Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is what I would consider a positive addition to the bill that we have before us. I will explain briefly what the amendment does, and I would like others to have a chance to express their concerns with the bill. Then I will withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the first thing that I would like to address that the bill does is that it reduces a timeframe for the State to seek to terminate parental rights from 18 to 12 months. The reason that we had made this determination, as I said earlier in the debate, is that some children languish in foster care and the State is unable to come to that conclusion, whether they should stay with their birth parents or move into an adoptive home. There are others who agree with this philosophy. In Patrick Fagan's article of July 27, 1995, published in the Heritage Foundation's report, he also recommends that a 12-month timeline for education of long-term parental status be included. Justin Matlick also reminds us that 12 months should be the ceiling on final reunification decisions in his Pacific Research Institute study titled ``Fifteen Years of Failure: An Assessment of California's Child Welfare System.'' In Conna Craig's Policy Review article entitled ``What I Need Is A Mom,'' she recommends that biological parents receive no more than 12 months to prove their fitness to resume custody. Incidentally, she is president of the Institute for Children in Boston, MA. Also, the Kellogg Foundation in their Families for Kids programs has stated at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, on February 27 of this year, that benchmarks for progress is 1 year for permanent replacement. One year to permanency has emerged as the driver of reform. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we had moved to try to get 12 months. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is some consideration given in the report language that the intent of the legislation, it says under the reason for change that the committee fully expects that final permanency decisions will be at 12 months. But yet the language says 18 months, which is an improvement. But the 12 months right now today, without any incentive, 70 percent of the children are moved into that decision that they will move to an adoptive home out of the biological parents' home. Mr. Chairman, I think it is the design that both a man and a woman be the parents of children. I think it is easiest in that situation. After having a teenaged daughter, I think I really came to that conclusion, because it does take two to really balance out the raising of a child. However, in some situations it is impossible for that two-parent situation to exist, and in compelling reasons, they should be moved into adoption. I think that decision should be made at 12 months, because it is not up to the State to determine whether this parent is going to rehabilitate themselves. That has to be something that is done by the individual. The second part of this legislation or this amendment to the legislation removes an exception which would allow States to avoid seeking to terminate parental rights, because the way the language reads it says, ``* * * unless the State has not provided to the family of the child such services as the State deems appropriate.'' In an article written by Conna Craig in Policy Review in the summer of 1995, she said, ``Public agencies are paid for the number of children they prevent from being adopted.'' What I would like to see, Mr. Chairman, is what has occurred in Kansas. In Kansas they have removed the financial incentive for State agencies to keep kids locked into the system. They have gone to a flat fee for adoptive services, and contract out to private agencies. In the first 3 months of this year they have seen a 67-percent increase in the amount of adoptions that have occurred in Kansas. I think that is a dramatic improvement. I have these two concerns, Mr. Chairman, that I have put into this amendment. I would like others to talk about these principles. This is what I consider a loophole that I hope States can close. It is a loophole big enough for a bus to drive through. I am concerned that that bus will be filled by children going back into foster care when they could be moving into an adoptive home.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, with the fine statements made by the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I know there is some concern, it is a very big decision to move children away from their birth parents into an adoptive situation. I do not think the States should take it lightly or we should take it lightly. But in some situations, as the gentleman from Indiana has pointed out so adeptly, we have some parents that just choose not to be good parents by their very actions. The way the system is, there is no incentive to move them unless the States take initiative, like Kansas has, to move them into a situation. I am reminded of a young girl named Halie, who was 2 years old, who refused to eat her dinner and her parents tied her to an electric heater; and once she got caught into that system, they went through every different family service available, and she did not get out of foster care until she was 18 years old, 16 years caught into the system. We must provide incentives to move these children out of this kind of situation into adoptive homes when the parents, by their very actions, choose not to be good parents.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to say that I think this is a tremendous step in the right direction, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for this great effort on moving us in the right direction in moving kids out of a situation where they are trapped in a system and wanting to get into the arms of loving parents who would provide for them, and also I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the full committee, too, because this is long overdue. There are very dire circumstances that occur once in a while in the State of Kansas. We had one young man who at the age of 14 had been in 130 foster care homes. He had been trapped in a system for 11 years because the State would not give up on trying to rehabilitate his parents, and they pursued one service after the other, one counseling session after the other, and it became a focus on the parents rather than a focus on the child. I think that this legislation moves us to a positive situation where we are promoting the fact that we are going to focus on children now and that we are going to allow parents the opportunity to get their lives in order and become good parents because I truly do believe the best situation is when we have children in the loving home of their birth parents. But occasionally we are unable to do that. People get hung up on drugs, their lives are ruined by crime, and it is at times best for children to move into a situation where they are adopted. Adoptive homes have very positive records. Children have adjusted very well to new parents and live very successful lives and contribute greatly to our society, and I think that is the goal of this bill: trying to focus on the children and move them on. Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of exceptions that I will discuss fully, but I think that this bill is such a magnificent step in the right direction that regardless of what happens today that we are going to do a wonderful thing for the children in this country.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we just heard that the Republicans were trying to eliminate people on women and children fund. We have opposed increasing the number. Let me tell the Members the reason why. In Kansas right now, a family of four making $28,000 a year is eligible to receive benefits from the women and children fund. This is 180,000 people who would receive about $300 per year if they did qualify for the WIC Program. However, if Members would just give them a little relief in their tax structure, like a $500-per-child tax credit, they would actually get more money. Instead of getting $600 per year for those two children, they would actually get $1,000 per year. It would be money they could control. The difference in philosophies here is that the other side of the aisle would like to control how people run their lives and what they have to do with their money, but the Republicans trust people. They want them to have more of their own money to meet the needs that their children have, because who best would understand what a child needs, other than its parents? So I would support the $500 per child tax relief and oppose the women and children fund.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just went through the manager's amendment, and it is a little difficult to sort through. I am not a lawyer, and I kind of think this ought to be approached in more of a pragmatic way. And so, in weighing this bill, I went back to those who are concerned with it and I talked to some of the people that deal with patents on a daily basis and in trying to improve themselves and our lives by taking their ideas into the patent system. And I just want to tell my colleagues about a guy in Wichita, KS. His name is Jay Hajeer. He works for Sol Gate, and he has a very simple idea. This simple idea was to increase the size of a memory for most computer models even beyond the amount of design capacity that the computer already has in it. Jay was able to keep his simple idea quiet enough as it went through the patent process until he did a little planning as far as production, a little planning as far as a way of marketing his product; and he was able to acquire the patent and go ahead and produce this simple product. And now that it is out and available on the market, I would like to explain it. It is simply a clip. You take the memory board out of your computer, slip this clip in place and slide your memory board in plus an additional memory board, thereby, in this case, doubling the size of the memory. You can do it for additional memory boards, also. But it is just a very simple idea, just a little plastic clip with a couple of connectors on it. And so, when he had this idea, he did not have to lay it out in front of other people. I think that having to publish these ideas before they get a patent on it is kind of like playing cards with a mirror at your back. The opponent on the other side of the table is able to read your cards, and he can see what is in your hand. And so in that respect it becomes a level playing field for your opponent, and I do not think we want to make a level playing field for our opponents, especially for other countries. So let me go back to this simple design. Not only did Jay have time to develop the concept, get the drawings done, also develop a manufacturing plan and a marketing plan by the time he got his patent, once that was achieved, he was able to go right into the marketplace. Now if he had to publish this and there was a delay in his plans, it would have made it easier, especially for the companies in Southeast Asia, to capture this idea and go ahead with manufacturing and push them out of the market. He is a small investor, does not have a big company; he just has good ideas. So this open publishing of the idea, I think, would have made him vulnerable to larger manufacturers even in foreign governments. So I am a little concerned about this level playing field concept, I am a little concerned about forcing someone to lay their cards on the table, letting them play cards with a mirror to their back. I think that we want to protect ideas and provide incentives for individuals. And I guess the second point I would like to make is I am not very concerned about these alleged submariners, and perhaps I do not quite have a good grasp of the idea, but what we are trying to do is protect people who have ideas. That is why we have so many Nobel laureates, and that is why we have so many people who come up with ideas in America, is we give them incentives to sit around and dream up ideas. I rode back to Wichita one time with a guy on the airplane who came up with an idea of mixing naphtha and water together, and one can burn it in a gasoline engine; and he has a license with Caterpillar to do just that. It is an idea that he has come up with that we can use water as a portion of the fuel. It cuts down emissions, it is a great idea. But he has to have a way of protecting his ideas so that he cannot lay his cards on the table and allow someone else to run with the ball until he gets the capital or gets the needs that he has. So I guess I am not as concerned about the submariners as everybody else is because I think it is good to have a bank of ideas, to have them protected so that you can go on to the next idea while somebody develops a manufacturing process. So those are my concerns on H.R. 400 and also in the manager's amendment, and that is why I will be voting against it, because it levels the playing field when I do not think it should; it levels it for the opponents.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the filing deadline for Federal taxes and State taxes in Kansas. But tax freedom day in Kansas is actually on May 7. That is the day we finally pay our direct Federal, State, and local taxes, our direct taxes. Some think that is the day when they can quit working for the Government and start to work for themselves. But it is not. Still remaining are indirect taxes, hidden taxes. Nearly 40 cents on a dollar of gasoline, hidden costs in the form of taxes, 28 cents on a dollar loaf of bread, 48 cents on a dollar glass of draft beer, on and on it goes. Hidden taxes buried in the products we use every day, every day. Add those hidden taxes to the direct taxes, and Americans work more than 6 months for the Government and less than 6 months for themselves. America needs tax relief today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in 1980 the Federal revenue was about $500 billion. We then had the Reagan tax cuts, and by 1990 the Federal revenue was over $1 trillion. It doubled in a decade. Mr. Speaker, if we could double our Federal revenue in the next decade, we would go from an income or revenue of $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion. We could balance the Federal budget with $3 trillion income. However, the opponents to tax relief say you cannot cut estate taxes, which we all know as death taxes. We are taxed all of our lives, and then now we have a tax when people die. We cannot eliminate death taxes, because that is only 1,400 people. We cannot cut capital gains taxes, because that is only the wealthy. We cannot even give tax relief to families, $500 per child, because there is no revenue generated from that. Well, this country can get tax relief. We are taxed too high, and we can do it and still see an increase in the Federal revenue. Do not believe all the demagoguery. Fight for tax relief. I urge my colleagues to vote for tax relief as soon as we can get it to the floor.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues think the last campaign was too long, too costly and too negative, they ought to be mad. The AFL- CIO started negative political ads in Wichita, KS, last week, 19 months before the next election. Misleading false messages in the form of TV commercials are corrosive to our system of self government. Here in America, the people govern. But how can they make good decisions when the information they get on television is false and misleading. Most Americans believe that we ought to have time to govern, to represent the people, but when false campaign ads start 5 months after the last election, so does the next campaign. It is time for campaign reform, it is time for the AFL-CIO to be restricted to separate voluntary contributions, not the taking of dues without the consent of their Members.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentleman from California, Mr. Buck McKeon, as a cosponsor of H.R. 993.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Colorado, Dan Schaefer, be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 993, which I introduced on March 6.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last weekend my family and I joined 200-plus Members of this Chamber. We gathered together in Hershey, PA to restore trust and build friendships and, of course, to eat chocolate. Now, obviously there were many friendships and relationships in existence before Hershey, but sometimes the reach across the aisle is very short. Sometimes we look around and we cannot recognize a Member, or we have not met them or we do not know their name. Well, at Hershey, Republicans and Democrats came together to try to change the situation. Perhaps some of the tension that occurred in the last Congress was because we did not know each other well enough. Now, we do know that we will not always agree; we quite often disagree. But we should work to maintain rigorous standards of respect and dignity, both on and off the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I believe that, working together, we can make America better.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has defeated the balanced budget. We have heard repeatedly from the party of big government, the opponents of the balanced budget, that we do not need to amend the Constitution to balance the budget. We can do it right now. I say it is time to put our money where our mouths are. Let us get started. Today I am introducing legislation to eliminate the President's AmeriCorps program, the largest Government service program since the 1930's. AmeriCorps spends $400 million a year to pay volunteers, which is a paradox in terms and, in many cases, for them just to serve as low-level Federal bureaucrats. The GAO has reported the average AmeriCorps paid volunteer receives $26,000 a year in compensation. This program makes politicians feel good and lets us talk about our high-minded ideals. I pose this simple question: Is this program so important that we want to borrow the money against our children's future to pay for the program? We have heard much talk about balancing the budget and the President has even said in this Chamber that the era of big government is over. Let us help him to fulfill his proclamation. Talk will not balance the budget, but spending less will. Let us start by closing the books on AmeriCorps.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Beverly Hoover of Wichita, KS. Nominated for the Governor's Arts Award, Beverly Hoover is an arts volunteer extraordinaire. Last year the Wichita Art Museum gave her just that title, volunteer extraordinaire in honor of her 17 years of service. She became volunteer to the Wichita Art Museum in 1980, serving as a docent which she still does today. Bev was instrumental in raising funds for the Hands On Gallery in 1982. She served as president of the volunteer council, chairman of bake sales, coordinator of holiday trees, and president of the annual art and book fair. She is currently on the board of directors of the Friends of the Wichita Art Museum, which helps support the museum endowment. She has been a member of the friends boards for 8 years. But Bev does not limit herself to just one arts group. She is capable of serving multiple organizations at one time and has served her community tirelessly in any number of capacities for 20 years, including school coordinator for sculpture in the Wichita Elementary School Art Project when her grown children were youngsters. Bev is the quintessential volunteer, a fast-fading commodity in most communities. She serves on committees, takes leadership roles on boards, gives generously of her time and resources and is an art collector and a patron of Wichita and Kansas art. Bev serves on the board of directors of the Metropolitan Ballet of Wichita and served as president of that organization from 1983 to 1986. In her 16 years on the board, she has sold advertising for the ballet programs, raised money for guest artists, entertained the board and guests in her home, spearheaded a fundraising drive for a new studio, helped paint and repair the studio, supervised painting and mailing of countless invitations and acted as usher to thousands of Wichita elementary school children who have come to enjoy and appreciate the ballet through Bev's efforts and those who volunteer like Bev. As if she were not busy enough, here is a sampling of the other activities for which Bev has volunteered over the years: the Music Theater of Wichita Association, 1987 to present; Wichita/Sedgwick Historical Museum, women's support group, from 1994 to present; American Diabetes Association of Kansas; Wichita Center for the Arts-- Designing Women's Support Group, from 1995 to present; the Women's Association of the Wichita Symphony from 1987 to present, where she has served in various capacities, including young people's concert chairman and in various leadership positions with the Decorators Showhouse. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me and my colleagues in Wichita Arts Enthusiasts by honoring Bev for all of her years of hard work and dedicated volunteerism.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation, House Joint Resolution 36. I rise for a couple of reasons. First, I think it is morally wrong for us to export abortion under the guise of family planning. We have an option that will come up later, the Smith- Oberstar-Hyde amendment, that will allow us to have actual family planning without exporting abortions. Occasionally the Federal Government is wrong. I think it is wrong to do that. Second, I think it is improper for us to take tax dollars from Americans, borrowed money. We are still running a deficit, so it is borrowing money from future taxpayers to send overseas to fund abortions. Again, I think the Federal Government is wrong. If we go back in history and look at the past when we have had incorrect decisions, such as the Dred Scott decision, who of my colleagues in this Chamber would say that that was a correct decision, that African-Americans are not created equal by our Creator. No one. That was an incorrect decision by those representing our Federal Government. In reading the history of the English-speaking peoples by Winston Churchill, I came across an incident that occurred in Boston about the same time, not long after the Dred Scott decision, where it said a Boston mob attempted to rescue a fugitive slave whose name was Anthony Burns. It took the Federal Government and a battalion of artillery, four platoons of marines, a sheriff's posse and 22 companies of the militia to line the streets so that our Government could return Anthony Burns, a slave, to the South. Who of you here agrees with that Federal decision that we made at that time? It was morally wrong. It was incorrect to take American tax dollars to support the institution of slavery. Once again, we have a situation where the Federal Government is morally wrong, exporting abortion under the guise of family planning. I think it is very important that we vote against House Joint Resolution 36 because of the morality, because of misusing taxpayer dollars, borrowed dollars that our children will have to pay back. When you borrow a dollar today to export abortion, it takes at least $3 to pay that dollar back, 3 future dollars that our children have to use to pay back just the interest, let alone the usage and the loss because of inflation. Every dollar. That is also wrong. So I want to encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to support Smith-Oberstar-Hyde.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it happens in every household, in every business, both large and small, in every school system, in every city council, in every county government, in every checking account across the Nation, everywhere but here in the Federal Government. This Government has not balanced its budget since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. It should be easier to balance the Federal budget than to get someone to the moon. When we borrow money for all these lofty enterprises for the Federal Government, for each dollar that we borrow it takes at least $3 just to cover the interest to pay it back. So let us vote for a balanced budget amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for it, to put in place the necessary discipline so that we can secure an economic future for our children, not one at their expense.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, if you had $25,000, you could have spent last Friday evening with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barbra Streisand. Where else but in Hollywood can Bill escape the nagging problems of the average American, like the increasing drug use among teens, in order to rub elbows with his rich and famous pals? That is $25,000. Can you believe it? Mr. Speaker, the average American family of four working people with an annual income of about $30,000 a year would have had to fork over almost all of their paycheck for an entire year just to have dinner with Bill and Hillary Clinton. We had a great President from Hollywood, Ronald Reagan. Now we have a President that acts like Hollywood. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to pay attention to the concerns of average Americans, not the labor bosses, not the Hollywood pals who make millions of dollars each year. It is time to make America better. It is time for a real American hero, Bob Dole.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Committee on International Relations; the Committee on the Judiciary; the Committee on Resources; the Committee on Science; the Committee on Small Business; the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, last year Congress acted to freeze the salaries of Members of Congress by disallowing the automatic pay raise. The Metcalf-Tiahrt amendment would continue this freeze for an additional year. The message of our amendment sends to the American people is simple and straightforward. This Congress has decided to deal with pay raises in the open and in the light of day. Even though this amendment will save over $7 million next year alone, it is less about saving money for the American taxpayer than it is about doing the right thing. This issue should be conducted in an up or down vote in the open. The American people deserve no less than that. When this country has a $5 trillion debt and when we are struggling to balance the Federal budget, I do not believe it is prudent for this Congress or high-ranking Government officials within the administration to accept a pay raise. We have repeatedly asked the American people to tighten their belts and help us balance the budget. We all know we must lead by example and prove that we are here to serve the people and make America better. This Congress has already demonstrated its commitment to integrity and maintaining the trust of the American people. Congressional reform is a top priority, from adopting strong internal reforms to enacting lobbying reform and taking up campaign finance later this week. This Congress has done more to return openness and honesty to this institution than any other Congress in recent history. Mr. Chairman, I am not a man of much wealth, I am not a mean-spirited millionaire trying to pull a ploy on the Members of Congress. This job is not about a paycheck for me. I am here to serve the people in the Fourth District of Kansas. They want a balanced budget and a bright future for their kids. Until we are able to achieve that, I cannot ask them for a raise. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to act and maintain that commitment, to balance the budget first by voting for this amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. I believe we all have a commitment to balance the budget, even those in the administration.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is something that I think the American public has wanted to open up in the light of day. It does include members of the administration, the judicial branch, as well as Members of Congress. They were all tied together because I think there was a commitment that was desired by the America public that we all work for a balanced budget; that we do not pass on to the next generation the type of debt that this country has incurred, over $5 trillion. It is going to take a considerable amount of time to pay this off. So until we get that accomplished, get on the glidepath, get to a balanced budget, we should make a commitment as Members of Congress that should include all of the upper branches of this Government, including the judicial branch, to focus on getting this accomplished, balancing the budget, restoring the hope for the future. Mr. Chairman, I think that is why this has been grouped together and why it will stay together.