Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a little time this afternoon to talk about some of the 25 accomplishments that this Congress has made in the area of education. We have heard a lot about education over the last week or so. The President has been a little distracted. He has not had a chance to focus on education until the last couple of weeks. He has had over 100 fund-raisers and two Cabinet meetings, so I guess in the time that he has spent between fund-raisers, being overseas and the 22 days he spent on vacation that he has not had time to sit down and talk about education until this last week. In the meantime, Congress has been working very hard on the issues of education and we do have 25 accomplishments. Some of the things that I think are most important for the accomplishments that we have had in education is getting dollars into the classroom. One of the problems that we have in our local school districts is that it is difficult to get the dollars directed into the classroom. For example, in Kansas, about 7 percent of all dollars are dollars that come from the Federal Government. Out of that 7 percent, it could be expanded to over 14 percent, but much of that money is wasted right here in Washington, D.C., where we have a large education bureaucracy that does not educate any children. The Department of Education is only a few blocks from the Capitol, itself. They have quite a few people that work there that do nothing more than demand additional paperwork from the local school districts. The average salary at the Department of Education is $52,000 per year. Now, I would invite any of the Members to go back and talk to their teachers and see if any of the teachers are making an average of $52,000 in the school districts in their congressional district. My wife worked in public schools for 4 years. At that time she made significantly less than $52,000 a year. But that is what the average amount of salary is at the Department of Education. What we have been trying to do this year is limit that amount of money that is wasted here in Washington, D.C. on education and ship those dollars out to the local school districts so that it can be spent, and our Dollars to the Classroom program would have required that 95 percent of the money gets into the classroom. The significance of that is that we could increase the amount of Federal money that is actually spent in the classroom where the rubber meets the road. That is the important thing, is that we see that our children get educated. Instead, we see a lot of it being spent right here within the District of Columbia not escaping to the local school districts. We have been working on sending dollars to the classroom to make sure that it is spent where the teachers can use that money to get the materials they need, get the books they need, make sure that the right amount of money is spent in the classroom. Another area that we have been trying to focus on is special education. Title I money, special education money has been a requirement from the Federal Government, yet it has never yet been fully funded. That has had to have been made up by the local school districts. They have raised local taxes in order to pay for these programs. Rather than having the mandate come from the Federal Government, it ought to be paid for by the Federal Government, and the Republican Congress has spent time this Congress focusing on getting more money for special education, which is a big problem in almost every school district in south central Kansas where my district is. That is another area where we have been focusing on education. We have also been trying to make college more affordable. We have had the lowest student loan rates in 17 years. We have had the highest ever Pell grant awards. Because we have the Balanced Budget Act, this was very clear that has come straight from Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, he said that if we would balance the Federal budget, interest rates would be lower. In fact we have balanced the Federal budget, we have a surplus this year, interest rates are lower. That directly affects student loans. My wife and I could not have gotten through college without student loans. We both had student loans. For 10 years we faithfully paid back those student loans. But it would have been nice to have a lower interest rate. It would have saved us hundreds, potentially thousands of dollars when you add that together. It is not just a fact or an accounting principle when we talk about balancing the budget. When we talk about balancing the budget, it affects students and student loans, just as it affects people who have credit cards, car loans, home mortgages. Another thing that we have been doing is developing a program to help get teachers into education. It is a loan forgiveness program for new teachers. Many people want to serve their local communities, serve their States, serve their country by dedicating themselves to teaching. I have to tell you, outside of the Department of Education, their salary is not very good. This program will help teachers get into education. I just wanted the fellow Members to know that we have been working very hard on education for the last 2 years and we are glad that the President is finally focused on it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the President said in his 1996 State of the Union address that the era of big government is over. I suppose that depends on what the definition of ``is'' is. I suppose that if you look at his recent attacks on Republicans in Congress, especially on education, the President and his liberal allies in Congress are threatening to shut the government down if Congress does not spend more money on education and create more education bureaucracy right here in Washington. Republicans want to send more money to the classroom. Liberals want to give the Federal Government an overpowering role in local schools. Republicans think that Federal bureaucrats have done enough damage to education, thank you very much. Liberals want to spend the money by taking it away from Social Security, while Republicans are happy to stay right here and continue to work to get more money into the classrooms, while keeping the budget agreement caps which means that there must be spending offsets by not taking money away from Social Security. If the era of big government is over, then it is time for the President's actions to match his words.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk a little bit about what the Republicans have done for education. We have heard a lot about how we were trying to eliminate public education. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to make strong public schools with local control, local authority. Now if my colleagues compare what the President is proposing with his hundred thousand teachers, we have heard that number before. We heard about the Cops On The Street Program which promised 100,000 police on the streets. Well, according to Attorney General Janet Reno, we never did get 100,000 police to the street. In fact, we only got 18,000 police to the street, and for those 18,000, they were only partially funded. The first year they got 75 percent, the second year they got 50 percent, the third year they got 25 percent, and the fourth year the local governments had to completely fund those 18,000 policemen. Well they only got partially funded. They went ahead and hired the policemen on good faith. Then the amount of funding from the Federal Government got reduced, and the portion of the local funding continued to increase. So what happened in all these local governments that were trying to do the right thing by hiring these police is they ended up raising their taxes. So they got fewer policemen that they were promised and higher taxes than what was anticipated. Now we have the plan for 100,000 teachers, again partially funded, and over the next few years the funding goes down, down, down while local government taxes go up, up up, and along with that comes the bureaucracy. Now the average employee in the Department of Education here in Washington, D.C., makes $52,000 a year. Go home and ask the children's teacher if they make $52,000 a year. They do not make that in Wichita, Kansas, not the average teacher, but yet that is what the average bureaucrat does here, and they do not educate any children. All they do is demand more paperwork, more paperwork, more paperwork. Well, let us just go over a little bit what we have done just this year, in the 105th Congress what the Republicans have done. First of all, we put some common sense into the concept of national testing. This fast track nature of what the White House had initiated was unverified. It took a long process, it started many educations on an alarming rate of trying to do things that they had, that they could not put a final bottom line on. It was like hitting a moving target. Now we have done testing in Kansas. We have a program called QPA. It measures progress. It has testing requirements. Other States are already doing it. So here we have a duplication of effort in Washington, D.C., on education standards. Well, we put some common sense to that in the Republican Congress. The next thing we did is put dollars into the classroom. The purpose was to consolidate 31 top-down programs into block grants to the States, and under this bill at least 95 percent of the money coming from the Federal Government had to go into the classroom for classroom activities or services. Now for Kansas that meant an extra $2\1/2\ million going into the classroom. Well, it is not being spent here in Washington, D.C., which is the big difference in philosophy between what happens between the Republicans and the liberals. The Republicans and conservatives would like to see the money get into the classroom, not being spent here in Washington, D.C. on a bloated bureaucracy. Another thing that has occurred here is we have the Higher Education Amendment of 1998. The purpose of this is to reauthorize the Higher Education Act of 1965 with the lion's share of the Federal funding going for higher education. This year it is in excess of $40 billion a year, where the Republican Congress wants to get money into higher education. Another program was the Community Service Block Grant and Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to help some of the local communities revitalize their high poverty neighborhoods and empower low income individuals and communities to become self-sufficient. It had new initiatives in it for literacy, youth development, fatherhood and community policing. Another program was the Reading Excellence Program. This legislation developed in response to the President's America Reads Program to use volunteers to improve the reading skills of children, where we would reform the way reading is taught in our Nation's schools. Working together, we perfected a program. Another program was the English Fluency Act. This legislation is directed at reforming the current Bilingual Education Act to provide funds to states to address the needs of English language learners and ensure that they learn English as soon as possible. Another program, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act. The purpose of this legislation is to help local areas have safer schools. I could go on for another 10 or 12 programs, but the bottom line is the Republicans believe in local schools and local empowerment. We think you can spend your money more wisely than any government agency and that you will love your children more than any government program.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 514, I inadvertently voted ``no.'' I meant to vote ``yes.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 4259, the Native American Higher Education Improvement Act. This legislation provides much needed flexibility for these two Indian colleges, Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. Both are run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and because these institutions are run by the Federal Government and their regulations, they must operate within the confines of the civil service system, and this has created a problem in attracting and employing qualified instructors. Now, Haskell Indian Nations University, as my colleagues know, is located in my home State of Kansas, and over 900 students attend Haskell each year from 36 States, but the majority of those students come from Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana and Kansas. Over the past few years Haskell has transformed from a junior college into a 4- year institution, and in the spring of 1996, Haskell conferred its first baccalaureate degrees in elementary education. The university is now accredited to confer degrees in environmental education and Indian studies, and they are working hard to progress the educational opportunities for Native Americans. What we are considering today in this bill gives the Native American colleges the tools they much need to compete. Because without these tools, recruitment and retention of qualified faculty and staff is too difficult. Mr. Chairman, I have taught at the college level at two institutions of higher education. The last institution I have taught at is Newman University located in Wichita, Kansas. Of the greatest challenges that face Newman right now is the challenge of attracting qualified personnel because of limitations on salary. If they are set too low, they can not acquire the qualified personnel or compete with larger schools, larger institutions. Haskell is facing the same problem that Newman faces because their hands are tied by these government regulations. Their efforts are restricted because the civil service system is not structured for a university system. It is not structured in a way that they can compete with salaries. This bill simply allows these two institutions the flexibility they need to compete with the university system. That, Mr. Chairman, is why I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, all that we have been asking to do under this bill was to allow Haskell and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute some flexibility to compete in the open market within the university system so that they can attract additional qualified personnel to come to these two institutions and help Native Americans expand the opportunities that they have for higher education. That is what was progressing fine, and now we are hearing the potential veto threat that this is not going to be accepted by the administration, that they want to continue to keep these two institutions with their hands tied. If Members have read the ``Trail of Tears,'' they know that this government for far too long has manipulated Native Americans. I think it is time that we allow them some flexibility in order to enable them to move into a competitive market. In Wichita, Kansas, we have Wichita State University. It is a fine institution under the Kansas Board of Regents and they have a retirement system that is competitive, so that they are competitive with other institutions across the Nation, so they can bring in qualified instructors to teach at such a fine institution. And I have no idea why someone would want to leave such a fine institute as Wichita State University, but if they were to decide to leave and go to Haskell or go to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic, then they would be risking, I think they would be risking the retirement benefits that they have been building up. This would make it very unattractive for them to move to this institution to help try to raise the level of education for Native Americans. What this bill says that is being proposed by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) is that we allow this flexibility. Instead, now we have a substitute that we are facing offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and essentially what he is doing is gutting the bill, eliminating the possibility of any alternate systems of retirement or any alternate benefits. What does that do? It again limits the opportunities that these two institutions have in going out and finding a solution to their problems of bringing in new faculty. What is the issue behind this? Why are we facing this? It seems to be a conflict between giving just two schools, Haskell University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the opportunity to go out and compete. Or do we keep them restricted by civil service guidelines and by limited retirement benefits? Do we free them up to go compete or do we bind them up? There are millions of employees under the civil service system. The government has control over all of their benefits. Here we are just asking for a little flexibility to improve these two institutions. And we did not do it in the dark. It was not done in the dark. They involved the schools. They involved the employees. They involved the unions. The solution was: Give us a little flexibility to come up with a system so that we can attract new personnel in. Do not bind our hands. Give us the flexibility to bring in new talent so that we can raise the level of education at these two institutions. Well, now we have this substitute that is not supported by the Indian tribes. I have a list here of the 32 tribes that are going to submit a letter in support of H.R. 4259. And rather than read those, knowing that they are part of the Record, I just would want to say that this has strong support by both these institutions, by the people that are at these institutions, even the unions that are involved, and certainly these 32 tribes who have gone out so far as to write a letter in support of this legislation. So, I would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and vote for H.R. 4259.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the liberals are making false and misleading arguments in their opposition to the Republican tax cut proposal. Every time we hear the other side accuse Republicans of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund or stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund, they are deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order to oppose tax cuts. Just consider this. The liberals never accuse anyone of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund whenever it comes to spending. In fact, they have proposed billions and billions of new spending without a single thought about Social Security. It is only when Republicans want to pass tax cuts that they use a bogus argument about Social Security in order to scare seniors, just like they did for 2 years about Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, liberals simply oppose tax cuts. The American people should know the truth. Under their definition, all spending is a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund: education, welfare, the big bureaucracy here in Washington. But now we do have a surplus and I think, yes, we do need to save Social Security with 90 percent of the surplus. But any surplus over that should go to hard-working Americans in the form of tax relief.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding my final 30 seconds to my colleague from New Jersey, to say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that I would be pleased to work with the gentlewoman to make something that would be amenable to both of us. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is to provide a definition for the term ``voluntary'' for organizations which provide family planning assistance overseas. Certain restrictions already exist on this financial aid, and they are that none of the funds can be used to pay for abortions, that none of the funds can go to organizations which support coercive abortions or involuntary sterilization, and the programs that are to be used are to be totally voluntary. This does not change any of those current restrictions. It does change the definition, but, however, neither the law nor the regulations under the United States Agency for International Development or USAID, those regulations do not define the term of ``voluntary.'' As a result, there has been gross violations of human rights. Human rights organizations have reported that nations across the globe that receive USAID funds are committing practices such as bribes to women to use experimental chemicals without warning them of any side effects. They are demanding sterilization quotas from health providers which prey on poor women and surpass their own means of doing so safely, resulting in death or permanent injury. In Peru, as reported by the New York Times and other major papers across the Nation, as my chart indicates, women were coerced into sterilization and in some cases this resulted in death. This does not change or add any restrictions to funds that USAID distributes. However, the term ``voluntary'' is defined, and I believe we can change at least some of these abuses by setting guidelines and setting guidelines for these countries on how this money is distributed. This amendment defines voluntary in the context of participation of population control or family planning projects so that projects shall not use quotas, shall not use payment of incentives or bribes, shall not deny any benefits like food or clothing and will provide full disclosure of the method chosen for birth control and also make available any information on family planning options. Involuntary Sterilization Horror Stories All of the following countries receive USAID funding and are engaging in forced sterilization tactics.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has just released a bold new tax cut package for this Congress. It is called the 90-10 tax cut plan. It will improve the health of Social Security and cut taxes. First we will set aside 90 percent of the surplus, to save Social Security, a surplus that will total about $1.4 trillion, and then we will use 10 percent of the surplus to cut taxes now. It is important to emphasize that we must cut taxes now. Already the liberals have ideas how they want to spend your money. Those who love big government do not think that the middle class ought to have tax relief. In fact they are against the whole idea of tax cuts, always and everywhere. This tax package contains marriage tax penalty relief, it makes health care more affordable for many of those who cannot get it today, and it gives hard-hit farmers assistance at a difficult time. We were told that we could not balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time, but we did, just as we will save Social Security and cut taxes this time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on September 14th, I was unavoidably detained and missed four recorded votes on the following bills: S. 2206, The Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act; H. Con. Res. 304, Expressing the Sense of Congress regarding the Culpability of Slobodan Milosevic for War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and Genocide in the Former Yugoslavia; H. Con. Res. 254, Calling on Cuba to Extradite to the United States Convicted Felon Joanne Chesimard and all other individuals who have fled the United States to avoid prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses and who are currently living freely in Cuba; and H. Con. Res. 185, Expressing the Sense of Congress on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Recommitting the United States to the Principles Expressed in the Universal Declaration. Had I been present I would have voted yea on all four bills; roll call numbers 426-429.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. There is nothing that prohibits the people of the District of Columbia, the people in here, to go ahead forward with this petition drive or with this civil action.

Mr. TIAHRT. Taking back my time, what I am saying is that there is nothing in this legislation that prohibits people living in the District of Columbia from moving forward with a petition drive or any civil action requiring Congress to provide for voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this, this would strike the entire section 148 which simply says that none of the funds contained in this act will go to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks to require Congress to provide for voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia. Now, there is nothing in this bill or nothing that is in the language here or in the funding that says that this cannot occur. If they want to go forward with some petition drive or with some civil action, there is nothing in this act that would prevent that. The people of the District of Columbia are completely free under the Constitution and under the laws of this land to pursue that agenda. What this simply says is we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund both sides of the argument. We are not going to let people who may disagree be compelled to provide the dollars to argue both sides of this. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson that said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' Today we would call it wrong and say to compel a man or a woman, we would change it a little differently, but basically what we are saying is that we are not going to push ideas, force people to push ideas that they do not believe in. But yet there is still the freedom here. There is complete freedom to move these arguments forward, we are just not going to have the taxpayers fund through the District of Columbia. There has been some question on the floor today just who is a taxpayer of the District of Columbia. The chairman of the subcommittee on D.C. appropriations pointed out aptly that if you live here in the District, if you eat here in the District, if you have some exchange, you do have some vested interest. Many of us have paid parking tickets in the District. We have contributed to the overall funds that are involved here. But we may not want to use these contributions to fund this type of effort.

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, the reading is correct. But these are people who are paid, their salaries are paid by the taxpayers in the District of Columbia. And it follows with the same logic that none of these funds contained shall be used for this petition drive or this civil action. I want to make one last point. We are not going to prohibit such action, we are just going to say the taxpayer funds will not argue both sides of the case.

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

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, is this not the same language that is currently in the bill?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of the rule for the District of Columbia Appropriations bill, and I want to encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule. It is an open rule. Even though some concern has been stated that this rule would include certain self-enacting provisions related to school vouchers, D.C. needle exchange programs, and joint adoptions, none of these provisions are self-enacting, in the rule. Instead, they are amendments which should be openly debated. The debate will follow with votes, and I see no reason to vote against this rule because of any self-enacting provisions that are not there. I think that the rule is fair and certainly has protected both sides of these issues. Now, during the course of our debate, we will hear objections that Congress should not meddle in certain home rule issues. I would just say first that Congress has a constitutional obligation to be involved in the public and financial measures of the District of Columbia. Time and time again, Congress has decided to set public policy and control financial matters in the District. In fact, in this bill it was the will of the House that there be no residency requirement for District employees. Now, this happens to override a local government decision. The decision was far from unanimous, and certainly there was dissent. But, nonetheless, it was the will of the committee and, therefore, the House. And once again, it will be confirmed in the House that we will set public policy for the District of Columbia. Probably the best analogy in government to explain this relationship between Congress and the District of Columbia is the relationship we see with the State government and that of the cities within that State. In my home State of Kansas, it is not uncommon for the State legislature to set public policy for Wichita. In fact, it is common for the legislature to determine tax structures, finances, and other issues, including the setting of public policy. Likewise, it is not uncommon for Congress to set public policy for the District of Columbia. So when we openly debate the value of a school voucher program, when we openly debate how the poorest of children will be benefitted by such a voucher program in the District; when we openly debate the failures of a needle exchange program, not only in the District of Columbia but around the globe; and when we advocate for the protection of adopted children, we do so with constitutional authority, with a relationship similar to the relationship between State legislatures and cities within that State, and we do so with the idea of establishing good public policy for the District. This is an open rule that allows for open debate. It has not embodied any controversial issues through a self-enacting clause. And, therefore, I support the rule and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with an unusual parliamentary situation regarding the amendment that we just voted on regarding my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). Is it not true that for my amendment to prevail and terminate the needle exchange program in the District of Columbia, that the Moran amendment must be defeated?