Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as a sponsor of this legislation in the House, I rise in strong support of S. 1395. This bipartisan legislation would reform laws that govern the export of American-made pharmaceutical products, which our chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), has explained. This really is a jobs bill that will benefit small businesses, particularly small pharmaceutical companies employing between 100 and 250 highly paid workers. Current law puts U.S. companies, particularly these small manufacturers, at significant disadvantage with their foreign competitors. Larger manufacturers, with an established foreign presence, may choose to manufacture offshore. Foreign firms do not have to worry about it. They readily export approved medical products between international drug control treaty countries without limit or restriction. To compete, smaller U.S. companies, or those requiring specialized manufacturing plants for niche pharmaceuticals, are forced to choose between spending millions of dollars on export costs or spending millions of dollars in establishing overseas manufacturing facilities. This cost hurts smaller companies like Cephalon, back home in Pennsylvania. The bottom line is our law ties the hands of American companies, forces them to do business elsewhere or not to do business at all. This legislation would authorize the Attorney General to permit carefully regulated pharmaceutical exports to international drug convention partner companies. The DEA would retain full authority over all shipments of controlled substances, and the bill establishes strict procedures to ensure these products are used solely for legitimate medical purposes. Mr. Speaker, this legislation keeps jobs and capital right here at home, and removes one of the barriers to prevent the success of these small companies. I urge support of the bill; and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for the bipartisan effort, and I thank Chairman Deal for his leadership on the issue. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this legislation in the House I rise in strong support of S. 1395, the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation would reform laws that govern the export of American-made pharmaceutical products. This is a jobs bill that will benefit small businesses, particularly small pharmaceutical companies employing between 100 and 250 highly paid workers. Current law allows U.S. companies to export most controlled substances only to the immediate country where the products will be consumed. Shipment to central sites for further distribution across national boundaries is currently prohibited. Current law puts U.S. companies, particularly small manufacturers, at a significant disadvantage with their foreign competitors. Larger manufacturers with an established foreign presence may choose to manufacture off-shore using existing facilities. Foreign firms don't have to worry about it. They readily export approved medical products between international drug control treaty countries without limit or restriction. To compete, smaller U.S. companies and those requiring specialized manufacturing plants for niche pharmaceuticals are forced to choose between spending millions, of dollars on export costs or spending millions of dollars in establishing overseas manufacturing facilities. This cost harms smaller companies, like Cephalon, back home in Pennsylvania. The bottom line: Our law ties the hands of American companies and forces them to do business elsewhere--or to not do business at all. This legislation authorizes the Attorney General to permit carefully regulated pharmaceutical exports to international drug convention partner countries. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) would retain its full authority over all shipments of controlled substances. It establishes strict procedures to ensure these products are used solely for legitimate medical purposes. Once enacted it would save small companies nearly 75 percent on export costs. It would enable them to compete in the long-term in the global market. And it would help them keep jobs and capital right here at home. An informal review of impacted U.S. exporters indicates that current law, with the cost of compliance, jeopardizes between 100-250 new U.S. jobs each time a covered product is introduced in foreign markets. Small businesses create new jobs; they strengthen communities; they drive innovation. The law should help them thrive, not put them at a disadvantage with foreign competitors or large corporations. We need to make sure that we treat them fairly and give them every opportunity to succeed. This bill removes just one of the barriers that prevent their success. I urge support for this bill. And continued support for our Nation's small businesses.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week we will debate CAFTA. All of the Nation's major newspaper editorial boards support CAFTA. Listen to these quotes. The Washington Post cites a study that shows U.S. income would increase by $17 billion under CAFTA. The Wall Street Journal says CAFTA would expand the market for U.S. goods with the 44 million consumers of six Central American countries. The Journal goes on to say that American farmers would be among the biggest winners under CAFTA. USA Today says CAFTA would slash tariffs on agriculture products coming from the U.S. The L.A. Times says the benefits of free trade are evenly spread across society, citing rapid growth and higher income of free trading nations. Even the New York Times claims that this free trade agreement ``deserves to approved.'' In addition to these editorial boards, Central American workers and leaders overwhelmingly support this agreement. Mr. Speaker, they cannot all be wrong. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of CAFTA. More trade means more jobs.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, let me read my colleagues something that a Member of this Chamber told the press recently. She said, ``It is essential for us to take down their numbers; to take down their numbers on Social Security; and to take down their numbers on credibility. If you're the contender, if you're the challenger, you are not going to go up against the leader at full strength. You have to take them down first and then you have to move out in a positive way. I feel very confident about the fact that we've taken down their brand.'' I do not know about my colleagues, but in challenging times like these, I want leaders who care more about ideas and progress than partisan party politics and spin and negative attacks.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week the minority leader told reporters that ``it is essential for us,'' meaning Democrats, ``to take down their numbers,'' meaning Republicans. And she went on to cite the reasons it is more important to tear down Republicans than offer an actual agenda. It is obvious from these statements that the Democrat leader's main strategy is obstruction and politics. They care more about partisan spin and negative attacks than ideas and progress. However, Republican policies are lowering the deficit created by recession and terrorist attacks. Republican policies have spurred the creation of a million jobs this year. Republican policies have allowed the economy to grow faster than any other industrialized country. And Republican leadership, as opposed to decades of Democrat complacency, have led us into the national discussion on the future of our most important retirement program, Social Security. The Democratic agenda has lost at the polls. If they cared more about working families than their poll numbers, maybe they would start winning elections again.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, July 7 in Britain is not the same as March 11 in Spain. Last week's terrorist attacks were met not with blame, self- loathing, and retreat. They were met with proper expressions of mourning, steely resolve, and clarion calls for justice. I would expect nothing else from the country that withstood the onslaught of the Nazis. And while all of Great Britain mourns, our friends across the Atlantic should be commended for the face of resolve they have shown in recent days. This resolve was best expressed by London's mayor when he told the terrorists: ``Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.'' If terrorists thought that the murder of innocent people would further their aims, they picked the wrong country to target. Giving terrorists safe haven in the name of tolerance only encourages the violent intolerance expressed most vividly in last week's attacks. These attacks again demonstrate the reason everyone needs to root out these barbarians.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week, the minority leader said that the war in Afghanistan is over. That is news to most people, and even more so to our men and women fighting the remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The comments were just the latest in a series of comments that show some people still do not get it. Her comments, like many others made recently by leaders of the opposition, demoralize American troops and incite our enemies. And, worse, they discount the great progress that our soldiers have made in the war on terror. Fifty million people have received freedom and are fighting for the future of their nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a few years ago, 50 million people lived in tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan, and today they live in the dawn of freedom. Much work is left, but writing off the efforts of our troops today, the sacrifice being made today, the Democratic leader writes off the quest for freedom and the necessity for us to support it. Why is that so hard to understand?

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for his work on these complicated issues but I rise to raise an issue that we just heard about from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and which we have heard about in past years from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). I think the time has come to say enough is enough. Since 1979 Egypt has been the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance. Each year Egypt receives about $2 billion in economic and military aid. The money goes to support our strategic ally in the Middle East. But I think this money is largely misspent today on a nation that refuses change and excuses oppression. The State Department tells us that Egyptian police routinely use torture to extract confessions and detain suspects without charge or trial. Egyptian authorities harass and imprison opposition party candidates on trumped up charges. The government is engaged in an unwarranted and dangerous military build-up. It oppresses religious minorities. It violates human rights. It obstructs democratic reforms. It censors the media. In fact, the media is controlled by the government there and they permit a lot of anti-Semitism and hate speech. It continues to arrest Christian converts who leave Islam. I could go on and on. Egypt is an ally. But we can no longer afford to excuse oppression with the rhetoric of stability and the politics of fear. We can no longer afford a wholesale subsidizing of such huge violators of basic human rights and basic freedoms. My amendment would take some of the money that we spend to underwrite the Egyptian military and send it to programs that fight malaria by increasing USAID's Child Survival and Health Account for other infectious diseases, particularly malaria. Malaria kills as many as 3 million people each year. Up to 90 percent of these deaths occur in Africa and 90 percent are children under the age of 5. And though it is difficult to accurately assess the scale of the disease, the WHO estimates that 40 percent of the world's population is at risk of malaria, and there are between 350 and 500 million clinical cases every year. Malaria disproportionately affects the poor. Fifty-eight percent of malaria deaths occur in the poorest 20 percent of the world's population, a higher percentage than for any other disease of major public health importance. Reducing Egypt's military subsidy by $750 million will serve to send a strong message. Money sent to a nation, even a strong ally like Egypt, that refuses to make the necessary political, democratic and human rights reforms should be redirected to a place that better represents our values. In this case I can think of no better use for this funding than to treat and prevent malaria in Africa. According to the CBO, this transfer will result in a savings of $400 million in FY 2006 in net outlays. A vote for this amendment is a vote for more responsible Federal spending. It is a vote for American values. It is a vote for kids. It is a vote against the status quo of Egypt's dictatorship.

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

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, today we will debate whether to keep pouring money into Egypt just to subsidize its military expansion. For the last 25 years we poured billions of dollars into Egypt. Each year we give that country about $1.3 billion just in military aid in addition to economic aid. But all the money seems to do is reinforce a regime that refuses change and excuses oppression. It oppresses religious minorities, it obstructs democratic reforms, it censors the media. I think that money can be better spent elsewhere. Today, I will offer an amendment redirecting some of this military aid to fighting malaria in Africa, a preventable disease that kills as many as 3 million people a year. Poor nations are most at risk, some 40 million in Africa. While we have a strategic responsibility to support allies, we have a responsibility to help fight disease where we can, and reducing Egypt's military funding will serve as a wake-up call to a country that votes against the United States over 91 percent of the time in the U.N. We will not indefinitely subsidize tyranny. Congress has the authority to determine what we subsidize. Today we will make that clear.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Members of this body this past week have been told by outside groups that somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning. That is just not true. SCNT is the same process that created Dolly the sheep. If SCNT does not create a clone, then Dolly was not a sheep. SCNT produces an embryo, whether the procedure is done to destroy the human embryo for research or to implant it to produce a child. The fact that creating it does not involve sperm is what makes it a clone. This is unquestioned by serious people. Bioethics commissions, President Clinton, and George W. Bush said that the product of SCNT is a cloned embryo. In a debate as emotional and important as this one, it is important to understand all the facts; and it is equally important to see through the word games espoused by some groups and Members of this body. SCNT creates a cloned human embryo. There is no way around it. And that is why this body should move quickly to stop human cloning before scientists start killing human clones like they killed all those sheep when they cloned Dolly.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, pancakes with syrup, whole wheat bagels, scrambled eggs. That is not what I had for breakfast this morning, but there is a good chance that the terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were eating this morning. And it is not something that prisoners held by the Nazis, the Soviets, Pol Pot, or any other despot would eat. Yet some on the other side of the aisle have advocated closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The prison there has held 800 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists; 235 have already been released; 61 are awaiting release or transfer. The information shared by these prisoners has saved countless lives here and around the world. We go to great lengths to ensure proper treatment of detainees. In addition to good meals, we take care to offer the freedom of worship freely, like supplying copies of the Koran and prayer rugs. Each person is treated according to the Geneva Convention, though none of these prisoners meets the qualifications of soldiers under that treaty. The left is content to criticize and demagogue, but Gitmo is a part of the war on terror. And as long as it stands, the soldiers there will be treated properly. That is more than I can say for dozens of prisoners executed by al Qaeda in the past.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution. Burma is ruled by a ruthless military regime. I visited the Thai-Burma border a few years ago, and I met with victims of the horrific repression that is occurring there, the IDPs, former political prisoners, democracy activists, women who have been raped, landmine victims, orphans, and widows. The SPDC uses rape has a weapon of terror. They engage in ethnic cleansing, wiping out whole villages and towns, killing women, men, and children. They seek to eliminate the ethnic minorities in the tribal areas such as Karen and Karenni. Many believe that we need to reverse our course on sanctions in order to help the Burmese people. They are wrong. The Burmese economy is so rotted under this corrupt regime that trade does not help the people. It is like pouring money into a pocket with a hole in it. The road to change in Burma is not trade, it is political reform. The SPDC must release Aung San Suu Kyi, the duly elected leader. ASEAN must take a clear stand against the Burmese leadership and deny it from leadership and chairing ASEAN. And the U.S. must do a better job of organizing support at the U.N. Security Council for a comprehensive resolution calling for national transition and reconciliation. Sanctions are absolutely necessary. I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, every Member of this body is mindful of his or her legacy, and that is good. There is an issue facing this Nation that should cause us all to consider that legacy carefully. The issue is human cloning, and it is closer to reality than we think. We learned that from Korean scientists last month, but we have the ability to stop it here in America before it is too late. So Members of this body should ask themselves, Do you want your legacy to be that we stood by as scientists started cloning human beings in America? Members leaving this body after next year should ask, Do you want to tell your grandkids some day that you had a chance to act to stop cloning but did nothing? If we do nothing, Madam Speaker, cloning will come, and this Congress will be judged not by job numbers or a national energy plan or highway dollars, but by our failure to stop human cloning. I do not want that on my conscience; no one does, but our lack of action will make us responsible for its arrival. Let us leave a good legacy, a legacy that guards the uniqueness of life. Let us act to stop human cloning.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars in coverups, fraud investigations, abuses of power, calls for resignation, shredded documents. I am not talking about the Nixon or the Clinton administrations, though both contained plenty of the above. I am talking about the U.N., that most sacred cow of international organizations. It has been the subject of many scandals. Billions of dollars intended to help the Iraqi people were stolen from the Oil-for-Food program. It appears that that happened because of conflicts of interest at the highest levels of the U.N. Countries like Syria, Sudan, Libya, North Korea, China and Cuba have had seats or still have seats on the Human Rights Commission, the U.N.'s body for addressing human rights issues. Those nations are all members of the U.N., and we should not kick them out, but they should not be setting policy on human rights. Members of this Commission can veto certain resolutions that come before the U.N. Sudan, from its seats on the Commission, has vetoed efforts to condemn the genocide it is committing in Darfur. U.N. peacekeepers were recently found to be raping the children, the very people they were ordered to protect, in the Congo. We could go on and on. The U.N. plays a vital role in mediating disputes, in caring for the poor, and facilitating dialogue. But the system seems to breed abuse and fraud and wasteful spending because of the U.N.'s huge bureaucracy. It is accountable to no one. Much of what happens happens behind closed doors. Changes need to be made. They need to be made in the structure of the U.N. They need to be substantial, not cosmetic changes. The mess needs to be cleaned up. I urge support for the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform plan, which will make changes of substance.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Chinese Government has a policy of killing unborn children it deems a waste of valuable space in one of the world's largest countries. UNFPA actively and passively supports this policy of thinning the population by killing unborn children. In fact, it has gone so far as to praise China's population control tactics. Until that changes, UNFPA should not get a dime of taxpayer money. As we debate this bill, let us face the truth: Is that really what we want to support or encourage? I do not think so. Make no mistake about it, UNFPA is in bed with Beijing on forced abortions; and if we fund UNFPA, Beijing gets stronger. If we fund UNFPA, we only encourage the regime's strategy of exterminating the babies they do not want. If we truly care about human rights, we should support programs that work, programs that uphold the dignity of human life, not programs that allow a repressive, Communist government to enforce a systematic effort of abuse and repression and murder. Our country does not believe in forced abortion. We do not believe in harvesting the organs of prisoners who are being executed. Why would we want to support this? A Nation that believes in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should not give aid to any organization that does not support these rights. I urge opposition to and defeat of this amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Edmund Burke once said: ``All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' I might change that to read: ``All that is necessary for human cloning to begin in America is for Congress to do nothing.'' When Korean scientists announced last month they had cloned 18 sick people and killed their clones to get their stem cells, some thought that would provide the motivation for the Congress to ban human cloning. They were wrong. The history of cloning is replete with defects, deformities, and death. It took 277 tries to clone Dolly the sheep. That is 276 dead and deformed sheep. And yet Congress does nothing to stop human cloning from happening in America. The House has done very little to force the Senate to act, and the House has yet to take up a bill this year. Human cloning is wrong and dangerous, no matter what cause it serves. Yet Congress and its leaders refuse to act, content to wait for a politically opportune time for a vote. But scientists are not operating on our electoral timetable. While we wait, cloning is coming down the pike, and it will happen here sooner than we know if we do not act. Those who would delay and do nothing will bring shame on Congress and on this body if we do not stop it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, recently received an award from the American Foreign Service Association for constructive dissent that is intended to ``foster creativity and intellectual courage within the State Department bureaucracy.'' Last year, the winner was critical of the Iraq war. Ambassador Evans' constructive dissent was calling the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottomans in 1915 genocide. Our national policy towards the 1915 events calls it a tragedy, but not genocide. So Turkey was very upset, as were a number of ``very serious people'' at the State Department. And this award, intended to encourage dissent, was revoked. Obviously, the State Department was concerned about upsetting our ally, Turkey, though the facts seem to support the ambassador here. The sad thing is that an award intended to encourage dissent has now reinforced the powers that be. It seems the State Department is okay with dissent from the policy of a Republican President in Iraq, but it opposes dissent from a policy that denies the truth. So much for intellectual courage.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the American people provide 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, but the American people cannot impact what happens at the U.N. For instance, the American people have no ability to force accountability in the billions stolen from the Oil-for-Food program. The American people have no way of objecting to the appointing of countries like Syria, Libya, North Korea and Cuba to the Human Rights Commission. The American people have no way of pressuring Kofi Annan to resign or force prosecutions of peacekeepers who raped the very people they were ordered to protect. Today, the U.N. operates with little or no oversight from its member states. We have an opportunity to change that with H.R. 2745, which gives the American people the leveraging tool. By conditioning 50 percent of our U.N. dues to a series of reforms, the legislation would finally give the American people a voice on things like religious freedom, political oppression and abuses of power that have plagued the U.N. since its earliest days. I urge support.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a 10-year-old Knoxville, Tennessee child, Luke Whitson, and some of his friends chose to read the Bible to each other during recesses instead of playing on the jungle gym or kickball. Luke's principal was not amused. She put a stop on this terrible practice at once and told the students not to bring their Bibles to school again. Now, we expect principals to protect kids from bullying and ensure a healthy learning environment. We do not expect them to dictate issues of faith or, worse, mandate a faith-free environment. However, this principal is a ground soldier in a national campaign to remove faith, even voluntary expressions of it, from publicly funded programs and facilities. School children, all people, should have the right to read freely in their own free time, whether it is during recess at school or in the break room during lunch at work. Our government buys and provides copies of the Koran and prayer rugs to terrorist prisoners at Gitmo. We expect our soldiers to honor a terrorist's right to worship freely, but will we stand for the right of an American child to do so as well? Sounds like somebody is paranoid.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the continued reports of rape, mutilation, killings, and racism from Darfur, Sudan. The African Union, the U.N., the international community all know what is happening there. Women are raped and men are killed. Our government has called it genocide. The U.N. stopped short of using that term but has expressed concern. The fact is the extremist regime in Khartoum is engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign, so- called Arab Muslims brutalizing and attacking so-called black Muslims. One 21-year-old Sudanese woman was attacked by a group of uniformed men who said, ``You are black people. We want to wipe you out.'' Madam Speaker, where is our outrage? Where is the outrage of the international community and the U.N.? We have no excuse because we know what is happening. The U.N. does not appear to have the ability to rally the public's popular support among its membership to act decisively because of a few powerful states undermining the process behind the scenes. The real question is, does the international community care enough to go after the Sudanese government and its puppet militias? I wish I could say we do. People are suffering because of our inaction and inaction of the U.N. and the international community.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the States should decide. Is that not what we heard in debate on gay marriage? Well, that is what Nebraska did, with a constitutional amendment passed by their State legislature and approved by over 70 percent of their voters in a referendum. The State decided that the definition of marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, a definition that nearly everyone in this country agrees with. But recently an activist Federal judge disagreed and the duly enacted law of the State, the decision of the State and its reelected representatives and voters, was overruled by an activist Federal court. Does not sound like States deciding to me. On the contrary, it is exactly what many of us have said would happen, activist courts would erode the will of the people in States like Nebraska. The other side, the side screaming for States' rights just 10 months ago, has not said a word while Federal courts decide and impose their will of what marriage is on the States. This is too far. We need to act. The Federal Marriage Protection Amendment will ensure that States decide this issue of critical importance. If the other side really believes their own rhetoric, they will back this amendment and fight for judges who allow the people and their elected representatives to debate and decide cultural issues.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Davis amendment, which year after year has been offered and defeated. When President Clinton allowed abortions in military facilities in the early 1990s, all military physicians, as well as many nurses and supporting personnel, refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. The current administration would not do this. But future administrations could. Therefore, if the Davis amendment were adopted, not only could taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources could be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the child in the womb. The American working family should not be forced to fund the extremist health care agenda of this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Davis amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, government watchdogs seem to be popular these days. They claim to keep an eye on politicians to keep them honest. Political Money Line is gathering data that is available to the public on who is paying for congressional travel. That is a watchdog. It puts the truth out for the public and sounds a warning when there is a problem. However, other so-called watchdogs are not watching out for the public; they are promoting their own political agenda. They are partisans. Four of the big ones, Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and Campaign Legal Center all have deeply embedded partisan ties with the Democrats. Together, they have hired Democrat staffers and former Democrat public officials, and they have contributed millions to Democrats in elections. Together, they have launched an attack on their partisan rivals and their number one enemy, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). They do not care about the public. They care about power. They want it back. This has nothing to with watching out for the public, but everything to do with partisans deceiving the American people and trying to change the party in power.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)