Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, June 6, 2001.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 146) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 14. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first took up the fight to guarantee parental rights when I encountered resistance in trying to obtain information about my own children's curriculum. Since then, I have learned that 11-year-olds have been given surveys asking about explicit sexual practices. School counselors have conducted counseling sessions for treatments that they were not qualified to give, and other abuses have been occurring across the United States. In closing, let me once again state that my intent with this amendment is to simply clear up the confusion that already exists in Federal law. Any teacher will say parental involvement is imperative to the success of a child during their educational career. This amendment states unequivocally, parents have the right to be involved in a child's education. It is pro-family, it is pro-education, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding.

Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding.

Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding, yes.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. TIAHRT. It is our intent to work with the gentleman to make sure there is no confusion about this. I would also like to remind the gentleman this does not supersede State laws. Those States that have made initiatives in this area to stop child abuse, it would not interfere with that process at all.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is correct. We have no intent of preventing anyone from trying to stop child abuse. I think that is an awful situation that we currently have in America that we need to stop, so our efforts would be to do the same as the intent of the gentleman from California.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of parental rights. Today, we will be passing legislation to ensure that no child is left behind in our education system. As a Nation and as a government, we have a duty to make sure that our public school system is held accountable; but our schools should not only be accountable to the government, but parents as well. Ultimately, it is the families who should have the most say in how their children are educated. The Parental Freedom of Information amendment is based on the need to provide concerned, active parents with information that is vital for them to exercise their right to guide the upbringing of the children. Educators have often said that involved parents are the most important thing public schools need to help students learn. I believe involved parents must be informed parents. The current hodgepodge of State and Federal laws simply does not provide parents of public school children with the clear-cut right to access information regarding their child's education. The goal of this amendment is to plainly and unambiguously define the rights parents have under the law. Specifically, parents will have the right to access the curriculum to which their children are exposed. Parents will also have the right to give informed written consent prior to any student being required to undergo nonemergency medical or mental health examinations, testing or treatment, while at school; and finally, they will be afforded the right to inspect surveys and questionnaires seeking personal information before they are given to students. This legislation in no way seeks to influence the content of curricula or tests. It simply allows parents to access the basic information which involved parents need to guide the education of their children. There may be some attempt to argue that there is no need for this amendment. However, the increasing amount of litigation to determine what rights are guaranteed to parents under current Federal law is evidence to the contrary. Plain and simple, parents should not have to go into a courtroom to find out what is going on in the classroom. Parents provide both tax dollars to fund our public education system as well as children who participate. Why should we as parents be denied the right to see how schools are using our tax dollars to educate our children? We need this legislation to clarify that parents have this right to be involved. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American hero, a priest, soldier and POW, Chaplain Emil Kapaun. Today, we remember that 50 years ago Father Kapaun died in a Communist POW camp during the Korean war. A chaplain in the United States Army's Eighth Cavalry Regiment, Father Kapaun and his unit found themselves in a perilous situation on the Korean battlefield. A wounded soldier lay completely exposed and could not be accessed because of intense machine gun and small arms fire. With total disregard for his personal safety, Father Kapaun went after the wounded man and successfully evacuated him, saving his life. Later, captured and as a prisoner of war, Father Kapaun continued to minister to his flock of fellow POWs. He encouraged and inspired others by his peaceful, courageous demeanor. He continually risked his health and life by giving all he had to his fellow soldiers. Ultimately, these acts of selflessness contributed to his own untimely death. So today on the 50th anniversary of his death, we honor his courage and reflect on the heroism and the spiritual devotion of this great man.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think the fundamental issue with the Mexico City policy is whether or not we will use our American tax dollars to promote the abortion industry overseas. We are known for our exports, beautiful cars, commercial jets, music, and movies. The Lee amendment will add abortion to our list of exports and does so at taxpayer expense. I believe this is the wrong message to send the world. Instead, let us promote life, the arts, new technology, not the industry of death. And above all, not with taxpayer dollars. I encourage my fellow Members of Congress to support the Hyde amendment and raise the standard of exports from America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 92 and 93. Rollcall vote No. 92 was on the rule for H.R. 10, ``the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001. Rollcall vote No. 93 was on approving the Speaker's approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both the rule on H.R. 10 and on approving the Journal.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This important legislation would finally make it a separate Federal offense to cause death or bodily injury to a child in utero in the course of committing an already defined Federal offense. It is imperative that we hold criminals responsible for conduct that harms or kills an unborn child. I cannot understand the opposition to this bill. It will not affect abortion laws, it merely affirms that a violent act against a pregnant woman affects not only her but her unborn child as well. There are most certainly two victims in such crimes, as 24 States have already recognized. I am horrified by stories such as that of Tracy Scheide Marciniak who was only 4 days from delivering her baby boy Zachariah. Four days. For 9 months she had been eagerly awaiting his arrival, planning for his birth and life, bonding with him in her womb. Unfortunately, her husband brutally attacked her, targeting a few blows specifically on her abdomen. Zachariah bled to death in her womb because of the blunt- force trauma. Tracy nearly died herself but did recover from her injuries and had to bury her baby boy without ever getting a chance to see him alive. At the time Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law so Glendale Black was convicted on a assault to her alone and is now eligible for parole. The law did not recognize the loss of Zachariah's life and Glendale Black did not pay for his crime. Ohio is one of the states where it is a crime to kill an unborn child in a violent act. Unlike Zachariah, Jasmine Robbins' father was prosecuted for her manslaughter. Gregory Robbins assaulted his wife Karlene who was 8 months pregnant with their daughter Jasmine. he repeatedly struck her in the face and abdomen. Due to the assault, Karlene' uterus ruptured and Jasmine died. Gregory Robbins pled guilty to assault and battery to his pregnant wife and involuntary manslaughter for Jasmine's death. Jasmine's murder is no less tragic than Zachariah's but at least her mother did not have to suffer the heartbreak of not having her murder recognized under our laws. We live in a society that does not respect life and that troubles me. We have children killing children in our schools, husbands beating their wives, and other violent crimes signifying that we as a culture do not value and treasure life as we should. A good first step towards recognizing the miracle of life is to ensure that those who take a life are punished for their crime. We cannot bring back Zachariah or Jasmine or the other hundreds of unborn children violently murdered. We can, and must, however, protect other unborn children from the same fate. We must respect life and make criminals pay for attacks against all Americans, born and in utero.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on March 20th, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes numbered 51 and 52. Rollcall vote 51 was on passage of H. Res. 67, recognizing the impact tuberculosis has on minority populations and the need to combat it on a worldwide basis. Rollcall vote 52 was on passage of H. Con. Res. 41, expressing sympathy for the victims of the El Salvadoran earthquakes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on both H. Res. 67 and H. Con. Res. 41.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 36 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on October 31, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 585. Rollcall vote No. 585 was on passage of H.J. Res. 121, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.J. Res. 121.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in the House have passed domestic discretionary spending that has kept within our budget. In fact, as a percent of gross domestic product, it is the lowest since 1974. Now, some of our opponents on the other side of the aisle would like to say that we have passed these larger and larger budgets, but the truth is we have been in negotiation with the White House and we have tried to reach an agreement with him. As other speakers have said earlier, we have matched him on most of the bills that have been passed. There are just a few outstanding that are still being negotiated. But the President wants to continue to add more and more money in and start more and more new programs. We are protecting Social Security. We are protecting the surplus on Social Security. We are protecting the surplus for Medicare. We have even passed a bill that gives some tax relief and also strengthens Medicare by adding more than $12 billion and to strengthen hospitals, including more than $1 billion for rural hospitals. In Kansas, rural hospitals are in desperate need of this legislation and this bill. But the President is holding it hostage and is refusing to do it. So, Mr. Speaker, I just hope that he will sign these bills into law and we can finish this session.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, education is first, last and always about children. The education debate is not about money. It is about Federal versus local control of schools and our children's future. Republicans emphasize local education flexibility, not a Federal straitjacket so parents and teachers can decide if they need to hire more teachers or upgrade skills of their existing teachers. We promote basic academics and encourage parental involvement, not replace the role of children's parents in their lives. We support locally designed accountability standards, not mandated Federal testing. We have tried to drive at least 95 cents of every Federal dollar directly to the classroom, not bureaucracies bloated by expanding the Federal role in neighborhood schools. Mr. Speaker, the liberals have made it clear that in a Democrat Congress the education focus would once again shift back to the vision of big government, Washington-knows-best approach to dealing with local education issues. Americans know better. They care about education and they are concerned about whether students are learning, whether they can read at grade level, and whether they are learning to add and subtract. Under Republican leadership, we have placed the focus and quality on results with parents and teachers in control.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct, because I think it goes back on some very important priorities that are in this bill the way it currently is and that the Senate has avoided. There are things that were excluded in this bill that I think are important to the States that surround the District of Columbia, and yet we are willing to make an island under the Senate version, an island here in the District of Columbia on some important legislation such as an amendment presented by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). He wanted to restrict, and do it with some authority, underage smoking. If you travel across the Potomac to Virginia, you will find that they have laws to restrict underage smoking. If you go to the east on Highway 50, you drive into Maryland and you will find that they have restrictions on underage smoking. But yet we are going to create an island here under the motion to instruct for the children in the District of Columbia and allow them this underage smoking, allowing kids to drive across the bridges or come into the District of Columbia and have less fear of buying cigarettes and getting into a life-style that will shorten their lives. In addition to that, the Senate has made the choice that they are willing to risk placing elementary school children in the proximity of drug users, people who take illegal drugs and inject them into their veins. The House version had a restriction on the needle exchange program, saying simply that we are going to place a higher priority on children than we are on drug users. We were going to take the very same language in the bill, we have the very same language as what the District of Columbia City Council has determined as a drug-free school zone, and we applied that to the program that gives needles to drug abusers. They will then take these needles and they inject illegal drugs into their veins. Now, there have been quite a few studies about the program, and what we have found is that in the area where needles are distributed, there are drug pushers, there are obviously drug users, and there are areas where the police have had to stay away by their own accord in order to let the program go so that we can give these needles to people who illegally use drugs. All we were trying to do in this bill was to restrict the area where these needles were distributed. The amendment that was cut out by the Senate did not exclude the program at all. It exists on private funds today. But there are 10 distribution points in the District of Columbia. Six of them are within the area known as a drug-free school zone. Some of them are as close as across the street from where children in the District of Columbia attend school. So the Senate has made a choice, and it is now supported in this motion to instruct to place a higher priority on drug users than on the children, a very disturbing thought. We should place the children in the District of Columbia in a higher priority than we do drug users. The Senate has gone on to take other very vital services and completely strike them out. They struck a hotline service that exists here in the District of Columbia. There are people in our society that are in dire need, they are in dire straits or in a difficult time and in the District of Columbia today you can call an 800 number and the people on that hotline will not let you off the phone until they connect you with the service that will meet your need, until that is connected, until that connection is made. But yet that was struck in this motion to instruct, that whole area is taken out. The Senate took it out, turning our backs on people that are truly in need. They also struck the money for a mentoring service. There are kids in the District of Columbia that do not have much of a future. They are in a single-parent household, some of them are living with grandparents, aunts and uncles, and this mentor organization provides an individual to stay with them and meet their needs, if it is going to school to help them with their studies and talk with their teachers, if that is going to court with them, if it is helping them just get the medication they need. The mentoring program accompanies these children to help them get a start in life, to give them a little bit of hope in a community that is in desperate need of hope. Yet the Senate and this motion to instruct will completely strike that program, leaving these children without the help that they need. They also went on to cut other grassroots community organizations, and $500,000 for a cleanup. We heard a lot of talk about how the Metro stop is more important than these programs and that we have taken money, reprioritized it through the Senate, through this motion to instruct, for a Metro stop, but we have overlooked important things in this community. We have overlooked these children, we have overlooked the hotline service, we have overlooked a program that just is trying to restrict where we distribute needles to drug abusers. We have problems in the hospital, overlooked by this motion to instruct, a hospital that has twice as many employees than they need, completely overlooked, and half a million dollars for an environmental cleanup, overlooked because we want to change it to a Metro stop. I think the Metro stop is needed. I think we need some upgrades there. But to place that at a higher priority than the children of this community I think is wrongheaded, wrongminded. I think it is the wrong direction. I would suggest that we vote against this motion to instruct and that we keep the House version of what was passed here. It makes more sense, it is more compassionate, and it is the right thing to do.