Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I recognized when I brought this measure forward that would provide an opportunity for our friends on the other side to discuss a variety of other issues not really attendant to this particular problem, not attendant to this particular bill. We can spend all of our time, and I know that, in debate on the myriad of issues that have been hashed and rehashed on this floor, debated, discussed, or raked over, but in fact we are talking about something here that is a very practical step that can be taken tomorrow. It does not need the overwhelming support of the Congress from a financial standpoint, it just simply needs to be passed into law and allowed to be implemented by the Secretary of Education, and we will have done something significant. It is meaningful. These are not just whimsical attempts to try to deal with this problem. Over 600 calls have come in in 1 year, a little over 1 year. Eighty of those calls were of a threatening nature. We do not know, because the system does not require a feedback, as to what kind of action was finally taken after the CBA sends the information to the local agency. But, anecdotally, we have heard that there have been three to four arrests that have been made as a result of the hotline; and, therefore, we can only speculate as to the possibility as to the number of people whose lives have either been saved or at least kept out of harm's way as a result of this. So we can do this. We should think positively about the steps we can take in this regard. I urge us to focus our attention on this issue and not on the many other things that I know are deep and deeply felt. I totally understand my colleagues who do get emotional about this issue. It is definitely an emotional issue. Perhaps the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I share more than just an inclination of that because, being both Italians here, one can understand how we can both get emotional about this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his comments, his very, I think, observant comments. I believe that much of what he brings to our attention is worthy of our attention. There is so much that we can do here and so much for which we have responsibility. There is this other body, the other body we all know, we all have concerns and complaints about how it operates, or sometimes it apparently does not, but the fact is that is where most of this legislation resides. We can take, I think, pride in what we have done here. There is only so much we can do until the other body makes their decisions and moves along. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it was inevitable, I am sure, regardless of how many attempts to try and focus on this particular piece of legislation, a positive step that we are taking, it was inevitable that we would begin to once again hear the kind of rhetoric just propounded on the floor of the House. It is inevitable but disconcerting. Certainly those of us from my State, certainly I need no one to remind me what happened, where it happened, and how it happened. And I will tell my colleagues this also: we can talk forever about gun violence, and there are absolutely legitimate issues for us to debate on this floor and through legislative bodies throughout the United States, but to tie every single issue every single time they have an opportunity to tie Columbine to it, to use that name over and over again, they do so and they do so, I believe, in a way that is not respectful of the event and of the feelings and emotions of the people in my community because it is exploiting that horrific event. The gun show, let us talk about exactly what did happen. And I do hope that, in fact, the people of this Nation do have long memories. I will be more than willing to help them remember exactly what happened on this floor when we debated the part of the bill dealing with gun safety that we call the juvenile justice bill and we, in fact, included a provision to close the gun show loophole; and we included a ban on importation of high-capacity clips, and we included a juvenile Brady bill saying that if any juvenile gets convicted of a violent crime that they can never own a gun, and we included a mandatory sale of gun locks; and we included making it illegal for a juvenile to possess an assault weapon. Those were there. The bill went down, and it went down with 191 Democrat noes and about 81 or 82 Republican noes, and it went down because there was a desire to have rhetoric for the rest of this session about guns as opposed to a solution. This that I propose today is part of a solution. It is not the cure. It is not the silver lining that we can look for in this ominous picture. But it does give us hope, and it is designed to give children and parents hope. There is nothing more discouraging in the last several months than having to recognize the fact that there were kids all over this country actually afraid to go to school. Even if nothing had happened in their particular school, nothing of a violent nature, they were still afraid because of everything they had seen on the television, everything they had heard from the media about the potential for violence. I kept thinking to myself, what can I do, what is one thing I can do about this; and it was this hotline, the school safety hotline. It is not everything we should do. I agree with my colleagues, there is more. But, please, let us at least be positive enough to move in the direction that we know we all want to move here; and that is to provide a safe learning environment for every single child in America and to do so without the sort of incredibly divisive and, I think, inappropriate rhetoric, especially in reference to Columbine. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to get into all of the things that have not been on the floor that are not on the floor, it is, I guess, important for us to talk about what has happened so far. April 29, 1999, the Educational Flexibility Act, H.R. 800, was signed into law; May 4, 1999, IDEA Full Funding resolution passed the House; July 10, the Teacher Empowerment Act. October 12, Dollars to the Classroom resolution passed the House; October 21, Student's Results Act. October 21, the Academic Achievement Act (Straight A's) passed the House. February 29, Literacy Involves Families Together Act passed the committee. April 13, the committee completed consideration of Education Options Act. May 3, IDEA Full Funding bill passed the House. There have been actions taken. Again, speaking about these things in a vacuum makes it appear as though this is the only thing that we are doing. It is certainly not the case with education.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. There has always been, there always will be, there is now bureaucratic opposition to any sort of reform, especially in school reform that gives parents greater opportunities, greater freedoms. The gentleman rails on about micromanaging this and avoidance of that. What we are trying to do with, especially the charter school provision, is to give people, the individuals, the parents in the District of Columbia, greater freedom, greater choice, not the bureaucrats, not the educational system in general, but parents, individuals. Is that not the best kind of freedom to give anybody? Is that not the best kind of public policy to adopt here? It is not a hard hand of government coming down on the District. It is the freedom we are going to give parents in the District of Columbia to select charter schools for their kids, the greatest opportunity we can possibly give to anyone, including the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth- Hage), who is the chairman of our Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, for her support and efforts on this legislation. I also thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for their contributions at the hearing earlier this month. Mr. Speaker, Colorado's Rocky Mountains are rugged and beautiful, but they are a dangerous playground for all small children. Three-year-old Jaryd Atadero was last seen on the morning of October 2, 1999, hiking one and one-half miles from the trail head of the Big South Trail in the Comanche Peak Wilderness Area of the Roosevelt National Forest. On that day in October, a group of friends took Jaryd hiking on the Big South Trail as his father, Allyn, stayed behind to tend to their camp. As the hike wore on, the group split into two, with the faster hikers moving ahead. Jaryd became missing as he ran from one group to the other. After 7 exhaustive days of searching by local volunteers, Air Force rescuers, and the Larimer and Arapahoe County authorities, no trace of Jaryd was found. He has vanished completely. Jaryd's disappearance is a haunting story that leaves each person who hears it wishing they could do something to help, myself included. My colleagues may remember that the story received national attention for several weeks, and hundreds of people all over the country have contacted Jaryd's father offering their prayers and financial help to solve the mystery. But Mr. Atadero, who is a deeply spiritual man, understood from the very beginning of this ordeal that the national attention given to his son's disappearance should also be focused on the prevention of future disappearances. This bill is the result of his efforts. H.R. 3817 would dedicate the Big South Trail in the Comanche Peak Wilderness area of Roosevelt National Forest to Jaryd Atadero. Under the bill, a permanent sign will be placed at the trail head that has a list of the safety tips for children; and, for a period of no less than a year, a picture of Jaryd and a copy of this legislation will also appear. This bill has the support of the entire Colorado delegation as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) who has a personal relationship with the Atadero family. Today I brought with me a Jaryd Atadero Legacy Whistle. This is a program started by Larimer County officials that provides some basic safety tips and a whistle with a wristband that children can carry with them while hiking on a trail. As of this week, Jaryd's whistles have been handed out to more than 4,000 children in Colorado alone. The county has received requests from schools and churches across this country in States such as Texas, Tennessee, Florida, and Kansas for these whistles and for the safety presentations by a search and rescue team. I introduced H.R. 3817 to provide a permanent reminder of Jaryd and to promote these kinds of safety precautions. I believe that H.R. 3817 would not only keep Jaryd's memory alive, it would also raise awareness about the dangers that children face when they recreate on public lands. Many of these dangers are preventable if children and parents would remember to take safety precautions while hiking in the wilderness. Again, I thank the Speaker and those Members of the Committee on Resources that have been of assistance in our efforts to promote this issue and remember Jaryd. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3817, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3817) to redesignate the Big South Trail in the Comanche Peak Wilderness Area of Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado as the ``Jaryd Atadero Legacy Trail,'' as amended.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was talking to a gentleman from Common Cause. I had called him in regard to a statement that they sent out asking all Congressmen to sign the statement. One of the points on the statement that they were asking us to sign on to was a commitment to vote for any ban on soft money, banning all soft money going to political organizations coming from corporations, coming from unions, coming from wealthy individuals. We got to talking about this. I had called them and asked them to give me their thoughts on this because, of course, this kind of thing happens often, the kind of thing that they are trying to deal with; and they explained that for a long time there had been a relatively effective ban on the kind of money coming into politics that has a corrupting influence. They use the words ``corrupting influence.'' It started with the Teddy Roosevelt era. But that interestingly in 1992, the Clinton campaign found a way around it and found a way that they could use soft money in the creation of ads attacking their opponents but doing so sort of in a way that separated them from the ad itself. They could set up these dummy little organizations and run ads that were not part of the campaign, and they could use soft money to fund it. So all of a sudden they found this loophole. Now everybody is doing it, essentially. Once they found out how to do it, both parties use it and certainly many, many organizations use it. Members know the kind of ad that I am talking about. Many people have seen these ads run, where the group comes on, they usually have some name you have never heard of and they will say something like, gee whiz, isn't it horrible that certain Congressmen would do X, Y or Z. Why don't you call them and ask them why they did such a terrible thing. Now, Common Cause says that this kind of thing has a corrupting influence on the system, and that is why they would like to try to stop it. They want to try to stop these thinly veiled partisan attacks called issue ads if they could. At least they want to stop the funding that goes into them. They say, as I said, that there is a corrupting influence on the system as a result of it. I would like to give Members a real-life experience that will point out how corrupt organizations can, in fact, help corrupt the system by making Americans even more cynical. I refer back to a situation that occurred on the floor of this House during the debate on the VA-HUD appropriations act. There was an amendment to that act offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). The amendment struck certain language in the original bill, actually committee language. The committee language was not mandatory. The committee language simply was urging EPA to do or not do two things, two or three things. It had no force beyond just saying we urge the EPA. It did not take any money away from the EPA if they did it. It was a sense of the committee that they should not do whatever they were planning on doing. In this case they were saying, please don't force water companies throughout the United States to go through the expense of trying to find a standard, a purer standard for water, especially with the elimination of arsenic from the water, until you set the standard. Tell us what the standard will be. Then of course these companies can try to meet it. But if you do not set the standard right away, you will have companies spending all the money getting to a certain point, and that point might not be the one that you eventually determine to be correct. So set the standard. And, by the way, you are suggesting that the standard be 5 parts per billion, EPA, and that makes absolutely no sense; there is no scientific evidence to support that that is the kind of standard we should have, so please look at that. It also said, by the way, we should not dredge the Hudson River, as you are planning on doing, because when you dredge, the committee said, you stir up the sediments and in fact you put a lot of carcinogenic material into the water supply. So we strongly urge you not to do that. That was the committee language. The amendment that came to this floor struck that. It would have essentially said, go ahead to the EPA, set the standard at 5, or at least wait as long as you want to do it and go ahead and dredge. So a vote against that amendment was a vote essentially, especially when you talk about sediments, it was certainly a vote for clean water. I think, by the way, 216 Members of this House voted against the amendment and prevailed. They were in the majority. I was one that voted against the amendment. Shortly thereafter, the Sierra Club began to run ads in my district against me, essentially saying that I was for dirty water. This is the kind of corrupting influence, saying something like that which is, by the way, libelous. It is not just wrong, it is libelous. But they did it, and this is the kind of thing that Common Cause is talking about, and this is the kind of thing that should be stopped.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My colleagues, I would like to ask how many people here believe that governments in general will do purposely, decisively things that are not in their national interest? Do we really believe that governments in the world, especially the Chinese Government, are so stupid, so unclear about who they are and what they want that they are going to do something that they believe would lead to their own demise? Everything we have heard here today, and everything we heard during the debate on PNTR, suggests that we all have one goal, and that is to make sure that China changes itself from the totalitarian system that now exists, from the system that we have just heard described that takes away freedom from their own people, that enslaves people, that acts as an aggressor nation, that threatens its neighbors. We all want to change that; right? Everybody here has said that is their goal. Well, do my colleagues really believe that the Chinese Government thinks that PNTR will in fact create that same metamorphosis inside of them? Of course not. Do my colleagues think it is at all odd that the Chinese Government wants PNTR? If they agreed with any Member on the floor here about the ramifications of PNTR, do my colleagues think they would be saying, yes, please let us have more trade so that we can become a gentler nation and a nicer, kinder, gentler nation so that we can actually dissolve ourselves into some sort of Jeffersonian democracy? Of course not. What the Chinese Government knows and understands perfectly well is that what this trade does is in fact embolden them. It supports the regime. The Chinese people and the Chinese Government have a social compact they have entered into, and it is this. This is the agreement they have reached that the Government says, we will do more for you in terms of your economic welfare; and you, in turn, will keep us in power. That is the agreement. What PNTR does and what normal trade relations does with China is to stabilize an aggressive regime. They know it. That is why they support it.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1264, the Right- to-Know National Payroll Act, offered by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). In Colorado, there was an employer who at one point in time opened two windows giving his employees payments in cash at one window for all the time. They went to the next window and he took from them the taxes they had to pay back. The fact is that IRS made him stop that practice because it was too truthful. They had to know exactly what was being paid. The employer wanted the employees to know how much they were making, how much it was costing him to employ them so he gave them their total payment in cash. They moved to the next window, as I say, and they had to pay back their income taxes, their State taxes and their Social Security taxes so that they would have a sense of exactly what it was that taxes were costing them. Now, this only went on for a relatively short time until, as I say, the IRS stepped in and said this cannot be done. They disallowed it. But from my point of view, this proposal, the proposal of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), H.R. 1264, is in the vein of full disclosure. As the previous speakers have alluded to, this will help workers understand the constraints employers face when seeking to create jobs, increase pay and compete effectively in a global economy, and it shatters the myth that taxes and mandates can be placed on employers without affecting workers themselves. More importantly, it allows workers to compare the benefits and costs of various government programs and helps raise awareness of employment- related public policy and how it affects their jobs. I want to stop there, for the previous speakers have talked about the merits of the legislation. The support and the news articles that it has received from those around the country speak for itself, but I want to turn to the problem of hidden taxes. Today, the average Federal tax burden is around 20 percent but, of course, it is not the true cost of taxation. We still have State and local taxes, as well as thousands of dollars in so-called hidden taxes; taxes the Americans pay but never see, primarily because they have been added to the cost of goods and services or resulted in a reduction in pay. These include hotel taxes added to the cost of the hotel room; stadium taxes included in the price of a baseball or football ticket; highway and airport taxes added to the cost of gas and airline tickets. It also includes the employee's burden of financing Social Security and the Medicare system, for workers are being deceived when taxes are imposed on business. A careful employee can look at the pay stub and figure out that Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes consume 7.65 percent of his income, but will he or she know that another 7.65 percent is being paid on his behalf by his employer? This is money that otherwise would go to the employee's paycheck. Sadly, the worker never knows it exists in the first place. It is because of this and some estimate that the average taxpayer, in reality, pays over 40 percent of his or her income in taxes. This is an abomination. As many of my colleagues here in the House know, and I know, I was elected to Congress in an effort to reduce the tax burden on the American families and to reduce the size of government. We are all making strides in this regard. A great deal of work certainly remains to be done in the area of hidden taxes. The bill we are considering today starts the process of informing the public about hidden taxes and lets them know that both themselves and their employers contribute to the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare funds. I urge my colleagues to support this good government legislation, and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for bringing the bill to the floor.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the point of order offered by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) to strike Title VIII from H.R. 4461, the Department of Agriculture Appropriations Act. As my colleagues know, Title VIII would amend current law to ease economic sanctions against five nations: Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Libya, and North Korea. While much of the news reports and talk over the last few weeks have focused on the pros and cons of the compromise reached between members of both sides of the aisle on how the provision will affect the communist nation of Cuba, I mainly oppose this provision because of how it deals with--or shall I say ignores-- the tragic situation that currently grips Sudan. As a member of the International Relations Committee and especially the Subcommittee on Africa and the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, I have been following the situation in Sudan with great interest and concern. One of the reasons I chose to be on the Africa Subcommittee was to address the conflict in Sudan and the practice of slavery that still takes place in this modern day and age. This is a country, which has the longest running civil war in the world, and has been witness to over 1.9 million deaths over the past 15 years. More people have died in Sudan than in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Somalia and Algeria combined, yet few people still seem to take notice. At a time when we are sending military troops and proposing emergency supplemental appropriations for the situation in Kosovo, little is being done to counter these grievous human rights abuses that have been taking place for over a decade. It is time for the United States to take notice of the tragedy in Sudan, and for us to lend assistance to the Southern Sudanese, a people who are being butchered and enslaved by their own corrupt government. But repealing economic sanctions on Sudan will, without a shadow of a doubt, aid the government of the Sudan, the National Islamic Front in Khartoum, which has perpetuated the deplorable human rights abuses. I urge my colleagues to reexamine the proposed compromise--exempt Sudan from the provision so that we can all work toward meaningful change in this turbulent region of Africa.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard job that the distinguished chairman and the members of the committee faced as they drafted this bill. It is a good bill, and I intend to support it. The amendment has been agreed to by the parties involved. It is about giving our veterans the facilities they need as they grow older and the care that they were promised as they chose to defend the country. Our bipartisan amendment will restore the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program funding to the FY 2000 level of $90 million. Currently the bill cuts the funding in this program to $30 million. In 2010, one in every 16 American men will be a veteran of the military over the age of 62. That is an amazing statistic. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demand for medical services for eligible veterans as the aging process brings on chronic conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence. This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our Nation's veterans' health services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by this House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on State care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, States already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. Finally, State care facilities are cost effective. In Fiscal Year 1998, the VA spent an average of $255 per day on long-term care nursing home care for residents, while State veterans homes spent an average of $40 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues tonight as we debate this to substitute the word ``religion'' every time the word ``art'' has been used here. I suggest that there is a great deal, in fact, an exact comparison, between almost everything that has been said in support of the funding for the arts that could be said, but certainly would never be said on this floor, if an amendment were proposed to support religion. As the Managing Director of Baltimore's Center Stage put it, ``Art has power. It has power to sustain, to heal, to humanize, to change something in you. It is a frightening power, and also a beautiful power. And it's essential to a civilized society. Because art is so powerful, because it deals with such basic human truths, we dare not entangle it with coercive government power.'' For exactly the same reason that, certainly I know my friends on this side of the aisle would stand up and rail against anyone who would suggest that we should take public money and subsidize religious experiences, for exactly the same reason I ask you to think about what you are doing when you ask people to subsidize the arts. The arts are, in fact, as close a resemblance to religion as I can possibly think of. They are expressions of the innermost feelings in our souls, and certainly worthwhile. Think of it this way: If we subsidized religion, could we not come to the floor as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) did with that beautiful and eloquent explanation of all of the wonderful things that happen in our country because we subsidize religion, all of the incredible things that go on in our own communities, the many benefits that we could bring to individuals in our own communities because we could subsidize religion. Certainly it would be difficult to argue with the benefits of a religious experience. It is difficult to argue the fact that art is an uplifting, a wonderful thing, that we all enjoy, in our own specific way. But just as God is in the eye and/or mind of the believer, art is in the eye and mind of the observer, and I have no more authority, no more responsibility, to compel people in this country to support religion than I do having them support the arts. And that is really the most basic, I guess, comparison that I can make; and I ask my colleagues to think about it. It is something somewhat more esoteric than the kind of debate we have been having, but I think just as germane. Something that was written in 1779, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' 1789. The author, of course, Thomas Jefferson, in the Bill for Religious Freedom. What, may I ask, do you think is the difference between what he is warning us about here and what we are preparing to do with both this amendment and the funding of the arts in general? It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine a distinction, and although I understand entirely the altruistic intent on the part of the people who want to fund the arts and who want to increase the funding for the arts, I ask you to think about the basic issue that forces itself into the discussion here, and that is that when you compel people to contribute money for the propagation of opinions which one disbelieves in and abhors, it is sinful and tyrannical. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and the minute that you fund the arts, you do exactly what they fear would happen when you fund religion, you politicize it. You will always then have people arguing about what is proper art, what is proper for public support, what kind of movie or what kind of play or what kind of books should be funded with public dollars. We will always have that because, of course, it is the nature of the business. If we fund it, we will attempt to regulate it; we will attempt to censor it. We should not censor art; we should not fund art.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. TANCREDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment, and I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado Springs, Colorado (Mr. Hefley), for his work on the amendment, as his district is presently experiencing the most serious forest fire in the country. I understand that the Hi Meadow fire is now less than two miles south of my congressional district. It has destroyed over 6,640 acres, and our thoughts and prayers go to the families of Pine, Colorado and the surrounding area, as well as the families displaced by the fire to the north of my district in the Roosevelt National Forest. This year is already one of the worst fire years on record and we are not even halfway through the summer. I saw a statistic the other day saying that there have already been in the United States over 44,000 fires, burning well over 1.5 million acres of land so far this year. Now, why are we facing a growing problem like this with these forest fires, that are sure to incinerate some of the most beautiful land in the United States? I have heard a few explanations in the media over the past few weeks, but I believe that the forest fires are caused for a simple reason. Wood is flammable, and in Colorado we have more wood in our mountains than ever before in history. These forests are not healthy. They are overgrown, after years of fire suppression. They are not safe at this of year. Our forests are tinderboxes. They are no longer in their natural state. I urge my colleagues to acknowledge this fact because it is an extremely important one to remember as we consider the appropriations we provide to the forest managers. Fire prevention efforts, which this amendment would help fund, are a cost-saving strategy. I am told that if it were not for a prescribed burn that occurred last summer along the Buffalo Creek watershed by Jefferson County Open Space, the fire in Hi Meadow would have moved quickly south. If not for that prescribed burn, the fire may have jeopardized the supply of water that is used by thousands of Denver residents. However, the biggest complaint I have heard this week was from the BLM and Forest Service that they do not have enough resources to combat the fire. Yesterday, the firefighters temporarily ran out of fire- retardant. They need equipment and they need funding for preventive measures. Fire prevention programs can save millions in damages to homes and buildings and water treatment. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank my colleagues, especially my colleague from Colorado Springs, for bringing this amendment to our attention.

Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as cosponsor of H.R. 2966.

Mr. TANCREDO

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

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today on the floor of the House we have had a number of amendments offered on the same issue. This issue, of course, is the transferring of funds from someplace in this bill to IDEA, or the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. They have been uniformly turned down by our Members at the point in time on which they were voted, so I recognize full well that I am here in a way perhaps as a beau geste. I believe so strongly that we should be reorganizing our priorities in this particular bill that I feel it is worth the effort to once again bring it to the attention of my colleagues. However, I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that I intend to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment at the appropriate time. While Congress over the last 5 years under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) increased the Federal share of IDEA to 12.6 percent, we have much further to go to reach the promised 40 percent. That is why I was so disappointed to see the underlying bill, the bill which we are debating here, includes only a $5.5 billion appropriation for special education grants to State programs, only a $500 million increase over last year's level. While I commend the House Committee on Appropriations for increasing the program, it is well short of the over $16 billion level needed to reach the full 40 percent promised to States and localities and less than the $2 billion increase promised in the budget resolution. The lack of adequate funding for special education in H.R. 4577 comes even as the bill increases funding for many education programs which are inefficient and have yet to produce reliable results. It is for this reason that I and many of my colleagues come down to the floor today to offer the amendments to increase funding for special education which should be our first priority in the education part of this bill. Today, I offer this amendment to increase IDEA funding by $30 million by reducing funding for the comprehensive school reform program by $20 million, for OSHA by $5 million, and for the Department of Education administration by $5 million. The amendment does not cut the comprehensive school reform program, it merely reduces the funding increase in the current bill and transfers that extra funding to special education. In this case, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am almost as concerned about this constant attempt, or not just attempt but accomplished fact of appropriating money to unauthorized programs where now we are up to over $200 billion a year. So it does call into question the need for authorizing committees in the first place, that is for sure, and once you recognize that this is another one of those programs, the comprehensive school reform program, it may be a wonderful program, we have never authorized this program, never from its inception. We have not the slightest idea how this program really is supposed to work against anything else. There are no rules and regulations that really the Department can operate on to determine whether or not it is doing well. It is now appropriated at about $170 million. That is what it is going to be in this year. It is an extremely expensive program, again, never authorized. And so we do withdraw $20 million in funding just bringing it down to last year's level. The program was authorized at $145 million per year to help low- performing schools raise student achievement by adopting research- based, schoolwide approaches. It is important to remember that under the schoolwide program approach of title I, schools with 50 percent or more poverty can use their regular title I funds to serve all students in the school and to change the whole school. But rather than debate all the different places from which this money is taken, I want to concentrate on the need for the Congress of the United States to live up to the commitment it made to the people of the United States when it enacted the first special education laws, because that is really where we should be focusing our attention. That was the mandate. We tell every State in the Nation what they must do and how they must do it. And it is an extraordinarily expensive undertaking for them that drains money away from other very important programs. And so I suppose I will be here as often as I can to make the case for us to live up to the commitment in special education, even if it means reducing our commitment to these other programs which have in the past shown absolutely no improvement. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment which would cost $20 million in funding in the bill for the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program. Funding for the Comprehensive School Reform Program is authorized under the title 1 demonstration program (section 1002) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In addition, the program has been included in bills passed by the House and reported by the Senate Education Committees to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I would like to insert at this point in the Record some preliminary findings of the Department of Education--data on early CSRD implementation from the national longitudinal survey of schools--on the first year of implementation of the comprehensive school reform program. This program is beginning to accomplish significant results in schools in Wisconsin and in other States across the country. [Memo] To: Honorable David Obey. From: Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Re: Data on Early CSRD Implementation from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools. Date: June 12, 2000. This memo provides information on the early implementation of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) program. The following is a compilation of preliminary results from the first year administration of the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS). The NLSS was administered in Spring 1999 to a nationally representative sample of Title I schools as well as to a sample of approximately 300 Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) schools that received grants under this program between July 1998 and mid-February 1999. The Title I school sample serves as a useful comparison group to the CSRD schools. The NLSS is collecting, for three years, information on school-level implementation of standards-based reform and Title I. Principals and up to six teachers in each school are surveyed. The surveys address topics such as awareness and understanding of standards, selection and implementation of externally-developed models, Title I services, parent involvement and professional development. These data are taken from a draft report prepared by RAND, ``Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Schools: Early Findings on Implementation,'' based on the first year of the NLSS. The draft report is currently circulating for review within the U.S. Department of Education and is expected to be formally released to Congress this summer. The data cited below highlight comparisons of CSRD and Title I schools: school and student characteristics Overall, CSRD schools are comparable to Title I schools as to the grade levels served and size. However, CSRD appears to be serving higher poverty schools with larger minority populations. CSRD serves a mix of urban (50 percent), suburban (15 percent) and rural (35 percent) schools, but are more likely than Title I schools to be located in urban areas. CSRD is more focused on turning around low-performing schools. CSRD schools (42 percent) are more likely than Title I schools to be identified as in need of improvement (10 percent). In general, CSRD schools in the sample had been identified as in need of improvement longer than Title I schools identified for improvement in the sample. CSRD is more targeted than Title I towards higher poverty schools. In about 96 percent of CSRD schools, at least half or more of students receive free/reduced price lunch. In contrast, about 53 percent of Title I schools have half or more students receiving free/reduced price lunch. CSRD schools are serving schools with a higher concentration of minority students. Compared with 20 percent of Title I schools, in well over half of CSRD schools between 75-100% of students are minority. CSRD schools are serving substantial numbers of special education students. Virtually all CSRD schools in the sample have special education students. In 68 percent of CSRD schools at least 10 percent of the student population have Individual Education Plan (IEPs). Adoption of Externally-Developed Models One of the goals of the CSRD program is to help facilitate the adoption and implementation of research-based models in Title I schools. According to the NLSS, in 1998-99, about 31 percent of Title I schools overall reported that they have adopted research-based models. This baseline figure will be tracked by the NLSS over the next three year to examine the extent that CSRD may be catalyst for reform in Title I schools overall. CSRD schools are more focused than Title I schools on research evidence. CSRD schools are more likely than Title I schools to report that the research evidence (95 percent compared to 88 percent) and improved student performance in similar schools (95 percent compared to 85 percent) was an important factor that influenced their choice of models. Faithful implementation to a model design is often cited as a key issue for model effectiveness. According to the NLSS, significantly fewer (8 percent) CSRD schools reporting adopting just parts of models compared with Title I schools (22 percent). Fewer Title I schools than CSRD schools reported implementing models strictly without adaptations. CSRD schools are receiving more assistance from model developers. 96 percent of the CSRD principals, compared with 82 percent of principals in Title I schools implementing models reported that their staff received professional development or assistance implementing their chosen model. In 80 percent of the CSRD schools, compared with only 52 percent of Title I schools, assistance was provided by the model developer. Teacher buy-in is also considered a key need in implementing reform. In 80 percent of CSRD schools compared with 53 percent of Title I schools implementing models, teachers voted on the adoption of the model. Leveraging Title I Services The NLSS seems to indicate that CSRD may be helping to leverage Title I funds in ways that support the priorities of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For example: CSRD schools are more likely to support extended learning time. Nearly 70 percent of CSRD schools report having before and after school programs, compared with 52 percent of Title I schools and 53 percent of Title I schoolwides. CSRD schools are more likely than Title I schools to have summer school, extended year, and weekend programs. Improving parent involvement is more of a focus in CSRD schools. CSRD schools in general were much more likely to report parent services programs supported with Title I than Title I schools. About 80 percent of CSRD principals reported parent training, 72 percent had a parent liaison, and 40 percent had a family literacy program. This was compared to 61, 54 and 29 percent respectively in Title I schools. Minimizing pullouts. The percentage of Title I schoolwide elementary schools offering pull out services (57 percent) is higher than of CSRD elementary schools (45 percent). Use of teacher aides. Overall, far fewer CSRD school principals reported using teacher aides to provide Title I instructional services in reading and math (66 percent) compared with schoolwide or all Title I principals (81 and 83 percent respectively). Coordination of funds. In general, CSRD schoolwide principals were more like than Title I schoolwide principals to report greater integration of funds. Fewer CSRD schoolwides than Title I schoolwides reported challenges to coordinating federal resources with other funding sources. For example, in citing barriers, 55 percent of Title I schoolwide principals said they were unsure of what was allowed in combining funds compared to 38 percent of CSRD schoolwide principals. Professional Development Professional development priorities. CSRD school principals were more likely to report that their school improvement plan and standards (70 percent) were important for determining professional development activities (55 percent in Title I schools). Sustained professional development. CSRD teachers were more likely than Title I teachers to report that their professional development activities in the areas of instruction, strategies to help low-achieving students, and other professional development activities were sustained and ongoing. parent involvement Sharing information. CSRD schools are more likely than Title I schools to share documents, including school performance profiles with parents; provide homework hotlines to parents; and ask all parents to participate in a school- parent compact. Support services. On the whole, CSRD schools resemble schoolwide Title I schools with respect to parent involvement strategies with one exception--a far higher number of CSRD schools provide social support services to parents. Parent involvement strategies. CSRD teachers were more likely than Title I school teachers to report using certain parent involvement strategies such as home visits (20 percent to 15 percent), showing parents models of successful work (82 to 75 percent), and initiating phone calls to parents (74 to 69 percent). concerns The comparative data between Title I and CSRD schools does raise some concerns, particularly in the area of expectations of students and use of technology. Some of these differences may be due to the significantly more targeted use of CSRD funds in high-poverty and low-performing schools. Recall that CSRD schools are more likely to be identified for improvement under Title I than Title I schools in general (42 percent compared with 10 percent) and significantly higher poverty (86 percent high-poverty CSRD schools compared to 53 percent high-poverty Title I schools). CSRD school principals are more likely than Title I schoolwide or Title I principals in general to report that standards are too rigorous for most of their students (14 percent compared with 7 percent). Twenty-two percent of teachers in CSRD schools report that standards and assessments are too hard for most of their students. The student to computer ratio in CSRD schools is 10:1 compared to 8:1 in Title I schoolwides. Sixteen percent of teachers in high-poverty Title I schools report that their students use computers daily, compared with 6 percent of teachers in CSRD schools. CSRD principals were more likely to report barriers in using technology that principals in Title I schools. For example, 70 percent of CSRD principals reported lack of staff or inadequate training was a barrier to use of technology in their schools, compared to only 45 percent of Title I schoolwide school principals. Additional findings will be available after completion of the internal review of the NLSS report on first year CSRD findings.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we have been told wonderful things will flow from expanded trade with China. Workers' rights will be respected, religious freedom will be enhanced, and probably Jeffersonian study groups will be popping up all over China before long. Well, let us look at the historical facts which, in reality, is all we have in order to determine future actions on the part of the Communist Chinese. In fact, from the last 10 years since Tiananmen Square, China has been engaged. For the past 10 years, investments in China have grown exponentially, factories have been built employing Chinese workers, creating enormous expansion of Chinese GNP. These things are indisputable facts. Mr. Speaker, here are some more facts. Over the last 10 years, according to the State Department and the newly created United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, there has been a steady deterioration, I say deterioration, of human rights, workers' rights, religious liberty. I just came from the Committee on International Relations where this report was given to us by the Commission. Here it is. The Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Commission members are from all sides of the political spectrum. Rabbi David Saperstein, the Chair, told us that every single part of the spectrum was represented on this commission, and here is what they reported. Quote: ``A grant of PNTR at this juncture could be seen by the Chinese people struggling for religious freedom as an abandonment of their cause at a moment of great difficulty. The Commission, therefore, believes that Congress should not approve PNTR for China until China makes substantial improvements in respect for religious freedom as measured by the following standards,'' and then it lists them out. This is the Commission report. We are waiting for the Bereuter Commission; we have a Commission report right before us today. It was established by this Congress. The report was issued on May 1. It is in front of us. Read it. Anybody who is going to be influenced by the Bereuter Commission in the future, Members have it before them. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I asked only three questions of the CIA when I went in for the briefing. I said, will PNTR, if we pass it, stabilize or destabilize the regime? They said, stabilize. I said, what will it do to buildup of forces on the shoreline and the aggressive forces that are being amassed against Taiwan? They said, it will improve it. I tell my colleagues now, as I left that meeting, I walked away thinking about the oath of office I took with all of my colleagues here, the oath that said I swear to protect and defend this country. Think about that oath. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to bring my colleagues tonight a hypothetical bill. This bill has three parts: part one provides billions of dollars of aid to Beijing in order to stabilize the regime; part two provides support for the Chinese military infrastructure as it prepares to attack its neighbors; part three provides direct aid to the PLA. Now, that is my hypothetical bill I bring to my colleagues tonight. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, who would vote for this bill? If we clear away everything else that we have talked about, it does boil down to this, because I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, I was, in fact, one of the Members that went to the CIA briefing. When one goes to the CIA briefing and when one asks specific questions about these issues, this is what one comes back with; that, in fact, doing what we are about to do will provide aid to the regime in order to stabilize it. It will provide aid to the military in order to attack its neighbors. It will provide direct aid to the PLA, to the People's Liberation Army. How is this, my colleagues ask? It is simple. The PLA owns the business. When the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) talked about private businessmen doing private business with other private businessmen, Mr. Chairman, the PLA, they own 100 percent of the telecommunications business in China. They own most of the significant businesses, either surreptitiously or directly. Yet this is the bill I bring to my colleagues tonight. If my colleagues could just escape all of the other things, erase all of the other thing we talk about, and how wonderful it would be to improve human rights, how wonderful it would be to improve workers' rights, religious freedom, all those things would be great. But what is all of our primary responsibility as representatives of the people of the United States? Is it to, in fact, insure human rights across the world? As laudable as that goal is, no, that is not our prime responsibility. Is it to, in fact, insure workers' rights? No, that is not our primary responsibility. It is not even our primary responsibility to insure religious freedom. We have one responsibility, the prime directive: protect and defend the people of the United States. Vote no on this bill.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the beginning of National Small Business Week. With over 117,000 small businesses in Colorado, not to mention the 184,000 self-employed individuals, small businesses have become the backbone of our robust economy. It is imperative that we continue to foster the growth of small businesses in America by reducing and eliminating many of the burdensome regulations the Federal government imposes on them, such as those put out by OSHA that cost small business millions of dollars each year. Congress should also heed the calls of businessmen and women throughout the Nation and eliminate the death tax, which would allow more small businesses to be passed on from one generation to another, and continue to pass laws allowing small businesses to increase retirement benefits for themselves and their employees. Earlier this year, the House passed four small business bills to reduce paperwork requirements and limit liability. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me this week in thanking America's small businesses for their efforts in making America the leader in the world's economy.