Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have often wondered what would happen if Congress based our decisions on truth and logic. Today we are debating a rule for banning partial-birth abortion. Some will say the procedure is necessary but the gentleman from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, was very clear. He says that it is unnecessary, and he has delivered 3,200 children. I think he probably knows what he is talking about. Some will say it is needed to allow for the health of the mother. That is really undefined. It could mean a headache or perhaps an emotional strain. The truth is this procedure is not needed. Its purpose is very simple. It is for the convenience of performing abortions. It is to satisfy a very specific group here in America, the abortion industry. That is why in my estimation an abortionist from Wichita, KS, traveled to Washington, DC, to attend a Presidential coffee, contributed $25,000 to the Democratic National Party, following the President's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. There is a letter then from the Pope condemning the President for this veto. It is very interesting the Pope has only written about six such letters this century, all the Popes this century. And they include people like Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar Qadhafi, Adolf Hitler, tyrants, all tyrants who placed a very low value on human life. The opposition to this rule and the opposition to this ban is very simple. It is merely support for the abortion industry, purely to support those who want the convenience of this procedure. It is not necessary medically. It is not needed for the health of the mother. It is just a convenience for the abortion industry. That is the truth and the logic behind this debate. That is the truth and logic behind these arguments, simply to support the abortion industry. I say to my colleagues, let us support H.R. 1122. Let us support this rule and let us ban this hideous procedure that is not necessary, not for medical reasons, not for political reasons, purely to support the abortion industry.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the IRS wants to repent. They know they have been a little hard on Americans, but they are sorry and they will not do it anymore. The IRS is starting to begin to sound like campaign reform. It starts out, ``We did not do it. Nobody saw us. You cannot prove anything. We did not do it.'' Then the truth starts to become apparent and the excuses change. ``Ok, we might have had some problems but it was not wrong.'' Then it is, ``Yes, we did it but we will not do it anymore.'' That is about where the IRS is today. They have done something wrong. Quotas for their IRS agents, singling out individuals like Paula Jones, harassing small business men and women, striking fear across America. And some people like Martin Grimes of Wichita, an RV salesman, are just plain mad. In his last $3,500 check that he got for commission, $1,400 of it went directly to the IRS. Mr. Speaker, there are many good people who are working at the IRS who have been put in a very bad situation by their management. It is time to cut the IRS code and flatten the tax.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] for yielding. I want to remind the Speaker that this Congress, through the Department of Labor, actually spent $20 million to oversee this election, and we were spending our taxpayers' dollars to try to ensure that there was a fair election in the Teamsters Union. And what happened is that we had an unfair election and that the president of the Teamsters Union had to step down, now is in very serious trouble. Many people wonder, where do the unions get all this money that is available? It comes to them through compulsory union dues, it comes from all types of dues from working men and women that are struggling to make ends meet. And up to 80 percent of the money in their union dues does goes for contract negotiations, it does not go for grievance procedures. Eighty percent of the money, or approximately in some cases 89 percent of the money, goes to the international headquarters here in Washington, DC, where they push their own political agenda, where they push their own political candidates, where they attempt to launder money, in this case, in order to get their agenda forward, with no regard to what the workers have in mind as far as what they think is best for America. Well, this is a typical laundering campaign, where the AFL-CIO was funneling money into the Teamsters, the DNC was funneling money into the Teamsters, with hopes of later on getting it reimbursed from the Teamsters back to the Democratic National Committee. But it is not just at the Federal level. It is not just at the White House. We have had experience of it happening right in Kansas, in the heart of America in the Bible Belt. The Wichita Eagle reported about how the Kansas State Democrat Party, which is limited by law to receive only $25,000 in Federal funds coming from the Federal party to the State party, managed to get $315,000 by funneling it through or laundering it through local Democratic candidates and county State parties. A candidate would get a check for $500; and a phone call would say, ``We would appreciate if you would send $400 right back to the State party.'' A county, the Democrat party, would get a check for $5,000, limited by statute again, and it will come back to the party. And they used that money to run ads against Senators and against Members of Congress who were running for election. I think it is really interesting that the defense is kind of the same in each instance, whether it is the White House or whether it is the Vice President or whether it is the State party. First of all they say, ``Well, I did not do it.'' Then later on, as more of the details come out, they say, ``I didn't not do it. But, well, maybe I did do it, but it wasn't wrong.'' Then the third line of defense was, ``Well, yes, maybe it was wrong. But I will never do it again.'' And then the fourth line of defense is, ``Well, it is not my fault. We had to win, you see. We had to do anything, at any cost, regardless of the law.'' Well, we must, No. 1, uphold the law here in America. Because if there is no justice in Washington, DC, there is no justice in Wichita, KS, or in Florida, or Indiana, or anywhere in the United States. We must uphold the law of the United States of America in the States. The campaign financing must start with the individuals. Rule No. 1, as was stated earlier by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]: Follow the law. If we are ever going to find where we are going, we have got to find a place to start from. And that is the current law today, we must follow the law. I guess the Democrat Party in the State of Kansas, the Teamsters, and the national party in the White House are tired of breaking old laws, so they want campaign reform so they get a brandnew set of laws to break. I want to say in closing, we cannot write enough laws. We have proved that. We have laws upon laws, statute books upon statute books. People have to do the right thing. It is up to the American people to ferret out those who will misalign what they say and what they do and mistreat the taxpayers and the people of America by not doing the right thing. So voters need to find candidates that will do the right thing and support them so we can change America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about campaign finance reform, and America thinks it is important that we have the freedom to support candidates that lift up the same ideals they do, freedom to determine which candidate will push for the public policies that will create a better America for their children. But many working men and women in America cannot do that. See, every month they have taken from their paychecks compulsory union dues, and more than 80 percent of those dues come right here to Washington where union bosses obtain it. These union bosses are taking money from working families who are struggling to provide for their families, and they spend it on their own political agenda and on their own union candidates. Mr. Speaker, that is not freedom, that is oppression. It is wrong, the Supreme Court said it was wrong in the Beck decision, and so we cannot have campaign finance reform without freeing American workers from the unlawful burden. Let us make the Beck decision the law of the land.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, the House has been drug through knotholes over campaign finance reform lately, and after numerous attempts to shut down the House and prevent us from doing the people's business, those few who are responsible have failed to address true campaign reform; and that is simply to follow the laws that are on the books today. For campaign finance reform they have failed to address the injustice in the current system. Senator Lott was quoted in today's Washington Times as saying most Americans would be shocked to learn that some workers in our Nation are forced to contribute to candidates or campaigns they do not support or they do not know anything about. But it happens, Madam Speaker, in every national campaign, and it is wrong. Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' Madam Speaker, let us free the American workers from compulsory campaign contributions for candidates they cannot support. It is bad policy and it is wrong.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, well, it is lawyers over lunch buckets once again for EPA and this administration. Secretary Browner and the EPA have proposed new clean air standards so complicated and so cumbersome that they will employ many more lawyers and lay off working men and women. Where is the scientific data that supports this need for these choking regulations? We have not seen the data. If it exists, it must be hidden under the mountain of draft proposed regulations. History tells us that new regulations also drive up the cost of transportation, the cost of the production of goods, and in the trade world of NAFTA and GATT, that will cost working men and women their jobs. This loss of jobs is simply a natural product of an economy that has more government bureaucrats than manufacturing workers. Too much regulation, not enough work. It is somewhat like EPA's Superfund, badly in need of reform, which spends over half of its budget on lawyers instead of cleaning up the mess. The new clean air standards will enrich the lawyers at the cost of working men and women. Yes, Madam Speaker, it is lawyers over lunch buckets for the EPA and this administration.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the education debate, we have lost the reason we send our children to school. If we ask parents, they want their kids to capture the ability to learn, something their children can take with them into higher education or into the work environment so that they can pursue the American dream. But the parents' wishes are ignored. Instead the debate is about national education standards that measure how much paper teachers can produce and how much money we can spend, not how well our children are learning. This Nation is blessed with many wonderful teachers, but they have been betrayed. In most school systems, less than half the money actually makes its way into the classroom. The teachers are diverted from scholastics to social engineering, and the paperwork demanded by the education bureaucracy steals teaching time. Education is about learning, discipline, respect for authority, and scholastics. Let us get back to the basics in education.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the President wants the Federal Government to set national standards for education. How well will it work? I think it will work at least as well as our campaign laws. Last year campaign laws, which are a form of national standards, were twisted, turned, and outright broken. In Kansas, according to the Wichita Eagle, the Democrat National Party violated the law by laundering some $315,000 through individuals and county parties. The first part of campaign reform is to obey the laws we have on the books today. The Democrat National Party apparently broke the laws by coming into our communities, while money laundering is not one of the values our communities like to uphold. Likewise, we do not need Washington to set our educational standards in the communities. Kansas already has educational standards. Let us not degrade educational standards to the level of campaign laws.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding me 2 minutes, and I also want to thank the committee chairman for bringing this bill forward, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], who appreciates Senator Dole's work to reform the IRS, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Snowbarger] for his hard work getting this bill moved forward in the House. As my colleagues know, I do not have enough time to really tell about all the feelings and thoughts I have about Senator Dole, but I do want to tell my colleagues that I think he is an American hero, that he is still today living the American dream. He is a personal friend, and I still seek his sage counsel. In 1992 when I was first involved in the political process, he helped because he thought Kansas needed a farm team of young individuals who would be willing to serve their country, and I was part of his effort. In Kansas he spoke of smaller government, of States rights, of individual responsibility. It was the message of Bob Dole and the message of Kansas that still rings true today. I was proud to support him during his presidential campaign, and like the gentleman he is, he graciously stepped back from public life into the private, but I want to tell my colleagues that in Kansas he will always be No. 1 in our hearts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the naming of the new Federal courthouse in Kansas City, KS, for a man who has lived his life dedicated to the people of his State and the ideals of his Nation. Bob Dole's commitment and service to America began in WWII, and nearly ended there. On a mountain in Italy named simply Hill 913, Lt. Bob Dole was leading the 2d platoon with the Army's 85th Mountain Regiment when he nearly lost his life. He endured terrible wounds that would last a lifetime. He returned from this experience to the comfort and support of his home in Russell, KS, where he had grown up the hard-working son of a cream and egg station operator. Back home, he began his recovery and continued his career of serving his neighbors and country. Bob Dole was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1960, and elected to the Senate in 1968, where he served as the Republican leader for a record 11 years. He ran for Vice President with President Gerald Ford in 1976 and ran for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 and 1988, and was the Republican nominee for President in 1996. And he never ceased working for the Kansans he represented for so long. In the 1980's he worked extensively helping farmers get through the financial crisis they were facing--many family farms across our State and our Nation still work their own lands due to Bob Dole's leadership. Senator Dole also took the lead in the effort to rebuild McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, KS, after a devastating tornado hit. In addition, he was deeply involved as an advocate for Kansas in every farm bill, tax bill, or any other issue which affected Kansas. During the latter part of his career Bob Dole became one of the preeminent legislators and statesmen of our day. He has been a major player in just about every substantial policy debate of the last three decades--budget deals, tax packages, health reform, saving Social Security, farm bills, advocating for the disabled--Bob Dole's deft legislative ability and talent were imparted on hundreds of issues and countless pieces of legislation. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has called Senator Dole one of the five most significant Senators of the last half of the 20th century. Upon his farewell from the Senate to pursue the Presidency, his former colleagues used the words honor and integrity probably more than any others to pay tribute to Bob Dole. These two simple terms seem to best describe a truly great man. It is with great pleasure that I come to the floor today to support the naming of the Bob Dole Federal courthouse in Kansas City, KS.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that they want to change all the campaign laws, when the Democrat Party has had trouble keeping the laws we have on the books today. But here is an issue that you will not hear many of the liberal colleagues discuss when speaking so passionately about campaign finance reform. It is the use of union dues for political purposes. During the last election, the AFL-CIO spent a minimum of $35 million in an unprecedented effort to buy Congress. This money came from the paychecks of American workers through special assessments of local unions, and yet national polling tells us that 40 percent of the union workers did not agree with the way their money was being spent. Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' Later on, in 1988, the Supreme Court said in its Beck decision that the use of compulsory dues and fees for purposes ``beyond those necessary to finance collective bargaining activities violated the judicially created duty of fair representation.'' I welcome the AFL-CIO's involvement in the political process. They should however respect the rights of their members. Let us free up the paychecks of American workers. Union workers should be allowed to voluntarily participate in politics. Not against their will but voluntarily. And no campaign reform is acceptable without freeing the paychecks of American workers.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' And the Supreme Court agreed in what is called the Beck agreement. They did not call it sinful or tyrannical. They called it illegal. What is it? It is the involuntary spending of union workers' hard- earned money, their union dues, for opinions in which they disbelieve. The workers have to fund political contributions and candidates they do not support. The administration, by Executive order, refuses to enforce the Beck decision. So when we hear the term ``campaign reform,'' it means making the Beck decision law; it means removing this injustice that Thomas Jefferson called sinful and tyrannical, it means freeing up the workers of this country.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, when parents express their unhappiness about the quality of schools where they live, it is very rare that they point to insufficient money as a source of their unhappiness. In fact, it is almost never a question of money. They are much more likely to point out no respect for authority and the lack of discipline in the classroom, their fear of violence in schools, or their disagreement with the values and attitudes taught their children. Mr. Speaker, school choice already exists to some degree in America. In fact, many parents decide where they wish to live based on the quality of the public schools in a given neighborhood. They vote with their feet, by moving to the school district of their choice. But many parents lack the means to choose the neighborhood with the best schools, or they lack the flexibility to move to a better neighborhood because of their work. Republicans want to help parents. We want to make school choice available for more parents, because we trust parents to make the right choice for their children. That is why we support school choice.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize another in a long line of outstanding Kansans, Miss America, 1997, Tara Dawn Holland. Tara's 1-year reign as Miss America officially ends this Saturday. Tara has worked extensively in the past year as an advocate of the importance of literacy, and she has directed a considerable spotlight on this issue. Tara has been a literacy advocate for over 7 years, and she is currently the national spokesperson for the Library of Congress' Building of a Nation of Readers campaign. During the past year, she has visited dozens of schools and communities, stressing the importance of literacy. The number of Americans who live in a world without literacy skills many of us take for granted is alarmingly high. This presents an ever- increasing dilemma in our advancing society. Tara's efforts to emphasize these literacy skills is important, not only to those who lack these skills, but to our entire society. Those who cannot read start each day at a disadvantage, and Tara has dedicated herself to reaching out to those most at risk, including children and the incarcerated. Tara Holland has fulfilled the Miss America motto of style, scholarship, service, and success on wonderful levels. We are very proud of her in Kansas.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Michael Chacey, an outstanding student from my district in Kansas. Recently, Michael won the Veterans of Foreign Wars 1997 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest for the State of Kansas. The program is now in its 50th year and requires high school student entrants to write and record a 3 to 5 minute essay on an announced patriotic theme. ``Democracy--Above and Beyond'' is this year's theme and over 109,000 students participated in the competition nationwide. Michael is a recent graduate of Derby High School in Derby, KS. For his participation in the 1997 Voice of Democracy Program, Michael won the $1,500 Silver Spring Memorial Post 2562 Scholarship Award. Michael is the son of Mr. and Mrs. David Chacey and he plans a career in biology or law. He was sponsored by VFW Post 7253 and its ladies auxiliary in Derby, KS. Following is Michael's award winning contest entry. Democracy--Above and Beyond 1996-97 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program: Kansas Winner Michael Chacey ``When people speak of government forms, they tend to speak of them in a hypothetical manner.'' ``In a Perfect World, Anarchy would be the ideal form of government'' or ``On paper communism looks very good, it just isn't established correctly.'' Unfortunately these people leave democracy out of their hypothetical discussions. This is terribly disheartening, because whether in the real world, or in some imaginary, perfect one, the freedom, the liberty, and the decision making principles entrenched in a democratic society make democracy a form of government above and beyond all others. The best way to prove this is to compare democracy to other forms of government in both hypothetical and real situations. For instance, in my English class the other day, we were talking about communism. My teacher said ``Communism is probably the most ideal form of government, because it is the most universally fair for the people involved. The only reason it hasn't worked well is that no one has been able to set it up properly.'' Well, that in itself should show that maybe it's not such a good idea, but say, for the purpose of argument that it could be set up properly. Would it be so great? Decisions would still have to be made. How should we distribute our wealth? What taxes should be paid? Should we go to war with an aggressive nation? These are all questions that have to be answered by a government, and only one equitable way to do it comes to mind. Let the people affected by the decisions make the decisions, either directly, or through representation. Do you believe that the self appointed or military government form of communism or totalitarianism should make these decisions with little or no input from the citizens. Or, should a government, of the people, by the people, and representing the people's wishes make the choice that the majority of the people want? I personally believe the latter is the best. The only way to make sure that the people's wishes are carried out is to allow the people to choose the government. Moreover, they can replace any representative who fails to serve the people. Anarchy could not meet the citizens' needs due to lack of order, and due to lack of representation, no authoritarian government would be able to meet the people's wishes either, as time has proven. Only allowing the citizens to choose preserves their liberty. Hypothetical situations aside, it is important to realize that it is not a perfect world, and these governments would not be set up ideally. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. This is true because nothing is perfect. Unworthy men could always come to power. The government could always make poor decisions. But in a democracy, these problems can be solved. It is a self correcting government, which is the true power of democracy. The people have the power in democracy to replace the government officials. If representatives make poor choices, then the citizens in a democracy have the unique privilege to select new officials. Now, there is no guarantee that the people will make the correct decisions, but at least the government consists of individuals who at least the majority of the voters want, making it not only superior to other forms, but more fair. I am proud to have a young man like Michael Chacey from my district. His remarks on democracy should be a reminder to us all that we are privileged servants in the best system of government in the world.

Mr. TIAHRT

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

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I think it will do, Mr. Chairman, is it will force the parents to deal with the issue, and the children too, and that is not a thing that is occurring now. It is my hope the parents will do the right thing. They will talk to the kids about commitment, about personal responsibility, about the value of lasting relationships and abstinence. But if we do not notify the parents, we cannot give them a chance. So let us put our trust in people and not in the Government. Let us trust ourselves, not some institution. I know there is a great deal of concern about less than ideal families.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that the real underlying issue here is who do we trust? Do we trust people or are we going to put our faith in government?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook-Manzullo amendment and in opposition to the Castle substitute. The opponents of the amendment, the Istook-Manzullo amendment, sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' which reads: Under the Istook amendment, a clinic must notify a parent in writing if a teen requests contraceptives. Five days later, the teen may return to the clinics for contraceptives. Parents who do not consent will prevent their teenagers from returning to the clinics. Mr. Chairman, this is inaccurate. The parents do have the right to consent or the right to do nothing, and the child still gets the contraceptives. What it does require is that title X clinics report to proper authorities any child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest, and that means that no parent involved in an incestuous relationship will receive notice. Rather, they will be reported to the proper authorities. It does allow for unrestricted information and counseling, which is duplicative in the Castle amendment, and it requires the title X clinic to provide notification to the parents or legal guardians for the minor seeking contraceptives. It does allow for judicial bypass and an exemption for emancipated minors, but it does attempt to include parents in the process. It does not prevent treatment or testing from sexually transmitted diseases. Parental notification is not required for minors to be treated for STD's, and it does not deny any services to teens. It does not require parental consent, only notification. This is about trust really. It boils down to trust. Are we going to trust kids and parents or do we trust government? This is not about somebody else. This is about us right here on the floor. It is about you, and it is about me, and it is about Jessica, my 16-year-old daughter, who some of you met in Pennsylvania at the Hershey retreat. So I ask, how does this affect me? How does this affect the rest of America? I believe most parents would do the right thing when notified. They would talk to their kids. I know that I love my children more than any clinic can. But will all parents react properly? Probably not, according to most people's judgment. But, you know, this is not a risk-free society. It never will be. But they will be faced with a very important issue, the reality of what is going on in their children's lives. If you do not trust yourself or those parents, this amendment will cover that. It has already taken into account that they can consent, again, for the children to get contraceptives and counseling, or they can simply do nothing and allow the clinic to provide this.

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know how the regulation is written.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I was saddened several months ago when I heard the President abandon the teachers in America. He called for 1 million volunteers to teach our children to read. In Kansas, the teachers have not abandoned our children. They are teaching reading and writing and math and history and science and other important things. They have not turned from their job responsibility, even if the President has turned his back on them. Now the President wants to create more government and establish national education standards. Sounds good. I am from the government and I am here to help. But we have done that before. We have national standards. It is for Pentagon procurement. We call them MILSPECS. They are very complicated. Because of those MILSPECS, we bought a $750 pair of pliers. Now they want to transfer that technology to education. Let us not go there. The States have that responsibility and States like Kansas have established quality performance accreditation educational standards. Kansas has not abandoned educational standards. Let us not complicate education standards and get the equivalent of a $750 pair of pliers. Let the States do their job.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take the opportunity to speak in favor of this amendment. I have worked with members of OSHA in Kansas in my home district. I found out that the members of OSHA and the business community, the small business community, the construction businesses had common ideas, common goals. They all wanted to have a safe work environment. But they were having a hard time achieving that safe work environment with the way they were being treated by OSHA. It seemed as though every time a representative from OSHA would come to a job site, the employer had to reach for their checkbook because they knew they were going to get fined, and in most cases they were. In several instances they had trouble being harassed by losing contractors in a job where more than one contractor would bid, one would lose and then call OSHA with alleged violations and then the winning contractor would have to go through all kinds of contortions trying to prove that there was no violation, that it was unjustified. And in another case, I met with members from a union, a business manager who said that he went around the area and found nonunion employers and would then call OSHA with alleged violations and have OSHA go out and harass these nonunion employers. He admitted it openly. So when you have an agency that allows itself to be abused and allows small businesses to be abused, then it is a wonder that we should not maybe give this money to a higher priority. This does leave funding at fiscal year 1997 levels. It does not take out the program at all. It merely stays it at the current level that it is funded. Instead, it takes this small amount of money, $11.25 million, to vocational education, or vo-tech, which is, by the way, funded below the President's request, some $79 million. So what we are doing is taking money from big government and we are giving it to people who have an idea that they can capture the American dream and do so by getting not a college education but get educated in the building skills, electronics, masonry, carpentry, something of that sort. In Kansas, we have some very good examples of how vo-tech schools have worked with Wichita State University, the local community colleges like Butler County Community College, and come up with programs that not only give students skills to walk into a trade job, but also if they choose to pursue their education, they have an open avenue of transferring credits to these higher universities and can go on and get engineering degrees, degrees in the construction trades. So what we are doing is taking, diverting a little money away from big government to the American dream for these children. I think that is an admirable goal, something that we should all pursue, the American dream. But getting back to OSHA, I think what I would like to see, and I think many in America would like to see, is the common goals that we have being pursued, making a safe work environment but also doing it by working together.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to take money that is currently going to be directed to OSHA and move it toward the IDEA program. Special education and special needs children have not been fully funded, as has been pointed out earlier, and I think this is a wonderful opportunity to do something about that. When I think of the extra costs that are associated with these children and the opportunities they could have by taking $11.25 million from OSHA and moving it to them, I think there should not be any question for a Member of Congress to rise to this opportunity to help these children. Now, we could go on and talk about some of these children and their special needs, as the gentleman from Oklahoma pointed out, who is also a physician and knows very well on personal terms. I know several children myself that are currently in special needs programs. My wife worked in special education as a speech therapist in public schools for 4 years, working directly with these children, and there is a great need for us to rise to the occasion to give them this additional funding. If we talk to any school board member across the United States, and in Kansas I have spoken with members of the school board, and quite often their request is that we help with the funding for special needs children to give them the opportunity to be mainstreamed, give them the opportunity to share learning opportunities that are the same as other children have. Yet this is a mandate that they be educated, a mandate from the Federal Government, and we do not fully fund it. We do not give the financial backing for the mandate. This is something that has been around for some time, and it is a problem that has been around for quite a while, and yet tonight we have the opportunity to do something to correct that, one small step in the right direction. Where are we taking this money from? We are diverting it from OSHA, diverting it from an organization that has had a lot of problems and is in need of reform. I think we have seen some initial steps. I know that I have met with the regional director for OSHA in Kansas and he is open to making changes that will work toward a common goal of a safe work environment. And yet when he takes these ideas, and maybe I should explain a little how this came about, I was at the State fair 2 years ago and he walked up to my booth and we struck up a conversation; and I asked him if he would be open to meeting with members of industry, with members of the construction trades and with members of people who interface with OSHA, because they are out there creating and trying to keep jobs in the Kansas area, and he said he would be glad to do that. So we got together about 30 members of business, small businesses, large businesses, and they met with OSHA, and they came up with a format where they could find onerous regulations and then come up with solutions to change those regulations to get to that common goal of a safe work environment. Well, these ideas are now flowing back up to Washington, DC, and so far we have not seen a lot of change. But we have seen changes even in the private sector where insurance companies will come into a plant and they will show a plant how they can make a more safe environment; and they work hand-in-hand with the people that are creating and keeping the jobs, work hand-in-hand because there is a common goal there of lowering insurance rates and creating a safer work environment. And they make suggestions. So one of the questions that I had for OSHA was, why can OSHA not work together with the companies and come up with a way of making a safer work environment? Why does there always have to be a fine on everyone the first visit? And some of the ideas that came out of these meetings with business and OSHA was that, well, why do we not, at the request of the employer, allow OSHA to come in with the guarantee there would not be any fines, but they would go through and list some things that would be potential hazards, get some kind of agreement and a time period to change this work situation or this work location, I should say, change this work location so that they can make a safe work environment, thereby working together, working together with the people who are making the jobs, with OSHA in getting a safe environment, much like the current insurance companies do when they come in and do a risk assessment. So OSHA would come in and do this risk assessment, it would give them the opportunity to tell the employer where they had shortcomings. The employer could then have a time period to make those changes; and the end result, the common goal, the whole reason that we have OSHA in the first place, would be a safer work environment. But that is not what has been happening. So this is an opportunity for OSHA to come about and change and move the money to children with special needs.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it has been 16 years since Americans have had tax relief. Since that time they have talked about and dreamed about keeping a little more of their hard-earned money. In those past 16 years, not once but twice has this Government raised their taxes, taking more of what they worked so hard to keep. With the Federal taxes and the State taxes and the hidden taxes like the 28 cents and a dollar loaf of bread that goes back to our governments, we worked nearly half of a year just to pay the governments' taxes. So it is appropriate that today this body will vote to give tax relief to Americans like those working Americans in Wichita, KS, who work so hard and will now be able to keep more of their own money.