Todd Tiahrt

Mr TIAHRT

Mr TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government has spent a lot of money on education. Yet the United States continues to rank near the bottom of industrialized nations in student test scores. This simply is unacceptable. The United States is the most prosperous Nation in the world. There is no reason why our schools cannot be second to none. However, just loading up the Federal bureaucracy with more money is not the solution. Yet this is the very approach the Big Government party of Clinton and Gore and the other liberals are attempting, and it has failed time and time again over the past 40 years. So what is the solution? We Republicans want to return the dollars and the decisions back to the parents and teachers who know our children's names and their educational needs. Parents and teachers should set education policy, not some Washington bureaucracy or someone sitting in a fourth story of a government office building right here in Washington, D.C. The only way to turn the test score embarrassment around is local control of local schools. But if the liberals keep following their presidential nominee down the path to the roadblock, America's future in education has no hope. For the sake of our Nation's children, let us join together and return control back to our schools and our local governments and our parents and teachers.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment that I am offering gives us a clear choice between protecting the children of the District of Columbia or protecting the drug addicts. The District of Columbia City Council has designated drug free school zones in hopes of protecting the children from drug pushers. Hopefully, it will keep kids from being pressured to take illegal drugs that would cheat them from a bright future. What this amendment does is take the very same language the District of Columbia City Council has used to protect the children and to extend it to the needle exchange program. We would then have needle-free school zones around the areas where children attend school and play. Mr. Chairman, now, this is not new language or a new concept. It simply clarifies that the exchange of needles to drug addicts should be kept out of the reach of our children, the same as we have tried to keep drugs out of their reach. Currently, Prevention Works, a drug needle exchange program here in Washington runs 10 needle exchange sites. Of those sites, six needle exchange sites are located within 1,000 feet of at least one public school. These sites pose a very real threat to our children. I have a map, Mr. Chairman, that was given to me by the police department here in the District of Columbia, showing the locations of where the drug free school zone applies. Those areas are designated in gray, green and pink. The pins that are pointed out here show the 10 needle exchange sites with the four that would currently not be affected by this amendment, and the six that would be affected by this amendment. At the corner of 15th and A Street, Northeast location, a member of my staff found a piece of a needle, across the street from Eastern Senior High School, just a few feet away from where three little girls were jumping rope. I worry that contaminated needles, discarded needles from the needle exchange site may infect children just like these three girls. It is an unnecessary risk for children. This amendment is designed to protect these girls and all children in the District of Columbia. This is a clear choice, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues can either choose to protect the children or protect the drug addicts. I hope the House will choose to protect the children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, this is a clear choice. This is not about the needle exchange program. This is about protecting children. One of the comments that was made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) was that this will keep the needle exchange program 1,000 feet away from the children from where they are playing; that is exactly the point. We want to protect the children. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) said there is no evidence that these needles come from the needle exchange program. Yet Calvin Fay, the director of the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse says, and I quote, ``first, most needle exchange programs are not exchanges at all, but are needle giveaways, since participants rarely exchange a dirty needle for a clean one, which means that the dirty needles remain on the streets.'' The only way we can protect the children is to keep these needle exchange programs away from the kids. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that if this is not passed, and since there is no accounting for needles that are passed out to drug addicts, that they will be available for children to become infected by. While members may disagree on the effectiveness of the needle exchange program, I think we can all agree we do not want these infected needles in our children's midst, near public playgrounds or public pools. Besides the immediate danger of needles themselves, I worry about the threat to children's safety that needle exchange programs do when they invite drug pushers and addicts into places where children should be safe. I also worry the needle exchange program will send the wrong message about drug use to our children. We try to send children an unequivocal message that drugs are wrong and that they can kill you. I worry that if these drug addicts receive needles, rather than condemnation, they will not understand that drugs are wrong. As our drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, stated: ``Above all, we have a responsibility to protect our children from ever falling victim to the false allure of drugs. We do this, first and foremost, by making sure that we send one clear, straightforward message about drugs: they are wrong, and they can kill you.'' This amendment is about the safety of our children. It is not about the effectiveness of a needle exchange program. It is a very simple choice. Those who oppose my amendment will argue that the Tiahrt amendment, if adopted, would shut down a needle exchange program in the District of Columbia. This is not true. There still are plenty of sites in the District of Columbia to conduct a needle exchange program. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to pass this amendment and protect the children of the District of Columbia, and I hope we will give them a higher priority than we do those who inject illegal drugs into their veins. It is a very simple choice. It is not about the needle exchange program; it is about children. You can choose between protecting the children, or protecting the drug addicts. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to step back just 6 years and look at the District of Columbia because it was a very different place then. They were running a budget deficit. Schools were failing. It was known as the murder capital. And crime had kept people in fear. The first interaction that I had with the District of Columbia was trying to get a constituent who had been killed by a taxi, have their body released to the family. Red tape ruled in the District of Columbia, and it was a very large task just to get the deceased released to their family. But today it is a better city by a long ways. The D.C. budget is balanced, and that is why it was accepted in this bill. The quality of education has improved through charter schools and through new projects in public schools. It is a safer community to live in. And the people from Kansas are more comfortable when they come to the District of Columbia. Things have gotten better. But it did not happen by accident. Congress did get involved. It provided oversight. The D.C. control Board insisted on revisions to the city and to the police department. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) said earlier the Federal city belongs to everyone. I think that is exactly what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they gave Congress, and I quote, ``power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,'' in article 1, section 8 of our Constitution. The opponents of our bill say, Well, our cities aren't regulated like this, so we shouldn't be involved. But if you talk to the city councils in Kansas, they know that Congress has intervened. They have intervened through the Clean Air Act, through clean water regulations, through transportation regulations, air travel regulations, labor regulations, wage restrictions. And the people in the city have been regulated by Congress, too, health care, work requirements. Congress has injected itself into our schools, our hospitals, our city councils and our own homes. Congress does have oversight of the District of Columbia. So the question is, How should we be involved in this process? I think one of the things that this bill does that is very positive is that we go into the areas of this city which need to be reclaimed and provide mentoring programs to children that are at risk, giving a mentor to them, to be with them when they need to go to school to find out their homework assignments, when they need to go to the hospital or to the physician, and God forbid they should have to go to court, the mentor is there with them. This bill provides such help. It also provides a hotline so that if someone is in need in this city, they call a hotline and they are not let off the phone line until they are directly connected with an agency that can provide directly for their need. There are other things we are going to debate. We are going to debate where we should deliver needles through the drug needle exchange program. I personally think we ought to protect the children. We have talked to the District of Columbia Police Department. There are currently four locations that would not be affected by my amendment where needles could be distributed. As we continue this debate, Mr. Chairman, I hope we come to a conclusion and pass this bill today.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on July 11, the D.C. Council passed a bill which would require employers in the District of Columbia to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. Despite the fact that a good conscience clause exempting employers who wish to waive this on religious or moral obligations was offered, it was not adopted by the council. Furthermore, the debate got rather ugly and some council members espoused anti-Catholic and anti-Christian beliefs in the course of this discussion. One of the provisions that would be deleted by the gentlewoman's amendment would be the requirement for the District of Columbia City Council to go back and reconsider the conscience clause, allowing for religious and moral obligations. Now, if the concern is that there are not contraceptives available in the District of Columbia, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, there are 10 locations inside the District of Columbia where contraceptives can be obtained free. If one is above the poverty level, one can pay a minimum cost for contraceptives. Contraceptives are available in the District of Columbia. There is no reason for the District, for the council to carry on this debate about religious and moral convictions not being applicable. Because if someone for some reason did not have access to health care coverage that provided contraceptives, and they wanted to obtain contraceptives, they could go to one of the 10 locations in the District of Columbia where they could get free contraceptives at low cost if they are above the poverty level. So I think the gentlewoman's amendment to strike all provisions would go way too fast and would not task the city council with going back and reconsidering the conscience clause which I think they should could consider. So if one strikes all the general provisions, I think it is a bridge too far, a step too far; and I think it is a wrong thing. I think we should allow Congress, which has the constitutional requirement to oversee this, to carry on with these general provisions as are listed in the bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the strength of our country can be measured by the strength of our families, and it is true that the family is our smallest unit of government. So when families are doing well, we all do well. It is in the family that we pass on the virtues and the knowledge to build a great Nation. We know that when Mom and Dad can care for their children, their kids do better in school. They are less likely to get into drugs and more likely to reach their goals. Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senate have passed legislation to make American families stronger. It is called marriage penalty tax relief. With this help, moms and dads can spend more time building strong families and a stronger Nation. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the President to sign the marriage penalty tax relief, and together we will build a better America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I arise today in opposition to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act. This may surprise some as I became a cosponsor of this bill last summer. I strongly believe that we need to improve the quality of and access to our nation's health care system and support measures to do so. I originally felt that exempting negotiations between groups of health care professionals and health from antitrust laws would be an important step towards fostering continued patient safety and quality of care. Upon further reflection, however, I have changed my opinion. Despite its name, I believe that this bill has nothing to do with health care quality and will only impede efforts to improve access and quality. This legislation will be a major burden to employers and employees-- the exact people we should be trying to help. A CBO study shows that the increased costs to health insurance companies as a result of physician collective bargaining will surely be passed on to employers who provide health care coverage to their employees. This will either result in less employers providing coverage or less overall wages and benefits for employees. Neither of these is an acceptable outcome. The costs will not go towards patient care but towards sustaining doctor unionization and salary hikes. This bill also allows for physician boycotts of health plans, an outcome that could have a devastating effect on insurance plans in rural areas that already struggle to survive. I do not see how these effects will improve the quality of our health care. Additionally, I am disturbed by CBO's finding that if enacted H.R. 1304 will costs the taxpayers $3.6 billion dollars in lost revenue over the next ten years. We all know where these lost revenues will be made up--through Social Security and Medicare. We have made a pledge to protect the Social Security surplus and shore up Medicare, a pledge we must honor. We cannot support the so-called doctor cartels at the expense of our senior citizens. I have carefully considered this bill over the last two months. Since April, as this bill approached the floor, I have not received any support for H.R. 1304 from physicians in my district. Without their urging and upon realizing the devastating effect H.R. 1304 could have on our health care system, I decided to vote against the Quality Health Care Coalition Act. I consider my vote today a vote for increased access to health care and to move affordable health care for everyone. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the lengths physicians must go to be ready to serve our health care needs. I honor their dedication and am proud that the very highest quality health care in the world is within our borders. While I want and encourage our best and brightest to become doctors, I do not think this bill will be helpful in the long run. Therefore, I urge my colleagues, even those who at first blush might have been favorably disposed to this, to vote against H.R. 1304.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 331-333. Rollcall vote No. 331 was on passage of H. Con. Res. 312, Expressing the Sense of Congress that States Should More Closely Regulate Pawn and Title Loan Transactions; rollcall vote. No. 332 was on passage of H. Res. 494, Expressing the Sense of the House that the Ohio State Motto is Constitutional and Courts Should Uphold It; rollcall vote No. 333 was on passage of H.R. 4608, Designating the ``James H. Quillen United States Courthouse''. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of the three suspension bills.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ensure that H.R. 1649, the act to abolish the Department of Energy, does not get pushed behind a copy machine like two highly classified secret hard disk drives were recently. In 1995, I was the leader of the House task force that first introduced the Department of Energy Abolishment Act. Back then we highlighted four principal reasons why Congress needs to eliminate the Department of Energy. Listen to the same principles which still hold true: Number one, the DOE no longer serves as a core energy-related mission. In fact, less than 20 percent of the current Department of Energy budget is dedicated to energy-related activities. Number two, the Department of Energy is a failed cabinet level agency, unable to meet its most basic obligations. Number three, the Department of Energy has developed into a feeding trough for corporate welfare recipients. Number four, DOE wastes billions of taxpayer dollars annually. These four principles still stand true today; and unfortunately, now we can add a fifth principle, a reason why Congress must abolish this agency. That reason is that the Department of Energy has become and continues to be a serious threat to the security of this Nation. First it was Chinagate, and now we learn that highly classified and secret materials were missing for 2 months until recently discovered behind a copying machine. The Department of Energy has become a threat to our national security. In 1998 the House of Representatives created a Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military and Commercial Concerns with China, also known as the Cox Committee. I have with me a copy of one of three volumes of the Cox report I am holding in my hand outlining problems within the Department of Energy. The Cox Committee issued 38 recommendations in response to their conclusion that the security at the Department of Energy nuclear laboratories in Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore do not meet even the minimal standards, and that China has stolen design information on our Nation's most advanced thermonuclear weapons. Into the House Cox Committee, President Clinton appointed former Senator Warren Rudman, chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, to also evaluate security at the DOE labs. In my hand I have that report that was submitted by Senator Rudman. It has at the top ``science at its best, security at its worst.'' Some of the examples of the Department of Energy mismanagement as reported by the Rudman report is, one, a Department of Energy employee was dead for 11 months before the security officials realized that four classified documents were still assigned to him. It also took 45 months to fix a broken doorknob that was stuck in an open position, allowing access to classified nuclear information. Department of Energy officials also took 35 months to write a work report to replace a lock at a weapons lab facility which contained classified information. Several months passed before the security audit team discovered that a main telephone frame door at a weapons lab had been forced open and the lock had been destroyed. During this Congress, in separate reports, Congressman Cox and Senator Rudman have reached the same conclusion regarding the Department of Energy: the agency is incapable of reforming itself and has a culture of waste, fraud and abuse. What does Secretary Richardson have to say about these problems? On March 9, 1999, Secretary Richardson said, ``Security at the labs right now is good.'' On March 14, 1999, Secretary Richardson said, ``We have top notch security right now in our national labs.'' He also said on that day, ``Our labs are very security conscious now.'' On March 16 he said, ``Security is being tightened dramatically at the labs. This should not happen again.'' What Bill Richardson said yesterday was, ``What I did not take into account was that the lab culture needs more time to be changed. I did not take into account the human element,'' on Meet the Press on June 18, 2000. I think this is the final straw, Mr. Speaker. On May 7, highly classified computer disks containing nuclear secrets were discovered missing from the Department of Energy lab in Los Alamos. Although the disappearance was discovered on May 7, it was not until 24 days later that the director of the lab was notified, along with the Department of Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson and the FBI. To date, no one has been fired or taken off the payroll. While I recognize progress in the announcement this week by chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services of his intentions to introduce legislation to examine whether the nuclear weapons program should be turned over to the Department of Defense, what we do not need is another commission telling us what we already know. The Department of Energy is a threat to our national security, and all defense-related functions currently housed within the Department of Energy should be transferred to the Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I believe it is time to turn out the lights at the Department of Energy by passing H.R. 1649.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. One of the most amazing characteristics of the human race is our ability to express ourselves artistically. All of us have been touched by a piece of music, a beautiful and interesting sculpture, an outstanding theatrical performance. Art can be as enriching to the soul as nature itself. But sometimes in this job, we are forced to choose priorities. I think wildland fire management is a higher priority for the amount of money that we are talking about. Because the arts are flourishing in America. Most people do not know that more people attend artistic events in a given year than sporting events. The private sector contributes over $9 billion to the arts every year. Employment in the arts is growing 3.6 times faster than the general employment. Of the money that we do give to the arts from the Federal Government, 20 percent is consumed in overhead. A majority of the remaining amount is spent in New York or California. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) was relishing that he got $1,000 for his district, $1,000. It is not very much money. Very little of this money makes it out to the rest of America. I think our Founding Fathers noted that the benefits of keeping the Government out of the arts were great. But if any of my colleagues have lost personal possessions to a fire or to a flood or to theft, they know how serious that is. Sometimes it is merely a scrap of paper with a signature on it or a canceled check or photo, something that cannot be replaced. If we can support the wildland fire management, I think we are going to help people from losing their possessions and keep our natural heritage, the wildlife areas, from burning. So this issue is not about the importance of our arts in our society, as much as it is about helping protect those who stand to lose everything from wildfire.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, some people are having a difficult decision here, and, you know, we are often asked to establish priorities. Sometimes we are asked to decide whether we should fund an after-school program or special education. For some, that is a difficult decision. But tonight I do not think we are facing a difficult decision. We have $22 million that we could add to Native American health care, or we could subsidize the arts, humanities and museums. Now, this industry of the arts is a very wealthy industry. The gentleman from Michigan made a good point about how we are trying to make decisions between subsidizing the wealthy versus subsidizing a very needy cause. Well, Hollywood is full of millionaires; New York and Broadway are full of millionaires. Each year $9 billion is spent on the arts; jobs in the arts community are growing 3.6 times faster than the regular economy; there are more Americans that attend an artistic event every year than attend sporting events; and yet we are willing to make a choice to subsidize wealthy producers, actors, artists and all of those who contribute to the arts another $22 million. Some do not care if we turn our backs on the Native Americans, because they want to subsidize and support some of these wealthy Americans through the arts. Somewhere, some day in America, some child may see an artistic expression if we just add another $22 million to the industry, the $9 billion industry, and we will do it at the expense of Native Americans' health care? For me this is not a tough decision. For the downtrodden Native Americans, because I have seen their troubles, I have been to the reservations, I grew up with Native Americans, I played with them, I have worked with them. Four of my fraternity brothers were Native Americans. I watched three of the four pass away because of some reason that I hope would be taken care of by additional health care. I do not know if that would meet the need, but it would be a long step towards a greater awareness in health care for the Indians. So I think this is an easy decision tonight. I think we should support the Nethercutt amendment because it is a much higher priority than subsidizing a $9 billion industry. Let us vote to add the $22 million to Native American health care.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, it has been good for education to have Republicans in control. Under the direction of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have improved the important programs; and education has done very well, and Pell Grants is one of those programs. Under the Democrats' control, prior to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) taking over, Pell Grants were stagnant in their funding levels. It actually shrank a little when the Clinton administration took over. But under the leadership of the gentleman of Illinois (Chairman Porter), in the last 5 years, we have increased the funding for Pell Grants by 50 percent. It is a very good program, so I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for bringing to our attention the importance of Pell Grants so that we can talk about how, under Republican control, Pell Grants have done very well. There has been some confusion on the floor about the relationship between this education funding bill, appropriations bill, and tax relief. There is no tax provisions in this bill, but there is an increase to education. In the last 5 years under Republican control, education has grown faster than the rate of inflation. The important programs have been highlighted and have also grown. So let us not be confused by this talk about tax relief and education, because Republicans have emphasized the need for good programs, like Pell Grants, like special education, and have increased the funding dramatically. So when we consider this bill and this amendment, I think that we should remember that it has been very good for education in America, especially for in the classrooms, those people trying to get into college; it has been good to have Republicans under control. And I am very pleased with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and his Committee on Education and the Workforce and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, because they have emphasized programs that have been efficient and that worked well and more fully funded those. So let us not be confused by the arguments about tax provisions, and let us focus on the needs of our children and the improvements that the Republicans have made.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think that we should commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for bringing up a very important issue. Special education funding is the top priority for the governor of Kansas. It is the top priority for the largest school district in Kansas, headed by Superintendent Winston Brooks. They have found themselves all over the State of Kansas trying to fund special ed by taking money for other programs that are very important. So I think that we should focus on special education. I am disappointed that this amendment was not within the guidelines so that it will be struck on a point of order, as is my understanding. But I think that we should continue our efforts through the course of this bill and as we progress further in this session to try to focus our efforts by getting the appropriate funding for the Department of Education special education portion. If we look at the amount of money that gets spent right here inside Washington out of the budget the Department of Education gets, about 35 percent of it does not even get outside the beltway, it is spent right here in Washington, D.C. So if we can direct the money for special education specifically to the school districts, then it will free up some of their money, it will not be wasted here in Washington, D.C., and those students that truly need help are going to receive it. At the local school district level, it gives them the opportunity to fully fund the programs that are helping the average student and the other students. But those with special needs are going to get the help from Washington if we can focus our resources here. There are several amendments that will follow. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and myself have one where we are going to have, under the appropriate guidelines, taking some money from a program that has grown dramatically, take a small portion of that and move it over toward special education to help us achieve our goal. I hope that Members of the House will take that into consideration in the future, because it is very important that we meet the needs of these special students.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is important because we are taking a program that is going to increase. We are not taking away the large portion of the increase. We are still leaving $100 million as an increase in the 21st century learning program. We are simply redirecting the remaining money to a higher priority. That is the special education program. I think it is a good amendment. I think it meets the priorities of this House as was voted on just last May. I would ask the Members to support the Ryan-Tiahrt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. Forty days ago this very body stood up and by an overwhelming vote of 421-3 passed H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Fund Act stating this Congress' commitment to fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Many of my fellow colleagues joined me at this podium and asserted our responsibility to live up to our promise to our school districts. Additionally, last May we passed H. Con. Res. 84, again by an overwhelming vote of 413-2, which urged Congress and the President to give programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the highest priority among Federal elementary and secondary education programs. The highest priority. The legislation increases IDEA funding by $500 million from FY2000 funds, continuing the Republican Congress' record of consistently adding money to the IDEA program. I commend Chairman Porter for his drastic increase in IDEA funding from 13 percent to 25 percent. It is under his and Chairman Goodling's guidance that we have stepped up our efforts to help local school districts comply with IDEA mandates. However, even this great increase is still about $1.5 billion short of the 40 percent funding we promised to our school districts. This is a good bill that will improve our nation's schools. I just believe that we have an opportunity to do even more to ease the burden IDEA has placed on school districts. My home state of Kansas can expect to see about a quarter of the promised $69 million this year for IDEA mandates. Anyone who has spoken with school officials in their districts know 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 are not vital to our children's education. One such program, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, has ballooned 800 percent in the last 4 years. This program was originally funded at $750,000 to help rural areas maximize their resources. I am not looking to eliminate the 21st Century Learning program. I am only looking to cut the increase in funding by $300 million, about half of the $600 million it was funded, and still a 400 percent increase from FY1996 funding. I don't know how many Members have toured special education facilities in their home districts. I have. I have toured Levy Special Education Center in Wichita and seen these special 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 40 percent of the program. To not do so, and instead increase funding for programs like the 21st Century Learning Centers, we are completely ignoring the needs of our local school districts. I challenge my fellow colleagues to live up to their vote last month and support our effort today to put more money into IDEA.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, according to NewsMax.com, the results from the Australian gun ban are in and they are deadly. Just over a year ago, Australia followed in the footsteps of mother country Great Britain and made a law that totally banned handguns. The gun ban and the confiscation program cost the Australian government more than $500 million. Sometimes using deadly force, authorities collected 640,381 personal firearms. Now, the results are in. Since the gun ban, Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, assaults are up 8.6 percent, armed robberies are up 44 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Figures over the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms, but since the gun ban this has changed for the worse. There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults on the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain this, and so are the liberals here in America. They want to avoid the facts that following a gun ban, crimes go up. If we would enforce the laws that we have on the books, it would make America a safer place.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for the opportunity to speak in favor of this bill. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said earlier that we have this tax cut and if we did not have this tax cut we could spend more money on education. Well, there is a difference in philosophy here. We have overpaid the cost of government. I do believe that the taxpayers deserve a break. We could spend more, but let us look at what is included in this bill. In this bill, we have an overall increase of 7.6 percent. That exceeds inflation. But a portion of this is mandatory, and we have to increase it a certain amount. But if we look at the discretionary portion that we have the opportunity to either increase or decrease, the discretionary portion is increasing nearly 15 percent. Pell Grants, for example, are going from $2,300 in 1994 to $3,500 in this bill. It is over a 50-percent increase since 1994. We are doing some wonderful things in this bill. I think the body ought to take that into consideration. The priorities may be different, but it is a good bill and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would like to listen, I do support advocating for youth, especially disadvantaged youth, and I think we do so through this bill and the priorities that we have established through the job corps and other areas. I think the reason that we have brought in other issues is to respond to what has been brought up by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number words. Mr. Chairman, I want to just talk a little bit about some of the priorities that we have put in this bill that are very good that address the very needs that my friends on the other side of the aisle are bringing up. But first I want to remind this body that, for nearly a generation under Democrats' control, this Congress continued to overspend the amount of money that was coming into the Federal Government. They continued to spend every penny of the Social Security surplus. They continued to spend every penny of the Medicare surplus. What was the money spent on? It was spent on too many programs that were too inefficient. Instead of stopping and looking at what we were doing to find out what works, what is the best investment in our dollars, we just continued to blindly throw money at the program, at different programs. I see this continuing now in some of the proposals. I have a chart here that talks about one of the high priorities in this bill. It is a program that works, and it works for the people who are in need of finding good programs or good jobs and in need of getting good skills, and that is the disadvantaged youth in America. This chart shows that, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1995, a slight increase in the job corps funding. But under Republican control, we put a priority in job corps funding because it works. It is a substantial investment in this job corps program. Now, this funding is part of the Federal effort to provide employment assistance to the disadvantaged youths between ages 16 and 24, those people who are just trying to develop their skills, trying to find their place in life. It is accomplished through programs that have a proven track record. Since 1995, over $300 million has been added to the job corps program, a nearly 30 percent increase over that time. Now, the investment in the job corps is an investment in a program that has been proven to work for specifically disadvantaged youths. I want to emphasize that point. A recent independent evaluation program found that job corps participation led to an increase in one full school year of time spent in education and training, training that focused on vocational skills. There was a substantial increase in student attainment of GED and vocational certification, an 11 percent earnings gain for job corps participants, and a reduction of 20 percent in arrests, convictions, and incarcerations of job corps participants. Under the appropriation, since 1995, 11 job corps centers have been added, including the fiscal year 2001 request before the House. From 1989 to 1995, this period here on the left side of the chart, under the Democratic-controlled House, only four job corps centers were added in the national total. Now, some of the excuses for this blind deluge of more money into this bill I think comes from the argument they say that there is this tax cut that has been threatened by the Republicans. Well, we have overpaid the cost of government, and we do want to return that change. When one goes to McDonald's and one orders $4.50 worth of food, one expects 50 cents of change back. When one has the price of government being overfunded, the change ought to go back to the taxpayers, those people who work so hard. Well, we have overpaid the cost of government. There is room for tax relief. Still we are protecting every penny of Social Security surplus, every penny of Medicare surplus. This money that was in the past spent on programs that did not work, we have dedicated this money to Social Security, the surplus from Social Security, dedicated the surplus from Medicare to Medicare. Still there remains money coming in that is over and above the cost of government. So when we do look at what programs that we are going to fund, we ought to fund those that have a proven track record, eliminate those that are not very efficient and continue.

Mr. TIAHRT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I guess we can expect the gentleman's support for this bill on final passage, now that we have agreed together that we have an emphasis on Job Corps. I thank the gentleman for his vote on this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained today and missed rollcall vote Nos. 214-216, Rollcall vote No. 214 was a Roemer amendment to H.R. 4392, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001; rollcall vote Nos. 215 and 216 were Traficant amendments to H.R. 4392. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote number 214 and ``aye'' on rollcall votes 215 and 216. personal explanation

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 181 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and members of his committee for their outstanding work on this legislation. Since 1995, when I came to Congress, we have doubled IDEA funding and that has been a great accomplishment. Mr. Speaker, Americans are compassionate people. We want every American to be able to climb the ladder of success, even if we have to provide the less fortunate with an escalator. Twenty-five years ago, when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was enacted, the Federal Government mandated that our local school systems educate all children, even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. During the floor debate, it was clear that the Federal Government was committed to paying 40 percent of the cost needed to educate a special- needs child. Today we are falling far short of that mark. Now our good intentions have turned into bad consequences. The Federal Government's mandate has undermined the public school system's ability to adequately meet the needs of these special children. This is not acceptable for either the children who need special education or those without disabilities who watch their education programs cut in order to fund IDEA. Educating every child is the right thing to do and I am proud that we are doing that today. Yet IDEA has placed an extreme financial burden on our public schools forcing school districts to rob Peter to pay Paul. But we can fix this problem. By fully funding IDEA we can put an end to this practice, helping all of our children reach their full potential. Last week I visited with Barbara Fuller, president of the United Teachers of Wichita, along with a group of special education teachers in my home district. Speaking with them, it became clear the paperwork was also a big burden. It takes a special and loving person to care for our mentally and physically disabled children. We should be commending their work and doing all we can to make their jobs easier. Instead, Washington and the States drain our teachers' time and patience by forcing them to fill out endless paperwork and Individual Education Plans (IEPs). This Congress has passed special laws reducing paperwork for small businesses and others; yet we have allowed bureaucrats to expand the number of forms educators are required to fill out. Congress needs to provide an escalator for those with special needs and paper relief for those teachers who dedicate their lives to educating them.