Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act. I can think of no other issue that strikes up more anxiety and frustration with the American people than taxes. By passing this rule and this legislation, Congress is committing to the American taxpayer to replace the present code that is commonly viewed as obsolete, burdensome, intrusive and unfair. I am fully aware that many of my colleagues do not consider this an important issue. We have just heard the arguments once again, it is too risky, it is a scheme, total chaos. We do not need any more excuses, because a lot of us here in America are wrestling with this modern cyclops, the IRS code, as we speak. We are doing our taxes. The Tax Code is a giant, with more pages than the Bible. It is more complex than the Justice Department's case against Microsoft. It is cold, it is heartless, and it punishes almost everything we consider successful. It costs us $300 billion a year just to prepare our taxes, not to pay our taxes, just to get ready to pay our taxes. This Tax Code is a ball and chain locked on our leg. But there is hope. There is a solution, and it is in this rule and in this bill. Let us set a specific date to rid ourselves of this ball and chain, the IRS code. That will give us the discipline and the incentive to put in place a fair and flatter system to provide for those things we need. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and vote for this Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the member of the powerful Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority to raise taxes on hardworking American families. The tax limitation amendment is powerful, yet responsible. By requiring two-thirds majority approval for any tax increase, this Congress is showing its deep concern for the constant imbalance of raising taxes in order to increase spending. We are attempting to ensure that the American people will not be subject to the whimsical and shortsighted notions of Congress to raise taxes at the drop of a hat. Presently 14 States across this country require a supermajority in their legislatures to raise taxes. What has been the result? Their State taxes grow much slower and State spending is reduced. Additionally, these States have seen their economies grow at a rate of almost one-third faster than the 36 States that have not adopted supermajority requirements for tax increases. One-third faster than the States that have not adopted supermajority requirements. A strong majority of American tax-paying families support this effort, which will assure that future Congresses have support of the American public before they attempt to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that today's taxes are too high. Americans pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and shelter. Efforts to reduce these burdens on Americans is much too little. It is an economic fact that the Big-Government crowd would like to ignore. It frustrates me to witness some of the largest tax increases this Nation has ever seen to pass with only one or two votes, and it frustrates me further to know that this body can vote to increase taxes on all Americans when all of America does not support such action. So today I am asking my colleagues to take a long, hard look at the remarkable possibilities this legislation offers and offer their support for this amendment. Members who oppose this legislation are telling the American public that it does not bother this Congress to saddle our Nation, our Nation's taxpayers with economic policies that penalize rather than reward. Our action today will show a great deal about the direction of this Congress and this country and, most importantly, about the future of our children. I want to leave behind a legacy of a strong economy, a strong future for our children, and not one burdened heavily with taxes, stifling growth, limiting opportunity. By requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, we will prevent further knee-jerk reactions by big government supporters who care more about the outcome of arcane Federal programs than the hard work of everyday people that I and this amendment support. So ask my fellow Members to support the legislation today.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to say that I think this is a way to provide a wonderful opportunity to people who do not have a chance to get into homeownership. There are many avenues that we have available; sometimes we just focus on the Government providing all of these services. We have to go through housing and urban development, and we want to cut off the opportunity for nonprofit organizations and religious organizations to get involved. But there is a long history in States like Kansas. For example, in adoption, we had trouble with adoption through the State agencies, and they opened it up to a Lutheran organization, the amount of adoptions increased dramatically, because their heart was in it. They were able to do more things quicker. That was very beneficial. If we look back at Wichita, there is a group called Mennonite Housing. That is a faith-based organization. But if they had access to these grants, they would do in a larger scale what they are doing today, and that is taking properties that are less than acceptable today, that are in poor condition, dilapidated, and through this organization and through block grants could create opportunity for people who would not be able to purchase housing. Single mothers, minority mothers, poor families, people without work that are just working maybe just a minimum-level job while they are getting some education or training. So Mennonite Housing, a faith-based organization, would be, under the Souder amendment, able to capture some money, take these dilapidated properties, and then get them into a position or an order for people to move in. Put new roofs on, new siding, whatever it takes to bring them up to code, make them livable. It would be a very exciting opportunity for the people who are too poor right now to be able to afford this housing on their own. Now, it is not pushing any faith; there is not going to be any sermons given here. Mennonite Housing does not do that. They simply meet the needs of the poor. They let their faith be their actions, and their actions are taking poor houses in bad condition, and they refurbish them; and they give them through low-interest loans to people at a payment that they can make, and they have hope. They have their own home. They have a wonderful opportunity. The Souder amendment is going to allow that to expand. It will not be just limited to private donations; it is going to be an opportunity for them to apply for these block grants, take large sections and not just in Wichita, Kansas. It could be in any city across America, large areas of unclaimed city that has gone to crime, it has gone to drugs. If it was just brought up to code, new paint, new shingles, new lawn, other families would want to move in there and improve the property and refurbish these cities. How do we do it? We give faith-based organizations the opportunity to get block grants to make these houses liveable. So I would ask my colleagues to support the Souder amendment and let us see if we cannot do something for the poor.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong advocate for this bill and a strong advocate for the human rights of all Americans, both born and unborn. This Nation must raise the value of life if we are to survive as a Nation and prosper as a people. This procedure is so horrible, so inhumane, that there should never be a debate over whether or not to protect the lives of these helpless babies. Can Members imagine that it is legal to partially deliver a fully formed child, a child that can survive outside the mother's womb, lying in the doctor's hand, only to kill it by one of the most brutal methods known to man? But today I want to stress that in passing the partial-birth abortion ban, we must be wary of the so-called serious health exceptions. These health exceptions become a loophole through which even more partial- birth abortions are performed. The most dangerous of these exceptions is the mental health exception that can even allow for partial-birth abortions in the third trimester, a time in which even the most avid abortion rights activists agree that a fetus, the baby, can live on its own. The mental health exception essentially nullifies the ban on partial- birth abortions, as by its very nature the criteria can be so vague. Mental health excuses in today's society are so notoriously footloose. How many of us have taken a day off of work or school for mental health reasons, usually because it is a good day at the beach or we feel like sleeping in? Unfortunately, in passing a mental health exception, precious life itself is held to the same laissez-faire standards. I am embarrassed to say that because of the mental health exceptions, my home State of Kansas is on its way to becoming the partial-birth abortion capital of the Nation. In 1998, the Kansas legislature passed a partial-birth abortion ban much like the one we are discussing today. However, there was an exception in the case of mental health concerns. Since passage of the law, partial-birth abortions have not ceased nor have they been decreased. Instead, partial-birth abortions in the State of Kansas have risen by more than 300 percent, all of them because of the mental health exception. I urge my colleagues to vote against the exceptions and for the final passage.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the Oil Price Reduction Act. Let us turn back the hands of time to 1978. Gas lines, high prices, President Carter gives us the typical liberal, big-government solution. More government, more programs that never get smaller and never go away. He forms the Department of Energy with the sole purpose of writing a national energy policy and imposing price and supply controls. The relief from high prices come when President Reagan finally rolls back the price and supply controls, but we still do not have an energy policy. What do we have? We have the Clinton-Gore administration taking millions of acres out of oil production up in Alaska. The gentleman from Oregon wonders how come there is no oil coming to his State. It is because the Clinton-Gore administration has taken it out of oil exploration. Number two, the Clinton-Gore administration increases regulations on existing oil producers. Right now, if there is a dead bird found anywhere near an oil production unit in Kansas, the very person that is trying to provide us with energy to take our kids to school, to go to the grocery store, to go to work, could be fined up to $10,000 per dead bird no matter how come the bird has passed away, regardless of why the death occurred. Maybe that explains why before the Clinton-Gore administration we had 30 rigs in Kansas searching for energy. Today we have 6. There, nationwide, are 450,000 stripper wells that could be producing energy for us. We have a self-inflicted energy problem and it has been inflicted by the Clinton-Gore administration. What we do is tax incentives for domestic energy production and to ease the regulations on energy productions. Third, we have failed to engage the OPEC nations that are actively conducting price-fixing. If these were U.S. companies, we would be prosecuting them for price-fixing under the antitrust laws, but instead we have failed to engage them. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. This bill is a good step in the right direction. I agree with the gentleman who spoke before who said it is not enough. I agree, it is not enough. We need to do something for our domestic oil production, but I think it is time to get the administration off dead center.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 22 and 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on approving the Journal of February 15, and ``yes'' on H. Res. 423, the rule for H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Alexis de Toqueville once said that America was great because her people were good. Today I have the honor to pay tribute to one of these truly good people. Earlier around noon today, Jean McNeil of Wichita, KS, died. Jean was a wonderful woman. She had a laugh and smile that made you feel warm and safe. She was humble and kind, quiet and compassionate. Why was Jean so good? Because she loved. Her love permeated all who knew her; it enveloped her children and grandchildren, and touched all who were blessed to call her a friend. One cannot remember Jean without remembering the times she would simply sit back and laugh at someone's story, encourage her grandson Tony to perform just one more magic trick, or make a pithy comment about some politician who had lost his way. Although Jean was kind, she had a passionate side. Her anger could be aroused, but only in the most serious of circumstances, and those usually involved a loss for her beloved Kansas Jayhawks. St. Francis once said that we should preach the Gospel every day, and when necessary use words. Like St. Francis, Jean lived less by her talk then by her walk. You saw Christ within her in her kindness, her gentleness, her constancy and yes, her humility. Each of us is thankful for the time we had with Jean. I am sure her friends at Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church would agree. Mr. Speaker, life is such a precious gift. It is so special that often we fail to consider it. Our founders enshrined this gift in our Declaration of Independence as the first right. Back in 1994 Jean's daughter, Charlotte, her husband, Tom and their five kids, Andy, Emily, Mike, Paul, and Tony probably did not fully consider the value of each other's life. But, when Tom went down in his private plane that year, each of their lives changed, forever. Tom, Mike, and Paul crossed the threshold of Heaven that day, but Charlotte, Jean and the surviving children remained: left to make sense of it all. Some questions are not easily put to rest, but for Jean the question of life was simple: respect it. There is much disagreement on the floor of this great body, about whose life should be protected in law, but Jean was never confused. The great Chairman, Herry Hyde, could have been talking about her when he reflected on the moment when each of us will appear before our Creator to account for our lives. He said: I really think that those in the Pro-Life Movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world, but are heard very beautifully and very loudly in the next world. And, I think they will plead for everyone who had been in the movement. They will say to God: ``Spare them, because they loved us.'' And God will look at us and say not, ``Did you succeed'' but, ``did you try?'' Mr. Speaker, today, the Chorus in Heaven just became a bit louder. Rock Chalk, Jean.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 4, 5, and 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 764, Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act; ``yes'' on H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act; and ``no'' on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2990.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. This bipartisan legislation, which was reported out of the International Relations Committee by a vote of 32- 6, reaffirms this Nation's commitment to peace through strength in the Taiwan Strait. I congratulate the House leadership for beginning the new session of Congress with the explicit message that the United States will meet its obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, this nation is committed to providing Taiwan with those defensive weapons systems necessary to protect Taiwan from any aggressive actions by Communist China. Unfortunately, by sending out mixed signals to the government of Taiwan while concurrently maintaining a policy of appeasement with the People's Republic of China, the Clinton administration has fostered the current environment of tension in the Taiwan Strait. With this legislation, Congress is clearing up any confusion the Clinton administration has created regarding this Nation's commitment to a free and democratic Taiwan. Recently, the Pentagon reported that the People's Liberation Army of China has nearly 100 short-range ballistic missiles targeted at Taiwan. In addition to a real increased threat of Chinese cruise missiles and fighter-bombers, China's dangerous rhetoric and intimidation has led Taiwan to publicly express their concern of possible aggression in the near future. In 1996, China performed significant military operations across the strait from Taiwan and fired several ballistic missiles near Taiwan. In addition to reconfirming this nation's military commitment to Taiwan, H.R. 1838 will provide for increased training for Taiwan's military officers in U.S. military schools and require the Secretary of State to make information regarding defense services fully available to the government of Taiwan in an expedited manner. Furthermore, this legislation will require the President to report to Congress regarding any and all of Taiwan's defense need requests and Administration decisions on those requests. The best way to make sure China will take Taiwan seriously and treat them fairly in discussions regarding reunification is to send a clear and unmistakable message that the United States will stand by Taiwan if China takes any aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait. Today we have the opportunity to stand up for freedom and democracy and show our support for the people of Taiwan. Mr. Speaker I urge a bipartisan yes vote for the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on January 31, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call vote numbers 2 and 3. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Con. Res. 244, Permitting the Use of the Capitol Rotunda to Commemorate Victims of the Holocaust; and ``yes'' on H.R. 2130, the Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999. I would request that my statement be placed in the appropriate location in the Congressional Record.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to set the record straight. While the Democrat leadership was out of town yesterday raising money, we were fighting for American families by strengthening education, our defense system, and protecting Social Security surplus. We have heard a lot of wild accusations being thrown around, and I guess the liberals think that if they throw enough mud, maybe some of it will stick. But we are protecting the Social Security surplus, and we voted to ensure that by taking a 1 percent across-the-board savings. Now, the liberals claim that our effort to trim waste and fraud and abuse in the Washington bureaucracy, and not threaten important programs, will somehow be overwhelming. But this plan will protect Social Security and restore fiscal responsibility in Washington. This is just a common-sense proposal that gives the Department and agency heads leeway to trim the waste, fraud, and abuse they find in their budgets. We are not mandating specific cuts, so if important programs get slashed and the administration suggests that it is the right thing to do, then because they have decided to do it, let it be. Mr. Speaker, we all know that fat should be cut from the bloated Washington bureaucracy, and we can protect Social Security and Medicare by making sure the savings do happen.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, break out the suntan oil. Secretary Babbitt and 20 of his officials of the Interior Department are in the Virgin Islands as we speak. Apparently he greased the skids with the administration because the Interior bill is still in negotiations with House and Senate leadership. Before Secretary Babbitt made it to the beach, he told Congress he did not have 1 percent waste in the Interior budget. He said he could not absorb just a 1 percent reduction to help us secure the Social Security surplus. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of suggestions. First, Secretary Babbitt could have taken only 19 Interior employees and left one of them in Washington, and help achieve a 1 percent reduction. Or, he could have gone to Wichita, Kansas, where we have competitive rates and large meeting rooms, and saved at least 1 percent of the cost, or he could have just stayed home and left the Virgin Islanders to the honeymooners and tourists. Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people would rather secure the Social Security surplus than see government officials spend the money, lubricating their skin on the beaches of the Virgin Islands.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on November 8, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 574, 575, and 576. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 94, Recognizing the Generous Contributions Made by Each Living Person; ``yes'' on H.R. 2904, to Amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to Reauthorize Funding for the Office of Government Ethics, and ``yes'' on H. Res. 344, Recognizing and Honoring Payne Stewart and Expressing the Condolences of the House of Representatives to His Family on His Death.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Democrats sent a letter to the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, and it had some bogus ground rules; and what they got back said that we were spending Social Security under these bogus ground rules. Their whole purpose for doing that is so that they can spend more money. They have shown the programs and they have talked about the programs that they want to spend the extra money on. Well, rest in peace, liberal big government. We are not going to do it. In fact, we have got a letter from the Congressional Budget Officer that says, if we do not spend more than $592.1 billion on domestic discretionary spending, we will not spend any Social Security surplus. Along with that, we have put in a 1 percent across-the-board cut, which is like taking a half a notch in this belt, just tightening up just a half a notch. That is all we would have to do, and we passed that; and, in fact, we are not going to spend the Social Security surplus. That is the fact of the matter. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that in a letter. Now, if we are going to do what they are recommending, we would have to take four notches up in this belt. Now, America knows we could do that four notches and protect Social Security, but yet the liberals have failed to offer any program reduction.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, the subcommittee chairman, for yielding me this time. This is a good bill, and I think it ought to be passed. The D.C. appropriations bill is the budget that was passed by the District city council. It was signed by the mayor. It truly fulfills the requirement of home rule when it comes to the financial part of it. The only roadblock that seems to be in the way is the needle exchange program. But I think we should do the compassionate thing when it comes to the needle exchange program. Current law says that, if one receives any Federal or any government dollars, one cannot conduct a needle exchange program; and that is what we are retaining in this bill. This bill is actually what we have in current law today, signed by the President last year. But if one goes to other countries or other cities in the country that have a needle exchange program, just as close as Baltimore, which has had a needle exchange program for the last 7 years, we found out in a July 5 article, Associated Press article this summer, that 90 percent, according to Johns Hopkins University, 90 percent of injection drug users are infected with a blood borne virus. Now, the whole purpose of having the needle exchange program is to prevent people from getting a blood borne virus. Yet, in Baltimore, after 7 years of trying to achieve this goal, 90 percent have a blood borne virus. It is a failure. It is a failed program. Ten percent should not be a passing grade in Baltimore. It should not be a passing grade in the District of Columbia. So we should do the compassionate thing. Is it compassionate to aid an injection drug user in an action that will cut years off the end of his life? No. It is a tragedy. Is it compassionate to help an injection drug user to conduct actions that 90 percent of the time will result in a blood borne virus and put him in an early grave? No. It is a tragedy. We should not allow a needle exchange program to become coffin nails, to drive nails into a coffin for people with an early grave because they have a drug-dependent personality. We should help them by getting them to a treatment center, by not aiding their actions, but helping them end those actions. That is what this bill does. It is consistent with the President's own drug czar. His policy states that he does not support the injection drug using or needle exchange programs for injection drug users because it sends the wrong message, and it is ineffective, and there is no sound science supporting it. So either one supports the President's drug czar and votes for this bill, or else one may as well call for his resignation because that is what is his policy. That is what is supporting this bill. I think it is a good bill and ought to be voted.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last week was a truly remarkable week in Washington because the Republican Congress stopped the 30-year raid on social security. We passed all 13 appropriations bills without touching the surplus in the social security trust fund. We did it requiring big government in Washington to be a little more responsible with the taxpayers' hard-earned money. A 1 percent across-the-board reduction in bureaucratic spending will mean less waste, fraud, and abuse in government, and it will mean that the social security will be there for American retirees. A penny saved is a retirement secured. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a great accomplishment. If the President vetos our plan to strengthen social security by cutting government waste, we will send him another bill that does the very same thing. This is no time for political gamesmanship, because the retirement security of the millions of Americans is at stake. Strengthening social security is a top priority for the Republican Congress, and I sincerely hope that the President and his party will join us in meeting that goal.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, once again we are stressed between a debate over spending the Social Security surplus. This bill that is the result of this rule will protect the Social Security surplus, but one would not know it from the rhetoric. According to the other side we are actually dipping into the Social Security surplus by $17 billion. But once again we see that the sky is falling and Chicken Little is running about the House of Representatives. They say children will be sitting in crowded schools because of this, seniors will not eat, parents will be helpless to stop their children from doing drugs, medical research will be frozen for a year, and 50,000 troops will be laid off or reduced in force. Well, none of that is true. Let us just look at defense, for an example. General Shelton came to the House of Representatives, came to the Senate and he said, ``Here's the President's budget. We think it's sufficient to provide for our Department of Defense.'' Then we increased that amount of money in budget authority by $4.5 billion. Now a 1 percent cut would reduce that, but it's still $2 billion over the request that was completely sufficient, $2 billion more, and now, Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden we are going to be laying off 50,000 troops. How can that be? How can it switch when we are still increasing by $2 billion? Well, I have the letter that says that we are dipping into Social Security surplus by $17 billion that has been referred to by the opponents of this, and it puts some really bogus groundrules to do that. But even if it were true, it says that in order to keep from spending the Social Security surplus, one would have to have a 4.8 percent across-the-board reduction, 4.8 percent. Well, where is their offer to cut the budget by 4.8 percent so we can protect Social Security? Now, you say this will not extend Social Security even one day. Well, if you do not follow your own rhetoric and arguments, if you do not cut another 4.8 percent, you will shorten the life of Social Security. You will reduce the amount of time that is available for us to pay our seniors the benefits that they have so adeptly earned by working and paying into the system. The charges are not true, so why do they make the charges? To increase spending. I ask my colleagues to vote for the rule and vote for the bill that follows.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate surrounding the Pain Relief Promotion Act focuses on whether it is more likely to have a positive or a negative impact on those who suffer from severe and continuing pain. I believe the experience in my own State of Kansas can shed important light on this question. Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pain Management, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and the American Medical Association say the bill will live up to its title. They emphasize that, for the first time, the bill writes into the Controlled Substances Act protection for physicians who prescribe the large doses of drugs sometimes necessary to manage intractable pain, even when it may increase the risk of death, so long as the drugs are not prescribed intentionally for the purpose of assisting suicide or euthanasia. However, a dissident group of State medical societies and some other medical organizations predict that this very provision will lead some physicians to hesitate to prescribe needed drugs, fearing that their intentions may be subject to question by the Drug Enforcement Agency, or the DEA. Fortunately, there is evidence from a number of States against which we can test these competing predictions. In the period from 1993 through 1998, Kansas and four other States enacted new laws similar in effect to the disputed provision in the Pain Relief Promotion Act. Like H.R. 2260, these State laws have combined a provision specifically protecting doctors who prescribe medications for pain relief with provisions preventing their use for purpose of assisting suicide or euthanasia. Let us look at what happened at the drug prescriptions following enactment of these laws. Let us begin with my own State of Kansas. The bill preventing assisted suicide was enacted in our State legislature in 1993 while I served in the State Senate. Did that cause doctors to be less likely to prescribe high doses? Look at the chart here. Per capita morphine usage increased a little bit for a couple of years, then in 1996, began to rise dramatically. In 1998, the law on assisting suicide was strengthened. At the same time, language specifically protecting prescriptions for pain relief was added. It read: ``A licensed health care professional who administers, prescribes, or dispenses medications or procedures to relieve another person's pain or discomfort, even if the medication or procedure may hasten or increase the risk of death, does not violate this law unless the medications or procedures are knowingly administered, prescribed, or dispensed with the intent to cause death.'' That is very close, indeed, to the language of the Pain Relief Promotion Act. What happened to the prescriptions for pain killing drugs? Based on the figures for the first half of 1999, per capita use of morphine rose 22 percent in Kansas. The experience has been replicated in State after State after State. Let us look at a chart for Kentucky. In June of 1994, Kentucky passed a law banning assisted suicide, but specifically allowing pain control that may unintentionally risk death. That year, per capita use of morphine increased. While there was a little dip in 1995, usage was still higher than either of the 2 years before the law passed. Since then, morphine usage per capita has increased over 2,200 grams for every 100,000 people in 1997 and 1998, and projected from half-year figures in 1999. Next is Iowa. In 1996, Iowa enacted legislation against assisted suicide. The law included language to protect prescriptions for pain relief very similar to that of Kansas and the Pain Relief Promotion Act. What happened? Again, let us look at the chart. Before the bill, prescriptions of morphine per 100,000 people were almost flat, ranging from 935 to 1,100 grams. With the bill's enactment, the amount of morphine used in prescription soared. By 1997, it had almost doubled. Next a chart for Louisiana. In 1995, Louisiana passed a law preventing assisted suicide which stated that it did not apply to prescribing medication if the intent is to relieve the patient's pain or suffering and not to cause death. As the chart dramatically shows, in the 4 years preceding the law's effective date, the use of morphine was below 1,000 grams per 100,000 people. In the 4 years since, it has soared. So that, in the first half of this year, it has stood at 3,659 grams per 100,000 people. Michigan, the home of Jack Kevorkian is next. That chart shows a checkered history of the laws on assisted suicide in their State compared with morphine usage per capita. As my colleagues can see, there is certainly no downward effect on morphine usage associated with the periods the ban was in effect. Since a permanent statutory ban, which includes language like that in H.R. 2260 promoting pain relief, went into effect in 1998, the trend of morphine usage has been steadily upward. Rhode Island. Now we will look at this particularly interesting case because the Rhode Island Medical Society is opposing the Pain Relief Promotion Act, saying that preventing the use of drugs to assist suicide will chill prescriptions for pain control. In 1996, the organization made the same argument against an assisted- suicide bill in the State legislature that passed despite its opposition. That Rhode Island law included the following language: ``A licensed health care professional who administers, prescribes, or dispenses medications or procedures to relieve another person's pain or discomfort, even if the medication or procedure may hasten or increase the risk of death, does not violate the provisions of this chapter, unless the medications or procedures are knowingly administered, prescribed, or dispensed to cause death.'' Again, this is quite similar to the language of the Pain Relief Promotion Act. What happened? As my colleagues can see from the chart, per capita prescriptions of morphine shot up to almost double the highest pre-law rate. Since then they have dropped off a little bit, but remaining far above the pre-law rate. Next is Tennessee. In July, 1993, a law with language very much like the Pain Relief Promotion Act was enacted. Morphine usage that year and the next year was up from the year before. In 1995, there was a dip, but morphine usage per capita was still greater than that of the year before the law. Since then it has continued up. Virginia. Briefly let us look at Virginia. In the spring of 1997, the Virginia legislature passed a measure to prevent assisting suicide, which went into effect after reaffirming the vote in the spring of 1998. That law contained language differentiating between the intent to relieve pain, even with the risk of death, and the intent to cause death, just like the Pain Relief Promotion Act. The result is clear on the chart. Per capita use of morphine has not been deterred. In fact, it went up. Finally, some of my friends from Oregon make the argument that passing the law legalizing assisted suicide in some cases has freed doctors to provide needed higher doses to accomplish pain relief. But let us look at the Oregon chart. True, morphine use per capita has increased in Oregon, but virtually all of that increased while the suicide law was not yet in effect, because it had been enjoined by a court order. That means the increase occurred while physicians remained subject to investigation and revocation of their DEA registration if they used federally controlled drugs to assist any suicide. Clearly, that did not deter Oregon doctors from significantly increasing their prescriptions for the pain killing morphine. Remember, other than Oregon, all of these States' new laws distinguish between the intent to alleviate pain and cause death. Because of experiences in Kansas and other States, we can be confident that a vote for H.R. 2260 will promote and not threaten improved pain relief. I urge a vote of passage and opposition to any substitute or amendments.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is crunch time. After today, eight of the 13 spending bills will be signed into law. Seventy percent of our budget will be law. The remaining five spending bills will complete the financial responsibility for the U.S. Government. When we are done, we will have balanced the Federal budget without spending one cent of the Social Security surplus. Using bogus ground rules, some liberals are saying that we have already spent the Social Security surplus. It is not true. But, Mr. Speaker, if they are so concerned, they should vote for our across-the- board 1.29 percent savings. That will protect the Social Security Trust Fund. All you have to do is crunch about 1 cent out of every dollar of Federal spending, discretionary spending, and we will save it. It is crunch time, Mr. Speaker, time to crunch Government waste and save the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, some wonder why we remember and why we honor men and women who have passed on before us, why we name buildings after them. We remember because in their lives, we see our better angels. We are reminded that we, too, can rise above the problems we face. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a fellow Kansan, and I am proud of that. I am pleased to tell others that he represented Kansas values. He was a hero who lived the values we all strive to reflect. Let me just focus on one of those values, courage. In the face of adversity, he made a conscious decision to do the right thing. His family tells me that of all his accomplishments, he was the most proud of being the Supreme Allied Commander of the European Forces during World War II. There is good reason for that. In Stephen Ambrose's book, ``D-Day,'' there is an excellent description of the anguish that he went through to make that decision to send our young men to the shores of France. He struggled with the decision. He paced back and forth, he inquired with his peers, he watched the weather reports, and then he came to the decision. I remember in the movie, ``The Longest Day,'' as the decision became so evident, he finally says, ``There it is.'' And it fell on his shoulders, and he accepted that, and he made the decision, because in the face of all that adversity, he knew in his heart it was the right thing to do. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate that we recognize the Supreme Allied Commander, because in honoring his greatness, his courage, we tell ourselves and our children that character matters, that within all of us are better angels that can change our world for the better. So, Mr. Speaker, there it is. I urge all my colleagues to support the designating of the Executive Office Building as the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mink amendment. The GAO found that only 17 percent of these grants were being utilized. The resources were going to a relatively small number of agencies; but most of all, it discriminated against some children by preferences over others. Let me tell my colleagues about a trip I recently took in Wichita, Kansas, to the Levy Special Education School along with superintendent Winston Brooks. I saw firsthand there how Title I funding was changing the lives of special education students. Life has dealt these kids a bad hand, and as compassionate Americans collectively, we are trying to even the odds a little and close the gap between the average student and these specially challenged, loving children. Madam Chairman, H.R. 2 gives the local school districts the flexibility to manage the Federal dollars, to meet the needs of these special people. At the Levy Special Education School, I met a special young man. I will call him Mark. Mark had a great potential, if someone could only draw it out of him by spending a little time with him. By teaching Mark, even though it was very tough, they were able to give him some of life's basic skills. Mark moved out of a small, dark, and quiet world into a bright day where he talks, he reads, and he now has the confidence to be productive in our community. Mark is a success, but H.R. 2 can increase the possibilities of success for many others trapped in a dark world. Over the next 5 years the Student Results Act will channel approximately $9.33 billion annually into programs for 10 million disadvantaged students like Mark, with more than $8.3 billion going specifically to Title II. The Student Results Act contains several provisions that I strongly support, such as quality instructions. In the past, Title I has been used as a ``jobs program'' for unqualified teacher aides. H.R. 2 increases the minimum qualifications that must be met by all teacher aides within 3 years. Furthermore, H.R. 2 ensures Title I teachers are more qualified and that parents are aware of the numbers of teachers and the teachers' aides that are hired with Title I dollars. Also under the Student Results Act, parents have the option to exercise public school choice for the very first time. I agree with my colleague who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families when he said the public choice provision is a simple concept. Children should not be forced to attend failing schools. H.R. 2 allows children attending schools classified as low performing to have choices about their education, by giving them the opportunity to attend a higher quality public school in their area. This act also includes academic accountability by modifying existing accountability standards to ensure that all students, not just a specific number, but all students, especially the most disadvantaged students, show increased academic achievement at school and State levels. Madam Chairman, H.R. 2 rewards performance. It will reward excellence in education by giving States the option of setting aside 30 percent of all new Title I funding and provide cash rewards to schools to make substantial progress in closing the achievement gap between the students that are special-needs students and the average students. One of the most important provisions in H.R. 2 for Kansas is that it gives rural schools new flexibility to consolidate Federal funds. With provisions similar to the Academic Achievement for All Act, under H.R. 2, school districts with less than 1,500 students will be exempted from several formula requirements, giving them the flexibility to target Federal funds where they are most needed within the school district. Under the Student Results Act, school districts receiving Title I funding will distribute information to parents so that they can make good decisions, and they will distribute it to the public; and it is going to be based on the academic performance of each Title I school. That is called the ``school report card.'' There is also testing for students in English learning where students who have attended school in the U.S. for at least 3 consecutive years will have testing and reading and language arts and the English language. But one of the other most important things is that H.R. 2 makes sure that ESEA programs are based on current scientifically based research and not on some unproven fad that has been plaguing our educational system in recent years. Madam Chairman, H.R. 2 was overwhelmingly approved by the Committee on Education and the Workforce last week. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Mink amendment, but to vote in favor of this measure and encourage President Clinton to sign into law H.R. 2.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have not spent one dime of the Social Security surplus. And in Kansas, there is a saying, ``Don't change horses in the middle of the stream.'' There is a reason for that. If one did try to change horses, he could run the unnecessary risk of falling into the river and possibly drowning. That is exactly what the President has done. In the middle of the stream of spending bills that we have, the President has gotten off the horse he had during his State of the Union speech, where he said he would spend 40 percent of the Social Security surplus, on to the horse the Republicans have been riding when we said we will not spend one dime of the Social Security Trust Fund. Welcome, Mr. President. We will extend our hand so that you will not fall. Together we can take a big red pen like the one I am holding in my hand and cut wasteful Government programs, protecting the Social Security surplus. Congratulations, Mr. President. Come on over.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2591, legislation designating the United States Post Office located on Elm Street in Wakefield, Kansas, as the ``William H. Avery Post Office.'' Let me commend Congressman Moran for sponsoring this legislation which is an appropriate honor well deserved by the recipient. Mr. Speaker, my wife Vicki and I have enjoyed our friendship with Governor Avery over the past several years, and we are both excited that this honor is being bestowed upon a great public servant and good friend who has always placed the people of the great State of Kansas first. When I think about the tremendous reputation Governor Avery still enjoys, I think about the moniker given to a past politician: The Happy Warrior. You cannot talk to Bill without feeling his zest for life and his indomitable spirit. It is not unusual to see Governor Avery at an event in Kansas, shaking hands, kissing babies and talking about the latest Republican strategy. Sometimes a few of us in this esteemed Body get tired and frustrated. At those moments I think of Governor Avery, his quick smile, his knowing wink, his kind words, his all-encompassing heart. Always smiling, always moving, always hopeful of the future, but respectful of the past. Governor Avery is truly Kansas's Happy Warrior. Mr. Speaker, I realize that at times the floor of the House can be partisan, and with your indulgence I am going to add to that partisan flame, just a bit. There is one memory I will always cherish, and it occurred in January 1995. I was a new Member of Congress, full of hope, a little overwhelmed, and flush anticipation of the job ahead. I had some friends and family in my office and in came Governor Avery. He came up to me and shook my hand, and told me why he had traveled back to D.C. You see Governor Avery is also appropriately called Congressman Avery. He served in this House from 1955-1965. He related to me that when he won his election in 1954, he thought he would be entering a Republican Congress, but he soon learned that the Democrats had regained the majority. Congressman Avery was destined to serve all his tenure in the minority. He always felt a little jilted by history, and that is why he wanted to be on the floor of the U.S. House when the gavel passed. At that moment I realized how fortunate I really was to be entrusted with a job representing the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas, and I realized just how historic a shift in Congress can be. Mr. Speaker, I hope Governor Avery is enjoying the beautiful Autumn evening back home in Wakefield, Kansas. I want to thank him for all his words of inspiration, his dedication and his enduring attitude. When the history of Kansas is written, it will be as kind to Governor Avery as he has been to anyone who has had the good fortune to know him. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be able to call Governor Avery my friend and to help recognize him this day for the many accomplishments he has provided the people of Kansas and this great country.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. This is new, it has not been discussed before, and I would suggest that the gentleman from Virginia get together with the chairman of the committee, because this is not what we are hearing from the administration. The administration is saying we have some real problems with local control. We want them to go ahead and put in the provisions to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. So I think we ought to just look at the provisions that the President is supporting, because I have with me the legislative text for the medical marijuana provisions and it says some very interesting things. It says, medical patients who use and their primary caregivers who use marijuana can avoid any of the District of Columbia drug laws; and they can designate who their primary caregivers are. Let us just see, who are these primary caregivers that can completely avoid the drug laws that we have here in America. They can designate, and by the way, this is based on a recommendation from a physician which can be oral, it does not have to be in writing, it can be oral. This is the oral recommendation that one can use medical marijuana, and then one can designate this primary caregiver. A medical patient may designate or appoint a licensed health care practitioner, sibling, so one could have their brother be the primary caregiver; a child, someone below the age of 18, a child can be the primary caregiver; or other relative, domestic partner, case management worker or best friend; they can be your primary caregiver, and this designation does not need to be in writing, it can be verbal too. So that says if you get some oral recommendation from a physician that you can use marijuana, you can say, I am not going to get it myself. I can designate somebody to go get it for me. I want my child to go get it, my 6-year-old kid, my eight-year-old kid. Send them down to the playground or wherever they are selling marijuana in the District of Columbia, they can possess that marijuana and take it back to the person to do drugs, to do the medical marijuana, a child. A child can be put in that position. I have seen from personal experience children going to school with lunch money, and the bully of the school, of the play yard, said, give me a quarter or you can't come in. I want a quarter of your lunch money. The child says, okay, here is a quarter. Now it changes the whole scope of things. Here is a child in legal possession of marijuana. What is the bully going to ask for this time? Do Members think this will not proliferate drugs in the District of Columbia? We want to make this a shining jewel of this Nation, one of the best cities in the Nation, something we can all be proud of; a safe place, not a drug haven, not the drug capital, our Nation's Capital. That is what we are leaning for here, and that is what the President is fighting for. It is not over the budget. We have accepted the District of Columbia's budget, what was passed by their city council, what was approved by their Mayor. It is in this bill. The difference is the drug policy. That is what the President has narrowed this down to, the drug policy. The gentleman from Virginia has aptly pointed out that he cannot speak for the administration. The administration has other ideas. This is one of them. This is one of the things that we are so worried about. I just would urge my colleagues to avoid any changes and to support this bill. This is a good bill.