Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today Majority Leader Dick Armey announced that he would not run for reelection. I received this news with mixed emotions. First, I am very happy for Dick Armey because he is moving to the next phase of his life where he will continue to pursue his dreams. This morning he fondly spoke of his wife Susan and how he was looking forward to spending more time at home with her. The gentleman from Texas spoke of her admiringly and spoke of the sacrifice that she has made, being a spouse of a Member of Congress. We all stood and applauded when Susan Armey was recognized. We stood because each of us knew what our spouses have endured--the long hours, the brutal campaigns, the time away from our families. We know what Susan has endured. Dick and Susan Armey will get to spend more time together, and I am very happy for them. But also, Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the gentleman from Texas' announcement. I am saddened because I consider him a friend and I respect what he has accomplished, but I will miss him and I wonder who will fill the void. Dick Armey has fought for so many things that have made this a better place to live: Welfare reform that has improved the lives of more than 6 million Americans who are working today and pursuing their dreams. It was Dick Armey who fought so hard for Congress to balance the budget, and finally we see a surplus for the first time in a generation. It was Dick Armey who fought for a flatter, fairer tax system for Americans. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am going to miss Dick Armey when he leaves. I am going to miss my friend. Thank you, Dick, for carrying on the banner, for accomplishing so much, making life in America better for me and for my children. God bless you and God bless America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001. This important legislation will allow the United States to negotiate trade agreements in order to increase exports and stimulate our economic recovery here at home. It will also enable the President and Congress to work together to advance our interests around the world by guaranteeing Congress substantial participation in trade negotiations and allowing the President the authority to sign meaningful agreements. Today's economy is dependent on global trade. Therefore, American businesses must have access to foreign markets. There must be a level playing field. Farmers throughout my state of Kansas depend on foreign markets to purchase significant portions of their crops and livestock. And in a time where productivity exceeds the ability of the domestic market to absorb current production levels, the need to create overseas customers is more important than ever. In fact, Agriculture must export one-third of its production because it is nearly three times more dependent on exports than other sectors. Mr. Speaker, it's not just agriculture which benefits from free trade. Boeing, the largest exporter in the United States, sells more than half of its commercial planes to overseas customers. Last year, the company, which employs nearly 200,000 Americans, reported that one- third of its sales were to international customers. Expanded trade has never been more important. Economists agree that America is in a recession and we must work to get our economy moving again, This is an opportunity to boost the economy by opening new markets. This bill ultimately saves American consumers money, it increases American exports, it creates American jobs, and it guarantees that the United States will remain the world's economic leader. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is appropriate to tell the gentleman from Wisconsin with respect to his amendment, ``not now,'' rather than to just say no. Most people in America are aware that our military has been in decline for a decade. Procurement was lean, recruiting lagging, and maintenance budgets were too low. This bill starts the process of returning our military to its full luster. This bill goes beyond to fund $5.4 billion for domestic security, protecting against bioterrorism, providing airport security, meeting law enforcement and other domestic security needs. But the gentleman from Wisconsin says we are not spending money fast enough. We do need to take some time, and here is a good example. In a hearing last month, a joint House/Senate transportation appropriations hearing, an engineer testified that to secure a cockpit door, an airplane needed to have a new metal bulkhead, pressurized doors, and a separate environmental system. Easily that would cost the extra one- quarter of a billion dollars that the gentleman from Wisconsin has. But some airlines have already secured their cockpit doors with a simple locking device that looks like an auto antitheft device called The Club. Mr. Chairman, let us take time to do the job right. Let us look at what the needs are, let us balance what those needs are going to be, and let us reject the Obey amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we just heard the gentleman from Iowa talk about one phase of the bill that is being proposed today on the floor. That is the passenger carry-on and baggage screening, as Members can see on this chart. He totally ignored the rest of the chart because it is not in the version that the Senate passed and that is being proposed here. They do have a study, and they ask six different government agencies to start to study all of the other stuff, like perimeter security, like bomb-sniffing dogs, camera surveillance, the employee screening. They are going to study that. But what we are going to do is put it into action. If Members want to ignore all the rest of this airport security and just focus on this one little phase right down here, then I suggest Members support the Senate version. But we cannot go to conference, we cannot fix the problem. We just have an inadequate bill that will not solve the problem. We will end up with, maybe 5 years from now when the studies come back, the potential for doing the right thing. If Members vote for the Senate version, they are ignoring bomb- sniffing dogs, they are ignoring terminal security, they are ignoring tarmac security, ignoring it. Why not do something to help the people in America know that they are safe when they are traveling on airplanes? Why not put into action these items on airport security that are covered in this complete chart, instead of just focusing on a very little narrow part here in the corner? That is why the gentleman from Iowa focused right down here on passenger and baggage screening. We are going to do something today. We have the opportunity to do something for airport aviation security that goes well beyond what the Senate did in their version of rushing through legislation, inadequate legislation. Instead, we are going to do the right thing to make people safe when they travel. So I urge my colleagues to not vote for the Ganske bill, the Democrat version, the Senate-passed version. Instead, do the right thing for airport security, for aviation security, for airport travel, and vote for the Young bill. Vote for the Secure Transportation for America Act. It is the right thing to do. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot this morning about the opposition on the other side of the aisle opposing the stimulus package that is being presented on the floor today for a vote. But the way this works, there will be an opportunity for the opposition to present their version of a stimulus package, so we will have a choice here today. The Republican version does help companies, small businesses, because those are the institutions that hire people. In Kansas, four out of five jobs are in small businesses. There is business expense and depreciation that will help small businesses in this stimulus package. One of the largest corporations in the Nation is the Boeing Company; but in Wichita, Kansas, they are laying off workers. They need help. They need a stimulus package. There is something in here to help them hire back those people. We act like the great villains are the businesses in America. The people in business provide the jobs so that taxes will be paid by individual workers. That is in the Republican version, and that is a very good part of it. Now, the opposition is going to present their version, and what it does is it raises taxes. It starts new programs. I urge my colleagues to accept the Republican version.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has faithfully served this great country as a voice for democracy and freedom for the American people. Rush Limbaugh's listeners--both conservative and liberal--know him as the ``Dr. of Democracy,'' the ``Truth Detector,'' the ``Voice behind the Golden EIB Microphone.'' His daily radio broadcasts attract 20 million listeners every week, giving him rights to the claim as the most-listened-to-talk radio host in the world. I personally want to commend this American patriot who has dedicated his life to the cause of educating the American people about the principles of democracy. Whether you agree or disagree with Rush politically, you have to admire the depth of his political articulation and analysis--packaged in three hours of radio excellence. Mr. Limbaugh's brilliant use of satire, humor and witticism to convey fundamental principle are a testimony to what he calls, ``talent on loan from God.'' Rush has been an inspiration to the American people for more than a decade on the airwaves of AM radio. His boisterous commentary reaches one of the most diverse radio audiences ever. Farmers, nurses, construction workers, mothers, military personnel, bankers, chefs, manufacturers, rich and poor, left-wing radical liberals and right-wing conspiracy theorists all tune in every afternoon to hear Rush's clever voice for three solid hours. I know of no other person who is able to articulate his opinions and thoughts with as much passion as Rush. I am continually amazed when I listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show. Most radio hosts have a remarkable level of professional skill just to gain an audience. But Rush has achieved a standard of professionalism that has surpassed all expectations. Every day he manages to discuss fresh and bold topics. He never tires. With ``half his brain tied behind his back,'' Mr. Limbaugh is proving to the world that when you have a dream and are dedicated to achieving that dream, all things are possible. Rush has shown us all that when you live in America, you are able to achieve anything you set your heart to accomplish. Rush has recently encountered new challenges with the loss of his hearing. But because of his determination and spirit of adventure, he has chosen to remain seated in the throne behind that golden EIB Network microphone. In doing so he personifies the American spirit he has encouraged us all to embrace. I commend Rush for his encouragement to me and all Americans to never settle for second best, but to strive for the higher mark. I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying a special thanks to Rush Limbaugh as a great American.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I offer my thanks and congratulations to the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Combest, and the Ranking Members, Mr. Stenholm, for crafting this bipartisan legislation, which I am pleased to support. The bill before us is the result of more than two years of hard work by the Agriculture Committee and I believe the efforts of the Committee are reflected in this Farm Bill. This legislation comes at a time of historically low commodity prices and high costs for farmers and ranchers. This has resulted in drastically lower production. Last year in my state of Kansas, wheat production was only 80 percent of the previous year's crop. While this was still good enough to enable Kansas to lead the nation in wheat production, it resulted in a production value decrease of nearly $30 million from the previous year. Corn production was down by 4 million bushels from 1999, and sorghum grain production was down 27 percent, though I am pleased to report to my colleagues that Kansas did retain its position as the number one sorghum grain production state in the nation. The difficulties facing the farmers and ranchers of Kansas did not stop there. Soybean production was down nearly 40 percent and was at its lowest level in five years. And hay production was down 13 percent from 1999. Mr. Speaker, these facts strongly suggest the need for a farm policy which continues current successful agricultural programs and offers a balanced approach for addressing issues of important to those Americans who produce crops and livestock. It is time for Congress to step forward and demonstrate our commitment to the men and women who feed our Nation. There are numerous reasons why I will vote for the Farm Security Act of 2001. I support this legislation because it offers essential income support to farmers and ranchers, thus guaranteeing a safe, affordable, and dependable food supply for the United States and many parts of the world. The American people are truly a blessed and fortunate people considering that we spend only 11 cents of every dollar we earn on food. In other nations that figure may be as high as fifty cents on the dollar. It is not just the worker on the farm or ranch who will feel the benefits of this Farm Bill. This legislation provides much-needed resources to the agricultural economy, which will guarantee the continued viability of the food and fiber sector where nearly one-fifth of America's civilian workforce is employed. Mr. Speaker, by supporting production on our farms and ranches, we are ensuring that domestic agriculture remains robust and the job market in America's food and fiber industry is strong. I heard from many of my constituents back in Kansas regarding the need for additional conservation in this year's Farm Bill. I am pleased to tell them that we have considerably increased funding for conservation programs. This legislation contains an average of $1.285 billion per year for Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, plus an additional fund of $60 million per year to address water issues. The bill added 5.7 million acres to the Conservation Reserve Program, which is 2.8 million acres above the currently authorized acreage. It adds 1.5 million new acres to the Wetlands Reserve Program. It authorizes $25 million for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, an amount that increase to $50 million by the year 2011. Finally, our conservation efforts are augmented by the implementation of the Grasslands Reserve Program which allows up to 2 million acres to be preserved as grasslands. Mr. Speaker, through the Farm Security Act, our commitment to conservation is stronger than ever. This legislation also reflects America's commitment to the less fortunate in our society who need a helping hand. Through the efforts of the Ag Committee, we have simplified the federal food stamp program to guarantee that needy families throughout our nation have better access to America's food supply. The Farm Security Act accomplished this through making needed improvements in food assistance programs by giving states greater flexibility, doing away with unnecessary barriers to participation, and increasing assistance to working families, or those individuals known as the ``working poor.'' Under this plan, individual states will be able to provide six months of transitional food stamp benefits for families leaving the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It includes incentives for states to improve quality control systems and the Emergency Food Assistance Program will receive an additional $40 million for commodity purchases. Under this year's Farm Bill, our willingness to help others is not confined to our own borders. This legislation provides increased funds to transport U.S. producers' surplus commodities to the world's developing nations. It also increases the cap on funds used to provide food assistance on a grant basis or on credit terms to struggling countries. Additionally, funding for the Foreign Market Development Program is increased by $7 million per year over its current level. This program is an effective approach to acquiring new foreign customers for American producers and new markets for American crops and livestock. Recent Department of Agriculture figures indicate that in 1980, the United States held a 24 percent share of world agricultural markets. Now, that figure has dropped to nearly 18 percent. I believe this bill improves the ability of our producers to compete. The Farm Security Act of 2001 is a fair and balanced bill which enjoys the support of agriculture and conservation groups. It addresses critical farm program needs and also makes significant improvements to America's conservation, rural development, export promotion, nutrition and research programs. It fully complies with the budget approved by Congress earlier this year and meets our WTO obligations. I commend the Chairman and the Committee for their work on this Farm Bill and I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to increase IDEA funding by more than $1 billion. Year after year we pass resolutions asserting Congress's commitment to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Many of our fellow colleagues join with me at this podium and assert our responsibility to live up to our promise to our school districts. We declare that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is the highest priority among Federal elementary and secondary education programs, the highest priority. Yet year after year, we increase funding for other programs that are less vital to our local school districts. My home State of Kansas can expect to see about one-fourth of the promised $69 million this year for IDEA mandates. Anyone who has spoken with school officials in their district knows that this is inadequate. While school districts are forced to rob Peter in order to pay Paul to meet IDEA mandates at the expense of both children with and without disabilities, Congress has increased funding for Department of Education programs that I consider are not vital to our children's education. I do not know how many Members have toured special education facilities. I have. I have toured Levy Special Education Center in Wichita, Kansas, and seen the special education children. I have met with special education teachers and listened to their frustration about the lack of funding, combined with the burden of increased paperwork. Twenty-five years ago with the passage of IDEA, the Federal Government mandated that our local school systems educate all children, even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. IDEA has placed an extreme financial burden on our public schools which could be partially alleviated by keeping our commitment to fully fund the 40 percent of the program, the 40 percent originally promised. To not do so we are completely ignoring the needs of our local school districts. I challenge my fellow colleagues to live up to our responsibility and support the effort today to put more money in IDEA. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, our Nation faces a crisis; and today we are acting with appropriate speed in dealing with that crisis. But in doing so, we want to be sure that we are dealing with the entire air transportation infrastructure. A major objective of this bill should be to mitigate job loss within the air transportation industry and, therefore, preserve the infrastructure of this crucial element of our economy. Many sectors of the air transportation industry would be subject to economic dislocation and potential bankruptcy if they were exposed to unlimited liability for the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11. This is not a problem for just the traditional air carriers. This is a problem for the entire industry. For this reason, we provided for an expanded definition of air carriers in section 402 of the bill. That would also apply to section 408. I wish to make it clear that it is my understanding that this expanded definition encompasses air transportation elements such as aircraft manufacturers and aircraft components and parts manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, is that the chairman's understanding also?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. We cannot afford to risk irreparable harm to the air transportation industry, and subsequent economic impacts and job loss, by exposing the industry to the spectre of unlimited liability for a terrorist attack. I thank the chairman for his help in clarifying this important issue.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001 is the day the landscape of America was changed forever. We will rebuild structures, but we cannot rebuild the thousands of loved ones that have been lost to this world forever. Our thoughts and prayer go out to the families and friends of the victims of the reprehensible and cowardly attack against our country. As we attempt to rescue possible survivors and console those who have lost, we begin our determined quest to find their murderers and impose a tough and appropriate punishment. Make no mistake, the act of war perpetrated against the United States will be met with the full force of the U.S. military. President Bush, Congress and the American people are resolved to take on and defeat the forces of evil that attempt to disrupt our way of life. The principles of democracy in a free and open society are at stake. This is a war against all nations who enjoy the liberties and freedom of democracy, and all peaceful nations should band together in a unified force against those that wreak hatred and terror. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a dark day in America. Today, the light of freedom shines bright and we move forward as the greatest nation in the world. God bless the victims and their families and God bless America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 61. 911 now has as new meaning in America. September 11, 2001 is the day the landscape of America was changed forever. Whenever I hear 911, not only will I think of emergency assistance; I will remember the victims and families of this great tragedy and the importance of the fight against terrorism. We will rebuild structures, but we cannot rebuild thousands of lives that have been lost to this world forever. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families and friends and all of those affected by this reprehensible and cowardly attack against our country. As we attempt to rescue survivors and console those who have lost, we begin our determined quest to find the murderers and impose the appropriate punishment. Make no mistake. The act of war perpetrated against us will be met with the full force of the United States. Once we have identified the cowards, our response will be swift and severe. President Bush, Congress and the American people are resolved to take on and defeat the forces of evil that attempt to disrupt our way of life. The principles of democracy in a free and open society are at stake. Weak and cowardly terrorists have declared war against all nations that enjoy freedom and liberty. The world is now divided between those who support terrorism and those who will fight it, and all peaceful nations should band together in a unified force against those that spread hatred and wreak terror. We shall target not only those who plan and carry out these acts of terror, but those who feed, finance, clothe and harbor them. Congress must reassess our priorities in the way we provide security for the American people. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I pledge to stand with President Bush in addressing our intelligence and national security needs. We must keep Americans safe to assure our freedoms. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a dark day in America. Today, the light of freedom shines bright and we must move forward with confidence as the greatest nation in the world. May God bless those who lost their lives and comfort their families. And, my God bless the United States of America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, to this date, America has not had a comprehensive energy policy. The results were expressed last year when President Clinton's Energy Secretary Bill Richardson admitted, ``It is obvious that the Federal Government was not prepared. We were caught napping. We got complacent.'' Mr. Speaker, we all agree that these problems do not happen overnight and they cannot be solved overnight, but with Americans now facing rising utility bills, high gasoline prices and rolling blackouts and brownouts, I believe Congress must act to pass President Bush's far- reaching plan which is balanced and responsive in addressing America's energy needs. The President's plans offers 105 specific recommendations to address America's current energy shortage and provides reliable and affordable supply for the future. It starts with conversation and includes friendly changes to increase our domestic supply, improve delivery, reform outdated regulations and encourage energy diversity. It is unnecessary that nearly 60 percent of America's oil is imported. It is unbelievable that large portions of our oil and gas are in hands of Mommar Quadaffi and Saddam Hussein. It is outrageous that Members of this House choose to put politics before the people. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt the President's energy plan.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Dr. Weldon's Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Today scientific advances have unleashed a whole host of bio-ethical issues that our society must face. Recently we have faced controversy over medical research on human subjects, as well as whether we should destroy embryos for the purpose of stem cell research. The questions posed focus on how far we will allow science to push the limits on tampering with human lives. Personally whether it's innocent African-Americans at the Tuskegee Institute or unborn human embryos, I do not think the government should be allowed to risk lives. The debate before us today, however, is completely different in my mind. Those who are for and against abortion, even for and against embryonic stem cell research, have joined together to say that we cannot clone humans. In the words of esteemed columnist Charles Krauthammer, the thought of cloning humans--whether for research or reproductive purposes--is ghoulish, dangerous, perverse, nightmarsh. I do not think the language can be strong enough. Eugenics is an abominable practice. We do not have the right to create life in order to destroy it. We do not have the right to create life in order to tamper with genes. It does not take a fan of science-fiction to imagine the scenarios that would ensue from legalized cloning--headless humans used as organ farms, malformed humans killed because they were viewed as an experiment not a person, gene selection to create a supposed inferior species to become slaves, societal values used to create a supposed superior species. We do not have the right to play God. We may have the technology to clone humans, but our sense of morality should prevent us from doing it. We should not create life for research purposes. We should not pick and choose genes to make up humans. I am sorry that our society has drifted so far from our core values that we even have to debate this. It is a sad day when Congress has to enact legislation in order to prevent man from manipulating human life.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of our National Guard. For 225 years our young men in the National Guard and our young women in the National Guard have stood in the gap when our Nation was called. From Concord to Kosovo, they have put their lives on hold, left their families, their jobs and responded to our Nation's needs. Today, they are continuing that great tradition. If it was the will of the President to send our young men and women into harm's way tonight, they would drop everything and they would go. As we speak, the 184th Bomber Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, an Air National Guard unit in Wichita, Kansas, is on call. If the assignment came to send our B-1 bombers to a foreign target, it would be the volunteers of the 184th Air National Guard Bomber Wing that would fuel the planes, load the bombs, fly the mission and, once again, stand in the gap for us and for our children. I tell my colleagues this with great pride because I know many of these young men and women in the 184th. Some of them grew up in Wichita, Kansas, the air capital of the world, home of Boeing, Beech, Cessna and Lear Jet. Some of them are second and third generation aircraft workers. It is almost genetic for them. It is a passion for them. That may explain why the 184th B-1 Wing has the highest mission- capable rate of any of the B-1 bases, including the three active duty B-1 bases, the highest mission-capable rate. Of course, the average length of experience on the flight line at the McConnell Air Force Base for the Air Force workers is 15 years, 15 years of experience. However, at the active duty bases, it is only 3 years. On top of that, the cost per flight hour is lower at the Air National Guard unit at McConnell Air Force Base. It is a little over $6,000 per hour to fly the B-1, compared to over $10,000 per hour at the active duty base, considerably more. Lower cost, more experience, higher mission-capable rate: That is an attractive alternative to the active duty, and it tells us how important Air National Guard is to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, when we compare how the Air National Guard has handled their mission with the B-1 to the active duty, one would think there would be no question whether we should keep the B-1 mission in the National Guard. But, Mr. Speaker, the Guard is under attack. According to the Secretary of the Air Force and released program budget directives, the Active Duty Air Force intends to pull the teeth of the Air National Guard by removing the B-1 mission from the Guard. Today it is the B-1 mission. What will it be tomorrow? No more F-15s in the Guard? No more F-16s? We do not know, but one thing is clear: The Active Duty intends to pull the teeth of the Air National Guard. Now, this is very upsetting to the young men and women of the Guard. Consider their success with the B-1 mission: lower cost, more experience, a higher mission-capable rate; and now consider the reward for being the top B-1 wing: loss of their mission. It does not make sense economically or logically. In a time of tight budgets when we have a shortage of 1,200 pilots, when retention of personnel is paramount, this is exactly the wrong message and exactly the wrong decision. Mr. Speaker, I hope that each of my colleagues will consider this assault on our National Guard and oppose it. For 225 years, the Guard has stood in the gap for us. I hope we will choose to stand up for them.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2133. We are soon coming upon the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision. On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court eradicated the separate but equal doctrine and integrated our public school system. Most Americans have heard about Brown v. Board of Education trial, but few completely understand this very important case. I commend the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) for introducing this legislation to establish a commission to help educate Americans on the history and ramifications of Brown v. Board of Education in preparation for the 50th anniversary of this case. Education is, perhaps, the most important tool for fulfilling one's dreams. The American dream, the wonderful belief that any child in America, any child, regardless of color or economic background, has the ability to make his dream a reality. In order to help children, our children, in the pursuits of their dreams, we need to make sure they have a good education. Last month, we showed our commitment to this goal by voting on an education plan to Leave No Child Behind. Unfortunately, in 1954, African Americans were denied the chance to have equal access to our public school system. Their parents, realizing the importance of education, did everything possible they could to properly educate their children while at the same time fighting the segregated system. They also realized that beyond the 3 R's, it was important for all children to learn respect for all people. The Brown decision was more than just an end to the practice of segregation in our schools; it was also a wonderful beginning. The beginning of a public school system that could more accurately reflect the belief that all men and women are created equal and should be treated as such. Integrated schools are beneficial to all students and the Nation as a whole. For this reason, we should make sure that Brown v. Board of Education case is properly taught and understood. I share the belief of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) that for the 50th anniversary of this landmark case we should help make history come alive for our Nation's school children. In doing so, we can help the newest generation of Americans realize the importance of liberty and democracy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that we hear this cry that this is an unfunded mandate. I would like to make a couple of points about that. First of all, these same local jurisdictions that Mr. Moran mentions are required to abide by OSHA regulations. Would the gentleman from Virginia want to oppose OSHA regulations, which are unfunded mandates? The answer is no, of course. The same is true of EPA regulations, considered an unfunded mandate. And the Americans with Disabilities Act, again complied with by the Metro authorities. Instead, we have the gentleman rising in opposition to putting a proper name of the location and a destination point on the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station. It should not have to be this way. We should not be required to have a piece of legislation merely to do something correctly, such as putting the proper name on the Metro maps, on Metro designations and on the signs. Another point I want to make is that no cost was provided here. I would like to offer a little bit of history about the Metro: the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was conceived by Congress. It has been largely funded by Congress. This year in the Transportation Appropriations bill alone, over $100 million are from U.S. taxpayers to fund the Metro. There is plenty of money to handle the cost of signs. Let us talk more about the cost of signs. Recently there have been seven changes to the Metro in signs. These changes have occurred since President Clinton signed the law naming National Airport the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. That's seven changes at a cost of $713,000. I do not know where this half a million dollar figure is coming from, but Metro has made seven system-wide changes at a total cost of $713,000. So whether it is 100, $125,000, or whatever the cost, I am sure there is the necessary amount of money in the over-$100 million being provided by United States taxpayers all across this Nation. People from the great State of Kansas who ride this Metro system when visiting or working in D.C., are helping subsidize this. I do not think it is too much to ask for Metro to list the entire name of a stop, so that when people come in from out of town they know that they are going to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station, a location, a destination on the Metro. We are not asking for a great deal. This is a request that has been repeated many times since February 6, 1998. And in this time, there have been these seven changes. There was a letter sent in April by 22 Members of Congress asking the Metro authorities to change this. It has been completely ignored. This has been transformed into a political issue. It should not be. It should just be a simple matter of having accurate maps reflecting destination points within the Washington area Metro system. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we carry forward with this. It is not an unfunded mandate. There is money there. It does not fit the definition of an unfunded mandate according to the Congressional Budget Office, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) points out. I request that the Chair rule against this.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I think it is very important that we know that this reduction would jeopardize all the efforts the Air Force has been putting into play to create an airborne laser program aimed at protecting our troops and interests around the globe. There are four good points I want to make about why this should be opposed. Number one, the technology is currently available. It works in the lab. We simply need to complete the project of mounting it on a 747. The technology is there and it works. Second, this threat is a very real threat. If we just go back 10 years to the Gulf War, the greatest numbers of casualties for our young men and women over in the Gulf area came from a missile that this system is designed to eliminate, a Scud missile that fell on our troops. Thirdly, the funding for this program, if it is cut, provides an unnecessary delay. It also raises the cost of the program that is inevitable anyway, and it will put in place a stop work situation where contractors will have to literally stop work on this program, send their talent off to other projects, which will make it very difficult to get them back, again resulting in schedule delays and cost delays that are unnecessary. The fourth thing I think is a more personal note. We ask our young men and women to volunteer to serve our country, to provide for the need that we have as a nation in projecting power. When they do this, they are putting themselves at risk. What we want to do is to make sure that they return home safe and sound to their families. They are volunteers. They are doing our bidding. We must provide them a safe way to get home. This will protect them when they are in a situation of risk. So Mr. Chairman, it does not have to be this way, with a longer program of higher cost. We are now less than 2 years away from having this speed-of-light theater missile system in place. Congress has the responsibility to field this important system as soon as possible. The gentleman from Ohio said that this would only delay funding a few months if we push it over to 02. It will stop the program and probably result in a 6-month delay, driving up the costs significantly. He made a statement that it cannot work. I want to emphasize it has worked in the lab and it will work on the airplane. It is not a crazy missile program, as the gentleman from Ohio stated, it is a commonsense approach to protecting our young men and women who put themselves at risk. Mr. Chairman, I think there is no doubt that the Kucinich amendment will result in unnecessary delays. I would urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, as we embark on the 21st century, Americans expect certain things. We want a secure future for our children, a clean environment; and when we flick the switch on a lamp, we expect the light to shine. Unfortunately, due to extreme environmental policies, many Americans cannot be assured the lights will come on. That is why I commend the President for showing real leadership in developing a national energy plan that takes a balanced approach to solving our energy crisis. The President's plan takes into account the incredible developments in energy research, exploration, technology, which not only reduces our heavy reliance on foreign oil, but preserves and protects our Nation's environment. This comprehensive energy plan has more than 100 concrete recommendations, nearly 50 percent of which deal with conservation. This is a commonsense, long-term, high-tech solution that protects the environment and secures our future. Americans should expect the best electric system in the world, while we secure clean air and water for our children. The President's plan will ensure our priorities and keep the lights on in America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 2052, the Sudan Peace Act. The atrocities in the Sudan deserve immediate attention and aid from the United States. It is our duty as the ``world's only superpower'' to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. Many articles have been written in recent months regarding the growing support for U.S. intervention in the Sudan. What struck me most about these articles was their emphasis on how this cause has attracted broad support across political lines. As Newsweek noted: The Muslim government's alleged persecution of southern Christians is the key issue for many of the rebels' fiercest U.S. supporters. For prominent African-Americans like Coretta Scott King, the hot button is Khartoum's toleration of slavery and the use of slave-raiding privateers as paramilitary forces in the war against the south. For other activists the overriding concern is the government's ethnic- cleansing campaign against southern peoples such as the Dinka. Late last year the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum joined the fight, declaring through its ``committee on conscience'' that Khartoum's atrocities against the southerners warranted an unprecedented ``genocide warning.'' It is not surprising that the fighting in Sudan has attracted attention from such divergent populations. All humans should be outraged by the 18 year war that has taken over 2 million lives and destroyed countless homes, crops, medical facilities, and churches. Equally appalling is the Khartoum's refusal to allow humanitarian aid. They have even gone so far as to directly target international humanitarian relief agencies such as the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders by aerial bombings. Christians have been persecuted, thousands of non-Muslims have been forced into slavery, the destruction of crops has caused thousands more to starve. Additionally, the areas north and south of the oil development center have been the site of the most heinous crimes. In order to clear the region to facilitate oil production and thus bring in money for their government, the military annihilates whole villages. According to one report the Sudanese military first attacks a village with bombs to scatter villagers. Then troops and helicopter gunships enter--torching homes and foodstuffs and killing all they come across. It is not uncommon for the elderly and young to burn alive in their homes. I am ashamed that our wonderful, caring nation has not taken a large role in stopping this barbarism. Apparently former Secretary of State Madeline Albright's reasoning was that the cause was ``not marketable to the American people.'' Marketable or not, this does not excuse our relative indifference as a nation to our fellow men and women being tortured and slain in the Sudan. I am proud that today we are taking a stand--facilitating humanitarian aid, holding businesses accountable for their activities in the Sudan oil trade that fund the government's heinous behavior, and most importantly directing the State Department to take an active role in implementing peace in Sudan. I am happy that so many of my colleagues and fellow Americans are in such strong support of this legislation, but even if they weren't it would still be the right thing to do. ``Marketable'' or not, the United States must work towards ending the atrocities in the Sudan.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2001, unless the House sooner receives a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence to House Concurrent Resolution 146, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with on Tuesday June 5, 2001.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, June 5, 2001, the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 146, 107th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.