 2003 this body passed historic legislation that provided America's senior citizens with a true prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part D. I was pleased to vote for this bill. Since enactment, this program has been extremely successful. More than 38 million Medicare beneficiaries now have drug coverage, either through Medicare or another source. This represents about 90 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries. We have been able to provide seniors with low cost, life saving medicines. In fact, the program has been so successful in encouraging private sectors to compete for enrollment, that the cost to seniors is much lower than anticipated. In fact, seniors are saving, on average, $1,200 a year on prescription drugs. And the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) reports that prices are continuing to decrease, due to this competition in the private sector. The `bids' by the prescription drug plans are 10 percent lower, on average, in 2007 than 2006. At the same time, Part D recipients saw a 13 percent increase in the number of medications available. I strongly support the Republican motion to recommit which will ensure that the progress of the past several years continues. I will vote for the proposal to assure continued access to covered Part D drugs and pharmacy networks, and to protect against increasing drug prices for veterans. I cannot support H.R. 4 for one important reason: it will limit access to prescription drugs for senior citizens. The Washington Post shares these concerns, ``A switch to government purchasing of Medicare drugs would choke off this experiment before it had a chance to play out, and it would usher in its own problems.'' The Democrats want you to believe that this legislation will not limit the number of drugs available on a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan's formulary. They point to programs like the Veterans Administration and Medicaid to assure the public that access to drugs won't be limited. But the truth is that both the VA and Medicaid programs restrict patients' choice of drugs. Veterans have access to less than one-third of the prescription drugs available under Medicare Part D plans. State Medicaid programs also routinely limit the number and types of drugs that patients can receive. In addition, and of particular concern to my constituents, the VA distributes 70 percent of its medications by mail. Seniors deserve the right to speak to their local pharmacist about their prescriptions, and not having that opportunity is a potential health risk. In contrast, the current Part D plan uses mail for less than 2 percent of its medications. We should not alter this important program. As Leslie Norwalk, the Acting Administrator for CMS said, ``The bottom line from the news today is that beneficiaries are paying less in premiums and taxpayers are seeing billions of dollars in lower costs, without the need for government to interfere and reduce access or convenience for beneficiaries.'' As in many areas, the best thing the government can do is to step back and allow the current trend to work. Government interference would risk the value of this important benefit to our seniors. I encourage my colleagues to join me in standing up for low cost and full access to prescription drugs for senior citizens and vote against H.R. 4.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Annie Work for her retirement from KWCH-TV in Wichita, Kansas. She has been a loyal employee since her first day in April 1986. In this fast-paced media world where people are rushed and feel rushed, one could always count on walking into Channel 12 and being greeted by Annie's warm and friendly face. I knew that every time I entered the station, I would be greeted with a hearty welcome and then fall easily into conversation with her. One of our favorite topics was golf. Her enjoyment of the sport and excitement she brings into the conversation about it is contagious. Although I know she enjoys her job as the welcoming face for Channel 12, I am sure that Annie would say her proudest accomplishment is being the mother of five daughters. Every parent enjoys watching their family expand, and Annie has had the pleasure of welcoming into the world several grandchildren. While Annie will be leaving the television station, I hope she will continue to publish the Urban News. This monthly newsletter founded by, published, edited and circulated by Annie helps the community keep aware of events occurring around them. Again, I congratulate Annie Work on her invaluable contribution to KWCH, our community, and the Fourth District of Kansas. I know she will be missed by the rest of the Channel 12 staff, and I will miss having the opportunity to speak with her during my visits to the station. I wish her all of the best in her retirement and all of her future endeavors.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a bill that is both morally and ethically compromising. H.R. 3, sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, would expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Supporters of this legislation are encouraging the destruction of human embryos in the hope of one day treating diseases. The timing of this bill is especially ironic as we learned on January 7, 2007 that amniotic fluid stem cells were found to have pluripotent properties and grow as fast as embryonic stem cells. This is yet another example of a successful ethical alternative to embryonic stem cell research. To date, there are 72 diseases and injuries that have been successfully treated with adult stem cells unlike embryonic stem cells which have yet to yield a single successful human treatment. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research would like you to believe there is no ongoing federal research using embryonic stem cell lines approved by the NIH, however, the United States leads the world in embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research received no federal funding through the NIH prior to 2001 when President Bush established a policy to allow for embryonic stem cell research on a line of existing cells. This was the first time the federal government had ever made funding available for embryonic stem cell research. Since then, more than $130 million of federal money has been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and over $3 billion has been spent on all stem cell research. This does not include the billions of dollars raised in the private sector for stem cell research. While bioethics and science have brought about medical advancements and breakthroughs, our society should promote the protection of human life and dignity in all its forms. We can promote science and technology while applying ethical and moral guidelines that err on the side of life. Science can and should be used to improve the quality of lives, to save lives, cure fatal diseases and bring hope to those who are suffering, yet I cannot support legislation that would require the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research has provided treatments of diseases while applying ethical standards. I will continue to support legislation that promotes ethical science and produces an uncompromised standard that values all human life. H.R. 3 would only further expand the destruction of human life. I will vote against this unethical and morally compromising bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker of the many friends and colleagues, who will not be returning for the 110th Congress, I am especially disappointed that my fellow Kansan Jim Ryun is one of them. It was at an event in Wichita, where I first encouraged Jim to run for Congress. Most Kansans knew Jim as the world record holder in the mile run and as an American Olympic hero. I knew him as a loving father and family man and someone who cares deeply about his country. Jim Ryun won a hard fought battle in 1996 and served honorably in this House for five terms. He was an effective legislator and tough advocate for the constituents of the Second District of Kansas. You only need to look as far as Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth to see the results of Congressman Ryun's efforts. They not only survived the BRAC process, both installations have expanded missions and are well positioned for the future. Jim Ryun not only stood strong for the men and women of the military, he has been a tireless fighter for the issues that are of greatest importance to his constituents. Jim Ryun is a budget hawk, defender of life and someone on whom you can always rely. He is a man of integrity and has already left an indelible mark on Kansas, our country and the world. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a great American, Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Yesterday, the woman who worked diligently to bring peace to the world passed away peacefully in her sleep at the age of 80. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick was one of America's foremost authorities on international relations. She was the first female U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and represented our nation honorably. She had unwavering moral convictions and stood up to the world's bullies. Her thoughts on communism through Iraq and Islamic terrorism were firm and clear, just as she was. My wife Vicki was in the same bible study as Ambassador Kirkpatrick and I had the privilege of meeting her on several occasions. She was an elegant woman with a quiet confidence. This country has lost a great patriot. The world is a better place because of Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Her work will continue to live on in all those she touched and in those they have touched. God Bless Jeanne Kirkpatrick and her family.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a tribute to my colleagues. In the waning days of the 109th Congress, it is a time of reflection and reminiscing. We will miss our colleagues, who will not be returning in January as Members of the 110th. I have many fond memories of the heady early days of the 104th Congress. My colleagues Gil Gutknecht, J.D. Hayworth, and John Hostettler helped keep the spirit of 1994 alive, and I will never forget their steadfast commitment to serve and, above all, their friendship. I have enjoyed working with my colleague Ernest Istook on the House Appropriations Committee. He is a good friend and I admire his hard work on behalf of American families. Other fellow colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee are Anne Northrup and Charles Taylor. I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with these fine Members and their absence will be felt throughout the halls of Congress. Mark Green and Bob Beauprez worked hard for their constituents each and every day. Their dedication to the constituents they represented was unparalleled. Sue Kelly, Nancy Johnson, and Rob Simmons have each played an important role in supporting our Republican principles. They have served their districts impeccably and will be missed. My colleague, Chris Chocola, fought each and every day for the American people. He worked diligently on behalf of American values and used his business knowledge to help keep and create jobs in the United States. He is a true patriot. And finally, my good friend, Melissa Hart, with her bright smile and tremendous energy, she worked tirelessly on behalf of her district. She fought each day for the conservative cause and she will be sorely missed. I look forward to seeing her again in Congress.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). As a cosponsor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) and having voted for its passage in the House on April 27, 2005, I remain committed to this important piece of legislation and hope to see it passed into law promptly. The Child Interstate Notification Act prohibits circumventing state parental involvement laws by transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion and places additional responsibilities on the abortionist. Not surprisingly, parental involvement laws are overwhelmingly supported by a significant majority of the American people. Parents desire to know Parent's rights and state's rights are being violated. Children are secretly being transported across state lines without the consent of their parents for abortions. Abortion clinics in states where there is no parental involvement law advertise their services in states which have parental laws in place. ``No Parental Consent Required'' one advertisement read. Children should be protected. Transporting a minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion without parental notification or consent is more than troublesome. Pregnancy isn't something to be taken lightly and teenagers should not be isolated in their decision making. Instead, their parents should be involved in their decision on whether to have an abortion. My home state of Kansas is one of the 22 states that require parental consent with 2 of those states requiring both parents to consent. Parental notification laws are critical to protect the life and health of minors. Parents deserve to be informed about their daughter's abortion decision as they are the ones who would be responsible for paying any medical bills due to complications from an abortion. Parents must give their consent in order for their minor to obtain certain medical procedures including ear piercing and to receive aspirin at school yet they can acquire an abortion--a major medical procedure that could be fatal or result in complications without the consent of a parent? That is a dangerous exception that should be eliminated in all states. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is good legislation that will protect minors and inform parents. Today, I hope to see CIANA pass the House for the second time this Congress and be sent to the Senate without further ado. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to not hold up this bill and to pass the language as it is written. I will vote in favor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act today and encourage my colleagues to join me. I also encourage my colleagues in the Senate to promptly pass this piece of legislation so minors are better protected and parents are informed.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the excellent efforts and achievement of two schools in the fourth district of Kansas. Last Friday, I was notified that Frances Willard Elementary School in Ark City and Garfield Elementary School in Augusta have been named 2006 No Child Left Behind--Blue Ribbon Schools. Schools that receive this honor are academically superior or show dramatic gains in student achievement. The students, teachers, and administrators at Frances Willard and Garfield Elementary Schools are to be commended. Their dedication and hard work is evident and I am proud of their accomplishment. These two schools are excellent examples of how all students can exceed and achieve higher standards. This is an incredible honor and truly shows the commitment to education in the Augusta and Ark City communities. I would also like to recognize the parents for the support of their children. Parental involvement in a child's education is crucial to his or her success. As we begin another school year, I encourage students, teachers, administrators and parents in Kansas and around the nation to continue their efforts to close the achievement gap so all children can learn and succeed. We, as a nation, have to do more now to prepare these young people for their futures. I am confident that we will continue to see improvements each year and I hope to be honoring more schools next year. Congratulations to Frances Willard Elementary School in Ark City and to Garfield Elementary School in Augusta for their outstanding achievement in earning the 2006 No Child Left Behind--Blue Ribbon Schools.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion about prescription drugs and the difference in philosophy between allowing the free market to work to bring drug prices down versus having the Federal Government negotiate the prices. And I have spent some time in the private sector dealing with the Federal Government, and I have observed two different types of contracts. And I think they very well represent the two concepts in providing for prescription drugs for our seniors. If you look at a Federal negotiations for drug prices, essentially you are looking at sole source contracts. This is where the Federal Government goes out and says, okay, you are going to be the provider for this prescription drug, and we want to know what your costs are and then we are going to give you a fair and reasonable profit margin on top of that. Well, that philosophy has been used in Federal procurement for a very long time. In fact, during the 1980s, there was a lot of controversy during the expansion of our defense capabilities using sole source contracts. And when they reviewed these sole source contracts, the government found that in some cases, a pair of pliers was being sold for $750. In other cases, a hammer was sold for $1,200 under, again, a sole source contract. They even had coffee pots that were costing $4,200, again, a sole source contract. And there was a big shift in philosophy in the procurement side of the Department of Defense to competition, competitive contracts, having two companies bid against each other to provide the same service or object so that they could get a lower fee. What we have done in Medicare part D is provide a market-based strategy where individual companies are competing for the lowest price out there for the consumer, the person who is receiving the pharmaceuticals. And what we have seen is a significant reduction in price. And the competition has gotten so strong now that the bigger companies in our economy are starting to weigh in, like Wal-Mart. Wal- Mart now has gone to these prescription manufacturers and they have gone to generic manufacturers, and they have come up with a new method of being more competitive than everyone else. Now, some people say Wal-Mart is an evil company, it is exactly what is wrong with America. I don't. I think Wal-Mart has been significant in contributing to productivity. In fact, they contributed about 20 percent of the productivity in the 1990s. They have raised the standard of living across America. They have 1.3 million employees. They have done an excellent job. And, today, they are moving into the pharmaceutical market where they are bringing lower cost prescriptions to seniors by negotiating rates and prices, and by competing in the free market at the highest level. So I think that we should be very thankful that we are not doing a sole source contract for pharmaceuticals, because the philosophy of having it cost plus profit says to the pharmaceutical companies: Bury stuff in your costs. Put more research and development, put your overhead in there, expand your buildings, hire additional people that you may or may not need, but inflate those costs. Because when you do inflate those costs, then your profit, which is a percentage of cost, is actually greater. So to have the Federal Government go out and negotiate these sole source contracts with pharmaceuticals encourages higher costs. It encourages companies to bury costs into the bottom line there so that they can show a higher profit; the profit which is a percentage would be higher because it is applied to a larger base or the cost of the pharmaceuticals. Competitive forces in pharmaceuticals are bringing the price down. We saw projections when we were looking at Medicare part D legislation about how high the costs were going to be. Today, in a comparison, the costs for the same pharmaceutical drugs that are most common have significantly been reduced. And now we've heard some concerns now about people hitting the so called donut hole and they have to pay now more for their prescription drugs than ever before. Well, that is not true. The price is lower. And, if you go back a couple of years, they were getting no help from Medicare part D. Today there is a donut hole; it does get some people, but there have been thousands and thousands of dollars per individual applied, including for my own family, where they have had help getting pharmaceuticals. And that has been an important contribution to our culture and to the health of seniors.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Americans live under the U.S. Constitution. As Members of Congress, we swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. It means something to be an American because we believe in our country, we believe in our people, and we believe in our constitution. In the New Testament, Paul, the Apostle, once was taken captive and held for the crime of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He responded by saying, ``I am a citizen of Rome.'' And, as a citizen of Rome, he was granted certain privileges because it meant something to be a Roman citizen. Well, today, we are in the struggle brought on to us by the terrorists of Islam. It is a war that we did not choose. It was a war that was declared against us as Americans, against our people, against our Constitution. Today, we are now deciding how do we treat those who are choosing to carry out a war against us, non-U.S. citizens who are choosing to take us to task for what we believe and who we are. In this conflict, we have to decide how we are going to try to find these terrorists. If in a conflict a certain laptop is captured in the fleeing from a conflict, when a member of the al Qaeda leaves and on that laptop we happen to find some information, including phone numbers, should we check those phone numbers to see if they are calling from Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere on the globe into the United States? Should we check to see if there is a terrorist plot being formulated against the citizens of the United States? Should we give them the same rights as we have as American citizens? Well, we have gone over and above the way we treat our prisoners. How do the members of al Qaeda treat us as prisoners? How do they treat our soldiers? They have no prisoners because, when they capture one of our troops, they are executed. They are either beheaded or they get shot in the back of the head. In our attempts to keep this country safe, we need to remember who it is that we are dealing with. And when they do call in, what type of process should we go through to keep this country safe? It is my belief that this legislation has the checks and balances that protects the Constitution. It has the same safeguards that we all hold dear for the citizens of this country, and yet it gives us the tools necessary to keep this country safe, the same tools we use to capture people who push drugs on our kids, the same tools we use to keep child pornographers from taking advantage of our children. The same tools we need to use to keep this country safe by bringing terrorists to justice, because I guarantee you, if they have the opportunity and the means, they will take American lives. So we must use this tool, as laid out in this legislation, to make sure that we can keep this country safe, to make sure that we can, yes, uphold the Constitution, but use all tools necessary to make sure that we bring these criminals, these terrorists, these people who want to harm us to justice.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about an important piece of legislation I am introducing, the Sons and Daughters of America Act. Families who have suffered the loss of a loved one are not able to grieve in peace with dignity and respect because of people who want more than freedom of speech. They want taxpayers' compensation for their legal fees when they challenge local, State and Federal laws. ``We're going to get rich off the stuff they're doing. This is finger- lickin' good,'' one protestor said. It is appalling that people would profit at the cost of the honorable men and women who have served our country with courage and valor. We should all be offended by their actions and take away any opportunity for financial compensation. Families should be allowed to grieve in peace. Many States have been forced to pass legislation to ban the picketing and protesting of funerals, including military funerals, because of protestors who refuse families the right to mourn in peace. A protestor from my home State of Kansas sued city and state officials and was awarded a total of $217,000 in attorney's fees. That is why I am introducing the Sons and Daughters of America Act, which will provide legal protection against frivolous lawsuits directed at statutes prohibiting picketing at military and other funerals. We already have Son of Sam laws to ensure that murderers cannot profit off of their crimes. Unfortunately, it's come to the point where we need to ensure that those who violate the sanctity of mourning cannot profit from their callousness. I am proud to introduce today the Sons and Daughters of America Act and ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina. He has not only been a good leader, but a great friend, and I appreciate his yielding the time and the work he has done in favor of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the Wichita Project Equus Beds Division Authorization Act, S. 1025. The bill authorizes the Equus Beds aquifer recharge project in south-central Kansas and will help meet the water needs of nearly 500,000 people in the State. This is an environmentally sound project, and it will help ensure local residents, agricultural irrigators, and industrial businesses have access to clean water for decades. I want to thank Chairman Pombo for his leadership in assisting me over the past few years on this important water project. Both he and the staff on the House Resources Committee have been very good to work with. Chairman Pombo has helped ensure authorization for the needed recharge of the Equus Beds aquifer, and ensured that it was done right away. I appreciate my colleague and good friend, Senator Pat Roberts, for his championing this effort in the authorization bill in the Senate. He got the job done in the other body. Now it is time to finish the process in the House today. Because the House has already approved authorization language contained in S. 1025 last year, passage of this bill today will be the final step needed to send it to the President for his signature. I should also thank the city of Wichita officials for their effort in helping move this project forward. Their vision to ensure the greater Wichita area has a sustainable source of water both now and in the future is why this project started. Wichita's water supply projects administrator, Gerry Blain, has been great to work with. Gerry has been especially helpful to me and my staff in navigating the details of the recharge project. I appreciate his dedication to public service. The Equus Beds aquifer recharge project involves taking floodwater from the Little Arkansas River and depositing that excess water into the aquifer through water supply wells, after going through a filtration system. Since the 1950s, the water levels in the aquifer have dropped 40 feet because of water rights and pumping excesses. The aquifer's natural recharge rate of 6 inches per year will not keep up. Due to this overusage, saltwater from the Southwest and oil field brine from the Northwest have threatened the aquifer. When the aquifer's levels were higher, the elevated levels created a natural barrier to keep the contamination at bay. But now that the water levels have dropped, the natural barrier is no longer there. If the aquifer is not replenished, the maximum chloride levels will eventually exceed what is permitted in both agricultural and municipal usage. This aquifer recharge project is a win-win project for all of the communities that depend on its water. The city of Wichita and surrounding municipalities benefit because water can be safely stored to meet short-term and long-term water supply needs. Agricultural irrigators benefit because the risk of saltwater contamination is reduced. Without this natural barrier, an elevated water level in the aquifer, the water would eventually become contaminated to the point where it would not be suitable even for use on crops. Irrigators should see reduced costs associated with pumping, since the water levels of the aquifer will rise. The Little Arkansas River and its ecosystem will also benefit. During the times of drought, a natural discharge from Equus Beds' aquifer into the river will occur, creating a more stable base flow. Under S. 1025 the city of Wichita will be required to maintain and operate the recharge project, which ensures the Federal Government will not bear the cost associated with this ongoing operation. Recharging the Equus Beds is the most cost-efficient means to provide water for the communities in south central Kansas. And it is the best option available to keep salt and oil field brine out of its critical water supply without greatly restricting water usage. So I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting S. 1025.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. And also in that regulation, it is all based on an adversarial system between government and the private sector. One of the things that I look through is how we can improve the relationship between the Federal Government and how they do business with the private sector because everything is set up as an adversarial relationship. The EPA, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency, spends over half of their budget on lawyers. The reason they spend it on lawyers is because they are taking companies to court and suing them, and that means that these companies are spending more of their money just to defend themselves. And we had a very good example happen in Wichita, Kansas about how the government could actually work as an advocate instead of an adversary and still get the accomplished goal completed. I got a call from the Wichita Area Builders Association, and they told me that the home building industry in Wichita, Kansas had been shut down. This was three summers ago. I started looking into it, and I found out that OSHA had targeted that county in South Central Kansas, Sedgwick County, where Wichita is located, and they brought all their personnel down there and they started going through all these job sites and writing citations and assessing fines, and everybody just left and went home. And as one subcontractor told me, he said, When I build a house, my portion is very small. I am just a framing contractor, and my profit is probably only about $2,500 per job as an average; so if I get a $5,000 fine, I may as well not go to work. So they have stayed home. So I called up the regional director of OSHA, and I got them together with the people from Wichita, the Wichita Area Builders Association, and they worked out an agreement where OSHA would announce that they were coming and then they would go through the job site together with the contractor and make a list of any potential violations, and then they would leave them alone without any fines, any citations, and let them work out the problems. They would come back in 6 weeks and check on them. They did this. In the meantime the Wichita Area Builders Association hired someone out of the insurance industry that taught workplace safety, and he started sending them around to job sites. At the job sites, they realized that the biggest problem that employers were facing was the inability to talk effectively with their workers. There was a language barrier. Many of the workers were Hispanic. They didn't have good English skills. And how do you tell somebody that you cannot prop a ladder up against a wall at 45 degrees, that you need to prop it up at 60 degrees? Well, if you don't have good language skills, it is difficult to do that. So they hired an interpreter to go around with this insurance safety engineer, visited all the job sites, and then they completed that process. OSHA came back and they found out that all the checklists had been completed and everybody was back to work. So here was an instance when OSHA, working with the private sector as an advocate for a safe workplace, brought everybody back to work. Costs were reduced. Everyone went back to work. The same goal was accomplished. The goal that OSHA has of a safe work environment and the goal that the workers have, keeping their workers from being injured and raising the Workers' Compensation claims.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight. We have some good discussions planned. I am joined by the gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle. We want to take this opportunity to show some of the contrasts that are going on as far as the debates are concerned here on the floor of the House and across the Nation. We have had some great opportunities for us to get together as Republicans and talk about our plans for the future and pull together a vision for where we think this country ought to go. I thought I would just start out with giving us some of the words that have been agreed to by the Republican Conference to start our vision for the next century. For the next century, the Republicans have agreed that we will promote the dignity and future of every individual by building a free society under a limited, accountable government that protects liberty, security and prosperity for a brighter American dream. Mr. Speaker, we have looked through the material that is available from the minority leader's office and other publications. We have yet to find the vision that the Democrats are presenting. They have no such vision. They have been lately the ``party of no,'' and they have really developed no plan to lead this Nation. We have uncovered some statements they have made on what they would like to do, and tonight we will be sharing those contrasts. One of the things we are going to start out with is talking about our economy. President Bush said over and over again at the State of the Union that the state of our economy is strong, and today's economic numbers prove that. Our Nation has bounced back from the blow the economy took after the attacks from September 11, 2001. Our economy between September 11, 2001, and the end of 2001, in that short period, took a $2 trillion hit. Our economy was reduced by $2 trillion. That is a lot of money. We don't write checks for $1 trillion. But to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of how much $1 trillion is, if you had started a business the day after Jesus Christ rose from the dead and made $1 million that first day with your business, and the next day you made another $1 million, and the next day until today, every day until today you made $1 million, in other words, $1 million a day for 2000 years is not yet $1 trillion. It is only about three-fourths of the way there. So this is a tremendous hit to our economy following September 11, 2001, a hit of over $2 trillion. Now, since that time, we have done things under the leadership of the President and the Republican House to revive our economy. We cut taxes. We have held the line on regulations. We have looked at making sure that health care costs do not grow too fast. We have made some minor changes to litigation, to our liability. And we have seen the employment gains continue. In fact, in August, 128,000 new payroll jobs were created. Today, there are more Americans working than ever before in the history of our Nation, and the average wage of those workers is higher than it has ever been in the history of our Nation. In fact, there are more homeowners today than ever before in the history of our Nation and more minority homeowners than ever before in the history of our Nation. Total jobs created since August of 2003, after we saw the final bottom of the hit following September 11, 2001, since August of 2003 this economy has created 5.7 million new jobs and the unemployment rate is down to 4.7 percent. That is lower than the average of the 1990s, 1980s and the 1970s. It is a tremendous statement on the strength of our economy. Many of you have noticed recently that gas prices are now down below $2.70 a gallon, in fact, in Wichita last week, I saw gas at Sam's Wholesale, gas for $2.259 per gallon. Now, that is a long ways down. I remember seeing the articles in our newspapers across the Nation where it said gasoline prices, and an arrow was poking up in the air. They did rise. They rose up above $3 per gallon. But now, when gas prices are coming down, we are all waiting to see where is the article to say, Congratulations, Republicans, gas prices are down. Thank you for expanding our refineries. Thank you for expanding our production. Thank you for expediting the things through the regulatory process so we can get more product on the market so we can lower the prices of gasoline. Thank you for changing the number of boutique fuels, which shortened supply and made prices rise. The article was never printed. I haven't seen it. But the fact is, energy prices are down, and they are down because of the policies of a Republican House, not down because of the naysaying Democrats, the obstructocrats, that have been trying to stop everything that has come through this House floor in the last year. Majority Leader Boehner said that ``while Capitol Hill Democrats' rhetoric may be misleading, their hypocrisy always gives them away. There is a clear choice between Republicans who are working to enact serious reforms that grow our economy and reduce our deficit and Capitol Hill Democrats who want to spend more of America's taxpayer dollars on wasteful government programs as they see fit.'' Well, the economic recovery was successful even though the Democrats opposed the reforms every step of the way. And it is clear the Democrats have no clear plan to strengthen our economy, as Republicans do. Now, off the Web site of the minority leader, there is a document that is available. It is called ``A New Direction for America.'' And in that they have their idea of how we are going to strengthen the economy. According to this document and according to the minority leader of the Democrats, prosperity for a better America and better pay: We are going to raise the Nation's minimum wage, and we are going to end the tax giveaways for companies that are moving oversees. Let us just talk about those two things for just a little bit because I believe the best policy for America so that we can keep and create jobs is to free those who create jobs, free those who create jobs, and not punish them for doing things that are demanded by the marketplace. Now, let us just talk a little bit about raising the minimum wage because the concept that we always hear is that this is not a livable wage and if you raise the minimum wage then people will have more money. They can have a livable income now. So we are going to raise it $1.15 an hour. Friends, that is not going to make a living wage. And the fact is, according to a Duke University study, the people they say they are trying to help actually become hindered and they do not get hired. In fact, the people who get hired are teenagers and people in their early 20s from middle-income families. They get hired instead of the working poor. So the minimum wage actually ends up punishing the working poor. And another interesting thing that they found out is that employers, when they are forced to pay more in wages, forced by the government to raise their wages, they come up with new innovations. Have you ever been to your local grocery store and had the ability to check yourself out or gone to a Home Depot or to a Wal-Mart or to other businesses where you shop, you pick your products out of your basket, you run them across the scanner yourself, you stick in your credit card, you put your purchased products in your own bags, and then you load them up after you pay your bill and go out the door. What does that mean? That means there is no checker. Why is there no checker? Because we forced the minimum wage up so much that it is cheaper for that company to bring in this new automation because they cannot afford to pay the additional wages. So the first step in their plan is to punish employers by forcing them with a new regulation on wages. The second one is to end tax giveaways for people who have moved jobs overseas. Why do jobs go overseas? Why are we losing American jobs? It is really pretty interesting. I sat down with the CEO of Raytheon in Wichita, Kansas. He was moving 400 jobs over the border to Mexico. And I said to him, Have you looked at working with the union to make sure that we can save these jobs? He said, Yes, we sat down. We did everything we could. We went to productivity. We tried new ideas. We sketched it all out. And he said, Todd, I realized that even if my workers came in and worked for me for free, I would still have to look at moving those jobs to Mexico. Well, it dawned on me then it is not about wages. And from my previous experience I can verify that. I used to work at the Boeing Company. My job was to bring jobs into the Wichita area. When I was asked to bid a job, I had a predetermined rate that I could use based on a manufacturing hour or an engineering hour or a modification hour for the Boeing Company in Wichita. And for a manufacturing hour, the going rate back in 1994 was $150 per hour, and yet the average wage was about $15 an hour. In other words, 10 percent of the cost of making a product in Wichita, Kansas was wages, and the other 90 percent, a large part of which was driven by the cost forced on that company and every company in America by the Federal Government, barriers placed on these businesses by the Federal Government, keeping them from being more competitive and creating and keeping more jobs. I have something that we have been working on, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and I have been working on, in the Economic Competitive Caucus. We have decided that we can identify the areas where the Federal Government has created barriers to new jobs and we are going to try to eliminate those barriers. And one of the first ones that we are going to try to eliminate is the tax system that is so punitive on new jobs. One of the things that is in the document the Democrats have is ending tax giveaways. We have very little ways that we can getting things done that we hope to see done. For example, we want to have alternative fuels in America. So what we have done is we have the process. We have used tax credits and tax relief to see that we have alternative fuel sources available. Well, the Democrats want to end these tax giveaways because they think they are just a giveaway. They want to hold that money and create more bureaucracy. But we think we can get some better results if we trust these companies to take a little of their money and reinvest it into creating more jobs in America. So we want to change the tax system. We want it to be fair, and we want to see some tax relief because people do three things when they get a little extra money in their pocket: They save it or they spend it or they invest it. If they save it, that goes into saving accounts which create money for mortgages so people can go out and buy new homes. If they invest it, they invest it in companies that sell their stock. The companies take that stock and they build more facilities and they hire more people. That is also good for the economy. The third thing is they spend it. When they spend it, that is a demand for goods. Those goods then are off the shelf and they have to hire people and create new products and bring products in so that they can replace what has been taken from the shelf when people spend their money.

Mr. TIAHRT. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TIAHRT. That is an interesting concept, because the two things that we need the most in our economy are a good education system and a good health care system, and those are the two things that the Democrats do not want to trust to the free market.