Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia is right. Facts are stubborn things and the facts are that nine out of 10 injection drug users in Baltimore are infected with a drug-borne virus. A complete failure. But to go back to the gentleman's point about General McCaffrey, this program does exist at the local level, it continues with local funds, and that agrees with what he is trying to say. So I do not think there is a disagreement with that. The disagreement is that this is bad policy; it simply does not work; and it should not progress the way we have it here in the District of Columbia. We should make this a shining city, a jewel on the top of the hill and not some place as a drug haven.

Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman is making a unanimous consent request for the purpose of something that is already in the bill, would his request not already have taken place with the final vote of the bill?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time. I just want to say that there is a lot of confusion on that side. First I heard there were two issues pending, then I heard that there were seven issues pending, and then that we have not had enough meetings. The chairman has been available to meet with the President's point of contact for this very bill, but they have not returned his phone calls. Let us go back to the two very objections: voting rights and needle exchange programs. Both of these issues are progressing forward under private funds and there is nothing in this legislation that would stop them from happening. So to consider that this is an objection to stop the bill is false. They are continuing at their own speed with private funds, and I think they should. They want to use tax dollars, and they are my tax dollars too. I pay taxes in the District of Columbia like a lot of people do. I pay my parking tickets, and I do not want my taxes going for either one of these issues. But I do want to talk about the needle exchange program because it does currently exist and I think it should be stopped because number one, it is simply bad policy. The Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, says in his Office of National Drug Control Policy in July of 1999 that we should not have a needle exchange program, and why? The public health risks outweigh the benefits. He said that treatment should be our priority. He says it sends the wrong message to our children and it places disadvantaged neighborhoods in greater risk. Well, if one does not agree with General McCaffrey, then call for his resignation. We can quote study after study, but the Drug Czar says we should not be doing this and let us not do it. If one does not agree with that, call for his resignation. I do not think it works, because number two, the facts are very clear. If we look at what has happened in Baltimore, Baltimore has had a needle exchange program for 7 years; all of the opportunity in the world for it to work. But, according to the AP in a story released on July 5, nine out of 10 injection drug users in Baltimore have a blood- borne virus, nine out of 10. If nine out of 10 is not failure, how do we define failure? The District of Columbia should not accept 10 percent as a passing grade. It simply does not work.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, how sweet it is. This year the Republican Congress will balance the budget without spending the social security trust fund. This is the second year in a row. Most people are surprised to find that out. It has not been easy. We have made some tough choices. We have taken some harsh criticism from our opponents, from the media, and even from our friends. Yes, it has been tough, and it is not over this year. The administration has a different idea. The President says we can spend more money. All we have to do is dip into social security, like a bear dips into a jar of honey. It is easy, and if we do not like that, well, we will just raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, that would be a bitter pill. We do not need to dip into the jar of honey and we do not need to take a bitter pill to stop the raid on the social security trust fund. All we need to do is put our overweight Federal Government on a diet and reduce its consumption. Then we will stop the raid on the social security trust fund, take care of those truly in need, and balance the Federal budget. How sweet it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor 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 of 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. Mr. Speaker, the previous gentleman from Texas spoke very well, as a trial lawyer would. But I want to talk about the throes of a great struggle we are in to restore the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund. If the Republicans in the House are successful, not one penny of the Social Security surplus will be spent on wasteful Washington spending. Last night, the Republicans passed a foreign operations bill that cuts the amount of foreign aid Americans send overseas. Why is that good? It reflects disciplined spending, it cuts growth in the Federal Government, and it protects the Social Security surplus. The President now has threatened to veto the bill. Why? Because he wants to spend $2 billion more on foreign aid. Now, that alone troubles most Americans. But what brings us to despair is that this $2 billion more the President wants to spend will come right out of the Social Security Trust Fund. The President intends to spend $2 billion more of the Social Security Trust Fund not here in America but overseas. Mr. Speaker, we are fighting to protect the Social Security surplus not only for this year but for the next year, the year 2000.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are surprised to learn that the President's budget proposal spends the Social Security surplus rather than put Social Security first. The President's proposal takes 38 percent of the surplus for Social Security and spends it, and that excludes his hidden tax increases, as if our taxes are not high enough already. The Republican proposal sets aside 100 percent of Social Security, 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund. As many Americans are learning, the budget surplus this year is due to the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. Republicans propose to take 100 percent of the retirement surplus, the money coming from the FICA taxes, the payroll deductions, and set it aside for both Social Security, and also set aside all the money from payroll deductions for Medicare. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Medicare is included in our retirement surplus proposal. Our plan sets aside 100 percent of the retirement surplus for both Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the ``Workhorse Congress'' is ahead of schedule and moving ahead to deal with Medicare and Social Security, which will be insolvent in over a decade unless we act to protect the Trust Funds now. Let us work together to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, imagine going to McDonald's and ordering a nine-piece chicken nuggets and a large drink. The cost is $4.50. You give the clerk a $5 bill. The clerk takes your money, gives you the chicken and the drink but no change. So you ask, where is my fifty cents? And the clerk says, well, I could give you the fifty cents, but then I would have to trust you to spend it right. Well, you would be appalled. You would be angry. It is your money. But, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what will happen if the President vetoes the tax cut. America has overpaid the cost of government. We locked up all Social Security. We have protected all of Medicare payments. We are even paying down the publicly held debt, and still we have money left over. We have overpaid the cost of government. The change is ours. Well, the President does not trust us to spend it right. He has even publicly said so. But I trust you, the Republicans trust you, and I hope the President will change his mind and trust America and give us back our change and sign the tax relief law.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, recently I was in Wichita, Kansas, at a fast food restaurant, and the person in line ahead of me ordered $4 worth of food. He handed over a $5 bill to the cashier, and they expected their change back, as would every American. They overpaid their food order, and they expected their change. Mr. Speaker, America has overpaid the cost of government, and they expect their change. What the Republicans have done is pay for the cost of the Federal Government, lock up all Social Security payments, protect Medicare payments, pay down the publicly-held debt, and after we have spent all that money and set aside all that money we still have overpaid the cost of government. Mr. Speaker, America deserves their change back, and that is exactly what our tax relief package does. It gives America back their change. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President will not veto Americans right to get their change back, from their overpaid bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. The money that is taken to run these ads comes involuntarily from union dues.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, many Americans believe that our campaigns are too long and too negative. Well, my campaign for the Fourth District of Kansas election in 2000 started today. Today, the unions, the Washington union bosses, are purchasing television time to run ads against me this very day, almost 15 months out. Too long, too negative, false and misleading ads. Now, it started with money taken by mandatory union dues and then it filtered its way into the Washington union bosses coffers, their pockets. Then from there it is sent, without the permission of the employees, to support issues that in most cases a majority of the union members oppose. Thomas Jefferson said to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he does not believe is sinful and tyrannical; and yet, that is exactly what is happening today. Campaign ads that are purchased today by the Washington union bosses will not be publicly disclosed. There will be no permission granted from the employees who contributed these funds, and there will be no public record; money taken without consent, spent on issues not reported, without any public disclosure, starting a campaign about 15 months from now. Well, what is there in this piece of legislation that is before us that is going to prevent such injustice? What is there in Shays-Meehan that is going to correct this problem? There is nothing in here. There is no public disclosure. There are no limits on what these union bosses can say. There is nothing that they can do.

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

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

Mr. TIAHRT. I would say that these ads have run in the past against me and they will be running very nearly in the future, and I see nothing in the legislation of the gentleman that will prevent them from occurring in the future.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is not corporation money that we are talking about.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, what the unions have been doing is running under the concept of political education activities, these sham ads, as the gentleman referred to as sham ads. What I think is an injustice is number one, this is money that should not be taken involuntarily. The Beck decision, if it was enforced by this administration, would stop that problem. The gentleman's legislation does not do that.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is correct. The second thing is, somehow I think that we need to have an opportunity for me to respond to this. I cannot do that under current campaign limits. I need the ability to raise the money in order to respond to these ads that are supposedly political education ads, but in truth are running to try to undermine my campaign for reelection.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. If it has been against the law for the unions to do this, they have done it in the past, not only in my district, but across the Nation. If it is against the law, then why today are they purchasing time to run these ads against me which are, in fact, a sham ad. They are under the guise of political education, but they will occur. There is no enforcement of the current law. I do not expect even if your law did pass, there would be any enforcement by this administration, because it does coddle the unions. I appreciate the gentleman's conversation.

Mr. TIAHRT. Well, currently there is a Beck decision which has been supported by the Supreme Court, but it is not enforced by the Clinton administration and yet there is nothing in the legislation of the gentleman that helps us to enforce the Beck decision.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the District of Columbia appropriations conference report. We all hope some day the District of Columbia will be a crown jewel in our republic form of government, a place we are all proud of, a place that we will bring our families with pride in our hearts and a place that is safe and clean, where the citizens greet each other with a smile. I believe this conference report takes us a long step in that direction. First of all, this conference report does have a lot of pro-home rule provisions. The District of Columbia Council approved a budget. The Mayor approved the very same budget. This conference report continues along that same line and supports the District of Columbia's budget. I think that is self-rule where it counts, in the budget area, in the finances. Now, there have been problems. There have been problems with the District of Columbia following the guidelines that this body has laid forth. District of Columbia employees have taken automobiles outside the District of Columbia, against the guidelines. The District of Columbia has paid for abortions with tax dollars, against the guidelines. But, to the credit of this Mayor and the City Council, they have made long strides in overcoming the areas where they have fallen short, and I think that is why there is such strong support for their budget. But the opposition seems to be in very radical areas. Number one, the opposition says that we want to finance challenging the U.S. Constitution, something that has been around since almost when George Washington was a corporal. It is already going forward. It is going forward pro bono, or free, and we ought to let that proceed, without taxpayer dollars. If there was a provision to allow the people of the District of Columbia to become part of Maryland so that they could vote in congressional districts in Maryland, I would be glad to help support that. We have seen part of the District of Columbia being yielded back to Virginia, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) represents part of that area as I recall. So perhaps we could move the balance of the District of Columbia into Maryland's congressional districts. But that is not the issue here. They want to go for statehood, and that is something that has been around for the endurance of our Constitution. They also want to take taxpayer dollars and buy needles to give illegal drug users the opportunity to shoot up illegal drugs in their veins. Now, there have been a lot of areas that have had similar programs. Baltimore has had a program for 7 years. They found out this summer that 9 out of 10 injection drug users are infected with a blood-borne virus, 9 out of 10 who are in the program. Now, if 9 out of 10 are getting a virus, a blood-borne virus, and they are in the needle exchange program, I would consider that failure. How do you define failure, if that is not failure? Yet that is the very thing that you want to fund, and that is the very reason you want to oppose this piece of legislation, so we can take tax dollars and use them for a needles program. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the language in my amendment, and to proceed with the modified amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this Nation has a tradition of protecting religious liberties. Our forefathers fought for these liberties here and around the globe. Even today, we encourage other nations like Russia and China to respect the religious liberty of their own citizens. But right here in our own government, under the guise of youth violence protection, we devalue and demean the religious liberty we have worked so hard to protect. Our own Justice Department has sanctioned literature that undermines the values and virtues our parents are trying to pass on to their children. Specific faiths, such as Baptist and Pentecostal, have been linked to hate groups. Who knows what faith the Justice Department will denigrate next, the Jewish faith? The American Methodist Episcopal? Catholics? In their curriculum, the Department of Justice ties prejudice directly to religious organizations, violating the long-held belief that our government will protect religious liberty for our citizens. All this amendment does is restrict the Department of Justice from spending our tax dollars to undermine the values that parents are trying to teach their kids. All I am saying is we should not devalue the religious liberty we fought so hard to protect, both here in our own country and across the globe. This amendment respects parents' faith and supports their efforts to raise children with a set of values in hopes of making a better America than the one we live in today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not about the Scopes trial and evolution. It is not about monogamists or polygamy. It is not about the creation theory of Islam. This is about youth violence programs, and we do not think it is proper for the Department of Justice to take one side or the other when it comes to religious liberties. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) to close. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are talking about dissenting views on evolution. I just think that we should not be in a position where we are picking one side or another in our tax dollars. We should just recognize both sides, and not demean one side or the other. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

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