Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. When I first came to Congress, I was on the District of Columbia Subcommittee on Appropriations, and took some time to look at the D.C. schools. And in 1995, the dropout rate in Washington, D.C. schools was 60 percent. Six out of ten kids that started school never got to the graduation line. Now, since we have made some changes, since President Bush has been involved with enhancing charter schools and since some of the private sector government involved with vouchers, we have seen the dropout rate go down. Now it is down to 47 percent, which is a significant improvement. But they have still got a long ways to go. I cannot imagine the schools in Kansas tolerating a 47 percent dropout rate, but it is tolerated here for some reason. And the difference between 60 percent and 47 percent has been these Republican principles where the free markets got involved, either through vouchers or through charter schools, and giving these kids hope, hope that if they complete their high school degree, they will have a better future. And I think that is a significant advancement, brought on by Republican policies and the free market system that have changed the education system right here in the District of Columbia; and we could see advances all across America if we could carry them out.

Mr. TIAHRT. And you are talking about the contrast that we have between the philosophy the Republicans have, trusting people, believing in the free market, and the philosophy that the Democrats and liberals have of telling people what to do because they are not smart enough themselves. There is a real good article that was in today's Washington Post that was written by George Will, and it talks about a Wal-Mart that is located in Evergreen Park, Illinois. This is a suburb just a few miles from Chicago's city limit, and that suburb is 88 percent white. But at this Wal-Mart, 90 percent of the customers are African American. Now, one of the women that were interviewed there was pushing a shopping cart, and she had a 3-year-old along, but she had kind of a chip on her shoulder. And she told this interviewer that, well, she applied for a job here and they didn't hire her because the person that was doing the hiring had an attitude. So the interviewer says, well, why are you here? And she looks at the questioner as though he was dimwitted, and directs his attention to the low prices at the DVDs on the rack next to her. Well, it turns out 25,000 people had applied for the 325 openings in that store. Now, this really vexes the liberals, according to what Mr. Will says in his article, liberals, such as John Kerry. He called Wal-Mart disgraceful and symbolic of what is wrong with America. What is wrong with America. That is kind of puzzling, because the median household income of Wal- Mart shoppers is under $40,000, but it is a huge job creator. In fact, they have 1.3 million jobs, almost as many as we have people in uniform for the entire U.S. Army. And according to a McKinsey Company study, Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the Nation's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s. In other words, Wal-Mart was one of the reasons the Clinton administration looked so good economically, yet they think that is what is exactly wrong with America. The article goes on to say that they have accounted for more than $200 billion in savings a year, which dwarfs the government's programs for the poor, of food stamps of $28.6 billion and the earned income tax credit of only $34.6 billion. In other words, Wal-Mart has increased the standard of living for working poor people and people who earn below $40,000 here in America. In fact, people who buy their groceries at Wal-Mart save 17 percent. Now, I am not here to advocate for Wal-Mart, but I am here advocating for the free market system and contrast the Democrat policies with the Republican policies. The Chicago City Council, unconcerned about the sales tax they would get, passed a resolution saying that Wal-Mart would have to pay certain wages. They wanted to dictate the wages. They wanted to tell them what to do and to tell them what benefits they were going to give. Wal-Mart said, if you are going to do that, we are not going to build any stores in Chicago, so Mayor Daley vetoed that. But the liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class warfare in the American political process. They are more right than they realize, but it is not how they anticipated. Before they went after Wal-Mart, which has 127 million customers a week, they went after McDonald's and tried to sue them for people being too fat. They have 175 million customers per week. Then, in an article written by the liberal magazine American Prospect, they gave full page ads talking about who was responsible for lies, deception, immorality, corruption, and the widespread labor, human rights, and environmental abuses, and having brought great hardship and despair to the people and communities throughout the world? What villain were they talking about? Were they talking about North Korea? No. Were they talking about the Bush administration? One would think that would be one of them, but, no. Were they talking about Fox News network? No. They were talking about Coca Cola. The liberals are opposed to the free market system. They are opposed to a company like Coca Cola, which sells 2.5 billion servings of Coca Cola every week. It goes on to say when the liberal Presidential nominees consistently failed to carry Kansas. And I am from Kansas. Liberals do not rush out to read the book titled, ``What's the Matter with Liberal Nominees.'' No, they look to a book turned into a best seller that is called, ``What's the Matter With Kansas?'' And it ends with saying, notice the pattern here, the book ``What's the Matter With Kansas?'' says that the people in Kansas don't get it. They vote for conservatives, they should be voting for liberals. People are going to vote for people that they feel best represent their ideas of supporting the free market, personal liberty, trying to give them the opportunity to make their dreams come true. Liberals want to tell even places like Wal-Mart and McDonald's and Coca-Cola and voters what to do. So there is a sharp contrast between the Republican and Democratic Parties. It carries over into Federal spending control. Republicans have had strong plans to hold the line on nondefense, nonhomeland security spending. Even in time of war, when we have a threat of terrorism, we want to make sure that we protect this country. But when it comes to the other part of the government, we are holding the line on spending. Last year, in the Appropriations Committee that Mr. Doolittle and I serve on, we eliminated 53 programs, saving taxpayers $3.5 billion. We cut earmark spending by $3 billion without any legislation, and we passed, each year, our bills on time, under budget, and avoided massive year-end omnibus packages.

Mr. TIAHRT. The policy of Howard Dean and many of the liberals in the Democratic Party has been, let's not fight them, let's not capture them, let's not interrogate them, let's not bother them. If we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. We knew, going back into the 1970s when we were leaving them alone, that they were going to come after us. They came after us in Lebanon in the 1980s and they killed 241 of our Marines. They went after our embassies in Africa, they went after the USS Cole, they went after the World Trade Center in 1993, and came back in 2001. And since then, even though this country has not been attacked on its home soil, there have been attempts. Thanks to our police force, the United States Government, the CIA, the FBI, those who try to protect us, the President and his leadership, we have not had a successful attack by terrorists on American soil since September 11, 2001. The policies proposed by the liberal Democrats are dangerous for America. The Republican policies will lead to a bright future where this country is safe, where the economy is strong, and where every American will have an opportunity to make their dreams come true. That is the stated goal of the Republican House. It was the very goal that we read, our vision for the future. I would like to close with that. The vision statement is, ``We will promote the dignity and future of every individual by building a free society under a limited, accountable government that protects our liberty, security and prosperity for a brighter American dream.'' That is what the Republican Party is about. That is what the Republican-controlled House is about. We are pleased that we can talk to the American public and the Speaker tonight about what we have been doing to show the contrast and carry out the possibility for every American to pursue their dream successfully.

Mr. TIAHRT. House Republicans also proposed 95 program terminations for a savings of $4 billion. This year, Members' requests for projects was reduced by 37 percent, and the dollars spent on projects declined in every spending bill. Overall, spending on Member projects was reduced by $7.5 billion this year.

Mr. TIAHRT. Today, through the rules of the House, we enacted earmark reform to make sure there is clarity and visibility in what we are doing through the earmark process. In contrast, the Democrats have no plan. They have not proposed any plan to improve mandatory spending programs. They have tried to add $45 billion in new spending in the Appropriations Committee alone. More was attempted to be added on the floor, and over the past 4 years, the Democrats, had they been in control, they would have increased discretionary spending by over $106 billion. They voted against the Deficit Reduction Act. The Democrats unanimously voted against H.R. 4241 in November of 2005. The final vote was 217-215. The Republicans held the line on the deficit. We reduced it. The Line Item Veto Act, which would save money, 156 Democrats, including the Democratic leadership, voted against it. The final vote was 247-172. Earmark reform bill, H.R. 4975, Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act, 192 Democrats were opposed to that act, including the leadership. To make matters worse, they are eager to raise taxes which will have a horrible impact on the economy. They want more revenue to increase government spending. That is what they propose. In our final time here, I want to talk a little bit about the September 11 resolution that was passed yesterday on the floor of the House and show the contrast. John Boehner said on Wednesday, when we adopted this overdue resolution marking the fifth anniversary, but only after a lengthy and partisan debate which further exposed the sour relationship between the Democrats and the Republicans, we finally passed the bill. Why was there some opposition to it? According to Jane Harman, a Democrat from California, ``I wish we could have considered a different resolution today.'' I thought we ought to spend a little time talking about that resolution. House Resolution 994 was a commemoration of the fifth anniversary of September 11. Most was very generous and general in its verbiage. For example, the resolution, ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.'' No problem with that. ``Whereas on the morning of September 11, 2001, while Americans were attending their daily routines, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington.'' No problem there. It talks about the nearly 3,000 lives that were lost and about how it was al Qaeda who declared war on us, which is all in the news and everybody agrees. Why was it controversial? It was controversial because the resolution talks about what the Republicans have accomplished to respond to the terrorist threat. ``Congress passed and the President signed numerous laws to assist victims, combat the forces of terrorism, protect the homeland and support members of the Armed Forces who defend American interests at home and abroad, including the U.S. PATRIOT Act of 2001 and its 2006 reauthorization, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2004, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.'' Now the Democrats don't want the people in America to be reminded that Republicans have responded to the threat and passed good legislation which has become effective and now is making a difference. It is hard to argue with success. We have not had a successful attack in the United States of America since September 11, 2001. I have heard it said on the floor, we are not safer than we were before September 11, 2001. I say we are safer than we were before September 11, 2001. Thanks to the Republican leadership and the President of the United States, thanks to the young men and women in uniform who have taken the fight to the terrorists. This battle is going to be fought somewhere. The al Qaeda membership tells us that on their Web sites, in their interviews, and when we catch their data off laptops or printed material. They are going to bring this fight to us. I observed an interview in Guantanamo Bay at the facility there. I heard through an interpreter what one al Qaeda member said while sipping tea while being interviewed. He said, ``When I get out of here,'' not if, but when, ``it is death to America, death to America, death to America.'' Now there are many people here that think we are going to be safe, these guys are just criminals. We don't need to be in Iraq. I have to tell you, for one, I hope that this war is fought over there where the terrorists are, where every American carries a gun instead of fighting it on the streets of Washington, D.C., or New York City or Wichita, Kansas. For us to get out of the Iraq early would be a horrible mistake. The stated goals of al Qaeda and Al Zawahiri, the spiritual leader for bin Laden, he said our stated goal is to get the Americans out of Iraq. They could declare victory if we took the policies that the Democrats have been reporting of leaving Iraq and getting out. We have to complete this job. There will be a time to leave Iraq when the country is a safe democracy, when it is controlling its own borders, when it is controlling its own criminals, when it has a government that continues to be effective as a democracy. That is when it is time for us to get out. We cannot afford to allow a safe haven for al Qaeda, and that is their stated goal. By pulling out early it would simply give them a victory and make us less safe. This battle needs to be fought where every American carries a gun. That is what the 9/11 resolution was leading to. I supported this, but it was opposed on the floor by the Democratic leadership and the Democrats. But when the chips were down and everyone thought about November 7, a majority voted for this resolution.

Mr. TIAHRT. I think a good example is phonics versus word recognition. They went through the education system, they went through the education bureaucracy that is controlled by the government, this concept that young kids just need to learn words. They don't need to learn phonics, they just need to learn words, and if they do that, they will have control of the English language. Now, that kind of experiment wouldn't have gone very far if we had a competitive system for education where parents had the ability to take their money and choose their own school, because most parents didn't believe that using something other than phonics would work. Now, this grand experiment about word recognition is gone now and we are back to phonics because it did not work. We have got thousands of kids across America that have a very difficult time reading. They have a hard time understanding new words, they have a difficult time pronouncing the words that they do know because they don't have a good grasp of phonics. Instead, they were taught under this archaic system that was forced on our kids by a bureaucratic, government-controlled system void of the free market. On the side of health care--and by the way, the Republican Party is for the free market, they are for a new concept in education and they are for accountability, and it is a contrast from the Democrats. Moving back to health care, what would it be like if you could go to a Web site and shop around for, say, a physical? You could see the list of doctors and what they bid for a physical and what services they would provide. Right now, what the Democrats are proposing is a single-payer system where you are assigned a doctor, and that is where you go, and there is a set fee that he is going to be paid. And if your costs go above that, you may have your health care limited. So it is a different concept. In the two parts of our culture that we really need innovation because the future depends on it, we depend on health care, but we depend on our kids having a bright future by a good education. And yet the Democrats won't trust the free market system. In fact, they are really against the free market system on a lot of issues. Let's go back for just a moment on energy, because I just want to show the contrast between what the Republican House has done and what the Democrats have tried to stop.

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.

Mr. TIAHRT. So now we are trying to expand the ones we have now and accelerate the permit process. It was opposed by 176 Democrats. They did not want to see our refineries expanded, because they knew that would reduce the price of gasoline, and they are opposed to that. They smile when the gasoline prices are up; they frown when gasoline prices are down. They also opposed the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. This is where we drill more than 100 miles off the shores of America. And 156 Democrats, including the Democrat leadership, opposed this bill of expanding our production so that we could reduce the cost of energy in America. The Democrats have no plan for reducing energy other than just saying we are going to get rid of imported oil. Well, how do you do that? You have to impose, what, restrictions on trade? No, the better way to do it is to allow the free market system to work, develop new technologies, like cellulose ethanol. I met this morning with a Kansas company that is going to develop a new technology for cellulose. And I want to tell you about that for a minute. Cellulose, or excuse me, ethanol today is produced from the kernel of a corn, is the example I use. The kernel of a corn. Once it is processed, there is a by-product they take to the feed lot, and it is very good for the cattle. Right now, the cost of ethanol is somewhere around $2 to produce, sometimes it is $3, based on how much they can get for their by-products. But if we can successfully develop this cellulose, they not only use the kernel, but they use the cob, they use the husk around it, they use the stalk, they use the tassel, and they can even use the root. And they can chop all that up and process it and use that cellulose to make the ethanol. If the technology advances, as it is proposed, they can produce it not for $4 a gallon, not for $2 a gallon, but for $1.07 per gallon. Some believe they can get below $1. Can you imagine how nice it would be if we could go to the gas pump and buy E-85, 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gas? Fifteen percent of that would be $3 a gallon, and 85 percent would be at $1 a gallon. What is the composition there? It is significantly lower than what we are seeing today. It would be below $2 a gallon. That would be a good step forward to reducing the cost of energy. But those research and development policies, those new ideas were opposed by the Democrats. We are trying to lower the price of fuel; they are opposing us every step of the way.

Mr. TIAHRT. And what is interesting is that when we have put this legislation together to codify the very example that I gave you before, Republicans are for that, the Democrats are against it. And here we see this, once again this contrast, and it goes through all eight barriers that have been created by Congress over the last generation. Most of these barriers, in fact probably 99 percent of them, were created under a Democrat Congress and we are still trying to undo the mess that has been done. And, more recently, we are trying to make health care less expensive in America. We are trying to do it by innovative practices, by bringing market forces to bear on things like prescription drug and insurance sales. And one good example is associated health plans, where we would allow Americans in associations like your real estate agent or your insurance agents or farm bureau members, where they could join as an association to purchase health care. But the Democrats have opposed those innovative ideas because they want a single-payer plan. They want universal health care. They want socialized medicine. Now, we have seen a lot of socialized medicine. We have seen it in the United Kingdom, we have seen it all through Europe, we have seen it in Cuba, we have seen it in Canada. In fact, if you look at our northern border, look at the hospitals in Seattle, Detroit, Buffalo, they are filled with Canadians who are unable to get health care in Canada. So they come down to America and they pay right out of their pockets; they are so glad to get it. But they have limited health care in all of these places, because if you have a single-payer plan it is like every contract is a cost-plus contract. You know, the government right now, when they purchase things, they want to have a competitive contract. We see that whether they are buying tankers or toilet paper. They want a competitive contract. Why is that? Because when two companies compete, it brings the price down. When you have a single, sole-source contract which is based on all the costs plus a little profit on top of it, then there is a real incentive for all these people who are providing services to the government to drive up their costs higher and higher, because that means the profit margin, which is a percentage of cost, is greater and greater. So the costs go up dramatically. And in socialized health care where it is a cost-plus contract for every service provider in health care, it drives the costs up, and so the government has no choice but to limit health care access. And my dad is a good example. When he was 82 years old, because we have a free market system, he was able to get open-heart surgery. Had he been a Canadian citizen, he wouldn't be with me today. But he is 87 years old, he is healthy, he just had a trip to the West Coast, and he did that because he got open-heart surgery at age 82, something he could not have gotten in socialized medicine. Our system is very good, but we have opposition in trying to make it more innovative and market responsive, from the Democrats.

Mr. TIAHRT. It is basically the North Slope of Alaska, which is approximately the size of California. There were also many other things in the Energy Policy Act. It included conservation, it included wind energy, wind-generated electricity, for example, which we have about eight wind generating farms in Kansas today. It included ethanol production. It included research and development for hydrogen-based energy. It had a lot of good things in it, yet 183 Democrats, including the Democrat leadership, opposed that bill. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Kansas have been producing oil for over 100 years. In fact, just in August I was at Coffeyville Resources, in Coffeyville, Kansas, where they have had a refinery for 100 years. They were celebrating 100 years of producing gasoline. It was very interesting. Now, contrast that to the Democrat policies of not drilling in ANWR. Here we have Kansas, and we think it is beautiful country. We love the people there. The production of oil is done in an environmentally safe manner. We all live there, our kids are healthy. In fact, we just had a couple in Kansas that celebrated their 80th wedding anniversary. Isn't that wonderful? An 80th wedding anniversary. Well, it is a healthy place to live. But the Democrats didn't want us to drill in ANWR. ANWR is basically a frozen tundra, but it has been romanticized to be this glorious place with huge, beautiful green mountains and reindeer running everywhere, caribou everywhere, and polar bears everywhere. But basically it is a frozen tundra. It is moss on top of a flat plain. Well, all the space we were asking for in H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act, was 1,600 acres. That is about three sections. If you are a farmer, you know what a section is. It is a square mile. It is about three square miles, basically. That was all that was needed to produce oil, and oil that would make a significant reduction in the cost of gasoline in America. But it was opposed by the Democrats, the Energy Policy Act. We passed a bill called the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, a piece of legislation that I worked on, to help us move the regulatory process along so that we could update our refineries. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for about, what, 25 years?

Mr. TIAHRT. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. On September 11, 2001, life in America was irreversibly changed. That day we were drawn into a war to confront a threat we did not fully understand. Although we still cannot fully understand why terrorists hate our way of life so much, we do understand this much. We are still very much at war. Almost 5 years after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Islamic extremist groups continue to represent the most immediate threat to the United States and our allies. They have struck London, Madrid, and have bombed restaurants and hotels in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. At the urging of Osama bin Laden, every American man, woman and child has become a legitimate target for their jihad, and American interests continue to be targeted by al Qaeda affiliates around the globe. This year alone we have unearthed terrorist plots in Canada and the U.K. that remind us just how close the terrorist threat is as these individuals did travel into the United States with some frequency. Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with an outstanding military that has taken the battle to the enemy, in places where every American carries a gun, rather than on the streets of New York, Washington, or Wichita, Kansas. But the United States remains a Nation at war, a war for which we did not ask. We are safer, though, not simply because there has been no successful 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. We have turned a corner, and we must continue to pressure these radical Islamic organizations until victory on all fronts for freedom- loving people around the world is assured. September 11, 2001, showed us the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also taught us that the deficiencies in our own system made it possible for terrorists to operate right under our noses. Our most important duty as Members of Congress is to protect our Nation from ever experiencing that lesson again. For that reason, we must continue to focus on improving our national security, our homeland security, and our intelligence systems so that we can beat this threat, not only today and tomorrow but for the future, for our children and grandchildren. I thank the chairman

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on July 13, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 374. Rollcall vote No. 374 was on final passage of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yea.'' This is an important piece of legislation that I hope to see pass through the Senate, signed by the President and enacted.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2389, The Pledge Protection Act, offered by Representative Todd Akin. This legislation protects our Pledge of Allegiance by preventing radical judges and liberal lawyers from questioning the constitutionality of the phrase ``under God.'' The preamble of the Declaration of Independence states: ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' Our national motto is: ``In God We Trust.'' The opening announcement at the United States Supreme Court is: ``God save the United States and this honorable court.'' Unless there is a law limiting the jurisdiction of Federal courts, we will continue to see lawsuits such as the one that is trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because it mentions ``One nation under God.'' The Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in Article III, Section 2. Maintaining checks and balances on the power of the Judiciary Branch and the other two branches is vital to keep the form of government set up by our Founding Fathers. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of The Pledge Protection Act and will vote in favor of this legislation. God Bless America!

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment offered by Representative Marilyn Musgrave. The resolution reads: ``Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'' This resolution is identical to the resolution that was voted on by the House on September 30, 2004. Although the House received a majority vote on the previous resolution, H.J. Res. 106, it wasn't enough for a constitutional amendment. The American people are overwhelmingly supportive of a constitutional amendment that will protect traditional marriage between one man and one woman. In fact, since the vote in 2004, 16 States have passed State constitutional amendments to protect and defend traditional marriage, including my home State of Kansas. By an overwhelming margin of 70-30 percent, Kansans passed such an amendment in April 2005. The American people have been heard. Now it is time to ensure the will of the people be protected by passing a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. With activist judges overruling the will of the people time and time again, there is no other way than to amend the U.S. Constitution. Marriage is the foundation of our society. The well-being and welfare of children should always be our focus. Children that are raised in a home with a married mother and father consistently do better in every measure of well-being than their peers who come from divorced or step-parent, single-parent, cohabiting homes. When there is a breakdown in the family or failure to form marriages becomes widespread, society is harmed by a whole host of social pathologies from increased poverty, crime, mental illness, illegal drug use to clinical depression, and suicide. The very best environment for children, our most vulnerable members of society, should be of the utmost importance. I will continue to fight for children and families and to defend the will of the people of the Fourth District of Kansas. Next month, I will celebrate my 30th anniversary of marriage with my beautiful bride, Vicki. Our marriage has been a blessing. I have gained even more respect for the institution over the past 3 decades and will defend it against attack. I vote in favor of protecting traditional marriage between one man and one woman today and I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.J. Res. 88.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the welfare reforms provided in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The House is considering H. Con. Res. 438 that expresses the sense of the Congress that continuation of the welfare reforms provided for in the 1996 welfare reform act should remain a priority. The House Resolution marks the 10th anniversary of the 1996 Republican-led enactment of welfare reform. I strongly support H. Con. Res. 438 that celebrates 10 years of success in reducing welfare rolls and helping children and families escape from the cycle of poverty. Ten years ago, Republicans decided it was time to reform our broken welfare system and give welfare recipients the tools they needed to escape the system and build a better life. Today, we can see the results of those efforts--a 64 percent decrease in welfare caseloads, a sharp decline in child poverty, and a dramatic increase in the number of welfare recipients who work. Since Republicans have passed welfare reform in 1996, the overall poverty rate has dropped 7 percent and 1.4 million fewer children are living in poverty. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H. Con. Res. 438. Support of this resolution is support for continuing to move from welfare to work more quickly and promoting and encouraging stable, healthy families.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, and 369. Rollcall vote No. 364 was on ordering the previous question. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote No. 365 was on agreeing to the resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote No. 366 was on a motion to instruct conferees. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 367 was on the Kanjorski of Pennsylvania substitute amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 368 was on final passage of H.R. 2990, the Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yea.'' Rollcall vote No. 369, was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on July 10, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Numbers 358 and 359. Rollcall vote Number 358 was on agreeing to H.R. 2563, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote Number 359 was on agreeing to the H.R. 5061, the Paint Bank and Wytheville National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on July 11, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 360, 361, 362, and 363. Rollcall vote No. 360 was on the ordering of the previous question. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote No. 361 was on agreeing to the Berkley amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 362 was on agreeing on the motion to recommit with instructions. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote No. 363 was final passage of H.R. 4411. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise again today in strong support of jobs and lower energy costs for the American people. The House is considering the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006 that would establish a common-sense framework to help America access more of its vast energy resources in an environmentally safe manner. More access to energy sources means more energy security for the American people, more jobs for workers and less dependency on foreign sources of energy. I strongly support H.R. 4761 and commend Representative Bobby Jindal for his work on this important energy bill. I also want to thank Chairman Pombo and Chairman Barton for their work on this issue and for their leadership in helping bring this bill to the floor today. The Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act will allow for expanded oil and gas leasing off the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by allowing the Secretary of the Interior to offer new OCS areas for leasing that presently are not open. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4761. Support of this bill is support for helping move us away from our dependency on foreign sources of energy. The United States is currently more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of oil to meet our growing energy demands. If we do not take steps to access more domestic sources of oil and natural gas, we are placing ourselves at an economic disadvantage. American's pay more for natural gas than any other country in the world. The high cost of natural gas is not just an inconvenience, it is costing American jobs. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative John Peterson, regularly notes that America is the only country in the world with a moratorium on off-shore drilling for natural gas. While there are vast amounts of this environmentally-clean energy source available in areas far off our shorelines, opponents of lifting the moratorium are standing in the way of lowering energy costs for our farmers, chemical workers, small businesses and manufacturers. Because Americans 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. We all know our farmers depend upon natural gas for everything from irrigation to food processing to nitrogen fertilizer production. When the price of natural gas is high, that translates to more economic hardship for rural America. And unlike most other businesses, farmers are not able to pass along their increased input costs to consumers. It simply means less income for them and the rural communities that depend on a strong agriculture economy. Natural gas prices account for most of the cost of fertilizers, which means that as long as we refuse to open up more of our natural gas reserves and lower the costs, farmers and rural farming communities will continue to suffer. In the past six years, 21 fertilizer plants in this country have closed because they were no longer able to compete. This is just one example of how high natural gas prices are closing businesses and killing jobs. The longer we wait to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, the more jobs we lose. Small businesses suffer when natural gas prices are high because they have to spend more money for heating and cooling bills rather than investments in new technologies or better wages for workers. Instead of being able to sell their products and services for less, many businesses are forced to raise their prices. In today's 21st century economy, small businesses are often competing with foreign competitors, not just the business down the street. Manufacturing jobs are even more at risk for leaving if we do not address the high cost of natural gas in this country. Over 100,000 chemical jobs have been lost over the past five years because of high natural gas costs. These are jobs that we should not be forced to lose. Americans deserve better than a continuation of an out-dated moratorium on offshore drilling for natural gas and oil. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4761 and help America compete by lowering energy costs, creating jobs and becoming more energy self-sufficient.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this country is witnessing disgraceful and illegal leaks of classified programs and processes that have successfully protected this country from attacks since September 11, 2001. The evidence is printed in black and white in our own newspapers. Revealing those classified programs is very damaging to our Nation and to the safety and security of our citizens. I believe those reports revealing successful classified tools to combat terrorism will also cost millions and millions of dollars as well as the loss of safety. It is simply wrong. It is illegal. The gentleman from Ohio pointed out that this is not the first time leaks have occurred. It should be the last. It must be stopped now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Department of Justice will convene a grand jury and provide immunity to the papers, to the editors and to the reporters if, and only if, they will reveal their government sources, the real cause of the leaks. Then I hope we will prosecute them, and I hope that the judge will hold them in contempt if they fail to produce these sources. I believe these government leakers are politically motivated. They are doing it to embarrass this administration, and this is why the minority wants to protect them. The leakers were not successful, nor were the papers. They have not embarrassed this administration, but the leakers have damaged the security and our relationship with our partners. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to send a strong message condemning these leaks. We must stop the leakers, the government leakers, because they jeopardize us all. Mr. Speaker, I hope we pass this rule and we pass this bill and send a very strong message that we will not tolerate leaks coming from our government that harm our citizens.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical to the future of our country and our economy. Over the last generation, Congress has raised barriers to keeping and creating jobs, American jobs. Our inability to produce natural gas is one of the barriers, and it is driving jobs overseas. Now, why would Congress force jobs overseas? Well, you are seeing that reason today. Some say this is bad legislation; it is ill conceived. My view of that congressional interpretation of that language is ``so long American jobs.'' Some say it is not in your backyard; you do not produce it. Well, in Kansas, it is in my backyard. We have been producing oil and gas for over 100 years. So my interpretation of that phrase is it means ``good- bye American jobs.'' Some say this will damage the coastline. Well, natural gas production has continued through today. It occurred even through Hurricane Katrina, and not one environmental spill or any coastline was damaged. So the congressional speak for ``it will damage our coastline'' means ``adios American jobs.'' This is good legislation. It has gone through a compromise process. It passed out of the subcommittee with a good, strong, bipartisan vote. Let us remove a barrier to keeping and creating jobs here in America. Let us pass this rule. Let us pass this bill. And, in doing so, we will help keep and create jobs right here in America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation at war. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am aware of many of the Nation's most important efforts to fight and win this war. I pay close attention to our antiterrorist programs, particularly when the details are revealed without proper authorization and our best efforts are rendered ineffective. I see a trend developing in the growing number of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. In the past few months, we have read countless articles revealing details and making allegations about a host of sensitive national security programs, from the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program to the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Each time, individuals who lack the fortitude to publicly take responsibility for their actions have leaked the details about these classified programs. Each time, the news media gladly aids and abets them by publishing whatever secret that will sell another paper. I am shocked by the easy attitude of many in the media towards disclosing our Nation's secrets. This past Sunday, June 25, the executive editor of The New York Times wrote a letter to the readers about the newspaper's decision to publish the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking program. For me, the editor perfectly summed up the prevailing attitude of the media elite. He wrote, ``The question we start with as journalists is not `why publish?' but `why would we withhold information of significance?' We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the United States. But we need a compelling reason to do so.'' Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I take issue with that kind of arrogance. I can offer quite a few compelling reasons. First, it is against the law. Second, it puts our citizens at risk. Third, publishing secrets in the open press cripples our capability to stop terrorists. But don't just take my word for it. The WMD Commission reported this very fact to the President, and the Commission's precise language is quoted in the preamble to this resolution. Fourth, publishing secrets in the open press costs us the cooperation of our allies. I mentioned earlier that we are a Nation at war, but we are not alone in this war. The intelligence services of our allies cooperate with us and share their sense of information with us upon mutual understanding that this information won't be revealed. When the secrets provided to us by our allies wind up on the front page, that sense of trust is deeply fractured. We appear unable to keep a secret. Our allies get hurt when they tried to help. They will be less likely to cooperate with us on sensitive intelligence matters in the future for fear of compromising their own sources and methods. Finally, publishing secrets in the open press undermines people's confidence in the intelligence community. The American people support the extraordinary lengths which our government has gone to defend the Nation against the terrorists on September 11. Moreover, the American people rightly believe that our intelligence service, like our military, is the best in the world. The late Mr. Zarqawi could have attested to both sentiments. However, when our secrets get published, the public's confidence in the intelligence community starts to ebb. Our intelligence community appears incompetent, unable to maintain the secrecy essential to carry out the mission. Our intelligence community also appears to be unsure of itself. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt about our efforts to fight the terrorists. Our House Intelligence Committee has conducted extensive oversight of sensitive anti-terror programs, including three briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program. We have had one briefing on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Mr. Speaker, I will like to make a note that the gentlewoman from California said there were no briefings on this information. I personally have had a briefing and also six on these various detainee issues. Unquestionably, these programs are legal, and they were very effective. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury, provide immunity to the newspapers, the editors and reporters, if and only if they would reveal their government sources for these classified leaks. We need to make clear to the men and women of our intelligence agencies, to our allies and to the American people that these leaks must and will stop. We need to make clear to those members of the news media that publishing leaks of sensitive national security information will not be tolerated. This resolution does just that. I offer my support, and I urge my colleagues in the House to do the same.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the House today voted to pass a bill that would replace one arbitrary unjust tax with another arbitrary unjust tax under the guise of compromise. The House has overwhelmingly voted, with strong bipartisan support, to permanently repeal the death tax five times in the past 5 years. I have voted each time in favor of full repeal. Some of my colleagues believe we will not be able to gain the Senate's support for full repeal of this egregious tax. And for this reason, the House should pass a compromise bill that would partially eliminate a tax that an overwhelming majority of this body and my constituents believe should be completely repealed. Rather than partially doing the right thing in the name of compromise, the House should stand steadfast on this issue. When the House passed H.R. 5638 today, we sent a message of defeat on the willingness of this Congress to put this issue to rest. Once those who want to keep the death tax know the House is willing to compromise, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for this body to exert the political will to permanently and completely eliminate the death tax. For this reason I opposed passage of the premature compromise bill. My constituents in Kansas know the death tax is a duplicative tax on small businesses and family farms that, in many cases, families have spent generations building. Small business owners, farmers and ranchers should not be taxed by the Federal Government when they die. This only forces their relatives to re-purchase what rightfully should remain in the family. Additionally, this tax forces family businesses to invest in Uncle Sam rather than the economy. When families are forced to repurchase businesses because of the death tax, that means less money is being invested in new jobs and capital expansion. The bottom line is that the death tax is a tax on the economy because it slows economic growth. Now is not the time to compromise on the economy. Instead, we should be doing everything in our power to support long-term economic growth. Permanent repeal of the death tax will mean more high-quality, high- paying jobs for Americans. When I voted against the compromise bill today, I dId so to reassure my constituents I will continue fighting to permanently and fully repeal the death tax. Compromise is premature, and discriminatory against families who have been good stewards of what they have earned. My position is unchanged: The American people deserve full repeal of the death tax.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, as well as the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I'd like to answer several questions that have come up with this amendment. When questioned about the purpose of this amendment, the author said that he thought that the FISA law, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, should be rewritten. And there are some who believe that legislation should be rewritten because it was originally penned in 1978, and we have had significant changes in technology since that time. Each of us carries a phone or BlackBerry, none of which existed in that format back at the time. So there have been changes that have gone on to our technology. But to answer the question of the gentleman from Washington, the administration does believe that they are within the current law, and they do believe they have the authority to do what the gentleman has alleged that they are doing. I don't think that there is anything that really needs to be expressed much beyond this, except that the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) said he believes that FISA should be rewritten, if it doesn't meet the requirements of today's environment, it should be rewritten. This amendment doesn't do that. All this amendment does is strike funds for any electronic surveillance program in the United States. And I think that would be an opportunity for putting this country in peril. One of the reasons we haven't had an attack since September 11, 2001, is because we have used every means necessary to keep ahead of the terrorists. The terrorists have used videos to advance their ideals. They have used the Internet. They have used Web sites. They have tried to raise money and reach out and touch Americans in a negative way again and again and again. And this country has done everything possible to prevent that from happening, and they have done it successfully, and they have done it by using technology. And this amendment appears to be tying hands on our ability to use technology, and I think that is wrong.