Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I wish Susan Hirschmann farewell. We all know how important staff is to the legislative process. As the Majority Whip's Chief of Staff Susan has not only served Mr. DeLay but the House and the American people as well. Her drive has helped us pass many important pieces of legislation. Her dedication to the work we do here led her to stay much longer than she wanted. Susan had planned to leave before this year, but after the events of September 11th, realized that she needed to stay to help guide the House through a crucial period in our nation's history. Susan was and is the ``go to'' person. Whether it was advice, counsel or moving legislation, she was consistently effective. I thank her husband David for the long hours she has put into serving Majority Whip DeLay and the House. Thank you Susan. Best wishes in your future endeavors. We're going to miss you.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 12, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call vote numbered 295. Rollcall vote 295 was on passage of H.R. 4687, legislation which would provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this morning I recited our Pledge of Allegiance with extra vigor, for our nation is under attack--not from terrorists but extremists in our own country. Yesterday the 9th Federal Appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the Pledge is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools--CANNOT BE RECITED IN SCHOOLS. I am sure you share my outrage. There is a reason that our Marines in Iwo Jima risked their lives to display the stars and stripes. Our flag stands for all that makes this nation great. From kindergarten on, our children are taught respect for our flag--a flag that represents this wonderful and, yes, Godly nation. Our children are taught that the United States represents liberty and justice for all. Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and even our currency state our country's relationship to God. On September 11th, as soon as it was safe enough the first thing Members of Congress did was to gather on the steps of this magnificent building and sing ``God Bless America.'' The judges in California are clearly out of touch, not only with the principles upon which the Pledge is based but also with the sentiment of the American people. For the past 9 months Americans have proudly displayed their love for their nation, as well as their faith in God. We realize now more than ever that our nation has a special charge and thus revere the Pledge more than ever. I am proud of our flag, I am proud of our nation and I will proudly recite ``one nation, under God'' for the rest of my life.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what I really appreciate about this country is that we can have an open forum and allow two lawyers to talk about rocket science. What the gentleman just brought up here is 12 parameters on a rocket test. I would like to talk just a little bit about speaking on only 12 parameters on a rocket test. The facts of the matter is that there will probably be close to 12,000 parameters addressed in the series of tests that we are going to be doing out of Fort Greely, Alaska. I think before I go on, I want to talk a little bit about why we are going to have these tests. There is a need to have protection from incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles. Today we know that Russia has those capabilities as do some of the former Soviet countries that were part of the former Soviet Union, USSR. We know China has that capability. India is working on that capability. North Korea is working on that capability and has launched a three-stage rocket. Fortunately, the third stage did not fire, but it is just a matter of time. Iran, Iraq is also pursuing this technology; but we are not doing it for today. Listening to the previous discussion, it sounded like we were expecting something to be ready either by this December or we should not do it at all. This is a very complex system, but this is a complex system that has had successful tests; and even the gentleman admitted, yes, there have been some successes. The success was that we fired a rocket off out of the Pacific, a second intercepting rocket was launched from a land-based location, and in essence, a bullet hit a bullet thousands of miles from the location from where either of these rockets were launched, thousands of miles, a bullet hitting a bullet, tremendous success, wonderful success. I do not think we can get two lawyers, one on each end of the Capitol, have them shoot at each other, ever get a hit on a bullet; but these scientists were able to do this at thousands of miles, a tremendous technical achievement. We are expecting it to happen immediately, or we should do not it at all? Well, it is going to take time to continue this technology so that we can be successful in protecting, not ourselves necessarily, but our posterity, our children. North Korea does not have an intercontinental ballistic missile yet, but they will have. Countries that are rogue nations, with rogue leaders will have that capability in the future. We do have a constitutional requirement to provide for the common defense of our citizens. We cannot do it without a system like this. It does not happen overnight. We have to work on it overtime. We have to invest time; we have to invest money. We have to expect some failures. But it is an incredible technology. For us to shut the water off on this is very shortsighted. It ignores the future. It ignores the safety of our citizens, my children, our children. We cannot turn our backs on this. It is a reality. It is an achievable technology. It is a necessity, and for us to stop this is very shortsighted and I think, hopefully, improbable. I think that is the general feeling here in the House is that we should provide for the common defense of our children, and that is a viable means of doing that. One of the other things I wanted to say about the location is that Fort Greely, Alaska, is probably the best location to run this battery of tests, to measure these parameters. The location has been studied. Construction has already started. It is very important that we continue with this program; and I think that the Pentagon, the administration, the rocket scientists have a very good plan. It is a well-thought-out plan. It measures every facet. It starts with a design concept. It develops documents as to what test requirements are going to be required, what the statement of work, the total environment of this test activity, every little stress point on these rockets that is going to be measured. It is going to be able to hit a bullet with a bullet, thousands of miles over the Pacific or over areas remote from our country; and that is something that we need to think about as a priority for our children, because the reality is, it is going to occur. My colleagues cannot convince me that Mu'ammar Qadhafi or Saddam Hussein or some future despot is not going to want to use that leverage on America. How do we protect ourselves from that? We have to have a system, an umbrella around our citizens, around our children. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be opposed and that we continue on with the business of the day.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, once again the House is working on behalf of the taxpaying family by voting today on the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2002. This bill would permanently eliminate the destructive marriage penalty taxes that were temporarily enacted by last year's tax relief package. As I think about the 65,000 married couples in my district who will personally benefit from this bill, I am also reminded of the more than 100,000 children who will benefit. When the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act expires in 2011, my constituents in Kansas who have decided to get married will be forced to pay more taxes simply because they chose to say, ``I do.'' When the government tells married couples they will be punished because of their wedding vows, we are sending a dangerous message to younger generations about the importance of marriage. If Congress fails to make permanent the marriage tax penalty relief, this country will see 21 million married couples suffer because their taxes will be increased. I am especially concerned that if Congress does not act, many of our low-income married taxpayers will see their Earned Income Credit reduced or completely eliminated. This unfairly discriminates against poorer families who have made a commitment before both God and man to remain faithful in marriage to one another. I am appalled that any member of the United States Congress would support such discrimination against the institution of marriage. Most marriage penalties occur when the spouse earning the higher wage makes between $20,000 and $75,000 per year. We are not talking about the rich, we are talking about low and middle class families who are working hard just to make ends meet. I would also like to remind my colleagues today that with passage of this bill, we will be further helping low-income taxpayers by preventing Earned Income Credit simplifications from disappearing in 2011. Failure to pass this bill will increase taxes on married couples by $5.7 billion in 2010 and by $10.4 billion in 2011. Mr. Speaker, let's respect the sanctity of matrimony by eliminating these shameful marriage taxes.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, all across this country moms and dads are striving to provide a bright future for their children. Parents who own small businesses or family farms put years of sweat and blood into making them prosper so they will have something to leave behind for their children. Here in America, dreams really do come true as individuals work hard to achieve great success. But here in America, we are also cursed by an offensive tax penalty that often forces families to lose these small businesses and family farms. Last year when President Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 into law, Americans were pleased to know that this curse, commonly called the death tax, would finally be terminated by 2010. What many did not realize is that this tax is scheduled to come back from the dead to haunt us January 1, 2011. If a farmer or small business owner dies on December 31, 2010, no death tax will be charged. But if that person dies just one day later, the government will once again be there to offer its condolences by charging up to a 60 percent tax on the value of the farm or business. Instead of the final wishes of the deceased family member being honored with respect, the government just wants more money to waste in Washington. After 2010, Americans who pay taxes their entire life will be taxed one final time when they die. No taxpaying citizen deserves to have the fruit of their labor taxed twice. Just two months ago the House passed a bill that would make last year's tax cut permanent. Unfortunately, some politicians don't want to see this money leave Washington and have made every effort possible to obstruct doing away with this tax. That is why we are once again discussing this matter. Any vote in opposition to permanently eliminating the death tax is a vote in favor of higher taxes for millions of Americans. Whether we make last year's tax cuts permanent with one vote or a dozen votes, I will continue fighting against raising taxes for my constituents in Kansas. I urge my friends and colleagues to join me today in voting to permanently kill this disgraceful tax burden imposed on families during their time of grief. The death tax issue is not about how many rich or poor people have to pay a certain tax. It is about the inherent impropriety of taxing death. Whether a person is rich, middle-class, or poor, it is wrong to tax the dead. I was proud to cosponsor the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2001 last year, and I look forward to its passage today. When I talk to Kansas farmers, agriculture producers, business owners and others who have invested wisely, I consistently get the same message: don't tax us when we die. The American people are tired of Washington taxing and spending their money, and one of the most egregious actions this Congress can do is allow the death tax to come back to haunt us again. Mr. Speaker, let's bury the death tax for good.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I humbly stand before you today to honor Martin and Gracia Burnham, who are pictured here in a photograph from over a year ago. Today is the day I had been looking forward to for over a year, a day when I could finally tell you that Martin and Gracia Burnham are no longer being held hostage by Muslim terrorists, but it is bittersweet. The Burnhams' captivity by Muslim terrorists in the Philippines is finally over at 377 days and on Monday, Gracia arrived home in Kansas and was joyfully reunited with her three children, Jeff, Mindy and Zach. But I am deeply saddened to tell you that Martin will not be returning to Kansas. Martin was mortally wounded in rescue and has gone on to be with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Martin was born in Wichita, Kansas, on September 19, 1959, the eldest son of Paul and Oreta Burnham, who served as missionaries and now reside in Rose Hill, Kansas, just outside of Wichita. Gracia is daughter of Reverend Norvni and Betty Jo Jones of Arkansas. Martin and Gracia met at Calvary Bible College in 1982 and were married in 1983. In 1986 they went to the Philippines where they have been and since have served as missionaries with the New Tribes Mission. Martin and Gracia's three children, Jeff, 15; Mindy, 12; and Zach, 11, were all born in the Philippines. During their years of service, Martin was chief pilot for New Tribes Mission. He flew supplies to missionaries in remote locations, and Gracia assisted in a variety of roles supporting New Tribes Mission aviation program. Martin has been commended as a skillful pilot but is known more for his friendliness and strong faith. Gracia is appropriately named, and I have heard stories from her loved ones over the past few years and found them to be true when I had a chance to meet her on this Monday. I was in complete awe of her boundless spirit and vivaciousness. It was her grace and peace, however, that truly amazed me. I could feel the presence of God within her. It is no wonder that Martin and Gracia have touched so many hearts or that so many people across the world have been involved in efforts to free them. Martin and Gracia were captured last May while on vacation to celebrate their 18th wedding anniversary. They were taken hostage and held for ransom because they were Americans. But Martin and Gracia's ministry did not end with their capture by terrorists. During the past year, they never lost their faith or joy of life despite their frail condition and the terror they endured. Fellow captives who were freed earlier spoke of their love and strength. Martin and Gracia comforted their fellow hostages, shared their food and supplies, and helped raise their spirits through singing, telling stories and even reciting recipes. Gracia became a mother figure to her fellow hostages, and Martin always graciously offered to carry things for both terrorists and other hostages. Martin and Gracia praised God and thanked Him for each day. Martin even reached out to the terrorists and tried to show them the ways of Christ. He constantly prayed for them. On June 7 before Martin's death, he and Gracia prayed together and thanked God for his faithfulness and lay down for a nap. Martin stated, ``We might not leave this jungle alive but at least we can leave this world serving the Lord with gladness.'' He left the world serving the Lord with gladness and Gracia continues to do so. I also want to honor Martin's parents, Paul and Oreta Burnham. For the past year they have taken care of Jeff, Mindy, and Zach. They have worked tirelessly to do all they can to bring Martin and Gracia home. I have been impressed with their humbleness, their strength and their faith. The Burnham family has shown us the power of faith and love. As Rhonda Holman, editorial writer for the Wichita Eagle said, ``Confronted by humanity at its most evil, they exemplified humanity at its best, responding not with fear and despair, but with unflagging hope. As they adjust to bittersweet events of Friday, may the Burnhams realize how deeply they have touched and inspired us with their strength.'' Over the past year, many of us who never met Martin and Gracia came to know and love them. We often felt helpless. Our prayers were heard by the Burnhams as Gracia told us in her first statement to the world following her captivity, she said, ``We want to thank each and every one of you for every time you remembered us in prayer. We needed every single prayer you prayed for us during our ordeal in the jungle.'' The outcome was not what I had hoped for or worked for or prayed for but I believe our prayers did make a difference. Please continue to pray for the Burnham family and their family and friends. In closing let me share a couple of stanzas from a poem written by a friend of the Burnhams, Ted Miller. It is called the ``Final Score.'' The poem goes, ``We thought of you both every day, wondered what it was like, guns shooting, grenades going off, an all day jungle hike. It may be over in the jungle, but it will not all be left behind. May God pour out more grace on you and give you peace of mind. ``Martin said if he had to go, a martyr would be the way. Enjoy it Martin, we will join you soon, just one last thing to say. If bin Laden's bunch is keeping score, you may have killed my hero, but let me tell you the final score, Heaven one, terrorists zero.'' Mr. Speaker, the poem in its entirety is as follows: Final Score We all know Martin and Gracia, even if we have never met. They were on our radios, church prayer requests, on our TV sets. I remember that famous video, in my mind it's still planted, All Gracia wanted was privacy, things I take for granted. We all could probably confess, we never seem content, That little short video changed my life, you can not know what it meant. All this was no accident, this last year fits Gods plan, While we were in our comfort zone, The Burnhams hid and ran. But Gracia let me tell you, through all the hunger and pain, We have grown closer to the Lord as one, no one died in vain. Your families have held the ropes for you, they always did their best, They pleaded for prayers, pleaded for help, never seem to rest. We always knew how to pray for the kids, constant specific updates, The things they missed about mom and dad, Gracia your funny cakes. All these things that seem so small, your kids did not let go, What a testimony they have been, as time passed so slow. We thought of you both everyday, wondered what it was like, Guns shooting, grenades going off, an all day jungle hike. It may be over in the jungle, but it will not all be left behind, May God pour out more grace on you and give you peace of mind. Thanks for the opportunity to pray for you, what a blessing that it was, God is still on the throne, we are excited to see what he does. I thought of Gracia and Martin, shot, wounded on the ground, As Martin slipped off to be with God, I think he heard this sound. Thousands of angels welcoming him home, then there is the

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 376th day that Martin and Gracia Burnham have been held captive by Muslim terrorists in the Philippines. It has been over a year now. This July 31, the U.S. military 6-month advisory mission in the Philippines expires, yet many of us are requesting of the administration that our troops stay beyond the current deadline. There was some concern, when our troops first arrived in the Philippines 5 months ago, they would not be well received. When Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz visited the Philippines last week, he found they were very receptive in the Philippines, and that even a Muslim governor in the southern Philippines wanted an increased role for our U.S. military. Our special forces commanders feel like their job is not done. We have strategic interests and a common goal of getting rid of terrorism, so we must stay. Terrorism will not stop without their help. And then there are the Burnhams still being held hostage. How can we walk away from two of our citizens being held captive by Muslim terrorists? Mr. Speaker, I believe we know where the Burnhams are. I believe if we have the political will, we can bring them home safely. I ask the President to not walk away from Martin and Gracia Burnham. As always, I ask my colleagues to join me in prayer for Martin and Gracia and their loved ones so this nightmare may soon be over.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk about raising the national debt limit here; and I just want to point out, first of all, that I have in my hand the supplemental bill right here. It has nothing to do with raising the national debt. In fact, if my colleagues want to know what is in the bill, they can simply get the report portion and they can read the highlights on pages 1 and 2; and it outlines very nicely about how we are going to address the needs of our Department of Defense, of our Department of Transportation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and so on, things that are very necessary at this point in time. I think it is important that we point that out. It is not in the supplemental bill. Where all of this confusion is coming from from the other side came from the rule. Now, in the rule it says nothing about owing $750 billion or borrowing $750 billion, or robbing Social Security, or any environmental issues about a river in Oregon. What it does say, very simply, on page 3 in the rule, or the report on the rule, it says, section 1403 provides statutory assurance that the United States Government will take all necessary steps to guarantee the full faith and credit of the Government. That is all it says, full faith and credit of the government. That is what this debate has boiled down to when we talk about the national debt. Now, if we look at full faith and credit, what is the alternative? What would the others propose to do if we avoid the full faith and credit of the United States? Now, some of them have people in their districts, maybe even relatives, that actually have U.S. savings bonds. What if they wanted to go down and cash that U.S. saving bond, but we had no full faith and credit in the United States? What kind of chaos would occur from that? I think it is very important that we have full faith and credit in the United States. Now, let us just review what happened to come to this phrase. It says full faith and credit of the United States Government. September 11 threw us into a big shock in our economy. We all know that it happened; we cannot deny it. If we listen to the debate that we have had, I think we pretty much agree that we have to do something to ensure our national security and our homeland security. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We may argue about how much we should, but I think the point remains that we want to do something to ensure that our national security and homeland security is safe. But because of September 11, the economy will generate in fiscal year 2002, starting last October and going until next September 30, about $200 billion less in Federal tax revenues. Well, that puts us in a problem. But to address the problem, we have already placed $43 billion in additional funds to address the crisis in fiscal year 2002; $43 billion. We are looking at taking care of more of those needs right now. But we have heard how our economy was devastated, our Federal revenue was devastated by the tax cut that was passed last year. Well, during fiscal year 2002, there will be $38 billion less in Federal tax revenue because of the tax package that was passed; $38 billion less. Now, where did the numbers of $750 billion come from? Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing that there is $750 billion that we are going to take out of Social Security; yet there is only $38 billion less because of tax relief. Now, what did the Americans do when they got that money in their pocket? Well, they had a little extra money in their pocket, so they went out and they bought durable goods. This month, durable goods orders are up. That is a good thing. It is helping our economy get generated. That will increase the amount of Federal revenue through increased tax dollars. What else did they do? They bought new automobiles. I had an automobile dealer in Wichita, Kansas, which was the community that was hit the worst by the events of September 11. Wichita, Kansas, and the surrounding area, if we take the number of jobs lost because of September 11 versus the total number of jobs in the community, percentage-wise, we were hit worse than any community in the Nation. Yet, the Ford dealer, the largest Ford dealer in that area, had a record month at the end of last year because there was a little extra money in people's pockets and they were going out and spending that money, helping generate revenue by increased tax dollars. So that $38 billion has gone towards new washing machines, towards new automobiles, towards new homes. It has made a significant difference in helping us recover from the events of September 11.

Mr. TIAHRT. There were other issues here. This may have been the driving force, but when most of us make up our decision, we try to weigh the good with the bad. The gentleman apparently chose that this was at least one of the straws on the camel's back that it was too much for him to vote for the rule. I would suggest that the majority thought this was an important enough issue that we should directly address it by putting it in the rule.

Mr. TIAHRT. I would agree that we did not have a specific vote.

Mr. TIAHRT. When do we ever have a specific vote on something like that? Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, did the gentleman vote for the rule?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this phrase that includes the term ``full faith and credit of the United States'' was first placed in the rule during the Committee on Rules hearing, and there was a vote taken in the Committee on Rules in the past which brought the rule to the floor. The reason we have a rule is so that we can conduct business in an orderly fashion and not repeat procedures over and over and over again. It is a way of avoiding delaying tactics so we can conduct the business of the House. If we repeatedly go through a process of trying to change something that has been voted on several times, it will cause us to backtrack, not move forward. The House cannot afford to be frozen in time on one particular item. We must address the item and move on. This particular item not only has been addressed in the Committee on Rules, where a vote occurred and it was successful, it then came to the floor where a debate followed. The second vote was taken by the full House, and it was accepted by a majority of the people in the House of Representatives. Now, to move forward, we have come to the bill. It is now part of the bill. Hopefully, at some point in time today, we will have the opportunity to vote on the bill in its entirety, again addressing this issue with a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. So I would request that the Chair consider that in order to continue our orderly fashion of moving forward, rather than being frozen in time and repeating again and again a vote on a single issue, that we sustain what the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has brought forward and continue business as we have conducted it in the past.

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the Chair's ruling, on the point of order.

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the point is that we had a vote on whether this language should have been included when we voted the rule and approved the rule on the floor of the House. When we approved the rule, we conducted, as our Founding Fathers had hoped, the democratic process in our republic form of government where we approved by a simple majority that this would be part of what we are addressing right now. It was part of the rule. That is where the vote was, so the gentleman had a vote, an up-or-down vote. We had an up-or- down vote on whether this was going to be part of that.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we heard some more about spending all the Social Security surplus. I think it is probably prudent that we find out exactly why we are in the situation we are today. We have a problem with the Democrat leadership in that there has been no budget offered, only criticism. Now there is a body that presides on the north side of the Capitol and one on the south side of the Capitol. The body on the north side of the Capitol is also what some people would call AWOL, absent without leadership. This rule that we have here is a situation where we have added to the bill section 1403 that provides statutory assurance that the United States Government will take all steps necessary to guarantee the full faith and credit of the Federal Government. This has been interpreted by the Members on the other side of the aisle that we are going to borrow $750 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Now, there is nothing in the legislation that says $750 billion. It is an assumption made from a statement, just like a rumor on a rumor on a rumor. What the rule does do is it creates a mechanism to allow the conference committee to act on the statutory debt. We have been repaying the publicly held debt over the last 4 years. In fact, we have paid off nearly $.5 trillion of the nearly $4 trillion of this debt we have inherited from the Democrats who controlled Congress for the previous 40 years prior to 1995. The Republicans have reduced the public debt. The only growth in government debt was from inner-government debt. This is reflected by the bonds that are held in the Social Security trust fund. Now, the Republicans have set out on a course for the Federal Government to repay all the debt available for redemption over the next decade. There have been charges that the tax cuts are going to drive us into bankruptcy, but that is not true. There are some long-term bonds that will not mature for several decades, and we cannot get to those and pay them off without paying a premium to redeem them early. But we are still on track to meet this goal even after accounting for the President's tax cut. Now, the tax cut for fiscal year 2002 is $38 billion. That is how much money went back to the American public. What they did with that money was one of three things. You have a few options when you have a little extra money in your pocket. One, they could invest it, which is good for the economy, because it allows corporations to expand and create jobs. They can save it, which is good for the economy, because that creates capital for mortgages and people can go out and buy new homes. Or they can spend it, buying goods, which again creates a demand for jobs. All three things are good for the economy. So what we have done this year in tax relief is provide $38 billion into the economy, which is helping us come out of the recession. Now, on September 11, our whole system went into shock, our economy into shock. We started a war against terrorism that is worldwide. We have already provided $43 billion to address the needs and respond to the crisis that occurred from September 11. Some of it went to New York to help clean up and rebuild the city; some of it has gone to support our young men and women who are now fighting the war on terrorism across the globe, whether it be in Afghanistan or in the Philippines. So this allegation that this bill has $750 billion worth of debt coming out of the Social Security trust fund is not true. It is a misconception. Again, let me just refer to section 1403, which is now part of this bill. It says we are going to guarantee the full faith and credit of the government. Now, no one on the other side has really stopped to answer the question what would happen if we do not provide for the full faith and credit of the government. What crisis would then become apparent in our economy? What about those in our districts across the Nation that hold financial instruments from the government, like savings bonds or Treasury bills? What if one of my colleagues' best friends or a relative wanted to cash in a savings bond, and they went to the bank and the bank said, Well, the government does not have full faith and credit, therefore we are not going to honor your financial instrument? This is a very necessary part of conducting the business of the United States Government. So let us not continue with this facade about spending $750 billion out of the trust fund for Social Security. This is merely an instrument to make us assure the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, ``Bob Dole personifies Kansas. He is synonymous with the values that Kansans hold in the highest regard-- integrity, respect for community, public service, sacrifice, and patriotism. It is only fitting to name the Wichita VA Center after a man so closely identified with Kansas, American veterans, and the values they share. I rise in support of H.R 4608 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the ``Robert J. Dole Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center Designation Act.'' Most Americans know Senator Dole's heroic story: He was born and raised in the Heartland of Russell, Kansas. In 1942, he faithfully responded to his country's call to war, and was critically injured in combat. It took three years and nine operations for him to rehabilitate. He strengthened his injured arm, but had to learn how to write again with his left hand, as the doctors could not rebuild the excessive damage done by the Nazi machine gun fire. After the war and while still completing his law degree at Washburn Municipal University, he began his long and distinguished career in public service. He served as a Kansas state legislator, Russell County attorney, four-time member of the US House of Representatives, a five-time US Senator, the Republican National Committee Chairman, the 1976 Vice-Presidential nominee, and culminated his career as the 1996 Republican Presidential nominee. But Bob Dole's political achievements provide only a partial measure of the man. Twice elected Majority Leader, Senator Dole served for twelve years, the longest serving Senate leader of the Republican Party. He epitomized President Reagan's immortal words, ``The title of Leader is not just a job title; it's a description of the man.'' Even after he ended his public service, he remains a community leader, engaged in projects such as National World War II Memorial, Co-chairing a scholarship fund to aid families of heroes and victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and campaigns for Republican candidates across the country. I have had the distinct honor of working with and getting to know Bob Dole. In fact, he was one of my best supporters in my first race for Congress against an 18-year incumbent. Not many people other than my family and friends thought we had a chance to win that race--but Senator Dole did. Or at least he did a good job of pretending. I wouldn't have had enough money for television ads in the crucial last week of our successful 1994 campaign were it not for then soon to be Majority leader Bob Dole. When I did get to Congress in 1995, Senator Dole was a mentor and an outstanding example of how a member of Congress should fight for his state while working in the best interests of the country. It is due to Bob Dole's extraordinary contributions as a leader, a veteran, public servant, and staunch defender of national defense that the designation of the Wichita VA Center as the Robert J. Dole Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Center is so appropriate. Please join me in a congressional salute to this great American patriot.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, helping the American people is why many of us ran for Congress. I think life is getting better in America every day, but there are still people who are having a tough time making ends meet. We need to help as many of those people who are truly in need as we can. I think the welfare reform bill we have before us today will help those people by giving them the tools they need to make their dreams become a reality. Since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 9 million. Today, only about 2 percent of the population of the United States is on welfare. With this bill, we can reduce this number even further by helping people become productive. As a body, I believe we need to do what is best for this great country. Voting for this bill is a vote for a better and stronger Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues who supported the successful 1996 bill to keep up the good work and vote for this landmark reform legislation, and I urge those who voted ``no'' last time to take another look. You cannot argue with success. Let us put our people before politics. Vote ``yes'' for H.R. 4700, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I offer my congratulations to Chairman Combest, the Ranking Member, Mr. Stenholm, and the 2002 Farm Bill conferees for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan bill that will help America's farmers. The Farm Security Act of 2002 is the product of 50 hearings over two years. I am pleased that we were able to pass a farm bill that maintains the market-oriented features of the 1996 Farm Bill while fully complying with the Congressional Budget Resolution. This Farm Bill is critically needed by our nation's farmers who are facing the lowest real net cash income on the farm since the Great Depression. Record high costs of production combined with the fifth straight year of record low prices necessitated the quick passage of a farm bill that addresses these critical issues. Americans rely on a consistent supply of nutritious food, and our farmers are the ones working hard to make this possible. Not only do they supply food for us domestically, but they also are the hands that feed the world. Our farmers deserve our support, and I was pleased to vote in favor of this bipartisan Farm Bill. Mr. Speaker, despite my support for this bill, I do want to go on record as having serious reservations about the price tag the Farm Bill could have for taxpayers. There is no doubt we need a strong farm bill, which I support. But I am concerned we are voting today on an overinflated six-year bill that has the potential to cost taxpayers far more than the estimated $170 billion. We must guard against turning the family farm into the federal government's farm. My concern is that this bill, while containing good provisions, is dangerously close to moving beyond reasonable support for farmers into warding the family farm to the welfare state. The American dream for agricultural producers is not a land of neo- government farms, but rather individual opportunity to succeed by profitably working the land they love and own. This is the farmer's dream. Then, when help is needed due to unforseen events like natural disasters, Uncle Sam can offer assistance that encourages and motivates. Another concern is that the 2002 Farm Bill abuses agriculture subsidies by reviving price supports for commodities such as mohair, wool and honey. It also distorts the market by adding subsidies for milk, peanuts, lentils and chickpeas. I am disappointed that provisions in the Farm Security Act of 2002 succumbed to the pressures of special interest groups while ignoring the best interests of the citizens and farmers I represent and the American taxpayer. Despite disagreeing with many of this bill's provisions, I will vote in favor of the Farm Bill, because overall, it provides much-needed farm policy for the next six years and will help America's farmers. Without this bill, we would have automatically been forced back to 1938/1949 permanent farm laws, which would have devastated our economy. Mr. Speaker, I hear from many constituents in the Fourth District of Kansas who care deeply about conservation. I am pleased to tell them that the Farm Security Act of 2002 builds on the current voluntary incentive programs for conservation that have proven to work. Farmers and ranchers will have the opportunity to participate in new conservation programs as well. I am pleased to know that the men and women who work the land and care most about it are the ones who are being provided with the power and means to better protect the soil, water and wildlife through the various conservation programs. This farm bill includes more than $200 million in federal funding for the Commodity Credit Corporation Bioenergy Program, which will help advance the production of biofuels, including ethanol. I have had many Kansans tell me they support continued investment into ethanol production as a fuel source. The 2002 Farm Bill provides federal assistance to bioenergy producers who purchase agricultural commodities for the purpose of expanding products of biodiesel and fuel grade ethanol. Mr. Speaker, past farm program levels for sorghum have distorted the market and reduced incentives to plant grain sorghum. I was pleased to see this disparity addressed in the Farm Bill. Equity for Kansas feed grains is important to Kansas farmers, and I strongly support this corrective provision. I am also pleased that the food stamp program has been simplified allowing states more flexibility in helping those in financial poverty. With the reduction of state reporting requirements, we are allowing states to require households to report changes in household circumstances not less often than once every six months in lieu of reporting changes as they occur. Another simplification in the food stamp program provided for in the Farm Bill allows states the option to exclude, rather than deduct, child support payments, and it allows the use of the Child Support Enforcement Agency data to determine the amount of support paid. Kansas farmers rely heavily on trade with other countries. With forty percent of U.S. commodities going into the export market, it is essential that producers have access to expanded markets. The 2002 Farm Bill answers this need by comporting with the United States' international trade obligations under the WTO. This allows for the promotion of more free trade for our future. Furthermore, the Farm Bill makes substantial investments in programs designed to aid in the creation, expansion and maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agriculture products. Generous support for the Market Access Program, the Food for Progress Program, the Food for Peace Program, the Foreign Market Development Program and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program are a few examples of how this Farm Bill helps expand our markets while sharing our bounty with the needy in developing countries around the globe. Mr. Speaker, research has been recognized in this Farm Bill as being the key to keeping U.S. producers competitive in the world market. The Farm Security Act of 2002 makes a significant new investment in research programs that will help reap rewards for producers and our society for generations to come. The Farm Bill makes significant investments in improving rural development. Rural development programs are important to sustaining communities by aiding in the development of infrastructure and job creation in rural areas. Our small communities across this country benefit from these programs, and I am pleased that this farm bill recognizes their importance to our American way of life. Getting broadband Internet service to our rural communities is also a concern I have. With the passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, we will be providing a total of $100 million to provide loans and loan guarantees to allow rural consumers access to high-speed, high-quality broadband services. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that value added market development grants have been expanded to meet producers' interests in start-up, farmer-owned, value-added processing facilities. These grants will help establish resource centers to assist producers in value-added endeavors. The Farm Bill recognizes the importance of enabling producers to capture more of the value of their commodities. The Farm Security Act of 2002 offers farmers and ranchers and all Americans a balanced approach to securing our agriculture security into the future. I commend the Chairman and conferees for their dedication to a quality farm bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for the outstanding work he has done for our armed services. His leadership is going to be greatly missed. We appreciate the job he has done for America. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would require that future regular reporting requirements imposed on the Department of Defense would have a sunset provision of 5 years after enactment. This would not apply to existing reporting requirements and only be applicable to new reports, including those in this bill, H.R. 4546. This amendment serves both Congress and DOD by ensuring that all future reports are reviewed regularly and remain relevant and responsive. This is endorsed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This legislation does not abdicate Congress' traditional oversight role and will insist that the Department of Defense remain responsive to congressional requests and questions about their activities. Those reporting requirements deemed useful after 5 years can easily be reauthorized at the conclusion of the sunset period. Conversely, Congress must demonstrate responsibility in its oversight authority by limiting burdensome and unnecessary and unending reporting requirements. In fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense was required to prepare 983 various reports to Congress, of which 449 are listed right here in this packet. This is simply a listing and a brief explanation of the 449 reports that are perennially required by Congress and stipulated year after year. The House Committee on Armed Services in conjunction with the Department of Defense has carefully examined these 449 reports and determined that only 20 out of the 449 were redundant, outdated or no longer relevant enough and should be terminated. Since it is unlikely that Congress will be unable to significantly reduce the number of existing reports, it is our goal to limit the future ones. Remember, each existing and future report is an unfunded and unprogrammed mandate that has proven extremely difficult to eliminate. The cumulative effect of these required reports is highly burdensome and costly. Limiting these requirements in the future will allow the military staff to concentrate more fully on their primary mission of national security.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 347th day that Martin and Gracia Burnham have been held captive by Muslim terrorists in the Philippines. This afternoon many members of my family, including my father and mother, will arrive in Washington to visit me and their grandchildren. As I look forward to their visit, I think of the Burnham family and the family reunion they await every day. Too often congressional schedules keep us away from our families. Many of us have had to miss Little League games, school recitals and concerts. That is the hardest part of our job. I cannot imagine missing a year's worth of my children's lives, a year of birthdays, holidays, games, concerts and those precious daily moments. Of all the hardships that Martin and Gracia have endured in the past 11\1/2\ months, the greatest must be their separation from their family and knowing how desperately their children miss them. I always cherish my time with my parents and my family, but this week I am especially aware of how lucky I am to have time. I encourage the Bush administration and the Philippine government to continue their efforts, all their efforts, to free Martin and Gracia so the Burnham family can enjoy a family reunion. As always, I ask you to join me in prayer for Martin and Gracia and their loved ones that this nightmare may soon be over.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 341st day that Martin and Gracia Burnham have been held captive by Muslim terrorists in the Philippines. Unfortunately, I have disturbing news to report today. According to a report in the Associated Press, the Abu Sayyaf group that is holding the Burnhams hostage is no longer interested in negotiations and has threatened to kill Martin and Gracia. ``The door is closed for negotiations. It is up to them if they want to look for the dead bodies,'' terrorist leader Abu Sabaya chillingly stated in a radio interview. Apparently now the ASG is more interested in embarrassing the Philippine and American governments and military than their own supposed political demands. The Abu Sayyaf will not succeed in embarrassing us, for we will not back down in the face of terrorism. President Bush has committed our resources to rooting out the terrorism around the world. The Philippine government has been working with us to combat terrorism in their own nation. I am confident that we will eliminate the Abu Sayyaf and other evil organizations, and I pray that the Burnham family will soon be reunited. At this crucial time, I ask my colleagues to join me in prayer for Martin and Gracia and their loved ones that this nightmare may soon be over.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 340th day that Martin and Gracia Burnham have been held captive by Muslim terrorists in the Philippines. Today is May Day, traditionally a festive day to celebrate spring time. This May Day will not be festive for Martin and Gracia. It will be a day of terror, as each of the past 339 days has been. Unfortunately, it will not be a joyous day for their children either, Jeff, Mindy, and Zach. It will another day these children are without their beloved parents. America has the personnel, the necessary tools, the training, and the ability to rescue Martin and Gracia Burnham from the Islamic terrorists that hold them hostage. All we lack is the political will to do it. I ask my colleagues: What would you want if you were held captive today by terrorists? I can answer that for you. You would want your government to do everything it possibly could as quickly as it could to get you free. That is exactly what we should encourage our administration to do. As always, I ask you to join me in prayer for Martin and Gracia and for their loved ones that this nightmare may soon be over.