Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 18, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 106 offered by Representative Marilyn Musgrave. The resolution, if passed by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and if ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, would amend the United States Constitution with the following language: ``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 nation once again finds itself wresting with monumental social questions of family. The way in which we choose to answer these questions will have far-reaching consequences upon ourselves and our descendants. Throughout recorded history, civilizations have existed and perpetuated themselves with basic principles of social structure. Some cultures have emphasized different principles such as community responsibility while others have emphasized individual responsibility. But all civil peoples have survived and prospered only where raising children was ideally the responsibility of their mother and father. Over the past century we have seen many changes in American culture. We have witnessed an explosion of new travel opportunities, access to information and advances in medicine. Certainly social norms have shifted. We have made progress, in the truest sense, such as recognizing the fundamental human rights of all people no matter their color or creed. And we have also made egregious regressions such as legalizing the aborting of unborn children. Even in this advanced age, we must continue to wage battles against injustices. But with all the change the United States has undergone and will continue to undergo-- there will always remain the goal to ensure that our children are able to perpetuate life and all things good. Any changes we allow to happen and support through legislation that affects this goal should be scrupulously considered. The resolution before the House today seeks to articulate what constitutes a marriage--not because we have some new definition, but because a small number of judicial activists and social re-engineers are seeking to impose a new definition and experiment with the structure in which children are encouraged to be raised. If we do nothing and allow the courts to re-define marriage, State and Federal governments will soon have little or no authority to ultimately restrain any imaginable form of marital contract between couples and groups of people and even animals. It is no secret marriage has been under assault in recent decades. With rising occurrences of extra-marital affairs, divorce, spousal abuse and teenage mothers becoming more commonplace among our population, many wonder why marriage is worth preserving at all. But just because the institution of marriage has experienced turbulent times is no reason to give up on it as the ideal for which we should strive. I want to emphasize that millions of single moms and dads across this country are struggling to do what is right for their children. They love their children and want them to do well and succeed and someday have an opportunity to have a healthy family of their own. As we debate how to best help sustain the institution of marriage, we should acknowledge that these parents are doing a terrific job raising their children to the best of their ability. They should be commended, especially the single moms who probably have the toughest job in America. While recognizing the honorable single moms and dads, we should also work to help reduce the number instances where children grow up in homes without both their mother and father as a part of the family. As a representative to the United States Congress on behalf of the people from the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The preamble to that great document states that two of the Constitution's purposes are to ``promote the general Welfare'' and ``secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' I consider how we raise our children and with whom that responsibility lies to be among the most crucial decisions we face in promoting the general well-being of all Americans and our descendants. As the government seeks to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, I believe it should promote that which provides the maximum protection for our youngest generation. A child is best nurtured and protected when both the mother and father are sharing the responsibility of raising the child. While not everyone who enters into marriage desires children or is able to have children, the context of their marriage is an example of how a man and a woman should live together in a way where children could be raised and cared for. We all know kids are observant and curious, and they watch how friends, neighbors and relatives live. And most children grow up mimicking the behaviors observed from adults. So while two people of the same sex may express love for one another, it does not mean that the State has an obligation or duty to grant them marital status. Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another. Fighting to protect marriage in America will likely be a very long and difficult process, but so is the struggle for a lot of worthy things in this country. Women fought for decades before they were finally allowed to vote. The struggle for slaves to become free and ultimately to have their full civil rights recognized was a terribly long process. But we must not give up. It is my hope that more and more Americans will realize the significance this issue has for all for us as Americans. I hope that as the debate continues on the issue of marriage we will have a growing concern for who this affects most: our children.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for President Bush's decision to seek a ruling from the World Trade Organization regarding the legality of subsidies to Airbus SAS from various European governments, as well as his decision to withdraw from the 1992 agreement in which the United States agreed to allow a reasonable amount of these subsidies. Twelve years later it is clear that this aid, particularly launch assistance, has done tremendous harm to fair and open competition in the large aircraft marketplace. It is unfortunate that this pact withdrawal and appeal to the WTO was necessary. However, our friends and allies across the Atlantic chose not to recognize that Airbus SAS is now a profitable company and that they no longer need this overly generous government assistance. Mr. Speaker, this is a step towards creating a level playing field for America's workers in the aviation manufacturing industry. I commend the President for taking this important step and I look forward to this Congress continuing to work with the administration to ensure that the men and women of our aircraft manufacturing workforce-- the finest in the world--are able to continue to compete in the global market.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 528 I was unavoidably delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, in July, the 9/11 Commission released its report. This report detailed the terrorist mindset, the hatred, the religious fanaticism, the unimaginable degree of commitment to harm us and destroy our culture. Today we are considering legislation based on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations that is making the most sweeping changes since the CIA was created more than 50 years ago. I believe the most important part of the bill is the creation of a national intelligence director for intelligence community management, which will unite the intelligence community, leaving the day-to-day duties of running individual agencies to their directors. This legislation mandates a network designed to share information across agencies and promote the distribution of information. The legislation will also reduce the barriers of our domestic law enforcement and forward intelligence activities by creating a National Counterterrorism Center. This bill has the strong support of all of the committees of jurisdictions, so I ask my fellow Members to give it their full support. September 11 showed us the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also taught us the deficiencies of our own system. It is important, as Members of Congress, we do not let it happen again, and for that reason I urge that we pass this legislation.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10--the 9/ 11 Recommendations Implementation Act. On September 11, 2001, life in America was irreversibly changed. That day we were quickly drawn into a war to confront a threat we did not fully understand. In July, after months of hearings and research, the 9-11 Commission released its report on the events leading up to, including, and following that infamous day. The report laid it all out in a straightforward manner that the public easily understand. I don't think any government publication has ever landed on the bestseller list, which speaks not only to the Commission's work but also the level of commitment of Americans to understanding and stemming terrorist activity. I'd like to thank the Commission for their work and also the families of the victims for their unwavering commitment to improving national security. The 9-11 Commission report detailed the terrorist mindset; the hatred, the religious fanaticism, the unimaginable degree of commitment to do us harm and destroy our culture. Osama bin Ladin's Letter to America of November 24, 2002 states that the Islamic nation ``desires death more than you [America] desire life.'' The 9-11 report tells us that: ``Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering single-mindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called to . . . serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam.'' We are fighting a war like this country has never seen. A war against an enemy that doesn't value life, that does not in their own words ``differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwa.'' This makes our job to literally protect our way of life much harder. Today we are considering legislation that addresses the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. It proposes the most sweeping changes to our national security apparatus since the CIA was created more than 50 years ago. Most importantly, we are creating a position, the National Intelligence Director, that will have broad authority over the entire intelligence community. Divisions and tensions between the different intelligence agencies have hampered our ability to effectively target al Qaeda. This legislation will provide the authority necessary to unite the intelligence community and address problems before they materialize. The new National Intelligence Director will have enhanced budgetary and personnel authority over the elements of the intelligence community--and will dedicate his full attention to the job of intelligence community management. This will leave the day to day duties of running intelligence agencies to their directors. The 9-11 Commission identified deficiencies in the ability to share information that is essential to preventing future terrorist activities--and we are fixing that. This legislation mandates the National Intelligence Director to create a network designed to share information across agencies and break down the barriers. There will be uniform security policies that will promote sharing information rather than hoarding it for one agency's use. This legislation will also reduce the barriers between our domestic law enforcement activities and our foreign intelligence activities by creating a National Counter Terrorism Center. There are many additional provisions in this act that will strengthen our capability to protect Americans at home and abroad. This bill has the strong support of all the committees of jurisdiction. So, I ask my fellow Members to give it their full support. If Osama bin Ladin was here today, he would surely oppose it. For a divided intelligence community, and a divided America would allow him to operate more freely in carrying out his war against our culture and our people. September 11, 2001 showed us in the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also taught us that 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 pass this legislation and improve our intelligence capabilities.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on September 28th, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 473. Rollcall vote No. 473 was Representative Pelosi's Motion to Instruct Conferees on the DOD Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the motion to instruct. I would ask that my statement appear in the appropriate location in the Congressional Record.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 468 I was inadvertently delayed. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the next series of postponed votes, ensuing votes after the first vote may be 5- minute votes notwithstanding intervening proceedings attending the swearing in of the new Member-elect from North Carolina.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding Kansan, Tom McKibban, CRNA, MS. Mr. McKibban will soon complete his year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased that this son of Kansas was tapped as the 2003-2004 president of this prestigious national organization. Founded in 1931, the AANA represents more than 30,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs). As you may know, CRNAs administer approximately 65 percent of all anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and the plastic surgeons. More importantly, CRNAs are the sole anesthesia providers in approximately two thirds of all rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization services. In some states, such as Kansas, CRNAs are the sole providers in nearly 100% of the rural hospitals. Tom earned his master's of science degree in nurse anesthesia from the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, and his bachelor's degree in healthcare administration from Ottawa University, Ottawa, Kansas. He is currently a practicing nurse anesthetist and partner of the Butler County Anesthesia Services, LLC, which provides anesthesia services for Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospital in El Dorado, Kansas. Tom has held various leadership positions in the AANA as president- elect, treasurer, and regional director before becoming the national president of the AANA in 2003. In addition, Tom has served terms as president, president-elect, treasurer, and secretary for the Kansas Association of Nurse Anesthetists. During his AANA Presidency, Mr. McKibban has testified before committees of Congress on healthcare topics including nurse anesthesia education and the importance of nurse anesthetists to the U.S. Armed Forces and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under McKibban's leadership, the AANA opened an important, new line of communication with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). These organizations of anesthesia professionals have not always seen eye-to-eye. The recent joint efforts of the two professional organizations would not have been possible without the initiative of Tom McKibban and his ASA counterpart. Even with his demanding schedule as a practicing nurse anesthetist, Tom has found time over the years to volunteer in his community. He has served as president and vice president of the Board of Education for Unified School District 490, and has been an active member of the board of education since 1999. He has also served as a member of the Endowment Board of Butler County Community College and board member for the American Red Cross Bluestem Chapter too. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mr. Tom McKibban, CRNA, MS, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about how bad the economy is, but I want to tell my colleagues that there is a lot of good news out there about the economy. Since last August, we have created 1.5 million jobs. There are more new housing starts than ever before in the history of our Nation. More minorities are owning homes than ever before in the history of our Nation. More people today in America are working than ever before in the history of our Nation. The economy is strong. In fact, wages are at their highest point higher than ever before in the history of our Nation. We have heard a lot of gloom and doom about how the President is not paying attention to the economy. Well, he has had a lot to overcome. In fact, in 1999, we had the tech bubble burst. The NASDAQ dropped by more than half its value. November 2000 the recession technically started, both before President Bush was sworn into office. Those were tremendous impacts on our economy. We had to overcome that. Then, on September 11, 2001, a fact many Democrats forget, our economy was dealt a severe blow. In fact, we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs across the Nation. In Wichita, Kansas, alone we lost 13,000 aerospace jobs following September 11, 2001. But, Mr. Speaker, we have passed tax relief and it has strengthened our economy, but we can do much better than that. In fact, when we look at the barriers to bringing jobs into America, we see that it is not about wages, that it is not about overhead, it is not about something that CEOs or employees or small business owners can control. Most of the barriers to bringing jobs into America were created right here on the floor of the House of Representatives over the last generation. It started back in the 1960s, when we started piling regulation and more taxes on businesses and individuals. We started burying into the cost of building products regulations, trade policies, taxation, and medical costs. So now we have come up with a plan, the Republicans have come up with a plan to deal with these issues and help change the environment so we can bring jobs into America. In fact, we have been dealing with this for about 7 weeks. We have broken the barriers into eight categories. Six of these categories we have confronted right here on the floor of the House, and we have passed 25 pieces of legislation. We started out with health care security. We passed legislation to help lower health care costs. Then we moved to bureaucratic red tape termination, and we passed legislation that would help cut the red tape in America and lower the cost of doing business. We then went on to lifelong learning, to prepare the workforce for the jobs we will be bringing back into America. We then dealt with energy self-sufficiency and security. We should not be paying $2 a gallon for gasoline when we have billions of barrels of oil on reserve, and when we have a bad economic policy where we cannot build a refinery even if we could get more oil in; or we cannot distribute it properly or bring down the cost of natural gas. So we addressed that bill during the energy self-sufficiency week with the energy bill. We then moved on to spurring innovation through research and development so that we can continue the innovation that has been the real strength of this country over the years. And last week we dealt with trade fairness and opportunity. We passed another free trade agreement with Australia. This week we are going to pass one with Morocco. And these are bringing down the barriers that keep us from bringing jobs into America. So this week we are dealing with tax relief and simplification, a very important issue because our tax system buries cost into our products. U.S. corporate tax rates are the second highest in the industrialized world, after Japan. America's corporate tax rate is higher than even socialist welfare States, like France and Sweden. Our competitors, such as Germany and Russia, see the value in lowering their corporate tax burdens, and that is just what they are doing. One study estimated that a 40 percent marginal corporate tax rate, including Federal and State taxes, has the effect of raising the cost of U.S. labor by $1.43 an hour. So our employers are taking on these costs that they have no control over, but Congress does, and it is time we pass legislation that will help lower this burden, especially in the area of taxes. This week, we are going to amend the IRS code in order to simplify taxes for business. Then we are going to simplify taxes for certain individuals so they can use the 1040-EZ form. We will use the Tax Relief Simplification and Equity Act on the floor as the method of bringing down the cost of business here in America. Republicans have a solution for the problems. It is not Benedict Arnold CEOs, it is not raising taxes on businesses or the top 1 percent in America, it is lowering taxes so that we can bring jobs back into America. That is what we need to be doing today. This is the debate we should be having, and it will be here on the floor this week.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, while the Nation has been watching the Presidential campaign and the events in Iraq, the Republicans in the House have been moving forward with an agenda to bring jobs back into America. Now, we have seen a lot of economic success over the last year. Just as a reminder, back in 1999 we had the first hit to our then strong economy when we had the tech bubble burst. We had a lot of technical industries lose a great deal of value. The NASDAQ, which typically has tech companies as the companies that trade on that exchange, the value of that exchange dropped dramatically to less than half. So the tech bubble burst. Then in 2000 we had the beginning of the recession towards the end of the year. Technically, it started in the end of 2000 prior to President Bush being sworn into office. That had an impact on our economy. Then, of course, there was the events of September 11, when terrorists took our own technology and turned it into a weapon and attacked the Pentagon and Washington, D.C., and tore down the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people. That had a dramatic impact on our economy. It was not any policy of the Republican administration. It was not any policies that came out of the Republican House. It was events that occurred, as I just discussed, beyond the circumstances of Congress. Those events, though, have turned around since we passed tax relief. Tax relief has been very beneficial to the American economy because people can only do one of three things when they get a little money in their pocket through tax relief. Number one, they can spend it. When they spend money, that is a demand for goods. That means there are more goods being sold in the economy and a demand for more jobs. Number two, they can save the money. That makes money available for home mortgages. And, as we know, now we have the largest expansion of home sales we have ever had in our economy; and now minorities in America have a higher percentage of home ownership than ever before in the history of our Nation. If they save money, that is good for building homes. Third, they can invest money into the stock market, which is capital for companies to invest in their business to hire more people and invest in jobs. So after the President asked for tax relief and it was initiated in the House of Representatives and then passed to his desk for his signature, we started to see a turnaround in the United States economy. We have had 1.5 million new jobs since last August. We have today more people working in America than ever before in our Nation's history, and the average salary for all workers in America is higher than it has ever been in the history of our country. So this has been very good for our economy to have tax relief, and we are starting to see the strength of our economy growing and blooming. And yet with all that good news, we can do better. We found out that there have been problems, barriers to bringing jobs into America. These barriers were not created in the boardrooms of America. They were not created by the CEOs of America or the managers or owners of small business, and it was not created by the employees themselves, either. These barriers have been created by Congress over the last generation. Good intentions found their way into regulations and laws that have hurt our economy and prevented us from bringing jobs back into America. So the House Republicans have devised a plan called Careers for the 21st Century. That plan is a plan to remove the barriers that employees and small businessmen and employees, employers, both, face every day they go to work. We are going to try to remove those barriers. In fact, we have been very active. As of today, we have passed 24 pieces of legislation from the House of Representatives. We have started with taking these eight issues that are barriers, divided into eight issues the barriers, and then we took them a week at a time. We started out by addressing health care security. We passed legislation that will help reduce the cost of health care in America by some common-sense reforms. We then moved on to reduce the bureaucratic red tape in America. We made significant progress. We then went on to life-long learning so we would have an experienced and well-trained workforce so when these jobs came to America we would have people to take those jobs. The next week we went on to energy self-sufficiency. It is very important and appropriate, because we are now facing close to $2 a gallon for gasoline, and we are having high cost for natural gas. It is time we change our energy policy so we can create about 7 or 800,000 jobs in America, plus bring down the cost of energy, and that in turn will allow us to attract more jobs into America. So we passed energy self-sufficiency and security. We then moved on to spurring innovation and talked about how important it is to have solid research and development and how important it is to be innovative here in America. We have a long history of innovation that starts back during the Revolutionary War. The idea of the principles, the virtues, the values we have in this country enhance our ability to come up with good ideas and take those good ideas and put them into practice by manufacturing goods and selling those goods both here and overseas. It is these virtues and values we talked about and how we can continue to spur innovation through research and development. This week we dealt with trade fairness and opportunity, very important issues as far as opening up new markets so that we can create more jobs by exporting. Then we will go on next week to tax relief and simplification. Tax relief is so important, but simplification is also important. It helps us do the job more quickly and not waste money on preparing taxes. That money can be diverted to creating more jobs. We will then come back in September and deal with Indian lawsuit abuse. Going back to trade fairness and opportunity, why is it so important for us to address this issue? If you look at the recent history in this country, we have had lot of problems in opening up markets overseas. If you look at the trade agreements that we have had recently, it was during the Reagan administration that we finally got a free trade agreement with Israel back in 1985. Then we did not have any agreement until we finally got an agreement with Canada in 1988, again in the Reagan administration. Then we moved on to Mexico in through the NAFTA agreement, and that was done in 1994 under the Clinton administration. And since then we have been able to get a free trade agreement with Jordan, with Singapore, with Chili, and today we passed from the House an agreement for free trade between Australia and America. These types of agreements are very important because they open up markets for small companies. One of these success stories in America is a guy that lives in Wichita, Kansas. His name is Leon Trammel. Leon traveled around overseas and he saw a very real need and figured out a way to satisfy that need. Many of the countries import grain or export grain. That grain has to be taken off the ship and put into some kind of storage container or it would have to be taken out of a storage container and put on to a ship. If it was an open conveyor belt to go between those two objects, the ship and the containment facility or the milling operation, if it was open to the environment, it was subject to environmental risk from rain and dust. It would be part of that, and he has figured out a way to convey grain or any other substance in a clean fashion by encasing these conveyor belts and using a century old principle of elevating these conveyor belts on a sheet of air. Much like you have on air hockey game that you can find at your local arcade. Well, Leon took that, put it into practical application, and he has been able to take that technology all over the globe. He has used it in Norway, China, in Asia, as well as in America, Canada and Mexico. So he has been able to benefit from these free trade agreements that we have set into place. Now, why is it important we have free trade agreements? Why does it mean something when we open up these markets? Here is a comparison of existing barriers on the sale of manufactured goods in foreign markets. If you look at America, our levels are about 4.3 percent as an average for incoming goods. We put a tariff on that, a tax. It helps us with our Federal budget, but it is a tax that comes in, and it is an opportunity for us to attract goods and services into America. But if you compare that to other parts of the world, we have Pakistan that has nearly 50 percent tariff. Now, how are we going to be able to export goods into Pakistan when we have that big of a barrier to overcome in just the amount of money that goes towards paying fees to Pakistan? As a result, they have a very weak economy. They should change that and open up the goods for trading. Saudi Arabia has an almost 12\1/2\ percent tariff; Thailand near 15 percent. India has a 32 percent tariff. Their economies suffer from that, and it keeps us from exporting goods and services to them. It is important we negotiate these trade agreements so we can have lower trade fees for exports, and that allows us to more easily access their markets. When they can open up the markets, as in South Korea, which has about 7\1/2\ percent, we can have people in small companies around the United States that can then trade with these countries. There is a small company in Wichita, Kansas, called LP Technologies, Incorporated. The president is Samuel Lee. It is just a small company of eight employees, but their markets are Taiwan and Korea. They sell measuring and monitoring equipment for the communications industry. Their sales last year were $1.8 million. Now, it does not seem like a lot in the scheme of things, but when you realize that four out of five jobs in Kansas are small employers like this, being able to start a whole lot of these small businesses is very good for our economy. It puts people to work and allows them to have their dreams come true and export agreements, free trade agreements are the things that open up that kind of a market. Now what happens when you do not have a free trade opportunity? A good example is Creekstone Farm Premium Beef in Arkansas City. Now, Creekstone used to export meat to Japan and to South Korea, and then we had a cow come in from Canada that had BSE or mad cow disease. We were able to isolate that cow and it did not get into our meat markets, and we now have had measures put in place in Canada so that they can prevent this from happening again, but America has the safest meat supply in the world. There is no problem there, but yet Japan and South Korea were worried about it so they have closed their export markets. What that meant to Creekstone is they have already laid off about 60 people. The 750 employees that are there now are cut back from a 5-day work week to a 4-day work week. We are trying to open up the markets by allowing some voluntary screening. That is being blocked by USDA right now, but as an example of closing markets, it means that we close down jobs in America. By opening up markets, we are going to open up jobs in America. So Creekstone is currently suffering from that. We are in the process of trying to change that environment. Another success story, though, is a couple of Americans who came over from China as a result of the Tiananmen Square incident. Both of them have some experience in aerospace parts manufacturing, and they have some contacts in China through their families, but the company's name is Mid-American Supply Corporation and Tom Tian is the president. They are a wholesaler of aircraft parts to the Chinese aircraft industry. They export to China. They exported $2.4 million worth of goods in fiscal year 2000. They came about with this idea that took advantage of open markets in China, and they went over there and created a company, and now they are very successful. It is another successful small business. These types of small businesses are very important for our economy. Trade correctly spurs the economy, and it creates jobs by expanding markets for American business. We know all too well that economic and market changes brought about by trade do displace workers from specific jobs, but rather than turn to a trade barrier, which only slows our economy and leads to lower productivity and living standards, we are committed as House Republicans to preparing American workers for changes in ensuring higher paying and higher quality jobs for them by embracing free and fair trade opportunities. We have had some people who have resisted change, trying to cling on to old jobs in America, and instead of looking forward, they sort of look backward. I think a good example is the railroad. United Transportation Union was very hesitant to release firemen from off the engine on the railroad, the engines that pull the freight cars. If you think about it, we had firemen that were initially put on the engines of railroads so that they could shovel the coal into a furnace which then heated the water. That created steam which propelled the engine and pulled the cars down the track. Well, when they went from those old coal-burning engines and wood-burning engines that created steam and they went to a diesel engine that created electricity by turning a generator, which is what it works like today, there was no longer a need for somebody to shovel coal or throw wood into a furnace, but yet they insisted on keeping firemen on the engine, riding on the front of the train, and there was no need for it. So years and years went by, even decades, and my brother-in-law works on the railroad now. He is a conductor on the railroad, and when he first started they still had firemen. Then they let the firemen go because there was no need for them. It was an inefficient job. Those guys have gone out, many of them have been retrained, and they are off learning new jobs and becoming more productive in America with productive jobs. So we cannot look backwards. We need to make sure that we continue our productivity. One way of ensuring it is to ensure that we have open trade agreements so that we will become more efficient, that we will prepare our work force for new technologies and we will be innovative and move forward. The trade possibilities are endless. As President Bush said, look at it this way, America's got 5 percent of the world's population. That means that 95 percent of the potential customers are in other countries. Even if a great level of protectionism were implemented, low-tech jobs would still be replaced by technology or shifted to lower wage locations and overtime. I think another good example is our agriculture environment here in America. If you go back to when I was just a young kid out on a farm, we had probably six families that were farming the ground that my grandfather owned. If you take those six families and look at them over the years, they gradually moved on to other things. My grandfather, and then later on my father, bought larger and larger equipment. They became more and more productive. Their crop yields increased, and yet their expense costs for labor went down. So they went from having horses being involved in the agricultural process to having huge tractors that pulled eight-row and larger equipment. Well, the American farmer has become more and more productive and that productivity has ensured lower food costs. In fact, in America, we pay the lowest percentage of our income on food of any of our trading partners in the world. So it is very important that we continue to move forward with productivity as a way of having a strong economy. There has been a lot of study on this issue, people who have looked into this and saw what impact there would be if we did not have trade, what impact there would be if we had more trade, and how important it is for us to open new markets. Ana Isabel Erias, from the Heritage Foundation, said, ``Goods and services flowing across borders foster new ideas and allow U.S. producers to learn about the markets from the failure and success of trading products. As they learn more, they are able to innovate and remain competitive.'' That is part of why America needs to support free trade, because it moves us forward. It does not collapse around us, but it moves us forward. The Heritage Foundation went on to say, ``Free trade allows the U.S. to specialize in goods and services that American workers produce more efficiently than the rest of the world, and at the same time free trade allows domestic producers to shop around the world for the least expensive inputs they can use for their production, which in turn allows them to keep their cost of production down, without sacrificing quality.'' So I think it is very important that we keep this concept of free trade moving forward. We have other countries that we need to open up markets in, and especially for our agricultural community, especially for aerospace products, and especially for these new technologies we are currently developing. It is important because that brings jobs into the country. I have another chart that I want to move on to. This one talks about a geographic distribution of U.S. exports and imports from 1990 to 2002. Now, if we look at the top part of these, it looks like an eye test. The group of countries here, Canada, the European Union, Japan, and other advanced economies, in 1990 they used to make about 63.1 percent of our total exports. Today, or in 2002, that dropped slightly to 57.6 percent of our exports. On imports, the advanced economies consist of 58.7 percent of imports in 1990. By 2002, that dropped six points to 57.2. But when we look at the developing countries, in 1990, that only consisted of 19.9 percent of our exports. By 2002, that had grown to 37 percent. Imports in 1990 from the developing countries was 36.1 percent. That has grown to 41.7 percent. So that is a very good indication of why we need to open up markets in developing countries and why we need to look at some of these countries that have these high trade barriers and to negotiate those down to where they are closer to where ours are. That will help us export goods and develop new markets and bring jobs into America. The four pieces of legislation that were included in this week's trade and fairness opportunity block of bills consisted of H.R. 4759, which was the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. That is going to allow us to open up markets in Australia and allow us to compete with agricultural goods and airplanes, like those airplanes made in Wichita, Kansas, the air capital of the world. It will be good for our economy. We also passed H.R. 3463, which was the State Unemployment Tax Act Dumping Prevention Act. That allowed us to watch these companies that are trying to avoid State unemployment tax and bring them back in. This makes this unemployment tax system fairer to the other employers in the State and fairer to the employees who may have to suffer some unemployment at some time while they are being retrained. It brings these employers into line with other companies that they are competing with. Then we passed H. Res. 705, urging the President to resolve the disparate treatment of direct and indirect taxes presently provided by the World Trade Organization. And the last one we passed was H. Res. 576, urging the government of the People's Republic of China to improve its protection of intellectual property rights. As we all know, the intellectual property rights have been greatly violated in China. We want them to crack down on that because it means that our developing ideas, our art, our books, our pharmaceutical advancements are protected by patents, and we want them to acknowledge that. So these four bills have been added to the 20 bills we passed before with previous legislation in the eight categories. We have passed the first five categories, that included 20 bills, and these four add to that to make a total of 24. Again, we started out with health care security, under the eight issues that are contained in the Careers For A 21st Century in America. We helped lower the cost of health care in America to make ourselves more competitive. Then we addressed bureaucratic red tape termination to cut down the bulk of paperwork that we have here that prevents us from expanding our economy. We then went on to lifelong learning so that we would have a trained workforce for these new jobs. We then dealt with energy self-sufficiency and security. We moved on the following week to spurring innovation through research and development. This week, we dealt with trade fairness and opportunity. Next week we will be on tax relief and simplification. And then, in September, we are going to address the issue of ending lawsuit abuse. These issues are barriers to bringing jobs back into America. Congress created this environment and the Congress is addressing that environment, changing it so that we can open markets, so that we can bring back workers into America and have a stronger economy. This will mean that our kids and our grandkids will have the opportunity to start the businesses they want to start or get the jobs that they want. It has been a good program that we have dealt with here on the floor of the House. We hope that we can get it to the President's desk for signature, all 24 of these bills. We will continue this effort until we find the relief that is necessary to bring more jobs back into America. We have heard a lot of people complain about outsourcing of American jobs. The problems that they are facing that cause outsourcing are these eight issues that Congress has created, and it is time we change that environment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on July 12th, I missed four rollcall votes numbered 359, 360, 361 and 362. Rollcall No. 359 was a vote on agreeing to the Holt Amendment. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall No. 360 was a vote on agreeing to the Hefley Amendment. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall No. 361 was a vote on the Sherman Motion to Recommit H.R. 4755. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall No. 362 was a vote on final passage of H.R. 4755. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would restrict travel funds for USDA employees who are working in Washington, D.C., until the Secretary of Agriculture implements a voluntary program for beef slaughtering establishments to screen for BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, mad cow disease as it is commonly known. Right now, America has the safest beef in the world, and a lot of it comes from the great State of Kansas, but this is not about food safety. This is about trying to meet the demands of customers. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef is a small packing company in Arkansas City. At that location, they employ about 750 workers who have been reduced from 5-day work weeks to 4 days because we have failed to open up markets in Japan and South Korea. The reason that has happened is because they have demanded in those markets that we have some kind of 100 percent screening. The USDA has not allowed this to occur. It is my personal view that USDA should be in the business of setting minimum standards and not maximum standards, but because of this ban, America has lost in exports to Japan and South Korea nearly $1 billion worth of exports. According to the USDA, that number is approximately $959 billion over the last 6 months. Over the year, it will be close to $1.5 billion, maybe $2 billion. I just want the floor to know, Mr. Chairman, that we need to allow American processors to have the flexibility to meet the demands customers are bringing to them. In Japan, they already have their beef labeled as BSE tested. That is all we are asking for here, is to allow that screening to go on and for it to occur. The cost would be about $15 per head. We have already lost in exports enough to test the entire 35,000 cattle that are processed every year in America, but because we have not been able to do that, we are looking at a loss of exports, plus loss of jobs here in America. The amount of beef that is being sold in Japan and South Korea continues, but it is being supplied by Australian and New Zealand suppliers instead of American suppliers. So what we are trying to do is open up these markets back again for American beef processors. I also want to make a point, Mr. Chairman, that in the past, during the free market system, we have said that the customer's demands ought to be met, the customer is always right, but currently we are not seeing that allowed because of inaction by USDA. We know that in California that auto manufacturers meet unique safety and environmental standards, and they gladly put a little higher price tag for that, but currently we are not allowing American beef processors to put a little added extra safety in and charge a little more for it for those customers who want it. So I have this amendment that would restrict travel for headquarters Washington USDA employees until a voluntary program is allowed to move forward. This is a very simple amendment. It does not go into a great deal of detail, but it makes a very strong point that we need to allow our processors to meet the demand of their customers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I do realize that I am moving towards an authorization-type language on an appropriations bill, but I thought the issue was important enough that it should be brought to the floor of the House and that I should ask for a vote on it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to first remind the Members here that there is some convenient memory loss for the Democrats when they want to blame President Bush on the current economy, especially when they want to target the tax relief. So let us just go back to 1999 and remember how our economy got into this current situation. In 1999, we had the tech bubble burst and we saw tremendous loss of jobs in the tech industry, especially in northern Virginia. It caused the NASDAQ to drop by over half, almost by two-thirds. Then, in 2000, November 2000, the recession technically started while President Clinton was still in office, even before President Bush was sworn in. And then, of course, who can forget September 11, 2001, when terrorists brought the war on terror to America and attacked us in our homeland and tore down the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon and put our economy into a tailspin. It was those events that caused our economy to drop dramatically. In my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, we had a greater percentage loss of jobs than any other community in America following September 11. We are the air capital of the world, Wichita, Kansas. It is the home of Boeing, Beech, Cessna and Learjet. When you take the number of jobs lost, the percentage of those compared to the total number of jobs in the community, we were the hardest hit. It was because of the September 11 terrorist attacks. It was the tax relief that President Bush pushed for and that was passed in the House in a bipartisan fashion, passed by the Senate in a bipartisan way, that has turned our economy around. When tax relief is passed, people can do one of three things with the money they have in their pocket. The first thing they can do is spend it. That is a demand for good, which is a demand for jobs, and that is good for the economy. The second thing they can do is save it. When they save it, that makes money available for home mortgages. Today, we have the most homeowners in America, more than we have ever had in the history of our Nation. Particularly minorities are owning more homes than they ever have in the history of our Nation, and tax relief has been a part of that. The third thing they can do is invest the money. When the money is invested, it allows small companies and large companies to expand their plants, to buy more equipment and to hire more workers. And that is what we have been seeing. Our economy has been growing by 1.5 million jobs just since last August, 1.5 million jobs. Today, there are more Americans working than ever before in the history of our country. We have more homeownership. We have a higher average pay than ever before in the history of our country. The economy is turning around. But the Democrats have convenient memory loss. Now, we do have a plan, we have a plan for improving the economy even further. Now, we know that the people who keep and create jobs in America have been having to overcome some barriers that were way beyond their control. We have listed these barriers in eight categories, and the Republicans in the House have addressed a plan to provide relief for these categories. Change the environment so we can bring jobs back into America. These issues were created over the last generation by Congress. Congress with good intentions has, in fact, created bad policy. So we are in the business of changing that bad policy and bringing jobs back into America. The eight issues we have taken, one a week at a time; we have gone through four issues already this week. We are on the fifth issue. But we started with health care security. We have passed legislation in the House to help reduce the cost of health care in America. We have passed flexible savings accounts, medical savings accounts, medical liability reform. Those issues are going to bring down the health care costs in America. We next went on to bureaucratic red tape. We are cutting the amount of red tape in America because those are things that are costs to employers that forces them to pay these costs even though they cannot control them, and it prevents them from bringing more jobs back to America. Then we went on to lifelong learning so that we would have an educated workforce available. Then we moved on to energy self- sufficiency. We heard from an earlier speaker about gas prices going up. Well, it has been the policies of this Congress over the last generation that have caused this problem. We have not built a new refinery since 1976 in America. We have not allowed for exploration in places that are as far away as the Northern Slope of Alaska. Nobody on this floor has ever been to the North Slope of northern Alaska. And out of the amount of country the size of California, we cannot even allow 1,800 acres to be used to develop more resources which would provide more oil than we are importing from the Middle East today. So there is a great deal that could be done to bring down the price of energy in America, but we cannot get the policy passed by Members in this Congress. So we are doing an incredible amount to bring down the price of energy to help bring jobs back to America. This week we are talking about spurring innovation. We have several pieces of legislation that we have brought to the floor. They include the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act. They include the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act. They include the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendment Act, and the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, and the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act. All of these things are designed to improve research and development or take that research and development and put it into practical application. Now, tomorrow we will be dealing with legislation that will take research and development and put it into practical application. We are calling it the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. It is already in existence, but we are going to authorize it and expand it. The MEP, or the Manufacturing Existence Partnership, is a network of 60 nonprofit centers in over 400 locations in 50 States. It served 19,000 clients in 2002. When you do a survey of those 19,000 clients, you find out that we created and retained over 35,000 jobs, that we increased $953 million in sales in America. That is production of American goods in the form of sales, $953 million. We also retained sales of $1.84 billion. So the $953 million is in addition to the $1.84 billion. We realized $681 million in cost savings by applying research and development to these small companies. And we have invested $940 million in modernization, including plants and equipment and information systems. Now, how this helps small businesses is very clear. It helps firms understand and applies lean manufacturing technology. We take these good ideas that have been created through research and development, some of it funded by the Federal Government, some of it funded by the Federal Government through the universities, some of it is coming out of industry itself. We take those ideas to small businesses and we allow them to apply them, redesign factory floors, help firms determine what new equipment they need, how they need to place it. It just teaches them how to apply the technology that will help them create more jobs. So the concept of having a research and development application has been something that is going to be successful in bringing jobs back in to America. Now we are going to continue on. In the following week we will be dealing with trade fairness and opportunity. Then we will deal with tax simplification. Then we will end up with lawsuit abuse. Right now lawsuit abuse costs us 2.5 percent on any product made in America. We could reduce our costs by 2.5 percent. Now, when you look at the current Presidential team that the Democrats have, both of them represent trial lawyers. The vice presidential candidate has made millions and millions and millions of dollars by suing companies, and all that gets absorbed back into the cost of creating jobs. So to think that the Democrat team is going to create jobs, it is just the antithesis of that. They are going to be working in the opposite direction. We have these eight issues that we are using to break down the barriers and change the environment so we can bring jobs back into America. Again, they are health care security, reducing the bureaucratic red tape, lifelong learning, energy self-sufficiency, spurring innovation, trade fairness and opportunity, tax relief and simplification, and ending lawsuit abuse. Through these issues we will be able to bring jobs back into America. Kansans and Americans are known for their ingenuity, a trait fostered by our society since Pilgrims found a way to survive the harsh New England winter and develop into a thriving community that eventually became a great nation. Knowledge and ideas are our most important raw materials. The American economy has led the world because our system rewards innovation. From Benjamin Franklin through Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Jonas Salk, and Spaceship One promoter Burt Rutan, our entrepreneurs, scientists and skilled workers create and apply the technologies that have changed and will continue to change our world. Our leaders have realized that while they shouldn't tell people what to think or how to do things, there is a vital national interest in helping the best ideas come forward. America's strength has been in encouraging thought and exploration, and providing the resources to bringing those dreams to life. The United States remains the world's most dominant economy and scientific powerhouse. The rest of the world, however, is catching up and challenging our competitiveness. Fundamentally, there has been a significant increase in the quality and quantity of science and engineering (S&E) capacity around the globe. At the same time. America has grown complacent in her position as innovation leaders. Without adequate support at home, the impact of these two factors has been not only a decline in science and engineering professionals, but also the movement of corporate high tech investments and jobs to other countries. The Republican Congress has made great strides in funding research and development. We have met and exceed our goal of doubling the National Institutes of Health (NIH) medical research funding, we have made necessary reforms to streamline the Patent and Trademark Office and FDA processes, and we have promoted nanotechnology, broadband dissemination, and a myriad of other important high tech investment. Similarly President Bush has focused on evaluating the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology. Research and development investments are still the keys to our nation's future competitiveness, and thus we must increase our efforts to spur innovation. This week, as part of the ongoing 8 week kickoff to the Careers for a 21st Century America competitiveness agenda, the House is focusing on efforts to spur the innovative, creative and entrepreneurial spirit that has always driven America toward phenomenal achievement. Democrats constantly lament our declining dominance in the sciences, yet offer no solutions. ``You need a partnership,'' says NSF Deputy Director, Josh Bordogna. ``You need new knowledge out of universities and labs, new processes from industry, and a government willing to enable it all through appropriate R&D policy and frontier research and education investment, by and for the citizenry.'' That is the challenge House Republicans have taken to heart. Instead of political rhetoric, Republicans are offering real solutions. We invite our colleagues to join us in moving America forward.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2121--the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Trust Fund Enhancement Act. The Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship honors former President Dwight D. Eisenhower for his character, courage and patriotism in both times of war and peace. Its programs are designed to advance international understanding by providing opportunities to emerging world leaders; exposing them to diverse experiences. Each year the program attracts approximately 45 leaders to the United States from countries around the world. Eisenhower Fellowships spend two months studying, learning and participating in democratic institutions at all levels of government. President Eisenhower believed that informed professionals have the best opportunity to create international trust and cooperation. Eisenhower Fellowships has followed this vision. Since its founding in 1953 by private citizens, Eisenhower Fellowships has built up a distinguished alumni body of over 1,300 alumni in over 100 countries. There are 4 heads of state and over 100 cabinet appointments among them. During its first 50 years, Eisenhower Fellowships has proven the validity and impact of its founding vision to bring together young leaders from all over the world to pursue our mission, as Eisenhower saw it, of peace through understanding. On October 3rd, 2003 Dr. Henry Kissinger, Chairman of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship, presented the Eisenhower Medal for Leadership and Service to former Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Chairman and President George H.W. Bush. The tragedy of September 11th and the subsequent evidence of deep international hatreds and misunderstanding have demonstrated that Eisenhower Fellowships' core mission is even more relevant now than it was in 1953. Since September 11th, almost daily headlines have provided further evidence of deep rifts along with misunderstanding and violence; conditions analogous to those that led to the creation of Eisenhower Fellowships 50 years ago. For Eisenhower Fellowships to continue to have a meaningful impact globally, a significant expansion of its programs is imperative. World population has grown from 2.7 billion in 1953 to well over 6 billion; and there are now 192 independent nations versus a few dozen when Eisenhower Fellowships was founded. The Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship is funded by a mix of private and Federal funds. Congress granted a Federal charter in 1990 (P.L. 101- 454) and created a permanent trust fund to assist the fellowship program. The initial trust fund authorization has not increased in over fourteen years while demands on the program have increased substantially. This is a fitting time to recognize the commitment of the program to its original goals and to increase trust fund investments. Under its federal charter, funds deposited into the trust fund remain in the United States Treasury and are invested in governmental securities. Only proceeds from the trust fund are appropriated to the Fellowship for operations. H.R. 2121 would increase trust fund assets by $12.5 million. This is essential as the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship is advancing plans for a major new initiative with key countries in the Middle East; including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Near the end of his first inaugural address, President Eisenhower said, it is ``our hope, and our belief, that we can help to heal this divided world.'' That faith in the ability of America to help bring peace and justice to the world was a fundamental part of Dwight Eisenhower. It is fitting that 50 years later the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship is still promoting these values and ideas in the name of President Dwight David Eisenhower. I support H.R. 2121 and commend the Committee for bringing this critical bill to the floor honoring an outstanding President and a great Kansan. August 15, 2003. Hon. Dennis J. Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I learned recently that the entire Kansas delegation joined together on May 15th as original co- sponsors of H.R. 2121--The Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Trust Fund Enhancement Act. The purpose of the bill is to increase the Federal Trust Fund established by Congress that assists in funding the work of the Eisenhower Fellowships program. I commend Congressman Tod Tiahrt for taking the lead on introducing this legislation and encourage you to work with him in getting this bill enacted into law. As the current Chairman of Eisenhower Fellowships, I can attest to the need for increased Federal support. The organization is funded by a mix of private and Federal funds. Congress granted a Federal charter in 1990 (PL 101-454) and created a permanent trust fund to assist the fellowship program. The initial trust fund authorization has not increased in over thirteen years. Although we have steadily increased the levels and proportion of our private funding, demand for our programs has increased far more rapidly than our resources. This has been especially true since September 11, 2001, an event that strongly underlined the urgency of our mission: building understanding and progress through dialogue among leaders from around the world. Now in its fiftieth year of successful operations, Eisenhower Fellowships remains committed to this original goal and poised to make a larger contribution. I therefore ask for your support of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund Enhancement Act of 2003 by scheduling this bill as soon as possible after Congress returns from the August break. The timing of this is critical to me and to all the supporters of the Eisenhower Fellowships, since I will be chairing its 50th Anniversary Board meeting on October 3, 2003, and presenting the Eisenhower Medal for Leadership and Service to former President George H.W. Bush--my predecessor as Chairman of Eisenhower Fellowships. The Congressional expression of support for our mission by enacting this bill into law will be a key factor in strengthening this very fine example of public/private endeavor in a mission critical to the U.S. national interest. Sincerely, Henry A. Kissinger.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa, for yielding me this time. I just think we ought to remember how we got in the situation we are in today, because we have seen charts and heard rhetoric that said the reason Federal revenues are down is because of Republican economic policy, but they have overlooked some of the hard and cold facts; and facts are stubborn things, some hard and cold facts that have happened over the last few years. For example, in 1999 we had a huge tech bust. The NASDAQ dropped more than half. It was not based on Republican policy. Then we had the recession that happened while President Clinton was still in office. It began in November of 2000, before President Bush was sworn in. And then on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our homeland and drove our economy down the tubes. The result was a 14 percent reduction in federal revenue. That reduction was not based on Republican policy at all; it was based on those series of events, the most tragic being the attack by terrorists on September 11. Well, what did the Republicans do to respond to that? We lowered taxes across the board for everyone, including the top 1 percent, the same percentage as everybody else, and the result was that today we have more Americans working than ever before in the history of our Nation. And the income of our workers is up higher than it has ever been in the history of our Nation. Homeownership is up, higher than ever before in the history of our Nation, as well as minority ownership of homes. We have had tremendous success because of Republican policy. But now we are trying to regress and tax those people who are creating the jobs. Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of the people in the top 1 percent of income earners in America are small business owners. They are farmers, they are people who own little machine shops, they are the people down at the local drugstore, or retailers. If we start taxing them in addition, up to near 40 percent of their income, less money will be available to create jobs. So there are two different philosophies we are hearing today. We have the dark and stormy liberalism that says raise taxes, and we have the bright and sunny conservatism that says lower taxes and let Americans become successful, because the result is more Americans working, greater jobs, stronger economy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the problem that we are facing tonight is the control of spending, how do we control spending and reduce the Federal deficit. The easy target is the appropriations process because that is where we spend most of our time. We develop 13 bills for discretionary spending and we focus on all 13. But the real culprit is mandatory spending and off-budget items. If we look at Medicare which is mandatory spending, for example, it grew 14 percent last year, much faster than the rate of inflation. Yet we do not have nearly the time focused on Medicare that we do on these 13 appropriations bills. We also have the highway bill coming up, TEA- LU, which is moving towards $318 billion over the next 6 years. That is going to exceed what the trust fund provides. Where will that excess money come from? It will come out of the appropriations process for discretionary spending and once again, this burden will be there and the blame once again will be placed on the appropriations process. If we are going to control spending, we are going to have to learn how to focus on mandatory spending as well as off-budget items, because the appropriations process has all 13 appropriation bills submitted within budget. It is mandatory where the real problem is, and we are failing to deal with it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction on this area for all the progress that he has made for veterans in a long time. As it was stated here earlier by the Chairman, 140 years has gone by that this has been an issue, but it took a Republican Congress to act on it. And we have done more for veterans in the last 10 years since we have taken over the House of Representatives as the majority party than happened in the previous generation. So I thank him for his leadership and appreciate his time on the floor tonight. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to speak about three things. First, I want to talk a little bit about our economy and how it is growing, why it is growing, why the tax relief that we have passed has been so beneficial. Second, I want to talk about what is going to be proposed tomorrow by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. He is calling it ``America's Top Ten Obligations.'' That is the title for a tax increase on what he claims are the top 1 percent of taxpayers in America. We will tell you who those people are. The third thing I want to talk about is how we are going to bring jobs back into America. It is an agenda we call ``Careers for the 21st Century.'' It is an eight-point plan to make America more competitive. But first, Mr. Speaker, let me return to our economy. Our economy is robust. I have a chart here that shows how our economy is growing. It starts in the fourth quarter of 2002. As you recall, in the recent history of our economy, in 1999 we had a tech bust. It resulted in a dramatic drop in the NASDAQ because a lot of the tech industries lost value and many people were laid off. Following that in about November of 2000, prior to George Bush being sworn in for office in January of 2001, the recession started. We saw other job losses. Then on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our country using our own technology against us and dealt a severe blow to our economy. In my home area in south central Kansas, our community had a greater percentage loss of jobs compared to the total number of jobs in the community than any other community in the United States. We were hit very hard. So the terrorist attack had a dramatic impact. What happened in Congress then is that we passed the President's plan for tax relief. It was an across-the-board tax relief plan in addition to some targeted tax relief. That across-the-board plan affected every individual that pays Federal income taxes in America. Every individual. All of us got a tax break if we paid Federal income taxes. It was a very fair and reasonable thing to do. The percentage was equal for every American. So that tax increase did one of three things for people who got money back from the government, their money returned to them by the Federal Government. They either saved it, which was good, because that provided money for mortgages. As we have known, if one has been paying attention to new home starts in America, it has been dramatically growing. It has been the largest surge that we have seen in recent history. Two reasons: One, low interest rates; the second is there was money available because people took some of this money available from the tax relief and they saved it. The second thing was invest it. By investing it it made money available to corporations to expand their companies and hire more people. And the charts will support that. The third thing is that what Americans did with the tax relief is they spent the money. They went out there and they demanded goods and services. Those goods and services in turn created more jobs. So the tax relief did those three things. All of it was good for our economy. The results are clear. The growth in our economy going back to the fourth quarter of 2002 they had a 1.3 percent growth. We were just seeing the effect of the tax relief. The next quarter, the first quarter of 2003, 2.0 percent growth. Then it started to climb, 3.1 in the second quarter. Third quarter spiked at 8.2 percent. It was really taking off. Then it leveled off to now 4.1 and then 4.4 for the first quarter of 2004. The projection is the last half of the chart there looks like it is going to go to about 4.4. We are anticipating some increases in the interest rates from the Federal Reserve. So there may be a slight drop back. But this is the fastest growth that our economy has seen in the last 20 years, a tremendous advantage, and it was based on tax relief. This surge has also created jobs. This is a by-month comparison of the jobs, the base level of jobs and then the month's increase of jobs. One can see the total number of jobs has grown dramatically in the last 3 months. We have seen in March of 2004, 353,000 jobs were created. In April of 2004 an additional 346,000 jobs were created. In May of 2004, this past May, 248,000 jobs were created. Since August of last year this economy has created 1.4 million jobs because we have had some tax relief and people have done one of those three things that I explained earlier. Now, what does that mean when jobs increase? It means unemployment goes down. Unemployment now is down to where the average in 2004 is lower than the average of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. In Kansas where we have had 13,000 aerospace workers laid off, they are coming back to work. Our unemployment has just dropped three-tenths of a point in just the last couple months. So we have seen a real reduction in unemployment, which has been good for our economy. Not only are there more jobs out there, but the people with those jobs are earning more money. Now, we have heard complaints from the other side of the aisle that, oh, sure, there are some more jobs out there but they are minimum wage jobs. These are jobs that only poor people can have. It is not a living wage. The truth is the average wage is going up. The people with these jobs are getting high-quality, high-paying jobs. Now, I know we can do better, but the fact is people are making more money and we have more people working. Exports are also picking up, a good indication that our economy is doing very well. Also our investments are very strong. This goes back to what I was saying about those three points. The President's tax cut has reduced the marginal effective tax rate for new investments and that has caused a growth of investments in America. Very important fact. Housing starts remain strong. We talked a little bit about that. That is one of the second points I made when people save money. I guess it is the first point I made, that when people save money it makes money available for home mortgages. And then home ownership starts, people buy houses and they build new homes. And those homes that are vacated are then sold on the market. We have more people owning homes today than ever before in America's history. Minority ownership is at an all time high, at 50.8 percent of families owning houses. Other indicators in the housing markets are also strong. So this is good news for our economy. And it goes back to tax relief. Tax relief is very important to keep our economy strong. Now, tomorrow the gentleman from Wisconsin is going to take a tip off the sheet of Mr. Kerry, the gentleman running for president, and that is going to be called America's Top Ten Obligations. Now, this plan, the intent of this plan is to scale back the tax cuts, the tax cuts that have been propping up this economy, as these charts have shown, propping up this economy during the terrorist attacks, the war against terrorism, it is a worldwide war, and the recession that we are coming out of. But the problem is that Mr. Kerry and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wanting to raise the tax burden, which they say is the top 1 percent of America, is actually raising taxes on the people that are creating the jobs. Now, the Tax Foundation is drafting a report on the demographics of the top 1 percent of taxpayers in America. These are the so-called, quote unquote, ``millionaires.'' And they are millionaires. For example, 83 percent of taxpayers with an income above $1 million have it from business income. Well, what does that mean? It means that they are the people that are out there creating jobs. Many of these jobs that we have seen on the charts here tonight are created by small business. 83 percent of these people are small business owners, pure and simple. If you look at the statistics, 13.2 percent of them are in finance, real estate, or insurance. 8.1 percent of them are in manufacturing of durable goods. 6.9 percent of them are in educational services. 6.8 percent of them are in medical, except hospitals. We have 6.0 percent of them that are business and repairs, including computer processing and business services, and 4.9 of them are in construction/manufacturing. These other categories include agricultural, farming in other words, mining, utilities, wholesale trade, retail trade. These are small business owners, and in Kansas, it is four out of five jobs. Now, if you look at Kansas, you will find that in Wichita, for example, it has the largest facility owned by Boeing outside the State of Washington. We also have Raytheon which owns Beech aircraft where they make Beech jets, many different models, and also, their single engine aircraft. We also have Cessna, which is owned by Textron. All their aircraft are made in south central Kansas, either in Independence, Kansas, and a majority of them remain right there in Wichita. We also have Lear jet which is owned by Bombardier where they make the Lear 35, the Lear 45, the Lear 60 and they are looking at some other Bombardier models that are moving in there. We also have a design shop for Airbus, designing the wing for the A- 380, their new huge airplane that is going to be sold to airlines for passenger use. Plus, we have about 150 shops that supply the aircraft industry. Well, a majority of those shops are just nothing more than small businesses. People look at, well, we have got 12,000 people at Boeing, 12,000 people at Cessna, 8,000 people at Raytheon, 4,000 people at Lear jet, 120 at Airbus, but then you look at all these small shops, and there are more people working in aerospace for small businessmen than there are for all the big corporations. Well, those are the 83 percent of taxpayers in the top one percent that own those shops and hire those people. Well, the plan that Mr. Kerry and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have is to raise taxes on those people. What impact will it have when they have less money available to hire people to run their business? It will result in layoffs. Now, if you have listened to the rhetoric during the presidential campaign, you will find out that the gloom and doom perspective are coming from Mr. Kerry and from the Democrats here in the House, and they have sort of this dark, stormy night view of America. I have sort of the sunshiny day, the optimistic side, where if we can allow people to have a little more in their pocket, where we can allow small businessmen to go out there and invest in their companies, they will do well, they will hire people that will do well, and our economy will do well, but instead, we have got to go down the path that they want to take us which is to raise taxes, take away jobs. I found it interesting tonight that the gentleman from Maine created this scenario where rich people, it sounded like they were sitting on a beach somewhere in the Caribbean, sipping their Margaritas or whatever, Margaritaville maybe, and that they were just living a life of leisure and they just had money stuck in their pockets everywhere, and we should take that money away from them and give it to the veterans which are having trouble getting health services. Well, in the last 10 years since I have been here we have doubled the amount of money that veterans are getting for health care, doubled it, more than they did in the previous generation. But we also realize that these people that they are talking about, the top 1 percent, are not sitting on the beach somewhere drinking a Margarita, they are out there working 60, 70, 80 hours a week. They are creating jobs. They are trying to keep their businesses together. They are giving people opportunities by hiring them, letting them get skills, letting them work, letting them buy clothes for their kids, buy cars for themselves, putting their kids through college. They are letting their employees live the American dream, but that is going to change if Mr. Kerry or the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have their way. They are going to take away the money that they have in order to make their businesses healthy and grow. So, the proposal the Democrats have is to kill the jobs. The tax breaks we have obviously have created jobs by just the charts I showed you earlier. It seems the House Democrats want to bring up a page out of the Kerry economic playbook to raise taxes on job creators and grow the size of government, and Mr. Speaker, Republicans welcome this chance to debate and defeat this job-killing bill tomorrow, along with the spending proposals. The third thing I wanted to talk to you tonight is something that is very exciting because I showed you how well the economy is doing, but we know we can do better. When things got tough in America, I started talking to the CEOs back in my area, and I met with them several times. I listened to their concerns, their problems, and I realized that they basically control only a couple of different variables in their businesses. Number one is wages, and that is the thing that we seem to always talk about, and I think the reason we do is probably because unions feel that that is their prime objective in life today. It is not about whether the lights are on or off or how warm it is in the workplace anymore. It is about wages, and they feel like they are unjustified unless they get a good wage package for their workers. That is what they are there for, and what I found is that the employers basically do not mind paying a good wage. They want high quality workers. They are willing to pay for them, but that is one of the few variables they have that they can control. So there is a lot of pressure on employers to try to keep wages down. It is very unfortunate, but I will tell you why later on. The second thing, though, is overhead. Overhead is a variable. That is how many square feet they have in a building. That is how new of machines they have. That is basically keeping the lights on and having the equipment for their employees to work on. They can control how big the building is. In fact, they can sell it off if they have to. Right now, the Boeing company is looking at selling off a large part of the facility they have in Wichita. They have about 12.5 million square feet under roof in Wichita. They could spin off as much as half of that and have another company buy that, and that would reduce their overhead burden. That is one of the two variables that they have to look at. The other variables are things that they do not get a vote on. They cannot really have much control over, for example, the health care plan. Right now, employers must have a health care plan to be competitive, but they do not get to vote on how much it grows each year. In fact, some of them have told me in Wichita that the growth in their health care costs for their employees have gone up by 30 percent in the last year, 30 percent. Now, they are looking at ways that they have to increase deductibles, trying to put more of the burden back on the employees. Well, that is a very unfortunate thing, but it is something that they have very little control over. So what do they do? They look at wages and overhead. The result of that has been a job loss. They have been looking at going overseas because it is more difficult. Well, health care is just one issue. We have divided the issues up into eight categories. Now, these issues have really been a problem created by Congress over the last generation. They have created costs and expenses that businesses have to put up with just by the sheer structure of the system, and it has limited their ability to do business in America, and it has caused job loss, jobs going overseas. The eight categories are health care security. We have talked about health care a little bit. The other one is bureaucratic red tape. Educational policy, we call it lifelong learning. Energy self- sufficiency, research and development/innovation. Trade fairness is the sixth one. The seventh one is tax relief and simplification. The last one is ending lawsuit abuse and litigation management. We have a scorecard on what we have done to change the business environment in America and make it more competitive. We have taken on the first four of these eight issues. The first one was health care security. With health care security, we passed three pieces of legislation. Let me say up front that we have not solved the problems in health care all together, but we have put policies in place that will help lower the costs. We will not see the same dramatic growth we have seen in the past. The three pieces of legislation we passed were flexible spending accounts that allowed employees to control part of this money. The employer would set aside an amount of money like $1,000. If the employees did not use that money, they could carry it over to the next year, and by doing that, then eventually, as we worked with this policy, it could be a system where an employee, if they stay healthy their whole lives, they could use that money for long-term health care in their elder years. That is always a worry that people have. My parents are having that same concern. They have gone out and bought long-term care insurance. It costs them a lot of money a month, and it grieves me because they have to cut back on their lifestyle. It costs them almost $400 a month. My father is 85. My mother is 77. So it is a little difficult for them to fit that in their budget, but they are so worried about being a burden on their children that they have gone out and purchased this insurance. Well, if an employee working chose a healthy lifestyle, was allowed to put this money away through their working career, it would go into an annuity that could pay for long-term health care insurance through flexible spending accounts. We also passed medical malpractice liability limits, and that was a very good thing because it limited the amount of liability, and it allowed lower costs for insurance, for physicians and hospitals, and those who provide health care services, and that, in turn, helps keep costs down. Now, you can look on a State-by-State basis where people have not limited medical malpractice, and we have had some outrageous settlements that have gone way beyond what any medical costs were associated for the loss or the injury and basically made a lot of lawyers rich. Well, this is a reasonable way that we have capped liability costs, and we followed some of the States. And in those States where this has occurred, they have seen dramatic lower costs in their medical malpractice insurance, and the cost of health care has gone down. It has been a good example. So we adopted here in the Congress and passed medical malpractice liability limits. We also passed the Small Business Health Fairness Act, or AHPs, associated health plans. These are plans that allow associations to go out and procure, especially small businesses, through their associations. They can go out and buy health care plans as a group rather than as an individuals. If you take a small shop, like a small machine shop that is supplying the aircraft industry in Wichita, Kansas, they may have 10 employees. Well, those 10 employees have to buy their own package. The insurance company would come in and assess the risk for those ten employees. But through the associated health plans all the machine shops in Wichita, Kansas, some 40,000 employees, if they bought one package through the AHP it would not just be ten employees they would be looking at, it would be 40,000 employees. That would mean lower rates for all of them. Because all that has that has to happen in a small shop of, say ten employees, is one of the spouses of one of the employees to contract cancer and go through a long severe medical treatment, and that would drive up the cost for the entire group. It may even make it so expensive they could not afford health the care costs. So by having AHPs, or associated health plans, its allows them to mitigate their costs over a larger group and lower the whole cost. The next week we addressed the issue of bureaucratic red tape termination, and we focused on OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. We started out with the OSHA Small Business Day in Court, we went to OSHA Review Commission Efficiency Act, then we passed the OSHA Independent Review and OSHA Citations Act, and then we passed the OSHA Small Employer Access to Justice Act, and then we completed the week by passing the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvement Act. All of this effort was designed to do two things: Number one is to remove the bureaucratic red tape; to limit it. What we found by talking to groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and employers themselves was that these costs are getting buried into our products and they are making us less competitive. The National Association of Manufacturers says that 14 percent of the cost of any item manufactured in America is regulatory compliance. Well, just imagine if we could just cut that in half. We would be 6 percent more competitive worldwide. And I think that was the goal here. The second part of what we were trying to do is to look at government agencies and realize that they do not have to work against our employers, against our small business owners, against our employees. They can work with them to achieve a common goal. We still have legislation pending that will continue this process, but basically it will say to OSHA, let us go out to a facility and work with them to make it safer without any fines. Right now the way the system works is OSHA comes in and they do not leave until they have found something wrong. And it seems like they have to write a fine all of the time. Sometimes they stand off from the work site, through pictures or some kind of a judgment call, and they will decide that they need to assess some fine and they will send it to the employer in the mail. Sometimes they will go to a job site which has a contractor, a general contractor and ten or twelve subcontractors, and they will fine everybody there, even if there is just one of the subcontractors at fault. Well, the new system we need to put in place would have OSHA go in and say, we have a ladder being improperly used and it is a danger to this work site, so we will educate your workers as to how to place it properly. They can come back in 6 months and see how people are handling ladders. That way both the employer and OSHA achieves the goal of safety on the workplace without assessing fines. So that is a good place to work through bureaucratic red tape, reducing the amount of red tape and achieving the goals that are necessary. The next week we went into life-long learning. In order to be competitive around the globe, we have to have people who are preparing themselves for the technical future we have coming up. We need people to be fluent in math and science and in engineering capabilities. They will have to have high-tech degrees. They will also have to be fluent in languages, as we are finding out today. But we need to have a plan to create an environment so that people can get the skills they need in order to become ready for tomorrow, for the future, because it is going to be more and more technical, not less. So we passed the Teacher Training Enhancement Act, we passed the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act, the Back to Work Incentive Act, and the Workforce Research Investment and Adult Education Act. We had conferees appointed for that legislation. The next week we went on to energy self-sufficiency. We passed the Energy Policy Act of 2004, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act, and the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act. It is funny, because we have tried to pass energy policy several times. In fact, I have a chart that shows the activity of the House Republicans and what they have done to pass an energy bill. Back in January 1, 2001, shortly before George Bush took office, gas prices were about $1.32 in America. President Bush sent his energy plan to Congress and it was passed for the first time by the House on August 2, 2002. It then failed across the Capitol. We passed it again on April 11, 2003. We passed it a third time, after it failed again on the other side of the Capitol. We passed it a third time on November 18, 2003, and then we just passed it on June 15, 2004 for a fourth time. Why is an energy bill so important? It is important because you can see, without it, gas prices are continuing to climb. We are now over $2. We must have a comprehensive plan where we can open up more energy reserves, where we can capitalize on renewable energy, and where we can open up new sites for refineries. We have not built a new refinery since 1976 in America. Even if we could produce more oil right now, we probably could not process it because we need more refineries to do that. So we are going to go into old sites, where old refineries are, and allow them to be opened up. In the following month of July we are going to take on the last four issues that we have on this package of careers for the 21st century. We are going to take on tax relief and simplification. We are going to try to set up a system that is not so volatile in the way that it approaches businesses. There is one success story I want to briefly mention before I run out of time, and it is called accelerated depreciation. In the aircraft industry, when you sell a business jet, it can cost $6 million. Well, through accelerated depreciation they can write off two-thirds of that aircraft in the very first year. Now, I have heard people on the other side of the aisle talk about what a great tax break for rich individuals and corporations that is. What they do not talk about, though, is all the jobs that are created in America. Cessna Aircraft, which has seen the greatest benefit from accelerated depreciation, has sold every aircraft they had in the backlog, they are now building jets that are already sold, and it has put all their laid- off workers back to work, plus they have hired an additional 400 people. It is a jobs act. We need to get some more tax relief that will create more jobs in America, because we can do better. Then we are going to move on to trade fairness and opportunity so that we can have a fair and equal trade policy and an enforceable trade policy. Then we are going to look at research and development and how we can spur innovation, and we are going to complete this with ending lawsuit abuse. One of the beautiful things about trying to limit litigation is that, again, it will create jobs. And a good example back in the Fourth District of Kansas, back in 1994, Congress passed the statute of limitations which said basically that you cannot sue an airplane manufacturer for the design of the airplane after it has been flying for 23 years, if it is a heavy jet, or 18 years if it is a smaller aircraft. Now, think about that. If an airplane has been flying for 18 years, there is nothing wrong with the design. Yet every time a plane went down, these aircraft manufacturers always had to have some kind of defense system. In fact, Raytheon told me that at Beech it cost them $300,000 for every crash, whether they were sued or not. So limiting liability is a very important part because, again, it will create jobs in America. Well, these barriers, these eight barriers have been put in place by Congress. We can change the environment. The results of changing this environment will mean more jobs here in America, and it means we will have greater exports, we will be more competitive worldwide, and we will have a brighter future for ourselves and our children. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff tonight and the Speaker for hanging around. I think this is a very important issue, and I think it is the right debate to be having today.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine for giving us that wonderful quote about all of the benefits that have been provided to us by veterans. But when it comes to concurrent receipts, it has been the Republicans that have done the most to provide for concurrent receipts for veterans by making a progressive step in the right direction. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) to explain what has happened when it comes to benefits for the veterans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time to consider House Resolution 691 in the House; the resolution shall be considered as read for amendment; the resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.