Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, according to press accounts, the Pentagon issued a classified report in May of 1997 about the Loral-led review commission's unauthorized release to China of its report on Communist China's latest rocket crash. The report concluded that the United States national security has been harmed. Let me repeat that. The report concluded that the United States national security has been harmed. The White House claims otherwise but offers no explanation, nothing at all. In February of this year, despite intense opposition from his own Justice Department, President Clinton gave permission to Loral to transfer highly sensitive missile information, particularly with respect to encryption, to the Communist Chinese government. Reportedly, the Chinese could use this information to perfect their missile and rocket programs. This was allowed despite an ongoing criminal investigation of Loral for earlier transfers of missile technology to Communist China. This leaves many unanswered questions such as, how deeply was U.S. national security harmed? Did the campaign contributions to Loral and the Chinese government affect the decision? And why does the President insist that this decision was in the best interest of the American people?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the shift of the responsibility by the Clinton administration for licensing the export of advanced technology has created dangerous foreign policy and potentially jeopardized our Nation's security. The administration is stripping the State Department and the Department of Defense from overseeing the export of advanced technology. The result of this questionable policy is the export of advanced satellite technology which can be used to perfect the targeting of nuclear weapons to a hostile country like Communist China. This raises serious questions, as was pointed out in a column by Mark Levin in today's Washington Times. Questions like, what national security interest was served when President Clinton personally intervened, overruling objections from the Pentagon and the State Department, to approve further technology transfers to the Communist Chinese? Which Clinton administration officials were involved in this decision? After the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the unauthorized technology transfer to the Communist Chinese in February of 1996, why were the companies involved not suspended, at least temporarily, from exporting further? Mr. Speaker, potentially this could be a stunning betrayal of American interests and national security. I urge my colleagues to join me in holding the administration accountable for this dangerous transfer of technology.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have here in my hand a copy of a two-page statement released by the Loral Space and Communications Group in response to recent allegations that, after large contributions to the Democrat party, Loral aided the communist Chinese government with the development of the ``Long March'' missile, jeopardizing the security of the United States. As always, the scandal is not what is in the statement but what is left out, what Loral is not telling us. If Loral is correct that no sensitive information and no significant technology was conveyed to the Chinese, why then did the State Department and the Defense Department oppose the administration's granting of a waiver? Did Loral violate its own policy by providing a report to the Communist Chinese before consulting with the State Department? Was not Loral specifically advised by the U.S. Government not to go forward with their review of the Chinese investigation of the ``Long March'' missile failure? I assume Loral's claim of innocence is correct, but questions remain unanswered. That is why I ask all Members of Congress who care about our national security to join in an effort to find out the answers to these questions.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, without truth, there is no justice. I would like to address the vicious attacks made by the liberals on the Members of Congress who are tasked with finding out the truth about the allegations of crimes by the Clinton White House. These vicious attacks are remarkably similar to the mean and unfair attacks directed at Judge Starr, who is also charged with finding out the truth about the allegations of crimes by the White House. We have heard this before directed at Senator Thompson, at Senator D'Amato, also tasked with finding out the truth about the allegations of crimes at the White House. As before, these attacks on the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, are misleading and absurd. The tapes released by the Chairman were not doctored, not a single bit. All the tapes were available to anyone in the press who would bother to listen to them. Transcripts which were made available to the press were not taken out of context. Indeed, we would be extremely pleased to hear the spin on Webster Hubbell's comment that he ``needs to roll over one more time.'' We would like to know what he really meant by that. But once again, it is a same old story: Attack the accuser and hide the truth.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight would like to grant immunity to Nancy Lee, Larry Wong, Irene Wu and Kent La and get their testimony so that Congress can learn the facts about illegal campaign contributions in the 1996 presidential election. The Justice Department does not oppose the granting of immunity to these four key witnesses, but the Democrats on the committee refuse, refuse to grant immunity to these four witnesses. How can this be defended? It cannot. This is the same people who cry partisanship whenever any investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing are investigated and the same people who are not only defending the White House stonewalling but now stonewalling their own Justice Department. I must grant the Democrats this, they really do know how to play hardball, but this is the same people who have tried to destroy the reputations of Judge Robert Bork and Judge Clarence Thomas and now Judge Ken Starr are now the same people who stand silent and motionless in the face of massive evidence of White House stonewalling and round- the-clock spin. Stop the stalling and stop the spin so the American people can get to the truth.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Congress has run into a wall, a massive stonewall in its attempts to carry out its constitutional oversight responsibility. This stonewall is unprecedented and absolutely breathtaking in its audacity. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has worked closely with the Justice Department on the issue of granting immunity so that key witnesses will testify. I have here in my hand four letters from the Justice Department stating that the Justice Department has no opposition to the committee's granting of immunity to four key witnesses in the campaign finance oversight investigations. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the committee have refused to grant immunity to these witnesses. I have heard of stonewalling before. The Democrats on the committee have been stonewalling investigators for over 2 years, but now they are stonewalling their own Justice Department. They got away with it before, so maybe they figure they can stonewall all they want and no one will hold them accountable. Let us grant these witnesses immunity and get to the truth. I think it is the best way to get to the truth, and I think Americans deserve the truth.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on February 22, 1998, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry denied that any of President Clinton's private attorneys have hired or authorized any private investigator to look into the background of prosecutors or reporters. Now, let us listen to that quote again, and let us think about whether we should keep on doing our business and ignore the White House deception and deceit, because, hey, the stock market is doing just great. The President's press secretary denied any of President Clinton's private attorneys have hired or authorized any private investigators to look into the backgrounds of prosecutors or reporters. But it turns out that the private investigator himself, Terry Lenzner, admitted that he had, indeed, been hired by the White House to look into the private lives of journalists, Federal investigators and anyone else the White House wants to smear. Finally, someone in the employ of the White House has the integrity to tell the truth. I guess the 900 FBI files illegally obtained were not enough dirt for them to dig up. Mr. Speaker, we have a President hiring private investigators and then having his spokesman misrepresent the truth about it. I think when the American people understand this, both Republicans and Democrats alike will be outraged.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, once again the New York Stock Exchange has set a new record as it presses on to the 10,000 mark. Our economy is strong nationwide, consumer confidence is very high, and unemployment is at its lowest point, with 2,200,000 people working today that were on welfare in 1994. With all the good things that are happening today, with all the benefits from being the strongest market in the world, we have overlooked this emptiness in our Nation's soul. The symptoms are everywhere. They are in the paper, on the radio, on prime time television. People no longer honor their commitments, driving divorces up in America. Spousal abuse is up as people deal with life's frustrations without consideration for each other. Children are abused and forgotten in the whole process as people try to put their lives back together again. Let us heal these wounds in our society by returning to faith in God and the values and virtues that built this great Nation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we are losing the concept of honesty and trust in our society. Over the last few months here in Washington the concept is fading and being replaced by denial, distraction, delay and destruction of those seeking the truth. We all know in our hearts that honesty is always the best policy, but when leadership in a free society lowers the standard, it affects us all. Mr. Speaker, leadership does matter. We all saw that when the President spoke on MTV, saying he would inhale if he had to do it all over again, and then drug use actually increased. If we lower the standard of honesty and trust, it means we no longer honor our commitments to our checking accounts, resulting in bounced checks. It means that we no longer honor our commitments to credit card accounts, meaning more bankruptcy. It means we no longer honor our commitments to marriage, meaning divorces will rise. Is there not enough hot checks today? Do we not have enough bankruptcy? Is there not too many divorces today? Let us demand honesty and trust from ourselves, our neighbors and our elected officials.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes this morning to talk about the Parental Freedom of Information Act. Educators and parents agree that students do much better when parents are involved in the education. But there are many barriers to getting parents involved in the education process. What the Parental Freedom of Information Act does is try to remove some of those barriers. Some of those barriers are something that are just indications of how far down our culture has slid. We have many broken homes, and many homes have both parents working. It is quite often too difficult for parents to spend the time they need to be involved in their children's education. It certainly is a sacrifice of time when there are so many financial demands on parents these days because of the cost of housing, the cost of clothing, the cost of living, that they cannot spend the time to get involved because they are working. Mr. Speaker, other forces in society have also caused a downhill slide. Quite often, we have lost touch with the virtues that built this great Nation, virtues like faith in God, hard work, honesty, integrity. That loss of virtues is also reflected in our school system. Getting parents involved in the child's education will help build a structure where children will be able to rely on their parents to help improve their education. Like I said, in education, teachers, superintendents and parents all agree. What the Parental Freedom of Information Act does is it allows parents access to the information related to their children's education. That includes medical records. It includes psychological testing. It includes test scores. It includes curriculum, anything involved with the curriculum. What we have seen in some situations across America is that school systems have denied parents access to the information, even when it includes medical treatment or psychological testing. In one case in Pennsylvania, in excess of 60 young women, girls, actually, in junior high were subjected to physical exams, which included exams that required them to take their clothes off. This was very much a shock for these girls. It was very difficult for them, traumatic for them, and many had to receive counseling afterwards. This was all done without parental consent, without parental notification. The Parental Freedom of Information Act would give parents access to medical tests and require that they get permission before they conduct something like this. Anything that is mandatory would require that parent consent before it is conducted. It's the same with psychological testing, if there is any psychological testing; and there has been across the United States. In Texas and California, they have had psychological testing without parental consent. This legislation does not prevent students from voluntarily seeking psychological testing, psychiatric help, or medical help if they do so voluntarily. In some cases, there are conflicts between parents and students; and they do need to get some type of counseling. That is not excluded by this bill. I think that is very healthy for students to try to work through some of their problems so they can communicate better with their parents, and vice versa. Other barriers exist, especially related to some testing, that have been very difficult for parents to accept, especially when they are not involved in the process. In my home State of Kansas there was part of a standardized test that was given to junior high students was a reading comprehension test. The story that was selected was of a 7th grade girl who developed a relationship with an inanimate object, actually a statue of a crow. In this story this junior high girl begins to communicate with this statue, and the statue becomes her spiritual guide. Many parents in Kansas found that having junior high kids subjected to spiritual guides, or the philosophy of a spiritual guide, was offensive. They decided that they would try to do something about it. Eventually, the test was changed. But, parents were excluded from finding out about such types of standardized tests, tests that would subject every child in Kansas, sooner or later, to that. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask that my colleagues help support the Parental Freedom of Information Act and strengthen education.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paycheck Protection Act and I do so because I believe as Americans we should have control over the money that we earn, especially when the money goes to support a political opinion or a political candidate. Now, there are some, as the previous speaker noted, who would say that this will go so workers do not have a right to speak. Well, that is not true. Workers do have a right to speak. All that this requires is they will have to say, ``Yes, I want you to take my money and I want you to spend it however I see fit.'' And to say that Thomas Jefferson did not say what he said, it was not sacrilegious, it is very clear what he said. He said it was tyranny. It has been said that the unions will not be able to talk to their members because of this bill. Again, that is not true. In my district the unions communicate weekly with their members through newspapers. They talk to them and have union meetings. People freely come and go. All this bill says is that if organizations are going to use money for political purposes, they just have to get permission. You just have to ask people for it. Who is behind this? Eighty percent of union households and about 90 percent of Americans that are not in union households. They want to protect the paychecks that people work so hard for. I think everyone of us should be involved in the political process. But I think you should control how your political support goes. I think you should control who your political money goes to support. In America today that does not happen. Millions of dollars are deducted directly from hard-working Americans' paychecks and sent to organizations that never ask for permission. They never ask if they support issues. They never ask if they support candidates. They take the money and they spend it how they see fit. The gentleman from Colorado quoted Thomas Jefferson. He simply said that process is sinful and tyrannical. I believe Thomas Jefferson was right. The Paycheck Protection Act overcomes this tyranny that exists right here in America. I think we all ought to vote in support of this. I think we all ought to be in favor of protecting workers' paychecks. Let them control how their money is going to be spent in the political process.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Congress has worked very hard to rebuild a strong economy and bring hope to our children. It took a great deal of discipline and dedication and it was not without sacrifice. But the results are record-setting days on the New York Stock Exchange, dwindling unemployment and welfare lines, and expanding consumer confidence. But what good will come from the strong economy if we have an empty soul? This week we were all stunned and saddened by the two boys who ambushed a school and killed four young girls with promising lives, and a young teacher with a promising career in Jonesboro, Arkansas. But that was not the only indication that our culture is in a moral free- for-all. The day after this tragedy, in Dale City, California, a boy shot at a principal; in Coldwater, Michigan, another student committed suicide outside his school; and in Princeton, Texas, a student slashed three teachers with a razor blade. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to rebuild our moral culture like we rebuilt our economy. It is time to overcome the culture of violence that permeates on our TVs and from our movies. Each of us must participate. It is up to us. We must talk to our children, honor our commitments. If we want a better America, we must be better Americans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party stands for tax relief for working Americans. We know middle-class families are getting killed by paying 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect tax, and what they get in return for those taxes suggests that the Government mocks their hard work that went into the earning of their wages. But the possibility of enacting middle-class tax relief this year appears to be quite remote. The reason is because the President and the liberals here in the House refuse to cut spending. They refuse the means by which tax cuts are put on the table. The President and his liberal allies in Congress do not believe that any more can be cut from the $1.7 trillion budget, for they believe all those wonderful, big government programs are more important than giving middle-class families some real tax relief; and they do not want to offend their special interests that keep them in power. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to put the average middle-class American before the special interests. Let us rid the Government of more wasteful programs and fight for tax relief for middle-class Americans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly concerned about the moral decline we are facing in America. As a society, it seems to be sinking to an all-time low. Sunday mornings are often reserved for a time for us to exercise our faith, but now it has become the Nation's pastime to defend the undefendable. Men and women who have proclaimed to care about justice for women in the workplace now defend sexual advances and now defend inappropriate behavior. Most parents want to protect their children. I know I do. I have a 17-year-old daughter and two younger sons, and I want to be able to protect them from any unlawful pressure or from bad behavior that is the lowest and worst in our society. I am particularly concerned about my daughter, because she will be the first to go out on her own. When she attends a college, I do not want a professor or the president of the college or university groping her to pressure her for sex for performance, for grades. And when she gets her first job, I do not want the CEO or president of the corporation or any of her fellow workers making sexual advances in exchange for promotions. And for my sons, it is a great compromise to the virtues and values that built this great Nation for us to just let them watch a weeknight evening of television. The language, the violence, the lack of morals, the attacks on the institution of marriage all go against what civil people do when they want to live peaceably together. Only a few programs, very few programs, restore our faith in hard work, honesty, integrity, respect for each other. But most of television leaves us wanting, wanting for heroes that will bring us to our highest and best. Yes, our economy is strong. The New York Stock Exchange presses new records almost weekly. Unemployment is low. The welfare rolls are down. More and more people are working and earning more and more money. Our bank accounts seem full, but our hearts and souls are empty. Well, my colleagues have heard, ``You can't legislate morality, so you can't change our society.'' Well, first of all, that is a false statement. When a 14-year-old boy breaks into a liquor store to rob the store and kills an attendant, that is against the law. It is also against God's law, the Ten Commandments. But we can do our best as a government to prevent that 14-year-old from making that decision through good education, through encouraging strong families and communities, trying to steer them from a decision that would destruct them for the rest of their lives and harm society. But we as a government cannot change that young boy's heart. And that is really what needs to happen. To change a young man's heart, we have to go beyond just the laws of the land, and each of us has to take on a responsibility, a responsibility to first live our lives as we would like others to live theirs; second, to build strong families, then strong communities. Because what happens when that 14-year-old boy makes a decision is, he goes against all those things that built this country as a great Nation: hard work, integrity, virtue, faith in God. Those are the values and virtues that each of us must turn back to in order to save our society from this downward spiral, in order to inspire us to rise beyond our daily circumstance to our highest and best, not only as individuals, but as a great Nation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today America is enjoying a great economic time. We are setting record after record on the New York Stock Exchange. This is a reflection of the confidence that the average investor has in the market. Likewise, many retailers are enjoying a prosperous year because consumer confidence has increased and we Americans are buying more. Unemployment is at the lowest level in 20 years. Things just look good on the outside, but on the inside America has a crisis of the soul. The statistics are staggering. Drug abuse is increasing, especially for younger Americans, making our society more dangerous, more susceptible to robbery, car jacking and gang-related crimes. Child abuse has increased, as broken homes try to mend themselves with new relationships; and, too often, it is a stepparent that is the initiator of the abuse. Children are so vulnerable to an adult, and far too often the one parent fails to protect the children from another. Spouse abuse has increased. Often women who are physically unable to defend themselves are the victims. Divorce rates are also a high percentage of marriages. Many people choose not to honor the commitments they made on their wedding day; and, too often, it is the children that suffer. Often quietly, they suffer through retreating into their rooms filled with the darkness of insecurity. Yes, Mr. Speaker, America is experiencing a crisis of the soul. Culturally, we have turned from the virtues that built a great Nation, virtues like hard work, honesty, integrity, faith in God, respect for our neighbors, both men and women, regardless of race or religion. Now we seem adrift in an ocean of quiet pain and suffering, abused children that never make the news, abused spouses that never make the news unless it is the most violent of cases, broken homes, broken dreams, broken promises, broken commitments, broken commitments to ourselves, our families, our country, and our God. How can we return to that fullness our soul desires? How can we rebuild our families? How can we make America better? Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe each of us know in our hearts what is right and what is wrong, and each of us have to make choices that are the right choices. For, if we fail, our country fails. So I would like to challenge my colleagues and my fellow Americans that we return to the virtues that built a great Nation: honesty, integrity, hard work, honoring commitments, faith in God, treating our fellow man as we would treat ourselves.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, March 23, 1998, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, for morning-hour debates.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there is good economic news in America. Yesterday, the stock market hit another record high; unemployment is at a 20-year low; farm income is up. In fact, the average American income is up. America's pocketbook is full. But our hearts are empty, and there is a crisis of the soul. We have all known about the downward spiral of our society. Child abuse has increased, spouse abuse is up, abortion is ubiquitous for reasons that simply do not make sense. We are now seeing the first signs of turning on our elderly because they have become an inconvenience. Tensions in our community indicate there is a need for racial reconciliation. God's Word says that what good is it if a man gains the whole world and yet loses his own soul? Mr. Speaker, America is in danger of losing its own soul, losing those values that built a great Nation: faith in God, hard work, integrity, a common sense of decency, and respect for men and women regardless of race or religion. Mr. Speaker, I challenge those of us here in Washington to return to the values that built a great Nation, lest we fall from our greatness.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I often go home to my district and I ask my constituents: Is there any message for Washington? I would like to pass on some of the responses that I have been getting. They say: Do not spend the surplus; do not bust the budget deal that you agreed to last summer; do not start any new government programs; do not create new entitlement programs; and do not add more people to Medicare until we first figure out how we are going to save Medicare from going bankrupt. Oh, yes, the big one is, do not raise taxes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I hear over and over again that the President's budget is going in the wrong direction because it does all those things that most people are opposed to: Taxes are raised by billions and billions of dollars, spending is increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, entitlements are expanded, and new spending programs are created. It simply does not agree with the President's declaration to the American people 2 years ago that the era of big government is over. Mr. Speaker, the American people tell me that words mean something and that it is time that here in Washington we start honoring the pledges we make.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, recent news reports reflect that American children are not doing very well in math and science when compared to other countries. This is not good news, especially when we think of how well Americans will compete in the future. Our world is becoming more and more technological and we rely on math and science every day, and so when we see this lack of an ability to compete, we should all be concerned. Now the solution to this problem is not simple; it is a multifaceted solution that is needed. But today I want to focus on one of the facets: getting parents involved in the education process. Today there are barriers in place, obstacles that keep parents from becoming involved. Teachers and principals have told me that when parents are involved with their children's education, the kids do better and the schools are stronger. So, Mr. Speaker, I have submitted legislation to encourage parental involvement by ensuring that parents have access to their children's public school records. I believe an informed parent is an involved parent, an involved parent in their child's education. The Parental Freedom of Information Act is based on the need to provide active involved parents with information that is vital for them to exercise their right to guide the upbringing of their children. The rationale for this legislation derives from an alarming number of recent cases in which the rights of parents have been ignored and they have had to go to court to secure the basic information which the parental Freedom of Information Act provides for. The current hodgepodge of State and Federal laws and legal precedents simply does not provide parents of public school children with a clear- cut right to access information regarding the content of the education their children are receiving. The Parental Freedom of Information Act will amend the 1974 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, called FERPA, and strengthen the right of parents of elementary and secondary public school students by guaranteeing parents access to the curriculum their children are exposed to. This includes textbooks, audiovisual materials, manuals, journals, films and any supplementary materials. It will provide access to testing materials administered to their children. It will also require parental consent prior to any student being required to undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination, testing or treatment at school, except for emergency care. Now, this provision does not apply to children who voluntarily wish to meet with a school counselor or visit the nurse's office for medical assistance and services. The Parental Freedom of Information Act will withhold Federal funds from educational institutions which deny parents access to this information. In addition, the act will allow parents to seek judicial relief and recoup legal costs when their access to this information is denied. This is an important new enforcement device placed directly in the hands of parents. The Parental Freedom of Information Act in no way seeks to influence the content of curriculum or tests. It simply guarantees that parents have access to the basic information which they must be aware of if they are going to become actively engaged in the education of their child. The need for the enactment of the Parental Freedom of Information Act is seen when considering some of the following situations: Parents in California were forced to go to court to obtain copies of the curriculum in their sons' decision-making class. The parents believed that the class actually involved a number of family issues and were trying to decide whether they would attempt to remove their two sons from this class. In the State of Texas, a mandatory test was administered by the Texas Education Agency and they refused to allow parents to view the test even after it was given. Officials claimed their test was secure or secret, and they would not even allow teachers and administrators or school board members to review the test. In my own experience as a member of the State's Senate Education Committee in Kansas, I requested to review a State standard assessment test. After initially being denied access to the test, eventually I was allowed to see what other taxpaying parents were denied. I discovered in a junior high reading comprehension test a story of a junior high girl who developed a relationship with the statue of a crow. In this story the crow becomes the girl's spiritual guide. This was offensive to most all parents in the State of Kansas. It did not reflect community standards, yet every junior high student in Kansas was going to be subjected to such a wrong philosophy. Fortunately, because of my position on the State's Senate Education Committee, the story was changed and there were other wonderful alternatives, stories about the history of Kansas or the history of America, yet they were overlooked to purport such a wrong philosophy. Mr. Speaker, that is why I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Parental Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I missed one vote on H.R. 856, The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, because I was attending the funeral of former Congressman Garner Shriver in Wichita Kansas. Had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall No. 27. I would request that my statement be placed in the appropriate location in the Congressional Record.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday on page 1 of USA Today, there was a very interesting chart that is here to my left. It shows the rising tax load. While that is no surprise to anyone paying taxes over the past few decades, this chart caught my eye for several reasons. It shows that the tax burden has been rising steadily since 1965 for families with one working parent and for families with both working parents. Either way, married or single, Uncle Sam takes more and more, and families pay more and more. That is a formula that brings joy to the hearts of big government liberals and Federal bureaucrats and government planners of all sorts. But it does not do much for families who are trying to get ahead. It is time to change that course. The tax burden on American families, especially middle-class families, is too high. It has been going up for years, and it is time to go the other direction. It is time for some tax relief for the middle class, the backbone of America, that plays by the rules, works hard and pays the taxes.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I come to the floor of the House both to commemorate and honor the life of a former Member of this distinguished body, Garner E. Shriver. Garner died this past Sunday, March 1, at age 85. Both my wife Vickie and I were deeply saddened when we learned of Garner's death. Over the past couple years, Garner had become a personal friend and someone whom I admired greatly. I speak for the entire Kansas delegation in Congress when I say our thoughts and prayers are with Garner's wife, Martha Jane, and their three children, Kay, David and Linda. Born on July 6, 1912, in Towanda, Kansas, Garner's family later moved to Wichita in 1925, where he attended public schools and graduated from East High School. Garner stayed in Wichita to receive his undergraduate degree from the University of Wichita, now Wichita State University, in 1934. Today his Congressional papers, amounting to over 180,000 items, are kept at the Wichita State Ablah Library. In 1940, Garner graduated from Washburn Law School in Topeka, Kansas. Garner put himself through both undergraduate and law school by working odd jobs, including serving as a doorman. In 1941 Garner married his wife of now 56 years, the former Martha Jane Currier. However, before Martha and Garner had a chance to begin raising a family, World War II pulled Garner away from home for 3 years. He enlisted in the Navy, but after only 10 months he received a commission as Lieutenant, leaving the Navy after 3 years as an officer. During his tour in the Navy, Garner commanded a boat group in the Pacific by the end of the war. Not long after the war ended, Garner made his first attempt at elected office. His wife Martha Jane recently recounted the story in the Wichita Eagle of how Garner first got into politics. She noted that ``he figured he didn't have anything to lose,'' so in 1946, Garner ran for the Kansas House of Representatives. She continued, ``When we went to bed that election night, we didn't know anything about elections. We woke up the next morning to find out he had won by 222 votes.'' So began the long and distinguished career of a great Kansas politician. After serving only 2 terms in the Kansas House, Garner set his sights higher and was elected to the Kansas State Senate, where he served two terms. During his 12 years of service in the Kansas legislature, Garner championed many worthwhile causes, including education for handicapped and retarded children, getting and keeping reckless drivers off the highways, creating the State Park Authority, important flood control legislation, and setting up the 4-H livestock show. In 1960, Garner left State politics to run for Congress. Winning what was characterized as a very spirited race, Garner became the new representative of the 4th Congressional District. At that time the district included Sedgwick and 14 other counties and was considered to be heavily democratic. Garner went on to win 8 consecutive races before losing in a narrow defeat, 3,200 votes, in 1976, to former Congressman and now Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. During his 16 years in Congress, Garner became an influential voice on significant issues of the day, including health and education benefits for our Nation's veterans, and landmark civil rights legislation. Garner served on the committee that drafted the the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His family is very proud of the fact that they have one of the pens LBJ used to sign the historic legislation into law. Elected in the same class as fellow Kansan Bob Dole, Garner quickly became a close friend and political confidant of Senator Dole. Upon learning of Garner's death, Senator Dole stated that ``Garner was one of my closest political friends when we served together in Congress. I, like many others, learned a lot from Garner, who was known as a quiet and effective legislator, and someone who kept his word. He was an exemplary husband and father.'' While Garner worked on various issues of national concern during his time, Garner spent a lot of his time taking care of the direct needs and concerns of his constituents back in Kansas. As a senior member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, Garner was in a unique position to protect the vital interests of both the 4th Congressional District and the State of Kansas. When Garner left Congress in 1977, he was ranking member of the Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee and the third ranking Republican on the full committee. In that important capacity, Garner was able to make sure Kansas was never overlooked during the Federal budget process. On a more personal level, I want to express my heartfelt thanks again to Garner for his advice and counsel upon my appointment to the Appropriations Committee after my reelection last year. Before my appointment last year, 20 years had passed since a Kansan had served on the important committee in either the House or Senate. Seeking to understand the first thing about the Appropriations Committee and how it operated, I was fortunate to be able to receive the sage counsel of Garner on the ins and outs of this committee. After leaving Congress in 1977, Garner returned home to Wichita, Kansas, where he resumed the practice of law and spent the rest of his life alongside his lovely and dedicated wife, Martha Jane. Today, it is only appropriate that we remember and celebrate the life and accomplishments of Garner E. Shriver. Garner Shriver will be missed, not only by his family, but by me and a lot of other Kansans, Kansans who considered him a friend, an American hero, who lived his life with courage, character and integrity. So long, Garner. May God bless your soul and your family. Mr. Speaker, I include for the record a copy of a letter to Mrs. Martha Jane Shriver signed by the entire Kansas delegation. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, March 2, 1998. Mrs. Martha Jane Shriver, Wichita, Kansas. Dear Mrs. Shriver: We were deeply saddened when we learned of Garner's death yesterday morning. We want you and your three children, Kay, David and Linda to know that our thoughts and prayers are with you during this difficult time. We wish we could be with you this Wednesday for Garner's funeral. However, Congress will be in session that day. Representative Tiahrt has reserved time on the floor of the House of Representatives for this Tuesday, March 3, to allow us the opportunity to commemorate the distinguished life of Garner. During the nearly 30 years of elected public office the name of Garner Shriver became synonymous with Wichita and south-central Kansas. Indeed, Monday's headline in the Wichita Eagle obituary for Garner summed it up well: Garner Shriver was a political giant. While most of us were too young to remember back 50 years ago when Garner began his political career, everyone can be proud of the many accomplishments he achieved during the 12 years he served in the Kansas Legislature and the 16 years he served in the United States Congress. Elected to Congress in 1960, Garner quickly became a close friend and advisor to another famous Kansan--fellow classmate Bob Dole. During his tenure in Congress, Garner became an influential voice on significant issues of the day, including health and education benefits for our nations veterans, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Additionally, Garner effectively combined his political prowess and position on the powerful House Appropriations Committee to make sure Kansas was never overlooked during the federal budget process. And while championing the rights of the average taxpayer, Garner was often heard complaining that members spent ``too much of taxpayers' money on junketeering and increased staff.'' In addition to being a loyal husband, Garner was a caring and loving father, an honored public servant and a personal friend to thousands of Kansans who, like us, will miss his wit and personal charm. Finally, we wish to recognize, as was noted in his obituary, that Garner viewed public service as a mandate for living a Christian life. We pray that the Lord gives us the same grace he provided Garner during his distinguished public career. If there is anything we can do to help you during this difficult time, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, U.S. Senate. Todd Tiahrt, Jerry Moran, Jim Ryun, Vince Snowbarger, Members of Congress.