Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the tribute to the late Honorable Garner E. Shriver.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, some people think it is not fair to pick on the IRS so much. But when we think about all the people whose lives were turned upside down because of an honest mistake or an audit, our outrage might resurface with even greater force. Americans could probably be divided into those who have experienced IRS abuse or incompetence and those who have not. And it would be interesting to see how many are in each group. Mr. Speaker, listen to this horror story: Because of a printing error, about a million taxpayers could mail their returns to the IRS and see them sent right back to the sender. Hard to file a return on time when that happens. It turns out that there was a computer error on the stick-on address labels that are used for processing. The IRS bar code tells the computer to take poor Mr. Taxpayer's form and send it right back to him. Of course, in fairness we could say that that mistake was a simple bureaucratic snafu or an isolated instance or we could note that this is an all-too-common IRS blunder and simply more evidence of business as usual at the IRS.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress has much to be proud of, and the American people who elected us should take heart in the dramatic shift in how our government in Washington is perceived by those it serves. When I was elected to Congress in November of 1994, the economy and American businesses were reeling from the effects of the largest tax increase in the history of America. Our Nation was also facing a $200 billion deficit each year for the next 10 years. However, in 1994, the American electorate turned and supported Republicans around the Nation and endorsed their promise to lower taxes and balance the budget. No longer would Washington spend money it did not have on programs we did not need. In 1995, the American people entrusted the new Republican majority with the reigns of Congress, handing them the gavel for the first time in 40 years. Mr. Speaker, some will tell you that our prosperous economy and our recently restrained budget had nothing to do with the revolution of 1994. They might even say that the political implications of the 1994 election were overstated. They are wrong. The electoral revolution of 1994 lives today. Each of us in the Republican majority should stand proud and tall, knowing that if American people had not given their trust to us in 1994, and renewed it in 1996, our economy would not be surging, our budget would not be balanced; we would not have had the first tax cut in 16 years, and the stock market would not have more than doubled in just three years. Each of us in the Republican majority can take pride in the new-found hope and confidence of our Nation. I stand here not to boast of our accomplishments, but to thank the American people for their well-placed trust, and I pledge to them that those of us in the Republican majority will put the needs of families first, always. You see, families do come first, for me, and for the Republican majority. This afternoon I am proud to say that when I cast votes in this session of the 105th Congress to reduce taxes on the American family, to reform government and its overreaching involvement in our lives, and to restore our precious and sacred rights, including the most fundamental of all, the right-to-life, I will think of a new little Kansan named Jason Robert Searl, Jr., because it is his future, along with the future of all our children, that we determine when we vote in this sacred chamber. He was born just three days before Christ's birthday at 5:18 in the evening at Via Christi Hospital's St. Francis Campus, in Wichita, Kansas. Really, I should not call him little, because he weighed 8 pounds and 10 ounces and was over 20 inches long. I want to salute and warmly congratulate Chrissy and Jason Searl. I want to thank them for having the courage to take the toughest job in our world, parenting. I pledge to them and all others who place their trust in the Republican majority that we will continue to live up to the promises we made to all of them, including little Jason.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, Harry Thomason, a friend of the President who was forced out of the White House in the Travelgate affair once said he planned to stay, and I quote, until the barbarians are driven from the gate. Well, the barbarians are now in the White House. History tells us that barbarian kings commonly killed the messenger if the messenger was the bearer of bad tidings. That barbaric practice in a more civilized way exists today. You see, the White House does not like the message Judge Ken Starr is bringing. That message is possibly, just possibly the President of the United States misrepresented the truth, attempted to obstruct justice, and encouraged others to perjure themselves. So since the White House does not like the message, they have attacked Judge Ken Starr. It is a new version of kill the messenger if you do not like the message. Madam Speaker, America must demand the truth, because if there is no truth, there is no justice. If there is no justice in Washington, there is no justice in Wichita, Kansas or anywhere else in the United States

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the Parental Freedom of Information Act along with 48 other cosponsors. It is an act which will empower parents to guide and participate in the education of their children. Teachers have told me that involved parents are the most important thing public schools need to help students learn. I believe involved parents must be informed parents. The Parental Freedom of Information Act will ensure that parents have access to curriculum and testing materials to which their children are exposed and will require parental consent prior to any student being required to undergo medical or psychological testing or treatment while at school. Again, that is, before any mandatory medical exams or treatment or mandatory psychological testing, parents must be notified for their consent. This legislation in no way seeks to influence the content or curriculum of tests. It simply allows parents to access the basic information which involved parents need to guide the education of their children. Most of us agree that when parents get involved in their child's education, their children do better in school and their schools become stronger. This legislation will help remove the obstacles that prevent parents from being involved. So let us get behind the Parental Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last night the President gave a great speech, but the issue is not the style of the speech, it is the substance of what the President said. Two years ago the President said in the State of the Union speech, the era of big government is over, but last night the President outlined new programs that will cost us $40 billion in new spending each year. That is completely different from what he has said in the past. It is clear the President is for bigger government and higher deficits, while we here in the House have successfully worked for smaller government and lower taxes. Now, there are many areas that we can work together on: Reforming education, saving Social Security and Medicare, fighting crime and drug abuse, reforming the IRS, and we can do all of these things without breaking our pledge to balance the Federal budget and reduce our Federal debt. But the new Federal programs with greater bureaucracy and more spending will take us off the mark of a balanced Federal budget. So, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can work together to our common goals that we can reach.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, investigations into crimes that may have been committed during the 1996 Presidential campaign are about a lot more than taking foreign money. They are a lot more than just the effort to secretly get around the rules that everyone else had to follow and then worry about explaining the misdeeds after the election. No, Madam Speaker, the liberal media attempts to downplay this scandal. These investigations are also about compromising national security, about selling out American foreign policy to the highest bidder and acting in complicity with the Communist Government of China to subvert the democratic process in the United States. I believe that I am correct, Madam Speaker, that both Democrats and Republicans would agree that these charges are truly alarming. In fact, all Americans who believe in democracy, who believe that America should decide who should rule over America and who believe that secret money laundering operations represent political corruption at its most disgraceful, all believe that we must find out the truth about these scandals. Democracy demands it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, polls have shown that the American people no longer trust their government to do, quote-unquote, the right thing most of the time. In fact, just over the last 3 decades this country has changed so dramatically in that regard. Under President John F. Kennedy, approximately 7 out of 10 Americans trusted their government. Now only 1 out of 10 Americans do. Only 1 out of 10 Americans trust their government to any degree of satisfaction. This is deeply disturbing. I think restoring trust in government must be a top priority for this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the corruption, the politicization and the general abuse of the IRS plays a major role in this change of attitude on the part of the American citizens. When a government agency has the power to bully citizens, to operate with virtually no accountability and to make a mockery of our constitutional right to due process, it is no wonder that the citizens have grown to distrust their own government. I believe that if IRS reform is not passed in this Congress, many Americans will consider the 105th Congress to be an overall failure.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Americans are fond of saying that we live in the freest country in the world, and most of us believe it. That is why Congress should not delay one moment in reforming the IRS. I do not mean cosmetic changes that leave the IRS free to continue their bullying tactics, free from accountability and checks and balances that are required by the U.S. Constitution; I mean changing the way the IRS does business. That means a change in attitude, a change in their ability to turn someone's life completely upside down before he has even had his day in court, and a total change in the IRS' ability to initiate politically motivated audits. When the IRS has too much power, our freedom is threatened. If America is to remain the freest country on the Earth, the power of the IRS must be brought under control. Our freedom is at stake.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there is a clear difference between the liberals' view of education and the initiatives of the Republicans in Congress. It is founded on our basic premise of our political rudder that steers us through the ocean of life. I think it is just a simple philosophical difference. The Republicans believe in people. We trust the common sense that people possess, and the liberals trust the big bureaucracy. A good example is our effort to give parents more choice in selecting schools for their children. In a recent survey done by the American Viewpoint, 67 percent of the people agreed with the Republican initiatives who want to give parents more control over their children's education by allowing them to choose which schools their children attend and by giving them vouchers that will allow them to send their children to a private or religious school if they choose to do so, while only 28 percent agreed with the liberals who opposed the choice that parents would get. Mr. Speaker, competition will make the education system stronger. It has in our higher education system. We saw it after World War II with the bills that were available for soldiers to get higher education. So let us give parents more choice in education.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, soon it will be cookies and tea at the IRS. They are holding an open house down at the IRS. It is their kinder and gentler version of the most feared bureaucracy in America. After years of abusing Americans on repeated audits, after confiscating personal property and closing family businesses, after harassing local churches for returning contributions made freely by their parishoners, the IRS says, trust us. We did not do anything illegal. If we did, we will not do it again, but we do need to make some changes. It kind of sounds like campaign reform. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good people working at the IRS put in very bad positions by their management. The best thing to do would be to eliminate the Tax Code and create a fairer and flatter tax. But in the meantime we should all vote for H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, and get some common sense back at the IRS.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, why are the liberals against public schools? Everyone not in the pocket of special interests which protect the status quo knows that for public schools to improve, cosmetic changes will not be enough. No matter how many times we rearrange the chairs of the curriculum, real improvement will be nothing but another empty promise. Let us just look at the places where public schools have improved. In Cleveland, Milwaukee, the State of Minnesota, truly bold initiatives are what forced change and brought about real improvement. The other side might stop for a moment and look at all three cases. Improvements did not come from Washington, DC. Improvements did not come from another Federal program with more bureaucrats. In every case, the improvement came from greater local control, more school choice and more power to make decisions in the hands of the parents. Oh, yes, the special interests fought the very same changes that led to real improvement every step of the way. So why are the liberals against public schools?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, if you want to improve the quality of computers, how would you go about doing it? If you wanted to see engineering innovations in the car you drive, what do you think might produce them? And if you wanted to see your daughter become a national caliber gymnast, what conditions might lead her to become one? The answer is quite simple. It is called competition. Humans respond in a positive way to competition because competition brings out the best in us. Competition makes us work hard. It forces us to achieve wonders that we never even dreamed possible. Microsoft, Ford, and Mary Lou Retton all responded to competition by changing the way they did things. Windows 95, the Taurus and Olympic gold medals are the products of endless striving, experimentation and the pressure to excel among one's competitors. Surely the education of our children is important, important enough to demand competition in this area of life, as well. It is time to let competition bring out the best in our children's education by giving parents a choice on which school their children attend. After all, Mr. Speaker, our children deserve the best.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the 13th amendment of our Constitution says, ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States.'' Today we take that for granted, and for that I am thankful. It is still our standard, our ideal. But the 13th amendment only came to be the law of the land because of the insistence and persistence of a group of Republicans that were called radical. Radical Republicans. Well, Mr. Speaker, today those who are protectors of big government and big unions are criticizing new ideas by calling the Republicans radical, extreme, mean-spirited, in hopes of swinging public opinion in their favor. They do not trust people to choose their own schools. That threatens the big teachers unions, so they call school vouchers radical. They oppose IRS reform because they believe taxpayers should be automatically guilty in an IRS tax audit because big government must be funded, so IRS reform is extreme. Mr. Speaker, remember, when we hear ``radical,'' ``extreme'' or ``mean-spirited,'' it is not new. Radical Republicans insisted on abolishing slavery and today these derogatory words are just ushering in a better America of more choice, more freedom, and more liberty.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, during the American Reconstruction period from 1865 through 1877, there was a group of visionaries who were called radical Republicans. They wanted African-Americans to have full citizenship. These radical Republicans were for changes in society and in government. Those who criticized the Republicans were the defenders of the status quo, and that is, once again, the situation today. Republicans are once again being called radical, extremists, mean-spirited by the defenders of the status quo. Why? Because it is Republicans who want to change government; who want to reform the IRS; who want to give back citizens their constitutional right of innocence until proven guilty, instead of being guilty until they prove themselves innocent in an IRS tax audit. Madam Speaker, that is the vision of today's radical Republicans. It is not extreme or heartless. It is just common sense. So when my colleagues hear those words, ``extreme,'' ``mean-spirited,'' ``radical,'' remember once again the so-called radical Republicans paving the way for a brighter future for everyone here in America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, often, very often, we have heard the Republicans and their ideas called derogatory names, names like ``extremist,'' ``far right,'' ``radical,'' ``radical Republicans.'' But this is not the first such occasion this has happened. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was about 130 years ago when in this very room the defenders of the status quo called a group of Republicans radical. During Reconstruction, it was radical Republicans who were criticized 130 years ago. So what were these radical ideas 130 years ago that caused the radical Republicans to be so chastised by their critics? It was full citizenship for black Americans, not just abolishment of slavery, full voting rights, owning of property, full citizenship. Now it is commonly accepted here in America. So, Mr. Speaker, when we hear today's radical Republican ideas like scrapping the IRS Tax Code, like school vouchers and competition, like regulation reform and individual responsibility, remember the critics of radical Republicans not long ago. It is not new; it is just the entry fee for the bright future of our country.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] for doing a fine job, and I rise in opposition to the Moran amendment because I believe it will weaken the city and weaken the ability of the city to recover from the financial stress it has been under. It will also weaken the management capability that they have. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues oppose this amendment, they will improve the city's finances by allowing for the recovery of fees and costs from bad checks. By opposing this amendment, they will clarify the city's authority over unclaimed property. By opposing this amendment, they will provide more accountability in tightening the detailees. There are some city offices that hide the size of their bureaucracy by detailees, and by opposing this amendment, my colleagues will allow the city to make direct deposits and payments. Also, if my colleagues support this amendment, they will strike $12 million to collect unpaid taxes, which will net an additional $50 million for this city. If my colleagues allow this amendment to pass, they will remove many of the management tools that are necessary to manage this city. Mr. Chairman, there are some limitations on the Control Board in this bill, but they are related to accountability. And in the public sector, there is nothing wrong with accountability. Let us look at the schools. They are desperately in need of attention here. This amendment protects the status quo. It protects the crumbling schools. It protects the dropout rate. It protects the status quo. It does not restrict pay raises to teachers with valid credentials, nor does it remove the bureaucracy in the school administration office. Mr. Chairman, D.C. schools spends $9,400 a year per student, with a third going to administration, a third going to overhead, and only a third getting to the classroom. We need to focus our resources on the classroom. That is where the rubber meets the road. It is not in the school administration. It is not in the overhead. It is in the classroom. Mr. Chairman, vouchers seem to be the driving force of this amendment. I must say that vouchers are in full sense a freedom. During Reconstruction, it was the radical Republicans who believed in full citizenship for African-Americans, and today it is radical Republicans, if my colleagues listen to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], that believe in freedom of choice for children of color here in the District of Columbia. We want to take the most impoverished children and give them the opportunity to go to a school where there is hope, where they can rise above the desperation they see in their daily lives. What is wrong with us allowing them the opportunity to select a different option? Well, this amendment I think is, again, protecting the status quo. It is trying to defend something that I think is indefensible. So let us not bind up the opportunity for children in poverty to move out of their bondage of a school that is crumbling and unsafe, but give them the opportunity to select the type of school that will give them the opportunity they can use in the future.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this motion to strike the Davis-Bacon waiver. This is not a repeal of Davis-Bacon. This is a waiver. Last March, TV ads were aired in Wichita. Let me quote them. They said: ``My son's school is literally falling apart, plaster is falling from the ceiling. It is just not safe. Millions of kids go to school each day in buildings that are aging, crumbling, even unsafe, but instead of spending our money to fix America's schools, Washington gives it away. Call Congressman Tiahrt, tell him to protect our kids, not special interests.'' Paid for by the AFL-CIO. This very provision would strike the waiver for Davis-Bacon. This means that only union workers can work on the schools in the District of Columbia. Americans all know that this will be limiting competition, that it will be driving up repair costs, that it will be hurting the children in the District of Columbia, at the expense of the children, so that we could favor special interests. It will protect special interests, special interests of the AFL-CIO, of the labor unions, at the cost of better schools for District of Columbia children. Exactly opposite of what the ad that was run by the AFL-CIO. Yet the ads which appeared in my district were paid for by the same group, the AFL-CIO. They are asking to protect, asking us to protect special interests instead of our children here in the District of Columbia. Let us not protect the special interests. As the ad says, instead of spending our money to fix American schools, let us protect the kids and not special interests. Let us use this money more efficiently by waiving the Davis- Bacon provisions, by protecting our children, by giving them better schools, and do so by voting against the Sabo provision and by continuing to vote for this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I am sorry, I do not know that.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in Kansas we spend about $4,100 per student.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed sitting on the Subcommittee on Transportation and working with the gentleman from Minnesota as well as the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about one of the provisions in this conference report and why I am such an active supporter of it, and that provision deals with the merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads. This merger has created a significant potential safety and environmental problem which this legislation addresses. Currently, there is a mitigation study being conducted by the Surface Transportation Board, and this study is based on certain data and criteria, that establish how many trains will be coming through Wichita and what the environmental and safety impact, that it will have on the community. In this legislation we have report language that provides a safeguard that will deal with future safety and environmental problems, and I would like to quote just a part of it. It says, ``After the Board has approved the final environmental measures for Wichita, if the Union Pacific Corp. or any of its divisions or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if shown to be appropriate.'' This is the safeguard that I referred to, Mr. Speaker, and it allows us to change this study or reconvene a second study if the circumstances demand it so. Mr. Speaker, the second provision that is in here that is significant for the Fourth District of Kansas as well as the greater south central United States is changes that we have in the Wright amendment. The changes are going to significantly weaken the Wright amendment, which is one of the few remaining monopolies that exist in air travel here in America today. This was a provision put in place by former Speaker Jim Wright about 18 years ago, and the purpose was to develop the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. I have to tell my colleagues that this provision was a success. That airport now is the second largest airport in the world in terms of flight activity. It houses the largest American air carrier, American Airlines. But that success has come at a high cost. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation did a study and they found that the Wright amendment costs air travelers each year an additional $183 million per year because of the lack of competition. Well, if we take 1992 dollars and escalate them to 1997 dollars, that would be closer to $250 million a year, a quarter of a billion dollars that are paid by air travelers in the form of higher airfares, which go directly in the profit line of those air carriers which benefit from the Wright amendment. The changes to the Wright amendment are in basically two areas. One, we are changing the description of the 56-seat aircraft exemption. Now, airlines can fly an aircraft out of Love Field that can hold 56 passengers and room for cargo. This change will open up some opportunities for air carriers in the future. Second, we are changing the definition of ``contiguous States'' to add three States to it. One of those three States is the State of Kansas. Now, Kansans can fly directly to Love Field. As a result of the Wright amendment, my constituents have had limited travel between Dallas and Wichita, and as a result we have lost some of our corporate headquarters. Pizza Hut's world headquarters transferred to Dallas because of the higher airline cost. Recently, Brite Voice transferred because of higher airline costs. So these changes in this conference report will be good for the economy not only in south central Kansas, but the economy of the south central United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I support the provisions in this transportation conference report, and I would like to urge all of my colleagues to vote for this conference report.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California and a former Kansas native. We miss the gentleman up there in the State of Kansas, by the way. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very fair rule. It does limit the number of amendments, but we do have, I think, an opportunity to deal with the issues that are contentious in this legislation. Frankly, the District of Columbia is in need of some change. If we look at the bureaucracy, it seems very heavy. It is laden with inefficiency. If we look at some of the political motivations that have been behind the programs that have been experimented with, they seem to be liberal to most of America. One of the problems that is very common here is the welfare benefits inside the District of Columbia are much higher than any welfare benefits in the surrounding area. There needs to be some adjustment down. In the area of safety, many of the people feel unsafe in Washington, D.C. It has often been referred to as the murder capital of America, rather than the Capital of the United States, and that is sad. So we do need to have some changes to the police. We found out recently that 90 percent of the arrests are made by 10 percent of the police force. So there need to be some changes in the police department, some incentives for them to be on the street, in the communities, in the neighborhoods. This incentive is in the D.C. appropriations bill. We also have a way of dealing with the degenerating schools in the District of Columbia by allowing a limited voucher program to take the most difficult situations in education, the children that are having the least hope, that are getting the worst grades, and in a poverty level, and allow them the opportunity with this voucher to have the same ability to go to a private school like the Vice President and the President have. They can take these vouchers and try to increase their ability to compete in the employment market in the future. So it deals with education. This bill also deals with abortion. A majority of Americans do not want to have their tax dollars coming to Washington, D.C. to fund someone else's abortion. The bill that we have here will prohibit that. It will also prohibit funding of domestic relationships. There are a myriad of other changes that are necessary, I believe, for us to attempt for the District of Columbia to try to move this into the shining city that we would like to see sitting here on the Hill. I think what we have is an opportunity for the proponents of these new ideas to come up and defend the status quo, to strike down these new ideas. Through an amendment, they could repeal a lot of initiatives that we have to change the way life is going here in the District of Columbia, to try to reclaim areas of this city, to try to make tax incentives to bring businesses and new people into the area. So I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the D.C. appropriations bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that what we just heard about the Wright amendment ought to be discussed a little bit, because it has been in place 18 years. The Wright amendment was put in place to protect Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which is now the second busiest airport in the world. Mr. Speaker, they are working on their eighth runway. Dallas/Forth Worth Airport houses the largest airline in the United States, American Airlines and it has a virtual monopoly on travel in and out of the Dallas/Fort Worth area. What this change to the Wright amendment does is allow traffic in and out of Love Field, which adds a little competition to American Airlines. Well, that lack of competition has had an effect on the surrounding area. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, travelers going in and out of Dallas have had to spend, in 1992, an additional $183 million in higher fares. Much of that is burdened by Kansas travelers who are trying to get in and out of the Dallas/Fort Worth area, just because of lack of competition. Well, this provision allows that competition to happen. This is America. This is free enterprise. This is the strength of our country. It is not bullying by one Senator. It is a whole nation that believes we ought to have competition, who thinks this Wright amendment is a virtual monopoly that has created a very high profit for one airline and allow growth to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. So it is time for change. It is time for a little competition. This minor change to the Wright amendment does not strike it down, although that would have been my preference. Thanks to the hard work of a freshman Congresswoman, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger] on the House side, it was not completely stricken down. I still believe it should be, but we are making minor changes to allow competition, particularly in the Kansas area, which will allow Kansas to have lower airfares, and to break the virtual monopoly that American Airlines has held.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the President has announced that he is supporting the IRS, and we are announcing here in Congress that the Republicans are supporting the taxpayers. We are on their side. In a nutshell, that is about what it comes down to. Of course, that is not the news to anyone who has followed politics in this country since the 1960s. Conservatives are the only friends the taxpayers have had since the 1960's. Taxpayers have known ever since the death of John F. Kennedy that liberal Democrats have a soft spot for the IRS and their heavy-handed ways. It seems that the tradition continues. After having exposed the IRS abuses before a congressional committee, conservatives in Congress propose a bipartisan plan to fix the IRS and bring real accountability to that agency for the first time in a long time. But the White House does not agree. The White House thinks that the creation of a politically appointed panel that has absolutely no power will really shake things up at the IRS. Hello? Mr. Speaker, if the White House thinks the IRS is going to change the way it does business as a result of this panel, things are even worse there than I thought. Then again, maybe it is just reflective of their attitude to support the leadership of the IRS over the taxpayers.