Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I just think we ought to be honest about this debate. There is nothing in law today that prohibits women who work for the Federal government from obtaining an abortion. There is nothing in the legislation that is before us that would overturn Roe versus Wade. Every Federal employee has the opportunity to procure an abortion if she chooses to terminate the life of her child. So I think we ought to be honest about the debate. The question is whether the taxpayers of the country are going to subsidize that process. I think, just in the way that they would not want to subsidize the purchase and ownership of a slave, they would not want to subsidize and purchase an abortion. A majority of American taxpayers do not want to see their tax dollars going to fund someone else's abortion. So let us simply be honest about the debate. This is not whether we can have abortions in America. The question is whether we are going to subsidize abortions for people who work for the Federal government. I do not think we should do that. I think if they make that choice, they should pay for it out of their own pocket.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, even though there is a budget surplus here in Washington, the liberals are attacking the Republican tax cut proposal, calling it ``risky.'' They think it is risky because they do not trust the taxpayers to spend it right. Well, I have a different view. I do not trust the liberals to leave the taxpayers' money here in Washington. In fact, I think that it is truly risky to leave Americans' hard-earned taxes lying around here in Washington for people who have made their careers expanding government. It should come as no surprise that the money somehow gets spent. It always does, it always has, and it always will. Politicians will spend the taxpayers' money, then they will tickle their ears with wonderful reasons why they just had to spend it. Face it, the only way to stop politicians from expanding government and reducing hard-working Americans' freedoms is to give the money back to the people who earned it. I like the Republican plan: Lock up two-thirds of the money that is taken from the FICA payroll deductions for retirement security and give the other third back to the hard-working Americans who earned it. It is a balanced and sensible plan. I ask all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I could stand here and talk to my colleagues about the numbers that are included in this bill. But instead I want to tell them about that mother of three who will be able to come home to an apartment where the appliances work. She was in an apartment that was too expensive, it was drafty, it was not safe for her kids to play, but now she can come home to an apartment where they are safe. I want to tell them about that Marine corporal, Corporal Mollet, who is stationed in Iceland. Even though in the winter months the daylight only shows for 45 or 50 minutes, he can come home to a warm apartment where he can now exercise and keep in top shape. This bill is making life better for the young men and women that serve our country. That is why I would urge all of my colleagues to support it. It is fiscally responsible and it does the right thing.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there is a philosophical difference between the Congress and the White House. It will be difficult to reach any kind of agreement on the size and scope of government. Republicans want to move in one direction, and the liberals in the White House in another direction. Republicans want a smaller Federal Government. The President is fighting to expand the government. Republicans want to cut unnecessary wasteful Washington spending. The President wants to increase spending, throwing money at any kind of problem. The Republicans want the 2000 census to be conducted in accordance with the Constitution, which states clearly there shall be an actual enumeration because everyone counts. The President wants to rig the census by allowing political appointees to oversee sampling or, in other words, take another poll. Republicans want to pass a tax cut for working Americans. The President is opposed. Republicans want to protect the surplus. The President wants to use it for new Washington spending. With such sharp differences in vision, it is no surprise that negotiations will be slow and difficult. But here in Congress we will work hard for the Republican vision of lower taxes and less government, giving working Americans more freedom and a little extra room in their family budget.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on June 22, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 245 and 246. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 659 (PATRIOT Act) and ``yes'' on H.R. 1175, authorizing an investigation into the disappearance of Zachary Baumel, Yehuda Katz and Zvi Feldman.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there is a battle going on in this country, a fierce struggle between two opposing forces, each of enormous strength. The battle is between the greedy hand of big government and the people. Individual liberty is at stake. On one side stands the defenders of the greedy hand of big government, the liberals in Congress. On the other side stands the defenders of individual liberty, the Republican Party. One side defends the greedy hand of big government at every turn, every day, on every bill, on every bureaucratic decision. The other side strains mightily to provide tax relief for working Americans and resists the siren call of the Washington politicians who claim that big government is the answer to all our problems. Does anyone doubt the truth of this? If so, who on the other side will step forward and refute them? Who on the other side will denounce the greedy hand of big government and voice this support for individual liberty through tax relief and against the forces which erode our liberty with each passing day?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today we take up the Consequence For Juvenile Offenders Act. It is my hope that all of us here in America will realize that more laws will not mean more safety. We seem so willing to give up our freedom for just a feeling of a little more safety. The truth is we will not be more safe until we deal with the real problem, the root problem, the human heart. Two young men in Colorado broke more than 23 laws by brutally murdering 13 students, one teacher, and then took their own lives. One more law, a dozen more laws, would not have stopped them. They needed a change of heart. Ben Franklin said he who sacrifices liberty for safety will have neither liberty nor safety. As parents, as neighbors, let us not give up our personal freedoms. Instead let us deal with the real problem. Listen to the children, be a good neighbor, get involved in the community, and together let us make a better America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is apparent that the Department of Energy has no culture for keeping secrets. They keep secrets about like a sieve holds water. Personally, I think that we should move all nuclear functions from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense under civilian control. At least in the Department of Defense we have a culture for keeping secrets, a culture for protecting our Nation's secrets. Now, what is being asked by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) is not outside the realm of possibility. It is a very reasonable consideration, a small step in the giant trip we need to take towards recovering our Nation's secrets and putting into place a system that would prevent them from being lost in the future. We simply have a counterintelligence function being put in place, a 2-year moratorium, and start the process of protecting the secrets that our country has invested billions of dollars in developing, and the loss of our secrets places our Nation in jeopardy. Our children's safety is very important to us. Whether they are in school or on the streets, it is important. The Ryun amendment is a good first step, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on May 5, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call votes number 108 (Approval of the May 4 Journal) and 109 (Calling the Previous Question on H. Res. 158). Had I been present I would have voted yes on both votes.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on May 4, I was unavoidably detained back in my congressional district due to the devastating tornado storm and missed roll call vote numbers 105 (H. Con. Res 84), 106 (H. Con. Res. 88) and 107 (H. Res. 157). Had I been present I would have voted yes on passage on each of the three bills.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, the recent tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, points to an issue that has gone unaddressed for too long. Too many of our public schools are unsafe, and this is unacceptable. What kind of system is it that allows kids to quote Hitler in the hallway, but which would see students get hauled into the principal's office for quoting the bible in the classroom? The pendulum has swung too far to the left. Madam Speaker, many Americans believe that America has lost its way when our schools ignore the morals and the values that built this great Nation. But too many of the liberals in education have such a hostile attitude towards religion that they can not even conceive of a tolerant, multi-denominational religious presence in the public square which does not harm anyone's rights. Their caricatures of religious people are nothing but unfair stereotypes, and they falsely portray the agenda of ordinary people who think that religiously-inspired values are something to be proud of and something that has always made America great. There is no magic solution for the problems we face in schools, but it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way, back to the virtues and the values that built this great Nation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey amendment will guarantee that this House will stand for integrity by keeping its promise to protect Social Security. I want to first thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for his commitment to this country and for his dedication to the House of Representatives. His commitment to our national defense and to our national interest is second to none. I also want to thank the chairman for selecting me to join others in the congressional delegation he sent to Central America to survey the mass destruction brought about by Hurricane Mitch. I will never forget the stories I heard firsthand or the human trauma and unspeakable devastation that hit our neighbors to the south. Mr. Chairman, each of us who have worked hard to balance the budget can take great pride in what we have achieved. For the first time in a generation, we have balanced the budget. The CBO estimates confirm that we will have a surplus in fiscal year 1999. However, current projections for the surplus are made up of revenues that are completely derived from the FICA tax which employees and employers pay in to cover Social Security obligations. Why does this matter? It matters because, if we do not reduce spending by $1 for each $1 in new spending in the emergency bill, the money will be taken from Social Security, just plain and simple. That is why I am offering this amendment today, to fully protect Social Security and to prevent this Congress from sending to the President a bill that will use money intended for Social Security but to pay for this foreign aid package. To offset the remainder of this bill, I have chosen the same account the Committee on Appropriations selected to offset 50 percent of the bill. It is the callable capital account. This is an account that the World Bank may draw on in case of defaults on international loans. The callable capital account has over $12 billion in unobligated, underspent funds. During the nearly 40 years of history, this account has never been used for its intended purpose. However, this account has been used previously as an offset. In 1994, former Representative Vic Fazio successfully used $900 million in this fund to offset funding for disaster relief in California. I am simply following the lead of the Committee on Appropriations and the precedent set by a former Member from the other side of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress from the aerospace industry, and I served 2 years on the Committee on National Security, and I understand very well the problems with our underfunded military. Even the President recognizes the need for additional funds. That is why this is appropriate. It is appropriate to use a foreign aid account to pay for the foreign aid disaster bill and not a Department of Defense account. To my friends on the Committee on National Security, I will say, if we are unable to offset emergency bills, there will be no money available to cover the supplement for our Nation's defense. So why do I come to the floor today with this amendment? My goal is to improve upon this bill. The Committee on Appropriations agreed to find offsets for 85 percent of the bill because they wanted to act responsibly and not grab over $1 billion from Social Security. My amendment simply goes the distance on the path towards financial integrity. Other outside groups also see the significance of providing offsets for this foreign aid emergency bill in order to protect Social Security. The policy director of the Concord Coalition, Robert Bixby in his letter to me stated ``tapping into the Social Security surplus for emergencies only leads to a breakdown in fiscal discipline. . .We therefore heartily commend your efforts to ensure that the FY 99 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill is fully offset.'' In the 60 Plus Association letter to me, they said, they ``enthusiastically endorse'' this amendment. The United Seniors said they ``strongly support'' this amendment. Each of these groups realize the importance of fully offsetting this foreign aid bill. They have heard the promises made by the President and by Congress that we would protect Social Security. That is what the Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey amendment does, fully protects Social Security. If my colleagues agree that we should avoid using Social Security to pay for foreign aid spending, then support this amendment. If my colleagues agree that keeping Social Security safe from 85 percent of this bill is good, then they must conclude that protecting 100 percent of Social Security from this bill is even better. Mr. Chairman, it is not just the most prudent path politically, it is the right thing to do for our seniors, ourselves, and our children. I encourage my colleagues to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and myself and support our bipartisan amendment.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the full committee chairman, for the opportunity to work on disaster assistance funds. I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) that today I was prepared to offer a second amendment which would have transferred the Disaster Assistance For Unmet Needs Program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to FEMA because of the various problems associated with HUD management and the ineffectiveness of this critical program. However, after discussions with the gentleman from New York and his staff, I will not offer this amendment. Instead, I will look forward to working with the gentleman during the Conference of this bill and make this a reality. During the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, Senators Bond and Mikulski successfully offered this same amendment which would have transferred funds from this important program to FEMA, the one agency which has primary responsibility for assisting and responding to all natural disasters and for administering the most primary programs of disaster assistance. As the gentleman knows, my congressional district recently suffered a 500-year flood which resulted in tens of millions of dollars in damage to homes, property, and infrastructure. During this one-day flood, nearly 600 homes and 100 businesses were destroyed, and many more lives were devastated. Many of the families impacted by the flood were on fixed incomes and were simply unable to rebuild and move on with their lives. While current FEMA programs have been able to provide some temporary assistance, most of the families impacted are relying on this program to receive additionally needed buy-out assistance. Unfortunately, HUD's track record has been disappointing. In particular, HUD has been too slow in releasing funds, and they have demonstrated their unwillingness to shed more light on how grant awards are made. In short, HUD is simply the wrong agency to administer this program. I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), will he be willing to work with me during the conference to see that the funding is transferred to FEMA and to direct FEMA to work to ensure that communities with legitimate unmet needs, like those in South-Central Kansas, receive such assistance as is necessary and appropriate to compensate homeowners who are eligible to receive the buy-out assistance?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the $150 million, the reason we left $375 million in that account is so that we do not completely abandon the efforts that we have in Russia. In fact, we are very dedicated to the efforts in Russia. But I do want to make a point about where this money is going to come from. We are going to write a check and send it to Central America. It is going to be used for the infrastructure. That money has to come from somewhere. It is not going to come out of thin air. That money, $648 million of it, is going to come out of a checking account that is at the World Bank. It is called callable capital. If we write a check, it gets a debit. It is going to go down to Central America. If my colleagues say there is no outlay, no savings, well, the money has to come from somewhere. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the only place it is available is the surplus. The only surplus that is available is Social Security. So I would just in a very clear way say that we are going to write a check. That check is going to Central America, and the money has to come from somewhere. In our personal lives, we do not write checks unless we have money to cover it. This is the money to cover it. If we do not take it from here, we take it from Social Security.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I would agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on some of the earlier debate that I was having with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). On one hand, if I understood him correctly, he is opposed to the offsets because there is no actual outlays. But then it would seem, if he is opposed to offsets since there is no actual outlays, he would support using callable capital since it does not really cost anything. On the other hand, if we do offset, if we do take the money from callable capital, then we are going to create a worldwide depression because of this. So I am a little puzzled on that. The last part I would like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to address is that he says this money cannot come from Social Security. All the money that we have in the Federal Government is obligated except for what we have outlaid right here. The money has to come from somewhere if it is not specifically designated in this piece of legislation. The only other money available is in the surplus that we have. The only money in the surplus is from Social Security. So I would submit logically that if we do not offset the money in the bill, it does have to come from Social Security.

Mr. TIAHRT. If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, most of these four amendments that the gentleman put forth, or the four items in the account that he has attacked, are about 90 or 95 percent of the offsets. The bottom line is, if we do not offset the bill, the money has to go from somewhere. It has to come from somewhere and go down to Central America. The only other amount of money that is available is the social security surplus. So if we do not offset this money, it is going to come from social security. I think if we stopped the average person on the street in either Wisconsin or in Kansas and asked them, what would you rather spend your money on, social security or a foreign aid emergency, I think nine times out of ten they are going to say, we want to save social security. So what we are trying to do is save social security and still provide money for the people who need it very much down in Central America. Mr. Chairman, one of these accounts that we have heard so much about is the $150 million that was supposed to go to properly secure and store the uranium or plutonium. There is still $375 million in the account that the Department of Energy has to properly store and properly secure uranium that is in Russia. There is some talk about putting the Nation at great risk because we were pulling back this $150 million. This $150 million was not obligated. There was no plan to spend it during this year, and there has been no agreement on how plutonium is going to be properly secured and properly stored in the country of Russia, so we had no immediate designation for this money. It was money that was put there, but now we are going to move it to a higher priority someplace where there is a greater need. In the callable capital account, we heard the subcommittee chairman from the Subcommittee on Foreign Operation, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), tell us that we are only 16 percent of the obligation of the international commitment in callable capital. The international commitment is some $150 billion. We are only about $35 billion out of that. None of the other countries have set aside money in an account like we have. We have $12 billion sitting in that account. It is a checking account. What we are going to do, once again, is take money and move it to a higher priority. We are going to move it to the great need that currently exists in Central America. If the money does not come from somewhere, we will have to turn to the social security surplus. That is the only money that is available. So the choice is very clear. If we vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Members are choosing to take money from the social security surplus and send it down to Central America. If Members choose to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, they will be accepting offsets, money that is unobligated, money that we have no current plans to use, and instead, establish a much higher priority by moving it down to the great need that exists in Central America. So with this very clear choice, I think that most Americans would agree with this, that it is time that we secure the future for ourselves, for our seniors, for our children by choosing to preserve Social Security and by taking unobligated funds, funds that we did not have a plan to spend, and moving it to the priority down in Central America, in Honduras and Guatemala and Belize and those places that were so severely hit by Hurricane Mitch. So I would urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote against the Obey amendment.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what I am understanding in this amendment is basically that the gentleman from Wisconsin is opposed to any offsets, Mr. Chairman. He has sort of designated some of the bigger ones, and particularly the Department of Energy defense activities, where there is $150 million.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to say we are not rescinding the full faith and credit of the United States with our diminishing that fund that is out there somewhere. The full faith and credit of the United States remains intact. It is not diminished by this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, what the chairman is referring to is unobligated funds, money that will not be spent and that we will keep from spending by rescission. But I want to address callable capital. That is a fund, money sitting in an account, $12 billion sitting there, and this money will then go to a higher priority to help the people in Central America. And if it is not a real outlay, then why did the Secretary of the Treasury come to Capitol Hill and express his concerns about this outlay?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I do have a copy of the bill and it does outline what the offsets are. If the gentleman is curious about which ones are there, I do not think that is a problem.