Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on July 21, President Clinton showed the entire world that all talk about education reform is nothing but talk. The President's veto of the Education Savings Account legislation that passed both Houses of Congress is clear evidence that one party is beholden to special interests who benefit from the status quo. Education failure is virtually in every city in America. The liberals accept that failure in our education system year after year after year. The rhetoric is fine and wonderful sounding, repair crumbling schools, spend more money, hire more teachers, but nothing seems to change. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a better idea. Republicans believe that accountability and competition in the marketplace produce excellence in the auto industry, in the computer industry, and in manufacturing of consumer goods. Why should education be any different? If we believe in accountability and if we believe in excellence, not in words but in practice, then I would urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto and overcome the status quo by making education savings accounts the law of the land.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I appreciate his efforts. He has been instrumental in putting this pressure on to make sure that we maintain this high priority.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have 2 amendments at the desk, but I do not intend to offer them today. Both amendments were designed to earmark money for Federal research and treatment for the Gulf War illness. Now, in 1991, about 700,000 American men and women served in the Gulf War. All of us appreciate their courage and their service and thank each and every one of them. More than 228,000 of these veterans have sought medical care. Over 100,000 of them have indicated they may be suffering from Gulf War illness. Their symptoms include sleeplessness, chronic diarrhea, nausea, memory loss, miscarriages, and even birth defects of their newborn children. Some veterans' organizations have estimated that several thousand of our soldiers have died, and their deaths, in some part, are related to their service in the Gulf War. This is a very real problem, but the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration have been very reluctant to acknowledge this problem. At first the Department of Defense said that this was not a problem. Then they told us it was stress-related. It was only until the last few years that the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration have begun to search for solutions for those who are suffering from these diseases or illnesses that veterans are living with every day of their lives. In February of this year, in a report by the Government Accounting Office, the GAO, it was stated, ``Our government was not proactive in researching Gulf War illness.'' As a government, we sat on our hands, and this was wrong. Now there is research in the Department of Defense; however, I am convinced that this research is not about the veterans; it is more about protecting soldiers in future conflicts, and I see no fault in it. I think that is very good research, but that places the burden on the Veterans Administration. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, and I want to encourage Mr. Lewis to pursue language that would emphasize to the Veterans Administration the high priority of research and treatment of Gulf War illness. Let me close by quoting from the February 1998 GAO report. They said in the report, ``The vast majority of research was not initiated until 1994 or later, and much of that was due to pressure by legislative requirements. These requirements were imposed by us here in Congress. Establishing Gulf War research and treatment as a high priority is the right thing to do, and that is why I make this request.''

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a minute today to focus on what it takes to be successful in life, because I believe that building a great nation and maintaining its status requires at least three elements of success from its citizens. Those elements include the heart, the mind and the soul. I believe that success, in part, is determined by what WE have in OUR heart. I know a man today who is successful. He has a promising career in developing computer programs. He has four sons, a lovely wife and he owns a couple of acres on God's green earth. He lives within the clause that is in our Declaration of Independence that says pursuit of happiness, which can be stated as living the American dream. But his desire started early in life. He grew up the second son, in a family where his older brother got a lot of attention, sort of in his shadow, but he chose to make his own mark early in life, and he felt it in his heart. He chose football to stand in his own light, though he was not physically big. The choice was probably because his brother had some recognition in playing football. In his senior year, as I recall, he was only about 160 pounds. But even though he was not big, he chose to play in a tough position, nose guard, right in the middle of the line, in the middle of the defensive line where all the big boys like to play. He played hard, he gave it his all. All season. He played with heart. He felt it inside, and size did not matter. He played so well that he was named to an all-State team. And I was very proud of that young man. His name is Tom Tiahrt, my younger brother. I believe success has to come from the heart. It also has to come from the mind. In the mid-1980s, a young man from the Midwest had a good idea. It was captured in his mind, and he was working out the details, thinking of a new way, and he wanted it to escape his mind and market desktop computers. But in order to do that, he needed some money, some capital to get this idea off the ground. So he went to the bank and he was told no. But that idea just kept stirring in his mind, and he went to another bank and then to another and another. And the message was the same. No, no, no. Finally, he was able to get some capital from those who had faith in him, his family. His grandmother had a CD that was maturing. But instead of buying another CD, she loaned him the $10,000. He obtained another $5,000 from his brother and started a company that today is a billion-dollar business. The company is called Gateway 2000, and the owner is called Ted Waite, a true success story. He had a good idea in his mind, and he made that idea successful. I think we must temper our drive for success. If we have it in our mind and we hold it in our hearts, we still must temper it. The good book, God's holy words, say, and I will paraphrase, that if we gain the whole world, in other words, if we are successful, even tremendously successful, if we gain the whole world, and it goes on to say, and lose our own soul, then what have we achieved? Success is not truly success if we lose our own soul. If we turn our back on God, if we forget our family, if we deny those values and virtues that built this great Nation, honesty, integrity, hard work, commitment to our faith, our family, our country, our God, then we deny true success. Mr. Speaker, success, or pursuit of happiness, living the American dream, means not only success with our heart and our mind, but also it has to include our soul.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining months of the 105th Congress, business will be conducted in one of two ways: We will conduct business in the old way it was done for 40 years of Democrat rule, or we can conduct business in a new way, the way business began being conducted in the beginning of January, 1995. Under the old way, Congress did not hold the line on spending. New goodies were added in the closing days of the session and serious attempts at reform were blocked by the usual special interests. Under the new way, Congress considers the impact of spending on the family budget first. Instead of asking Washington if Washington can afford new spending, we now ask whether the family can afford it. It is entirely a new way of thinking. Under the old way, Washington acted like it was doing you a favor by letting you keep more of your own money. Under the new philosophy, the Republicans are pushing to cut taxes as much as possible, because we think middle-class families are paying too much in taxes to a government that is not careful with their money. It is time to continue in this new direction.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first of all, that no one is questioning the integrity.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say there are large parts of the benefit package, the retirement package, and even some portions of the salary that are outside the control of the employee. It is under the guise of the employer, the taxes that are withdrawn, the way the retirement is invested and the health care provided. So, once again, they have to be subject to the employer.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where the gentlewoman got her information from about how the Federal Government health care plans are not covering contraceptives. I had my office contact the Office of Personnel Management, and every health care provider for Federal employees currently provides full prescription coverage for the pill, the predominant method of choice of child-bearing age in this country. Furthermore, according to the Office of Personnel Management, over 75 percent of all Federal employees currently have coverage which includes all FDA-approved methods. Now those FDA-approved methods or drugs and devices include the pill, the diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera and the morning-after abortion pill, and under the proposed amendment, as soon as the FDA would approve the abortion pill, the French abortion pill RU-486, it would also be covered. But currently 75 percent of all Federal employees do have coverage, so to say that they do not have access to contraceptives is misleading to the American public because they do have that opportunity now. Now I do agree with the gentlewoman that we should encourage abstinence in sexual activity, certainly for minors. Once they are age of adult it is a different thing, but for minors we ought to teach kids abstinence, but when it comes to Federal employees, they have this access to this coverage now. So I think that we should keep clear from the issue that is in this current amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). She is striking the area of section 514 which says no funds appropriated by this act shall be available to pay for abortions. Now there was a reference where she said that this was not about tax dollars paying for abortions, but if I read this again on page 70, section 514, lines 18 and 19, it says no funds approved by this act shall be available to pay for abortions. Well, if it is not funds, not tax dollars, then there is no reason for the amendment because the amendment says that no Federal funds will pay for abortions. So I think there is kind of a disconnect in what was presented in the idea of this amendment and what the reality of the language in the legislation. Now there was also reference, Mr. Chairman, that the benefit package belongs to the employee and not the employer. Well, I think if my colleagues talk to every small businessman around America who is paying the bill for these health care packages, they believe they have something at stake, and if we talk to any large corporations in the Fortune 500, I believe that they would tell us that their benefit packages, that they have a stake in their benefit packages. The employer has a stake in the benefit packages. So what you have then in the case of a Federal employee, and I think this is a case that is too often forgotten, Federal employees work for the people of the United States of America, the taxpayers. That is who employ these people. That is who ultimately they have to answer to. They work for the people of the United States of America. This is a democracy. We are governed by the consent of the governed. Our government exists according to our Declaration of Independence, our Nation's birthright. So I think what we should do is take the temperature from the employer. What does the employer say about using Federal tax dollars to pay for abortions? In overwhelming numbers, they say do not use tax dollars to fund abortions. Do not use tax dollars to fund abortions. Yet that is what the intent of this legislation is, is to legislate that we would use Federal tax dollars to provide someone else's abortion. I think it is unfortunate that that is what is going on. It goes against the employer, against the will of the American taxpayer. So I think that we ought to defeat this amendment and allow the American taxpayer to be free.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that no one is criticizing the integrity of Federal employees. We believe that they are people who want to serve this country in that capacity, are good, wonderful people. That is not the issue here. Nor is the issue whether abortion is available to them. We have a ruling of the Supreme Court that we all live with, and abortions are available to Americans today, and there are health care plans outside the Federal Government that do not pay for abortion services. This is not, we are not treating them separately from other parts of America.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of House rule XXI which prohibits of authorization on an appropriations bill, and I ask that the provision be stricken from the bill.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against section 516 of the bill.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this Congress intends to focus like a laser beam on an issue of particular importance to families. It's called tax cuts. Many Americans are moving ahead in these economic good times, but some families are having trouble making ends meet. While the liberals believe that the way to improve the standard of living of hard-pressed working families is to propose more job training programs and more Washington-directed education programs, the same ones which have failed miserably in the past, Republicans have a much better idea. Republicans want to help ordinary working families by letting them keep more of their own money. No need for theory or hopes that some day these Federal training programs will trickle down to real people. No, the Republicans can help families make ends meet, save for that first home or pay off those credit cards by giving them a tax cut. Actually, the government would not be giving them anything. It would mean that the government would let people keep more of their own hard- earned money.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for the generous amount of time he has yielded to me. Madam Speaker, I want to rise today to support the rule and also to speak briefly about an amendment that I will offer to strike an amendment that was brought up in the full Committee on Appropriations last week and passed by a very narrow margin, a 28-to-26 vote. The result of this amendment is that we are going to impose a Federal mandate on all insurance companies that contract with the Federal Employees Health Benefits. This Federal mandate that is now going to be imposed on health care coverage will cover all prescription contraceptive devices that are FDA approved. This coverage is already available as an option for health care coverage for government workers, but today this bill mandates coverage which includes the following FDA approved drugs and devices: The pill, diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera and the Morning-After abortion bill. And some day it could include the latest abortion pill, RU-486. Madam Speaker, it is important that Members understand that my amendment will not deny any Federal employee the opportunity to receive a full range of contraceptive devices currently allowed by the FDA. All my amendment will do is allow the Federal employees to continue the freedom that they now enjoy to choose the type of coverage that best meets their family's needs. According to the Office of Personnel Management, every health care provider for Federal employees currently provides full prescription coverage for the pill, the predominant method of choice for women of childbearing age in this country. Furthermore, over 75 percent of all Federal employees currently have coverage which includes all FDA approved methods. The only health care plans which specifically do not cover any contraceptive devices are Catholic health care plans, which are formed for that specific purpose for reasons of conscience. In other words, 10 percent of the Federal employees who do not have contraceptive coverage do so by choice. So, ironically, those who demand freedom of choice have, through this language, limited the choice through the current language. Under the language the Catholic Federal employees will no longer have a choice. Instead, Catholics and others will be forced to choose between receiving no health care benefits or health care insurance or belong to a plan which provides services which they believe are wrong. This past Monday, The Washington Post reported incorrectly that the CBO had determined that this Federal mandate would not cost additional Federal funds. However, the CBO has reversed their decision and has determined that there will be costs associated with this new mandate. Once again we learn there is no free lunch. Madam Speaker, when this bill comes to the floor, we will hear advocates of this provision argue that this mandate is about providing ``parity between the coverage of family planning services and the coverages of other types of basic medical care in private insurance policies.'' Yet by their very nature, we know that contraceptives are elective and not medically necessary. This is what choice and freedom is all about, allowing the consumer to choose the health plan that best serves their needs. We will also hear the proponents say that this mandate is about a woman's right to choose. Unfortunately, this mandate has nothing to do about choice and everything to do about forcing Federal employees to pay for services they may not need or want, with the result being higher priced health insurance for every Federal employee. The bottom line is this mandate limits consumer choice. It provides nothing that is not already available to every Federal employee. If we adopt this provision and vote down my amendment, Congress will be saying to Federal employees, ``We know what you want, and we know what you need, and you have no choice because we are going to provide it to you.'' And, Madam Speaker, the American public is going to get stuck with the bill, as are Federal workers. In addition to the CBO stating that this is a mandate that will cost additional money, so has the Health Insurance Association of America in a letter to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon). Madam Speaker, I have listed reasons why we should support my amendment, and regrettably what we have is language that says there is one size that fits all. It is a Federal mandate. I would also like to recognize in closing that this provision was legislation on an appropriations bill, which goes against our normal rules and it is not supported by the proper authorizing committee.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats say we need to keep jobs in America for American workers, Republicans say that we need to keep jobs in America for American workers. The difference is that liberal Democrat policies do everything possible to drive companies overseas or encourage investment capital to go abroad. Think about it. Democrats rail against ``corporate America.'' They support increasing expansion of regulation and they seek to raise taxes on the people who create and keep jobs. Naturally, businesses respond by moving from a high tax country to a low tax country. Mr. Speaker, if we want to keep jobs in America, make America the best place in the whole world to open a business, the best place in the whole world to invest, the best place in the whole world to start a business, the best place in the whole world to make a profit, the best place in the whole world to keep profits, the best place in the whole world to build a company and make it grow. We must keep jobs in America. Mr. Speaker, let us cut taxes on capital investment and make the decision to stay in America the easiest decision in the world.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, recent reports that Loral Corporation may have given highly sensitive information to the Communist Chinese Government during April and May of 1996 and harmed national security are alarming, especially given India's decision last month to conduct nuclear tests, partly in response to China's role in helping Pakistan with its nuclear weapons program. Then we find out that Bernard Schwartz, the CEO of Loral, was the largest single donor to the Democrat party during the 1996 election cycle. Loral, we know, was given a waiver by the Clinton administration in February of this year to export satellite technology to China, even though the Justice Department was in the middle of a criminal investigation of Loral for its last technology transfer. Many people want to know if Loral was given a waiver because its CEO gave the Democrat party $632,000 in 1996, and, of course, that would be nearly impossible to prove. But the real scandal, the real scandal, is our policy of giving China dual-use technology that is used in their space program and their military programs, from computers, to machines, to tools, to rocket technology. That is the biggest scandal of all.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained and missed two votes. The first, agreeing to the Senate amendments on H.R. 1847, the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act; and the second, passage of House Resolution 401, the Sense of the House that Social Promotion Should Be Ended. I support both measures and had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 232 and No. 233.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3629.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, one of the famous lines of a song that our beloved former Member, Sonny Bono, sang was, ``The beat goes on.'' That in some way describes Judge Starr's investigation into perjury, suborning perjury, and other possible violations of the law that may have been committed by our President. Some of Judge Starr's critics say that he has taken too long and has cost too much, but the irony of their criticism is that the investigation would be over except for the delaying tactics from the White House, except for the claims of executive privilege, except for the claims of attorney-client privilege, except for the stone wall that is built around the White House. Mr. Speaker, Judge Starr could have completed his investigation, but the President will not come forward and the White House has prevented the investigation from being completed.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about the extremist budget by the extremists in the House, the radical Republicans. Let us take a little walk down history's lane. One hundred thirty years ago, the opponents of a better America were calling the Republicans radical. They were calling them extreme. Mr. Speaker, it was the radical Republicans who fought for and succeeded in passing the 13th amendment to abolish slavery, the 14th amendment to guarantee the right to life, liberty and the ownership of property, and the 15th amendment to give all citizens the right to vote. They were called radical Republicans, with extremist ideas. So when you hear the opponents of a better America say the Republican budget is extreme, it attacks the poor, remember history, remember our heritage. It is not extreme to protect Social Security, it is not extreme to limit the growth of the Federal Government, it is not extreme to provide a little tax relief for Americans. It is just common sense. So I urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in many foreign countries it is difficult to do business without a payoff or a bribe. Just slide some money across the hand and doors open. It happens in many countries that do not have high moral standards of right and wrong. But it is not acceptable in America. Not until now. It appears something has changed. Our high moral standards driven by character and a strong sense of right and wrong now seem to have sunk to a new low of a mere political contribution and doors open. Just a few lucrative political donations from the Communist Chinese and a big U.S. corporation will change export policy and doors will open. The administration has taken high-tech satellite export waivers from the Department of Defense and the State Department and given it to the Commerce Department, making it easier for doors to open. Now an American company may have exported high technical information that jeopardizes our security, our national security. It may happen in other countries, but it should never happen here.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.