Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that Mexico is making very tiny progress, but a little progress. But there are not very many ways to address this. And the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), both as vice chairman of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee and in general, has been very active in bringing awareness to this subject. We held a hearing, and we need to understand that it was not just Deputy Sheriff March who was killed. The Los Angeles County District Attorney told us at that hearing over 200 murder suspects in Los Angeles County alone have fled to Mexico. We have to address this question. It is tough enough with the death penalty; but if we cannot even do life imprisonment, how in the world are we going to enforce our law in the United States, and how can we not have a double standard, actually a triple standard, on our citizens? They can get the death penalty. They can get life in prison. But if they can get across the border, there will be no penalty. It is a travesty, and we have to figure out some way to make this stick. And I appreciate the gentleman's leadership. We need to continue to work at this and make sure that the government of Mexico understands this cannot stand. This has to change, or we will be out of control on our borders as we see murderers flee across and we cannot get them back. I rise in support of the Deal Amendment. On October 1 of last year, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources addressed the status of the extradition process, an area of growing concern for lawmakers and law enforcement officials throughout the U.S. The most significant problem with the extradition process today is the conditions imposed by foreign nations on extradition. This problem is not new. For many decades now, certain nations that ban the death penalty within their own borders have refused to extradite any criminal who could face the death penalty in the U.S. Other countries refuse to extradite any fugitive who was convicted in absentia. Prosecutors in the U.S. have generally dealt with this problem by agreeing to seek life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, or by agreeing to hold a retrial. In October 2001, however, the Mexican Supreme Court issued a decision banning the extradition of anyone facing life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, on the grounds that the Mexican constitution gives all criminals the right to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Thus, no matter how heinous the crime or how dangerous the criminal, Mexico will refuse to extradite anyone facing life imprisonment--which in most of our states is the minimum punishment for first degree murder. If Mexican authorities officially refuse an extradition request, they will then proceed to prosecute the fugitive under their own law--which often results in much lesser penalties. American prosecutors thus face a dilemma. They must either agree to charge a murderer with manslaughter or another lesser offense that does not match the seriousness of the crime; or they must trust to the Mexican justice system. Many prosecutors have simply refused to request extradition under such conditions preferring to hope that the fugitive will sneak back into the U.S. and be apprehended. The case of Deputy Sheriff David March illustrates this problem. Deputy March, a seven-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, was murdered while making a routine traffic stop in April 2002. His suspected killer, Armando Garcia, a Mexican national and violent drug dealer who had been deported three times from the U.S., immediately fled to Mexico. Mexican authorities have refused to extradite Garcia, on the grounds that he faces, at a minimum, life imprisonment. This is indeed not an isolated case; the Los Angeles district attorney's office estimates that over 200 murder suspects in Los Angeles County alone have fled to Mexico. In response, several Members of Congress have offered legislation calling for changes to the existing extradition treaty. Other issues surrounding the extradition process must also be examined by Congress. For example, in March 2002 the Justice Department's Inspector General released a report criticizing the Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs, the main Justice Department agency responsible for extradition matters, for its management of extradition cases. Questions have also been raised about how vigorously other federal agencies with potential influence are pursuing extradition cases. It is important the concerns Mr. Deal raises be addressed at the highest level of the government. We need to send a signal to the Government of Mexico and other nations that cop-killing drug dealers must be extradited to the United States for prosecution.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe this is mission creep, this is more like Mission Success. But I want to say first before I get into it, and I appreciate that the gentleman from California has agreed to withdraw his amendment, as I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from California who has truly been committed to Colombia, who was in the Peace Corps in Colombia, and has worked through many of these problems. And the gentleman from Massachusetts has shown, through his personal visits to Colombia in a repeated way and in different areas that he is truly and deeply concerned, as is the gentlewoman from Illinois. I think it is important that even when we have deep differences of philosophy on how to approach narcotics, how to approach things like sending our troops overseas, that we treat each other with respect here in this body and it is very important, even in these most contentious times, that we try to do that here; and we all need to work towards that. But we do have some disagreements. First, the reason I say that I believe it is Mission Success is that one way we measure this is whether we have succeeded in reducing the massacres which have gone down this year compared to last year by 41 percent, massacre victims by 55 percent, kidnappings by 46 percent, executive kidnappings by 60 percent, illegal roadblocks by 66 percent, roadblock kidnappings by 61 percent, bank robberies by 66 percent; in addition to the statistics we are getting on cocaine and heroin seizures which are substantially up, but which often, as we all know are fungible, because it seems like we always discover more but, in fact, at this point, we cannot even find in organized areas big plots of heroin, which has been a growing problem. They have moved it into higher altitudes; and, quite frankly, we did not understand how hard it was going to be to continue to make the reductions. Similar in coca. They have reconfigured. We are making progress. We believe we are at a critical tipping point. We have an administration in Colombia that has finally understood a basic point, not only about the DMZ, but about going after, in a repeated way, the coca growers. I am a strong supporter, as the gentleman from California knows, of alternative development. We have met down in Colombia with leaders there and understand unless we can rebuild their justice system, it is the oldest democracy in South America, but unless we can rebuild that justice system, we have deep problems, and we have worked to try to make sure funding goes both ways. But, quite frankly, nobody will run for office if they think they are going to be assassinated. Businessmen are fleeing the country if they think they are going to be kidnapped. I went in Nelson Mandela Village with many of the displaced people, and they do not want to go home because, first, the FARC comes through and terrorizes them, then the paramilitaries come through and terrorize them; often the kidnappings, and what they need is some order. We have an administration under President Uribe who is giving the order. And, to my view, and I think to most observers, this is the model for Iraq. By the way, we are not asking for 800; we are saying a cap, and that way we do not have to come back. The number there of advisors varies. These are not fighters, soldiers in the sense of them shooting bullets like in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are advisors. In my opinion, this is where we want to be in Iraq, this is where we want to be in Afghanistan, where we are arguing how many advisors we have there. But the people on the ground in Colombia who are fighting and dying are Colombians, not Americans. And they are fighting, by the way, over something that is our drug habit and Western Europe's drug habit. They did not have, and I heard them all the time here, a civil war. They have at different points in time, like many countries, had people who are displaced landowners or people who felt land distribution was unfair, which it generally is in South America, and had a civil war; but this is now a narcotics war with only a small pocket. The total support for the FARC is less than the drug lords, terrorists, dealers, and other terrorists groups in the United States. We would not like it if Colombia referred to us as having a civil war because we have drug dealers in our country or we have terrorists in our country. The group that tried to negotiate the peace, and many of them have come out, may have at one time been there for altruistic, civil war motives; but this is a classic terrorism war at this point, and Uribe is going after it. He, as much as anybody. And we can see it in Medellin; we can see it in Putumayo and in other areas working for alternative development. I believe this lifting of the cap which may be only 450, may be 500, hopefully will eliminate the need to come in, if there are times when we need a few more, of advisors to train the Colombians and to use the model where they are really turning the progress. Quite frankly, if we do not reach a tipping point, we have a problem, and we need to work together, that after these people start to move back into their villages, after they start to rebuild their communities, we absolutely have an obligation to help with the financial alternative development, to help them rebuild those institutions. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) working in this bill to allow, one group that I worked with was Kid Save where we have many of these older kids who are orphaned or who have been abandoned, and this bill now allows some money to be able through AID to help those kids in adoption in the United States and in Colombia; and that is the type of thing we need to be working towards. But to achieve that, we have to have order.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the manufacturers in my home State who already have not been run out of business by unfair Chinese competition. It is bad enough that China continues to abuse human rights, that they bully Taiwan, they deny workers' rights in China; but we have seen a regular manipulation of their currency that has resulted in unfair competition to the tune of up to 40 percent in the cost of many goods. I have manufacturers in my district that cannot get the raw materials for the goods for the costs that the Chinese are selling it. That, by definition, is dumping. They are selling in the United States for under the cost of goods for even just the basic raw materials. We need not just rhetoric out of this Congress. We need an actual law passed that says when they manipulate the currency that countervailing duties are immediately imposed. The administration has been working with dumping lawsuits, but they take up to 3 years. By that time our companies are long gone. Many of these manufacturers are very small; and by the time they steal the private intellectual property rights over the time that they dump illegally into our country, the manufacturers are gone. They are the little guys. They cannot afford attorneys that go for 3 years. They are laying off their employees, and even then they do not know how to fight or how to get big enough to fight. We in Congress need to be more aggressive, or we will not have a manufacturing base left. We can talk about our national defense, and we will not have a national defense. Now, intellectual property is important not only to movies, not only to music, but to manufacturers. I have a company in my district that makes the fasteners that go on our containers. We talk about the importance of international trade and security and how we are trying to push that security out to Singapore and into China so we have preclearance before it hits our harbors. Our security is only as safe as the sealant on the containers. The American companies will give us the numbers of the seals so we can trace to see whether people are cheating, but the Chinese manufacturers will not; and the reason they will not is because they have stolen the intellectual property rights for, for example, this seal. These are four Chinese companies that have duplicated this seal even with ``shinning fortune,'' they meant to say ``shining fortune.'' They spelled it ``shinning.'' They copied it and stole it. We now cannot track the containers because they have stolen intellectual property rights. They have put American companies and workers out of business, and that makes our national security more difficult. We have to understand that unless we fight for intellectual property rights, unless we fight for our manufacturers, we cannot talk about free trade if it is not fair; and it has to be fair, or it is just a false promise that when we say we are going to have international trade we are all going to be better by the international trade. Free trade must be fair. This resolution is a start, but we do not need this resolution. We need some laws.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ROC. The Republic of China, more commonly known as Taiwan, is a democratic haven perched on the edge of Asia and confronted everyday with the scourge of communism. H. Con. Res. 462 reaffirms an unwavering commitment by the United States to the Taiwan Relations Act and to the ROC. From the moment the communists overran the Chinese mainland, the Republic of China on Taiwan has been threatened with invasion and destruction. The dictators in Beijing have sought to isolate Taiwan from the rest of the world. They put pressure on Taiwan to be subservient to Beijing's diktats. Despite this constant shadow, the people of Taiwan have built a vibrant market economy and an equally vibrant democracy based on the rule of law. As Taiwan has prospered and worked to achieve full democracy, the United States has stood shoulder to shoulder with Taiwan against the potential onslaught of the so-called ``People's'' Republic of China. Unlike in mainland China, the people of Taiwan enjoy many of the freedoms that we in the United States also enjoy. As mainland China develops economically, it would be easy for the United States to focus on Beijing and forget about our longstanding ally. This is not and never should be the case. The United States must continue to be a partner with Taiwan. We must do what we can to help Taiwan maintain its political and economic independence. Although the United States does not maintain full diplomatic relations with the ROC, our commitment, outlined in the Taiwan Relations Act, has never wavered. The communist government in Beijing has made it clear time and again that it will not back away from its Taiwan policy. Whether it is naval exercises in the Taiwan Straits or objecting to Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization, Beijing continues to menace the ROC. When you look at a map of Asia, the PRC clearly dwarfs Taiwan. It is many, many times bigger geographically and many, many times more populated. Any time it chooses, the PRC could overrun Taiwan and end the democratic experiment in that country. It is only the backing of the United States and the U.S. commitment outlined in the Taiwan Relations Act, that has kept the communists at bay. As the PRC continues to develop economically and politically, it is important that the United States have allies in the region with whom we can work vis-a-vis mainland China. Taiwan is such an ally. They share our values of democracy and market economics. We must ensure that Taiwan remains free to act independently of China. The Taiwan Relations Act ensures that they are able to do so.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank my colleague from Indiana for his leadership and emerging as a strong spokesman for the State of Israel and also my colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) who has crusaded for years and has been a personal example to many of us in standing up to the persecution of Jews throughout the world. This week, the International Court of Justice, under dubious jurisdiction, ruled that Israel's security fence was illegal. In essence, the ruling declares that Israel has no right whatsoever to defend itself, protect its people, or to live at peace. Israel did not want to build a fence. I am sure that they would have preferred to spend the time and money on something else. Unfortunately, terrorist attacks and an unwillingness or inability by the Palestinian Authority to rein in those terrorists forced Israel to construct the fence. Whereas the Palestinian Authority has been unsuccessful, the fence has proven to be effective in combating the waves of homicide bombers that once flooded Israel with death and destruction. The number of successful attacks has fallen significantly. Innocent lives have been saved. The international court does not seem to care about saving lives. It would rather assist the terrorists. It would rather promote religious bigotry. It would prefer that Israel throw its hands in the air and surrender to certain annihilation. Before, during and after the ICJ case, Israel has borne the brunt of unmitigated hatred from the world community. Only Israel is at fault, only Israel kills, only Israel is intransigent on the peace process. How many innocent Israelis have to be killed while riding on a bus, sitting in a cafe, or walking down the street? Too many to count. Who refuses to stop terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah? The Palestinian Authority's inaction is a resounding refusal. Rather than waiting for the Palestinian Authority to do something, Israel has decided to protect children walking to school, mothers shopping for groceries, and commuters riding the bus to work. No one questions our right to protect our citizens, but apparently the ICJ believes convenience for the Palestinians trumps the right of the State of Israel to protect its citizens. The international community has blinded itself to the criminal and terrorist activities of Israel's neighbors and the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There has been no condemnation of homicide bombers. There has been no condemnation of persecution of religious minorities in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. There is no condemnation of Arab treatment of Palestinians in other Middle Eastern countries. Only Israel is singled out for criticism. The fact that Israel alone is criticized for so-called human rights violations and for the persecution of Palestinian Arabs shows, in my opinion, that religious bigotry rather than a true sense of justice and fairness is what has been driving this issue. A just and fair examination would question where millions of dollars in aid given to alleviate Palestinian poverty has gone. A truthful assessment would also recognize Israel as a democracy in sea of autocratic states. A balanced portrait of the situation would show that Israel's Arab minority enjoys full citizenship in Israel. Can the same be said of Jews outside Israel? Can the same be said of Palestinian Arabs living in other Middle Eastern states? The International Court of Justice has ruled that they would prefer a Middle East without Israel. They would rather see a democratic state where all people can live, work and practice their religion disappear from the face of the Earth. Most assuredly if the security fence is dismantled, Israel's right to self-defense will be dismantled right along with it. Do not be fooled by the enemies of Israel. They will not be satisfied by the dismantling of the fence. They will only be satisfied when Israel is gone.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I have two comments I wanted to make in particular on this bill. I was particularly happy to see that the bill is requiring the commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection Agency to work to establish integrated border inspections areas on the U.S.-Canada border. As we have worked through the last few years in homeland security and the narcotics areas, as well as with the U.S.-Canada Parliamentary Group, Canada is our most important trading partner. We have one example up in Montana where we have an integrated customs border station. When we developed that, we had some problems in developing it, because at that point we were still having questions of whether our customs agents could carry their guns to the restrooms. So the restrooms all had to be on the American side. We were trying to get integrated immigration laws, because if they got a foot on Canadian soil, they could claim the full rights of the Canadian citizenship. We had to put barriers up in the middle of that building and angle it down a hill, and so two-thirds of the immigration station wound up on the American side with all sorts of problematic issues involved with that. But the Canadian leadership has shown much more willingness to try to accommodate some of the concerns we have. This is critically important in Detroit, where there is not enough room on the American side to expand trunk clearance facilities; and we need to work with the city of Windsor, as well as up at Port Heron and the tunnel at Windsor. It is critical in Buffalo, where we have had huge concerns about whether we need additional bridges and how we handle the American side there, and at Niagara Falls. And if we can work out integrated systems at these major border crossings where we do not have to have it on both sides, we do not have to have the truck traffic and car traffic backing up the bridges, it is very important, where we have, in many cases, land on the Canadian side but not on the U.S. side. And I am really pleased to see that this was raised in the bill. There is a second issue that is not in the bill that may come up in our Committee on Homeland Security markup later this week. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has been a leader in this, and I have been supportive, and that is what to do with the air and marine division of ICE, because the air and marine division of the Legacy customs division, the focus was narcotics, and it does not purely fit either being on the border or doing investigatory follow-up. And it is probably the most critical area, as far as air interdiction, marine interdiction and the follow-up of illegal narcotics, that we need some flexibility so that that air and marine has a unique mission separate from the Coast Guard and the air division of the Border Patrol. And that is in flux right now, and we are trying to address that in the Select Committee on Homeland Security. And if so, I hope we can work with the authorizers as they go to conference on this important bill so that we can match the authorizing committee with the Committee on Homeland Security and the narcotics subcommittee that I chair, and I look forward to working with the chairman on that.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer an amendment today with respect to the Food and Drug Administration, but I do want to put on the record my disappointment with the agency with respect to issues of concern to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, which I chair. The first matter concerns the reluctance of the FDA to exercise its responsibilities to protect the health of Americans from specious medical claims made about marijuana. In recent years, a large and well- funded pro-drug movement has succeeded in convincing many Americans that marijuana is a true ``medicine,'' to be used in treating a wide variety of illnesses. Unable to change the federal laws, however, these pro-drug activists turned to the state referendum process, and succeeded in passing a number of ``medical marijuana'' initiatives. This has set up a direct conflict between federal and state law on whether or not smoked marijuana is ``medicine.'' State laws purporting to legalize marijuana for medical purposes bypass these important safeguards. California and Oregon have adopted the most wide-reaching such laws. They allow anyone to use, possess, and even grow his own marijuana, provided he obtains the written ``recommendation'' of a doctor. Few, if any, restrictions are placed on what conditions marijuana may be used to treat; virtually no restrictions are placed on the content, potency or purity of such ``medical'' marijuana. The laws adopted in California, Oregon, and other States are extremely open-ended; California law even allows marijuana to be used for migraine headaches. This has led to a number of uses of marijuana as ``medicine'' that I believe to be highly questionable. For example, Dr. Phillip Leveque, has personally written recommendations for over 4,000 people to use marijuana, many of whom he never met. A witness who testified before my Subcommittee, Dr. Claudia Jensen, has recommended that teenagers use marijuana for the treatment of psychiatric conditions like attention deficit disorder (ADD). We do not allow patients to grow their own opium poppies to make painkillers like morphine, Oxycontin and even heroin with just a ``doctor's recommendation.'' We do not allow people to manufacture their own psychiatric drugs like Prozac or Xanax to treat headaches. Why, then, should we authorize people to ``grow their own'' marijuana, when the potential for abuse is high and there is little or no scientific evidence that it can actually treat all of these illnesses and conditions? Why should we abandon the regulatory process that ensures that drugs are manufactured at the right potency level and contaminant-free? Why should we stop the oversight that makes sure that drugs are being administered in the right dosage and in the safest manner? Where has the FDA been in the debate on medical claims concerning an unapproved drug? It is absent from the debate, deferring to other law enforcement agencies. Why? The debate that is taking place concerns FDA's core competency: is smoked marijuana medicine or not? FDA's feeble response to this direct challenge to its authority is to provide a link to the National Institute on Drug Abuse on its website. ``Medical'' marijuana referenda are a direct assault on nearly a century of food and drug law, and FDA needs to rise to its own defense. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to President Bush from Arthur T. Dean, Chairman and CEO of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, be inserted in the record concerning this important point. While FDA is almost negligent with respect to marijuana, it is nearly usurpatory with respect to on-site drug testing. Once again, the FDA is seeking to impose overly restrictive guidance on the manufacturers and consumers of on-site drug tests, an ill-conceived effort that runs directly counter to the President's initiative to increase the availability of student drug testing. Many schools also use these tests to deter student drug use. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush stated that student drug testing is an effective deterrent to drug use. Hunterdon Central High School in New Jersey is a model school that has used on-site drug and alcohol tests for over six years without problems. The New Jersey Supreme Court has upheld the program. The FDA's regulation of on-site tests will make them expensive and difficult to use and may cause Hunterdon and other schools to forgo the use of this valuable tool to deter drug use from our children. The FDA has proposed requiring an expensive and repetitive approval process for the testing kits and has proposed requiring onerous training and other requirements. One of the key studies cited by FDA as supporting the rationale behind promulgating its proposed guidance has been misinterpreted and has not been peer-reviewed. I urge the FDA to reconsider this proposal in light of its damaging effect on the Bush administration's priorities for protecting the health and safety of young people. Additionally, I am concerned that FDA is not using the best and latest science to alert consumers to the risks in using products regulated by the agency. For example, studies have consistently demonstrated that condom use doe not provide effective protection against infection with human papillomavarius (HPV). HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that causes nearly all cervical cancers. By way of comparison, nearly the same number of American women dies every year as a result of HPV/cervical cancer as do of HIV/AIDS. Despite these facts, FDA-approved condom labels have erroneously stated that condoms provide effective protection against STDs, and some condom companies have even claimed that condoms protect against HPV. In December 2000, President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 106-554 requiring the FDA to ``reexamine existing condom labels . . . to determine whether the labels are medically accurate regarding the overall effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HPV.'' Four years later, FDA has yet to comply with this legal requirement by relabeling condoms to be medically accurate. FDA assured me at a hearing held in March that the agency would issue new recommendations before the end of this year. Lastly, studies have also long demonstrated that use of the spermicide Nonoxynol-9 (N-9) increases risk for HIV infection. Yet the FDA, as recently as last year, stated on its website that ``some experts believe nonoxynol-9 may kill the aids virus during intercourse, too. So you might want to use a spermicide along with a latex condom as an added precaution.'' FDA did publish a proposed rule requiring warnings for OTC vaginal contraceptives containing N-9 on January 16, 2003. This rule does not, however, apply to other products containing N-9 and the agency is still weighing whether or not to require consumer alerts on condoms containing N-9. The House Government Reform Committee on February 26 voted to approve ``Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget of the United States'' without dissent. This document urges the FDA to take action to alert consumers of the dangers posed by so-called ``medicinal'' marijuana, HPV and N-9. The American people are still waiting. Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Alexandria, VA, May 7, 2004. President George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the 5,000 coalition members that Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) represents, I am writing to strongly urge you to instruct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue warning letters to all states, local governments, medical boards, website operators and sellers of marijuana explaining that the FDA has not approved botanical marijuana for ``medicinal use'' and that it cannot be advertised as such. Furthermore, I respectfully request that you direct the FDA to take action against entities that continue to falsely advertise marijuana as medicine with appropriate penalties. It has recently come to my attention that the FDA has issued a multitude of warning letters to websites over: (1) weight loss claims, (2) the relationship between walnuts and the risk of heart disease, and (3) the potential risk of ultrasound `keep-sake' images. Many, if not most of these claims, are based on little or no conclusive, scientific evidence. Mel Stratmeyer, Ph.D., in the FDA's Office of Science and Technology was quoted in an article related to the ultrasounds as saying, ``. . . if there's even a possibility of potential risk, why take the chance.'' If the FDA uses the standard of ``possibility of potential risk,'' don't Americans also deserve to be protected from the demonstrably false claims being made about ``medical marijuana.'' The public relies upon the FDA to advise them on medicine, based on sound medical evidence. To date, the FDA has not approved nor has it found any medicinal value in botanical marijuana, which is why it remains a Schedule I controlled substances. Despite this fact, websites, state and local governments, private vendors and doctors continue to advertise and endorse the medicinal value of smoked marijuana. Marijuana is not a harmless drug: it is the most widely abused illicit drug in the nation. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Treatment Episode Data Set, approximately 60% of adolescent treatment cases in 2001 were for marijuana abuse. Research shows that the decline in the use of any illegal drug is directly related to its perception of harm or risk by the user. Advertising smoked marijuana as medicine sends the wrong message to America's youth--that marijuana is not dangerous. The effort of the drug legalization movement, to promote ``medical marijuana'' to the pubic severely dilutes the prevention messages that community anti-drug coalitions across America are trying so hard to communicate: marijuana is dangerous and has serious consequences. An April 2nd story in Reuters Health (``FDA Warns 16 Websites Over Weight Loss Claims) shows that the FDA is issuing warnings in these cases based on ``false and misleading claims'' that may have significant heath consequences to the public. These same kind of claims are being made regarding ``medical marijuana.'' Doctors and websites are giving false hope to patients by telling them that marijuana will help them, without warning these patients of the potentially serious side effects of smoking marijuana. At a hearing before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the government's lead agency on drug abuse research, testified that even if marijuana were found to have medicinal value at some point in the future, doctors could not in good faith recommend patients smoke it because it is inherently toxic as a delivery system. When considering new drug therapies, any positive effects must outweigh the negative side effects. Mr. President, I strongly urge you to instruct the FDA to send warning letters to all states, local governments, medical boards, websites and sellers of marijuana explaining that the FDA has not approved botanical marijuana for medicinal use and that it cannot be advertised as such. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Arthur T. Dean, Major General, U.S. Army, Retired, Chairman and CEO.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first, do not let any Member kid themselves; if you cannot enforce a Federal law, you do not have a Federal law. This would eliminate our ability to enforce marijuana laws in States that have passed this. My friend from California alluded to a very sad case in the State of California. When we as Members use phrases like ``medical marijuana'' and responsible officials imply that drugs like marijuana are medical, tragedies like this happen. Irma Perez, age 14, the late Irma Perez, was overdosing on Ecstasy. Her friends had heard that marijuana was medical, and instead of getting her to a doctor, where they said she would have been saved, they gave her marijuana on top of her Ecstasy and she died. When we have silly debates like this, quite frankly, we bear responsibility. Yesterday, in Ohio, six people died, including a family of four, two adults and two children, when a young person on marijuana and alcohol collided into a truck that hit two other vehicles and killed six people. If you have medical marijuana laws, like has happened in a court case in the State of Oregon, drug testing laws for truck drivers have been thrown out. It is now being appealed higher, but it is not even clear that you can be assured that our congressional drug testing law for truck drivers will stand up, given the way the courts are interpreting this. In California, we have a doctor that has given 348 patients under this medical marijuana, including for anxiety and restless leg syndrome. In Oregon, we have a doctor who gave it to 4,000 people over the last few years. We have another doctor in California who uses it, we actually had this person at our hearing, for ADD and hyperactivity, even though she admitted she has no evidence that it worked for those things, but she felt it would make them feel better. You either believe you have an FDA or you do not have an FDA. We hear about all kinds of other things that FDA cracks down on. Either you have a national FDA or you do not have an FDA. Furthermore, just last week in Oakland, California, they pulled over a group of guys with about 66 pounds of marijuana. They said it was for medicinal purposes. They found where it was coming from, and they found a warehouse. In this warehouse, they found millions of dollars of marijuana where the people started fleeing, and then these advocates of medical marijuana in California said, Oh, it was so medical. The person who owned the building had already been busted for transporting illegal drugs. He had lost his license as a pawnbroker. But, no, this was medical marijuana. Some estimate that up to 90 percent of the cases, this is the pro-medical marijuana cases, of marijuana use in California, would be classified as medical. That is why we have letters, and I will include these in the records, from the Community Antidrug Coalition, and Dr. Dean, who coordinates these efforts, says he opposes it; the Fraternal Order of Police; the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, who plead on behalf of the drug treatment and prevention groups in America to oppose this; the Drug- Free America Foundation; and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is concerned that they will not be able to enforce any drug laws if we do not allow the Federal Government to enforce. We need to defeat this amendment because it is the wrong message to our youth, it is the wrong message to our law enforcement, it is the wrong message to our drug treatment people, it is the wrong message to the people in the streets of their neighborhoods trying to reclaim their often crime-ridden neighborhoods from drug dealers and addicts in their areas, and it is, quite frankly, unconstitutional. We fought a Civil War over nullification. States do not have the right. If we can have States nullify an existing Federal law, then on what grounds can this not happen under the same precedent, a lack of enforcement on environmental laws, of civil rights laws, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, of any law? Because once a State can nullify a Federal law by saying, We cannot enforce it, you do not have a Federal system. This is an amendment fraught with difficulties and should be overwhelmingly defeated by both sides for a multitude of reasons. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letters referred to earlier in my statement. Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Alexandria, VA, July 1, 2004. Hon. Mark Souder, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Rayburn House Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 5,000 coalition members that Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) represents, I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose an amendment to be offered by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY) to the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies FY 2005 Appropriations bill which would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law with respect to use of ``medical'' marijuana. I strongly urge you to oppose this amendment not only because marijuana is an illegal, addictive Schedule I drug, with no medicinal value, but also because this sends the entirely wrong message to the youth of America. Marijuana is not a harmless drug: it is the most widely abused illicit drug in the nation. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Treatment Episode Data Set, approximately 60% of adolescent treatment cases in 2001 were for marijuana abuse. Research shows that the decline in the use of any illegal drug is directly related to its perception of harm or risk by the user. Advertising smoked marijuana as medicine sends the wrong message to America's youth--that marijuana is not dangerous. Congressman Hinchey's amendment goes even further by removing the ability of law enforcement officials to enforce Federal law. The efforts of the drug legalization movement, to promote the myth of ``medical'' marijuana and to stifle the efforts of law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal law severely dilutes the prevention efforts that community anti- drug coalitions across America are undertaking to communicate marijuana is dangerous, it has serious consequences, and is illegal. Congressman Hinchey's amendment is offered under the guise of compassion towards seriously ill patients, when in reality it is a ``Trojan horse'' to legalize marijuana. To date, the FDA has not approved nor has it found any medicinal value in smoked marijuana, which is why it remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Furthermore, in the States that have legalized marijuana for so-called ``medicinal'' purposes, seriously ill, elderly patients are not the only patients receiving marijuana--children are also. At a hearing before your Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Dr. Claudia Jensen, of Ventura, California, testified that she prescribes marijuana as medicine for adolescents under her care who have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics stating their opposition to the legalization of marijuana, they state that ``Any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could effect the prevalence of use among adolescents.'' What kind of a message are the youth of America receiving when doctors willingly give children marijuana--it tells children that marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to help us protect our nation's youth and oppose any and all amendments limiting the enforcement of the Federal law pertaining to marijuana use. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Arthur T. Dean, Major General, U.S. Army, Retired, Chairman and CEO.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul. This amendment would have the practical effect of putting doctors above the law. It would prevent the federal government from taking action against a doctor who abused his privilege of issuing prescriptions for controlled substances, including addictive and dangerous drugs like Oxycontin. While I have great respect for doctors, and I know that the vast majority of them are honest, law-abiding and motivated solely by their concern for their patients, we can't exempt them from our drug laws. First, there is no evidence that the federal government is ``persecuting'' doctors for prescribing pain killers. Last year, in fiscal 2003, only 50 doctors nationwide were arrested for illegal prescriptions. That is only five one-thousandths of one percent (.005%) of all the doctors who have DEA licenses to write prescriptions. No one can seriously argue that the DEA is engaging in some kind of campaign to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for pain killers. Second, the tiny number of physicians who were arrested were not arrested just because they prescribed pain medication. They were arrested because they abused the public trust and the clear standards of the profession set by their peers. These were essentially drug dealers hiding behind a white coat. They used their professional status to obtain sexual favors, drugs, and money. Last year, six doctors were arrested for trading drug prescriptions for sex. Twenty-three doctors were arrested for writing prescriptions in exchange for money, four doctors were arrested for issuing prescriptions in exchange for other illegal drugs, and seventeen were arrested for writing prescriptions to obtain drugs to feed their own drug habits. (I am attaching a listing of those arrests, provided by the DEA, to my statement for the Record.) Let's take a look at some examples. Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer was convicted last March for writing 153 illegal prescriptions for painkillers; five women testified that he demanded sex in exchange for those prescriptions, usually for Oxycontin. Another doctor wrote them in the dressing room of an adult nightclub, and another issued prescriptions for sex, firearms, lawn and farm equipment, and labor on his personal property. I don't think anyone in this House would want to give people like that a blanket immunity from the law. Now, it may be argued that the amendment would only prohibit enforcement when drugs are prescribed ``for the purpose of relieving or managing pain''. But this distinction is meaningless--because anyone who uses a narcotic can argue that it is to relieve pain. When dealing with problems like drug trafficking and abuse, we can't just rely on the word of drug dealers and addicts. Instead, current law already recognizes a reasonable judge of the conduct of doctors--the professional standards set by their peers. I would like to note that the American Medical Association, the largest professional organization in the country representing doctors, has itself refused to support this amendment--precisely because it would immunize the few bad apples who abuse their professional trust. In closing, I'd like to point out that this amendment would seriously undermine our goal of reducing Oxycontin and other prescription drug abuse. As President Bush stated in the National Drug Control Strategy for 2004, the problem of prescription drug abuse is a growing threat that needs to be addressed. The misuse of prescription drugs was the second leading category of illicit drug use after marijuana, with an estimated 6.2 million Americans having used prescription drugs for nonmedical, illegal purposes. Oxycontin was abused in 2002 at a rate ten times higher than in 1999. Abuse by high school seniors of Vicodin is more than double their use of cocaine, ecstasy or methamphetamine. Meanwhile, Internet pharmacies (which frequently rely on illegal prescriptions), ``doctor shopping'' and other illegal drug diversion tactics are presenting new challenges to law enforcement and the community. Those few doctors who contribute to this problem must be held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. DEA Arrests of Physicians--Fiscal Year 2003 summary Prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors--6; prescriptions in exchange for drugs--4; prescriptions for money--23; obtaining drugs by fraud/personal abuse--17. Note: 50 arrests reported for Fiscal Year 2003 which includes 2 separate arrests of the same physician. physicians of note Two physicians, Dr. H and Dr. S, maintained medical practices specializing in the treatment of chronic pain. While both physicians treated some legitimate pain patients, they both also practiced outside the scope of legitimate medical practice by prescribing OxyContin for other than legitimate medical reasons. These illegal activities led to their investigation and subsequent arrests. Two individuals died from overdoses of the OxyContin prescribed by one of the physicians. One physician has been convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. The other physician is awaiting trial. prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors Dr. R--Pittsburgh--provided prescriptions for controlled substances in exchange for sex. Date opened: 4/16/01; date of arrest: 6/3/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of Oxycodone, Fentanyl, & Xanax. Dr. W--Washington--wrote prescriptions to female members of motorcycle gangs in exchange for sex. Date opened: 6/10/03; date of arrest: 6/10/03; conviction date: 1/14/04; charges: unlawful distribution of Percocet. Dr. D--St. Louis--wrote prescriptions in exchange for sex, firearms, lawn and farm equipment and labor on his personal property. Date opened: 4/12/00; date of arrest: 11/25/00; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership. We have many parks in this country that have been cut 30 percent in their staffing. In addition, we are seeing rangers transferred for homeland security reasons. There is a crisis in our national parks, the most popular institution in the country. Rangers are the most highly respected profession in the country, they are being slashed indirectly, and many Members of Congress are not even aware of that. We need to continue to raise that on the floor. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I had intended to add an amendment later on in the bill but would not offer that in return for a colloquy with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from North Carolina. I understand there was some discussion in committee about the operations budget for the National Park Service. This issue is of great concern to me, and despite the committee's efforts to direct a greater proportion of the Park Service resources to the operational needs of individual parks, the bill does not go nearly far enough toward addressing the $600 million annual appropriations shortfall. As the gentleman knows, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I, along with 82 of our colleagues, requested an operations increase this year of $190 million from the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies and $50 million from the homeland security bill. The committee has provided only a $76 million increase, with $55 million of that amount directed toward base operations of the parks. In light of the parks having had to absorb $170 million during the last 3 years, including additional costs for homeland security, salaries, wasteful competitive sourcing studies and other new mandatory costs, this amount clearly is not enough. I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) offered an amendment in committee that would have added $45 million more for operations, but it was withdrawn. I am considering offering the same amendment on the floor. What are the committee's plans for providing additional resources for the parks during conference?

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, too often in this world, evil is not called evil. In our rush not to offend others or to avoid making judgments, speech is couched in euphemisms or soft tones. Evil is ignored or glossed over. Last year, the United States saw evil in Burma. And last year, the United States had the courage and conviction to call evil by its name. Last year, the United States Congress and President Bush imposed harsh sanctions on the military dictatorship controlling Burma. Some may say that the term evil is too harsh or that it is offensive, but in my estimation, there is no other word for what is happening right now in Burma. Men are routinely pressed into forced labor for the military. Women are raped and beaten. Countless children have been orphaned. Villages suspected of resistance are burned. Food is confiscated or destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced in Burma and surrounding countries. And anyone can be thrown into prison at anytime for the slightest infraction or for no reason at all. Last week, we heard a lot about freedom. We heard that millions of people are now living in freedom because the Cold War came to an end because of the unrelenting pressure Ronald Reagan brought to bear against the Soviet Union. It is easy to think that because the Cold War is over, freedom has completely triumphed. Sadly, that is not the case. Millions of people, including the people of Burma, still live under the lash of dictatorship. In 2003, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act passed this House by a vote of 418-2. Four hundred eighteen Members recognized the junta's evil deeds and voted to isolate Burma from the outside world. This Congress and this Administration realize that putting pressure on the dictatorship will hasten its demise almost as certainly as did American pressure on the Soviet Union. The United States was once nobly described as a shining city on a hill. Indeed, millions of people around the world look to the United States as a beacon of liberty. We must shine our light of freedom wherever freedom and justice are denied and wherever evil is present. Today, we have the opportunity to send a message to the people of Burma and to the rest of the world. By extending the sanctions the United States imposed on Burma last year, we declare there is still evil in Burma, and it is unacceptable. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 97.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, Great American Patriot, and conservative stalwart. This past weekend, I joined a delegation of Members from this body in honoring the veterans--both living and fallen--who brought freedom to Europe by storming the beaches of Normandy. Unfortunately, transportation problems have prevented me from participating more fully in commemorating the passing of a truly great president. Had I been able, I would have certainly joined my colleagues in unanimously voting to mourn the passage of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, a small town in the heart of America. His Midwest Christian upbringing helped to mold Reagan into the conservative icon that he has become. When I was 14 years old, living in a small rural Midwest town, I heard Ronald Reagan's ``A Time for Choosing'' speech for Barry Goldwater. That speech and many of his other speeches, which I would listen to on records, inspired me to get involved in politics and to fight for conservative values. I know Reagan did not inspire me alone. Ronald Reagan did not just speak about conservative ideals. He lived them and led with them. At a time when conservatives and conservatism were derided and ridiculed, he showed young politicians a new way to be a conservative. In 1981, President Reagan became the President of the United States. A boy from a small town had proven the American dream was still alive. At a time when a belief in America and freedom seemed to be at an all time low, Reagan's optimism renewed the confidence of a Nation. Reagan's plans for economic revitalization, smaller government, and a strong military moved the United States toward a brighter future. Over the course of two terms, he turned the United States and the world around. He was not content with the status quo domestically or internationally. Today, the world and the country are better for it. Our current prosperity is based on the course he charted. The freedom that millions of people enjoy can be attributed in part to him. This past weekend was the 20th anniversary of Reagan's moving D-Day speech. This Saturday marks the 17th anniversary of his Berlin Wall speech. Both of these speeches were devoted to freedom. As one of the 20th Centuries greatest advocates of freedom--both political and economic--Ronald Reagan has few equals. As Ronald Reagan ends his journey, I mourn his passing, but I am overwhelmed with gratitude that he was able to accomplish so many things for the United States of America.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on 4 June 1989, communist Chinese tanks rumbled into Tiananmen Square. Since that bleak day 15 years ago, when the communist hardliners quashed liberty under the treads of a tank, China has undergone many changes. Despite the liberalization that appears to have taken place, China remains dedicated to absolute control by the communist government. No where is this commitment more evident than in a 421 square mile economic and political haven called Hong Kong. In 1997, the United Kingdom returned Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China. As part of the agreement transferring sovereignty, China pledged to keep Hong Kong's democratic and capitalist system in place for 50 years. Hong Kong's Basic Law, which is based on an agreement between Great Britain and the PRC, guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Private property rights and protection from arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment are also guaranteed. Residents of the Hong Kong have the right to vote and the right to stand for election. The freedoms and liberties enshrined in the Basic Law sound remarkably like the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in the United States by virtue of the Constitution. The only difference is that no one in the United States is actively working to destroy the Constitution. Over the last few years, the honeymoon between Beijing and Hong Kong has ended. Beijing has tightened its grip on the region, and has begun to undermine the fundamental freedoms promised under the Basic Law. Perhaps not coincidentally, Hong Kong's economy has foundered in the last few years. When the British left Hong Kong, the Communist government reassured the world that nothing would be done to undermine Hong Kong. After all, it was argued, in their eagerness to show the world a new face, why would China destroy one of the premier trading and financial centers in the Orient. Why, indeed? After 7 years, we see that the Communist government has every intention of destroying Hong Kong. Last year Beijing proposed a law that would have restricted freedom of the press and the ability of residents to criticize the government. In response over 500,000 of Hong Kong's 6.8 million people demonstrated against the PRO's attempts to stifle democracy. The Mainland government backed off--but only temporarily. Hong Kong's Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has promised to revisit the issue. In April, Beijing ruled out universal suffrage for Hong Kong's chief executive in 2007 and the legislature in 2008. One mainland official said direct elections might not be possible until 2050. In early May, Beijing warned legislators in Hong Kong that they have no right to criticize the government's decision to rule out full democracy. Beijing also sent eight Chinese warships--two submarines, four frigates and two destroyers--through Hong Kong's Victoria Harbor. Is this display of force a prelude to a Tiananmen-style crackdown? This provocative display of force certainly sends an ominous warning to Hong Kong's democrats and the rest of the world that the People's Republic of China will dictate policy in Hong Kong, and that dissension will be dealt with in a resolute manner. All of the PRO's actions lay bare Beijing's contempt for the rule of law. It is apparent that the PRC wants to rule Hong Kong like the rest of China--corruptly, inefficiently, heavy-handedly. Hong Kong will not remain the vibrant capitalist center without freedom. Politics and economics are inextricably tied to one another. China's mishandling of Hong Kong sends an unmistakable message to other observers around the region. If China ever hopes to entice Taiwan into the Chinese fold, their policies, vis-a-vis Hong Kong do not offer very reassuring prospects. I believe it is up to the people of Taiwan to decide whether or not they will be united with the Mainland; but Beijing's current attempts to choke democracy and capitalism in Hong Kong certainly do not make unification an attractive option for Taiwan. Beijing's current attitudes toward Hong Kong show us the real meaning of One China, Two Systems. As the Beijing's true definition of this policy becomes apparent, it is imperative that we support Taiwan's efforts to resist Beijing's hostile advances. It is also imperative that we support democracy in Hong Kong before it is too late.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to congratulate the City of Warsaw, Indiana, and its residents on the city's sesquicentennial anniversary. When Mathew Springer built Warsaw's first permanent residence--a tamarack log cabin on the edge of a swampy wilderness--in 1836, America was a young, vibrant nation, expanding rapidly across the continent from its eastern shores. Warsaw then was in the crossroads of this westward movement, and the region was rapidly populated by an intrepid collection of settlers much like Springer. Among those who came to inhabit this western land were traders, trappers, merchants and farmers, who put down roots and laid the foundation for the thriving community we see today. Within two short decades of the construction of Springer's cabin, Warsaw had become a permanent community, a county seat worthy of incorporation in its own right. The original traders and merchants had constructed stores to sell their wares, community associations had formed, schools were constructed and a local government was firmly in place. The majestic courthouse, built by the citizens of Warsaw during this time of exciting development, still stands in the heart of the city as a symbol of the longevity of the city and its institutions. It is striking to imagine the extent to which Warsaw's 19th century commercial enterprises have developed and informed the current economic engines of the region. In 1895, for example, Revra DePuy founded a small company to manufacture rather innocuous medical equipment like wire mesh and wooden splints. Today, firms such as Zimmer, Biomet, and DePuy have made Kosciusko County the center of the world's orthopedic manufacturing industry. When thinking of the history of Warsaw and Kosciusko County, one cannot forget the natural splendor of the surrounding region, which has served as an attraction for settlers and visitors, alike, since the early 19th century. In addition to the simple enjoyment that the local community derives from them, Kosciusko's many lakes are a foremost recreational and tourist center in the State of Indiana. Kosciusko not only hosts visitors from across the state, but, indeed, from across America because of the county's beauty. As Warsaw celebrates the 150th anniversary of its incorporation, it is my sincere pleasure to join in recognizing the valuable contributions that the City of Warsaw and Kosciusko County have made to the region, the State of Indiana and America itself.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of months, I have been working with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation as they and the National Park Service have searched for a suitable location for the Victims of Communism Memorial here in our Nation's Capital. The memorial, authorized by P.L. 103-199, will honor over 100 million victims of communist atrocities around the world. With a death toll greater than that of all of the wars of the 20th century combined, communism has cast a shadow of terror from Berlin to Beijing, from Hanoi to Havana. The struggle of men and women against communism in these and other places must not be forgotten. As the world's leader in challenging Communist oppression, the United States cannot afford to forget the cost of communism and the reason for our struggle against it. The Victims of Communism Memorial will commemorate this struggle by paying tribute to those who have lost their lives to Communist tyranny. An enduring reminder of their sacrifice, the memorial will stand as a testimony to future generations of Americans, a solemn remembrance of the lives lost to Communist oppression and of the purpose of our Nation's fight against communism and for the cause of freedom. This story is not only an international story but also an American story. An estimated 26 million Americans trace their origins to former Communist countries. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has designed a memorial featuring a replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue created by pro- freedom activists in Tiananmen Square, including an eternal flame to the memory of the victims of communism and bronze panels with quotes from heroes of the cold war. This design is still pending approval of federal commissions. The Chinese Embassy recently contacted the National Park Service to express objection to the design's use of the Goddess of Democracy statue, stating that it is an ``anti-China sign.'' This week, as we remember the fifteenth anniversary of the tragic events in Tiananmen Square and the democracy protestors who stood their ground there, we remember the importance of that statue--not as a symbol that is ``anti- China'' but as one that is pro-democracy and pro-freedom. That statue represented the hopes of a people for democracy and freedom in their land. Their courage and sacrifice in standing firm in these hopes have inspired people around the world. A replica of their Goddess of Democracy statue will be a fitting element of the memorial commemorating the millions who have struggled against communism and for freedom. H. Res. 655 condemns the crackdown of those who stood for these freedoms in Tiananmen Square. With the Victims of Communism Memorial, we look to honor all who have suffered as they stood for freedom in the face of Communist tyranny. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts. We here have the great blessing of living in a country built on the ideals of democracy. We do well to remember that there are others in the world who have not enjoyed the same freedoms. May we never forget their suffering nor take for granted the ``land of the free'' in which we live.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize two individuals from my district who have dedicated their lives to making our country safer. Not only have these men served our Country in World War II, but they continue to go beyond their call of duty by providing their services to military funerals and always being available to lend a helping hand for the community. Willis A. (Jack) Pangburn, was born on September 3, 1918 in Mystic, Iowa. He served in the U.S. Army Infantry in WWII, and was wounded in action. Mr. Pangburn received both the Bronze Star and Purple Heart Medals for his valiant actions. He married Rosemary who passed away in 1985. Together, they had one son, four daughters. Mr. Pangburn is a member of the Disabled American Veterans, and American Legion Veterans of Foreign Wars, and was Post commander (2 years) of the VFW. Mr. Pangburn is honored as this year's Memorial Day Grand Parade Marshall in Goshen, Indiana for service as Coordinator of the Military Funeral Detail from 1987 to 1997. This unit participates in all military funerals requested by deceased veteran's families in Goshen. Honorary Color Guard, Flag Presentation, Rifle Salute, and TAPS are all included in the service. As many as 12 members participate. He presently serves as a member of this unit. Since 1946 he has helped in placing 4 inch white crosses on deceased VFW Members graves, many of these years he has been in charge of this work at Oakridge Cemetery. He continues to ``Ring Bells''(Santa Claus) for the Salvation Army, passes out ``Buddy Poppies'' on Memorial Day for the VFW, helps purchase and delivers food baskets to the needy at Christmas time, and is still ready to contribute his time and energy at 85 years of age. Warren H. Swartz, was born on May 7, 1924 in Millersburg, Indiana. He served in the U.S. Navy in WWII as a Gunners Mate in the South Pacific and part-time Diver. He married Gerry in January, 1953. Together they had one daughter. Mr. Swartz is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, and Disabled American Veterans, and presently serving as Chaplain of the D.A.V. since 1992. Mr. Swartz was honored as last year's Memorial Day Grand Parade Marshall in Goshen for his service as Coordinator of the Military Funeral Detail from 1997 to 2003. He still serves as a member and, as Chaplain of the D.A.V., he is called upon to present the American flag to the next of kin frequently. He is revered by all the men of this detail, which numbers about 45, by his faithful and military presence in the fulfillment of his duties. He is willing to travel anywhere to assist a veteran in need.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this week, the military dictators in Burma opened a ``constitutional convention'' whose purported aim is to establish democracy in Burma. Anyone who has followed the situation in Burma knows that the brutal dictators of the State Peace and Democracy Council (SPDC) are the last people who should be guiding the democratic process. While on the one hand, the SPDC talks of democracy and peace among Burma's ethnic and political groups, it continues to terrorize these same groups, impress people into forced labor for the military, and imprison those working for democratic change. This constitutional convention is a deception designed to give the perception of democracy while maintaining maximum military control. While the SPDC organizes its constitutional convention, the legal and duly elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. Nearly one year ago, the SPDC engineered an unprovoked attack on Aung San Suu Kyi's motorcade as she traveled throughout Burma spreading her message of freedom and democracy. In the aftermath of the attack, she was taken into custody for her own safety--at least that is what the Burmese military wants us to believe. Wherever she goes crowds gather to hear her message. Despite the danger of attending these rallies, the Burmese people do not care. Countless Burmese of all ethnic persuasions look to Aung San Suu Kyi as the very heart and soul of the Burmese democracy movement. The credibility and charisma of Aung San Suu Kyi cannot be denied; it cannot be sold; it cannot be bought. It comes only from standing up for what is right. To be sure, the movement is bigger than one person, but Aung San Suu Kyi has led the forces of democracy in Burma for many years. On many occasions, she could have left Burma behind, but at great personal sacrifice, she has remained. She provides a shining example of standing tall and standing firm in the face of relentless opposition and hardship. And although she has been in prison or under house arrest for 9 of the last 15 years, her commitment to freedom, democracy, and a better life in Burma has never wavered and never faltered. She is the public face of thousands of men, women, and children who have suffered unspeakably harsh conditions and who remain prisoners in their own country. As leader of the National League for Democracy, it would seem natural that Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD Vice Chairman Tin Oo, who is also in the hands of Burma's merciless thugs, would attend the convention. Shamefully, the SPDC has refused to release either freedom fighter before, during, or after the convention. Equally regrettable is that the SPDC has refused to allow NLD offices to reopen around the country. The SPDC has also failed to clarify procedures of discussion and has limited the parameters for discussion. The convention is being held in grim isolation with limited access by outside observers. In short, the SPDC is so tightly controlling the convention that it would seem that the participants can only rubber stamp the SPDC's agenda. That is not democracy; that is dictatorship. The National League for Democracy is boycotting the convention, and I support that decision. Participation in such an obvious fraud can only undermine all for which the NLD is working. Democracy in Burma is a goal that cannot be compromised. The United States believes in that goal. American sanctions on Burma have had a profoundly positive impact over the last year. Reports coming from inside Burma and from groups knowledgeable about the situation in that country have praised the tough stance the United States has taken against the dictatorship in Rangoon. Our tough stance is in danger of faltering unless the sanctions are renewed during this Congress. H.J. Res. 95, which has 46 bipartisan co- sponsors, approves the renewal of American sanctions and show our continuing commitment to freedom, liberty, and emancipation from tyranny. I urge all of my colleagues to fight for the passage of this important resolution. If the daylight of freedom feels like it's a long way off, it will be even longer unless the United States stands side by side with Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD, and the people of Burma struggling under the heavy yoke of oppression and cruelty.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleagues who stood to commemorate the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 and in memory of those who died 89 years ago. The Genocide of 1915-1923 was the culmination of decades of official Ottoman policies to stamp out Armenia--religiously, culturally, and ethnically. The ``Armenian Question'' posed a problem for many successive leaders until a seemingly ``brilliant'' realization--``No Armenians, No Armenian Question.'' The horrible answer to a perplexing question led to the slaughter of millions of Armenians and the continuing denial of the massacres by today's Turkish government. The long lists of atrocities have been well documented by numerous sources. The dwindling number of Armenians who survived the long death marches still tell chilling stories of their families' deaths. American diplomats and missionaries documented brutal attacks on peaceful cities and towns. German military personnel allied to the Turkish government, who defied orders to look the other way, compiled a record of death and destruction throughout the region. Even Turkish parliamentary and government documents speak to the existence and scope of these massacres. The United States has a long history and long alliance with the Armenian people. During the massacres of the late Nineteenth century, tons of humanitarian supplies and hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into Armenia from the United States in an effort to alleviate the suffering of the Armenian people. American missionaries and prominent Americans, including American Red Cross founder Clara Barton, visited Armenia and aided the starving, homeless, and terrorized. During the Genocide of 1915-1923, American missionaries documented the slaughter of Armenian men, women, and children. In some cases, missionaries risked their own lives to protect Armenians. Despite a compelling record proving the massacre of millions of human beings, there are still individuals, organizations, and governments that deny what happened 89 years ago. Given the United States' longstanding dedication to combating human rights abuses, it is shocking that the United States government has not officially recognized the savage butchery of one of the 20th Century's worst human rights violations. In his book ``The Burning Tigris,'' Peter Balakian describes the Genocide as follows: The plan to liquidate the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire was put into action in the spring and early summer of 1915. It was well orchestrated, and in city and town, village and hamlet, and in the Armenian sections of the major cities of Asia Minor and Anatolia, Armenians were rounded up, arrested, and either shot outright or put on deportation marches. Most often the able-bodied men were arrested in groups and taken out of the town or city and shot en masse. In the southeast towns and cities as were both killing stations and refugee spots, where Armenians who had survived long death marches from the north lived in concentration camps, in makeshift tents, or on the desert ground, hoping to stay alive. Farther south, in the Syrian desert, more Armenians died than perhaps anywhere else. There the epicenter of death was the region of Deir el-Zor, where Armenians died not only of massacre, starvation, and disease but were stuffed into caves and asphyxiated by brush fires-- primitive gas chambers. The Committee of Union and Progress's [Turkish ruling party] plan to exterminate the Armenians was made possible by the highest level of government planning: harnessing the bureaucracy for the organization and implementation of the Armenian deportations; the formation and organization of killing squads; the creation and manipulation of legislation, and the use of technology and communications . . . The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 ranks among the Holocaust, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's starvation of kulaks in the Ukraine, and Muslim violence against Christians in Sudan as one of the worst instances of inhumanity and wanton cruelty. No one denies that these violent events happened. Indeed, the denial of these episodes would be met with immediate criticism and vociferous censure. Why is Turkey given a pass when it comes to admitting past mistakes? I recognize that Turkey is a NATO ally and an ally in the war on terror. I recognize that the United States needs to maintain friendly relations with Turkey to help stabilize the Middle East, but as a friend of Turkey, the United States should be able to take its ally aside and point out its mistakes. Without recognizing our mistakes and our shortcomings, we do not learn. Without recognizing malice and cruelty wherever it is found, we risk forgetting these events and the lessons to be learned from them. My deepest sympathies go to the whole of Armenia, and more importantly, my pity to those who continue to deny or ignore the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians during the Genocide of 1915-1923.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank tonight's Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), for his leadership in Congress on the issue that I am going to address tonight, which is our narcotics problem in the United States. He has been a valuable member of this subcommittee from the time he got here, an aggressive member. We have held several hearings in California with him. And I want to personally thank him and tell him how much he will be missed, since he has chosen to leave Congress, because we really need people of his expertise and his commitment. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues on narcotics I am going to talk about tonight. We have had a busy number of days here in Washington on this subject, and I want to start first with Colombia, where we have the largest investment in the narcotics effort. Just not that many days ago, President Uribe, the President of Colombia, was here. He met with leaders on both sides of the aisle. He met with the Speaker's Drug Task Force, which I co-chair; and we had the opportunity to hear what is interestingly one of our great success stories. In the area of narcotics, it is not possible ever to totally defeat the drug problem in America because every day new people are exposed. We are dealing with fundamental human weaknesses. But we can either make progress or we can go back. We were making progress for nearly 10, 11 straight years when Ronald Reagan implemented a policy of ``just say no,'' articulated so ably by the First Lady. We, in fact, made tremendous progress. It was not just a slogan, just say no, but that was the message communicated to young people and people across the country. There was an aggressive effort to cut the sources of supply, interdiction, law enforcement, along with efforts in communities around the country to just say no and then help those who fell into drug abuse. As we backed off of that in the early to mid-1990s, and sent a different message of ``I didn't inhale,'' and cut back interdiction efforts, cut the drug czar's office from 120 employees down to about 30 employees, we saw such a surge in drug use in the United States and narcotics in the United States that it would take a 50 percent reduction from the 1993-94 levels, at the peak of the kind of drug revival in America to get back to where we were in the 1990-91 era. In the latter years of the Clinton administration, and since President Bush has taken office, we have had a steady reduction in drug use in junior high, sophomore year in high school, senior year in high school; and we are making steady progress. We have also had dramatic changes in the country of Colombia. Let me briefly refer to this map of Colombia. Colombia is a large country, the oldest democracy in South America. We often hear about its civil war, but it is a civil war with thugs. It is not a civil war in the sense of a traditional type of civil war. These are people who are violently trying to overthrow their government. Any poll will show any numbers in the group, and a number smaller than our prison population in all but a few States even, let alone our country. They are people who are thugs who have not been captured, and they provide protection and are increasingly taking over the production of cocaine. Ninety percent of our cocaine comes from Colombia; the heroin, and most of our heroin in America comes from Colombia, and they manage a lot of the networks for the marijuana distribution as well. But that was not always the way in Colombia. Colombia has been destabilized because of our use of narcotics in the United States and in Europe. Colombia is a beautiful nation for tourism, with Cartagena and many cities along the coast. This is the Amazon basin here, feeding into the Amazon River. You have, in the darker green, beautiful areas of rain forest in that basin. These are the start of the Andes Mountains, beautiful high mountains. Up along the border with Venezuela we see Lake Maracaibo, the big piece of water coming in, and Venezuela there is one of the richest oil areas in the world, which is also true down in Colombia. We spent, with American tax dollars, millions to try to protect that pipeline. Colombia was our eighth largest supplier of oil. More than Kuwait. But it was stopped as narcoterrorists came in and started breaking the pipelines to try to deny the government of Colombia the ability to function. The oldest democracy. Anybody who has seen the fiction movie ``Clear and Present Danger'' has at least a fiction version of the violence that took place there, and an understanding of when the Cali and Medellin cartels were dominating the country what that was like. They basically corrupted the government, killed lots of the judges, killed 30,000 policemen, which is the equivalent of an incredible number in the United States. But they had oil. They were a rich oil country. This area in here, and in some of the other multiple other zones, is of course the richest coffee area in the world. You hear about Colombian coffee. If you have emeralds, they come from Colombia, odds are, unless they are fake. Gold. They have gold there. Most of our flowers that we buy in the United States come from there. If you fly into the beautiful city of Bogota, in the lower parts of the Andes, you will see just acres and acres and acres of places growing flowers. Many of the supermarkets, the major chains bring that in. I have heard a figure as high as 70, 80 percent of the flowers sold in America come from Colombia. It is a stable, solid, economic country. That is not even mentioning textiles and other industries there. It is the oldest democracy that has been wrecked by us and by others. Now, as these cartels have had an impact, it has destabilized their political system. What we have done is ramped up what we call the Andean Initiative to not only cover Colombia but Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador with some help over to Brazil on the far side and some to Venezuela on the top and some to Panama on the sides, but we have mostly got it concentrated in Colombia. What we have seen as Congress appropriated additional dollars, our peak was probably $800 million a year, of which about 60 percent was for eradication efforts, 40 percent was to help rebuild their infrastructure, police forces, law enforcement, alternative development and other things like that, that coca eradication in this past year, after several years of this aggressive pressure and with the brave president of Colombia, President Uribe, when I say brave, what I mean is this: His father was assassinated by the drug dealers in Colombia. He has had multiple threats on his life. When I was there along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) at the swearing in and the inauguration of President Uribe, they attacked us. The two of us would have just been a footnote if we had died because there were many others there, too. But, as we left, we heard this big boom. I remember the gentleman from Massachusetts saying, ``I've never heard of a one-gun salute.'' We were supposedly inside a perimeter of roughly 10,000 soldiers protecting us, but they had launched Howitzers from about a mile and a quarter away. At first they went one way off, then they went in the other direction off, then they hit a housing complex and killed a bunch of people, then they hit the corner of the presidential palace, but by that time the helicopters and everybody were on them so we were spared. But they tried to kill him on his inauguration day. There is a multiple-million- dollar price on his head or his family, yet he carries on. Vice President Santos was kidnapped by the drug traffickers. He escaped. He was a newspaper publisher-editor in Colombia. He escaped from the drug traffickers, came back and decided to run for office. That is what you call two committed people, when they are so willing to stand up to the drug traffickers. Even when they have had their family killed and they personally have been kidnapped and have the threats on their life, they are standing there fighting. This is not Vietnam. This is not a country where we are asking, will they help? Will they do their share? This is not, quite frankly, even what we see in Iraq right now or Afghanistan right now, where we wonder sometimes which side the Iraqi police are on. When we see that incident the other day, it is like, Why were you standing there when they were killing American contractees? That is not the case here. They are dying because of our drug use, and what we are doing is supplying them with the training and the backup to do this. What has happened with this, and particularly with President Uribe's aggressiveness, is that they are now not just eradicating the coca crop once, they are eradicating it three times. Because coca, and the equator is down more in this area, somewhere in this zone, it is just among the best places in the world to grow this type of crop. You have elevation for heroin poppy, you have lots of rain, it can grow and plant multiple times a year. So unless you are really committed, you can do this token stuff. We sprayed it, we eradicated, yeah, but they got two more crops in that cycle. The question is, did you hit all three? Now, with adequate funding, we are hitting all three. We are going after them, President Uribe is going after them, and now alternative development can work. If on a street corner of the United States you can make $400 as a lookout for a drug group, it is pretty tough to talk you into working at McDonald's for $5.50, if you can get $400 with no risk. But if there is a risk you might go to prison, if there is a risk you could get shot in a drug shoot-out or something, then maybe you will take the $5 job. We cannot pay everybody what the drug dealers can pay them, but with this pressure we are seeing alternative development start to take place. Let me give you some of the good news from Colombia. Coca eradication has increased 57 percent and poppy eradication 27 percent. In some areas, they eradicate crops by hand. In other areas, with the assistance of the U.S. Department of State Air Wing, a precise aerial campaign surgically targets and destroys illicit crops. The chemical used is the same available to Americans for use at home from hardware stores. By the way, they use the same thing we spray with to put around their crops to kill weeds. So if it is a problem when we spray to kill the coca, it is a problem to go to any grocery store in any nation of the world because it is the same stuff. It is not dangerous stuff. That is one of the tremendously wrong rumors that spread, and it is not helpful for people to not tell the truth about this stuff. In drug seizures, coca base seizures have increased 813 percent, heroin seizures have increased 296 percent, drug labs detection and seizures have increased 321 percent. In Bogota alone, 2.8 tons of drugs were confiscated. These seizure statistics are exclusively credited to the Colombian National Police and Armed Forces. Their commitment is in evidence every day. Interestingly, even more important in one sense, it is very important that we control the coca and heroin, but long-term we have to have some stability. Quite frankly, the coca and heroin was so stockpiled that we have not seen all the results yet, and we need to start to see results on the street prices and supply in the United States. But we have also had other successes. Roadblock-type kidnappings are down 78 percent. Bank robberies are down 69 percent. Extortion kidnappings are down 64 percent. Massacre events and victims are both down 43 percent. Homicides are down 17 percent. The 2003 homicide rate is the lowest rate recorded since 1987. The rule of law and the power of the Colombian judicial system have improved markedly. Their commitment is in evidence every day. This is important, because for the first time in the populous areas of Colombia for decades they are getting stability. I had one meeting in my office with a Colombian-U.S. business group, and they got a phone call because at the school there where most of their children go in Bogota, there had been a kidnapping that day. I think it was in Bogota as opposed to Medellin, but whichever city it was, there had been a kidnapping where the FARC and the narcoterrorists had blocked off a bridge and got a young mother with her daughter. They all knew the person, they were all relieved that it was not their family, but can you imagine living with that every day about the kidnappings? Three different groups, ELN, the FARC and the so-called paramilitary groups are all practicing now, managing drug trafficking and the kidnapping. They are finally meeting a government that is committed and going after them. We are supplying the assistance to do it, not boots on the ground in battle but providing the technical assistance to keep the helicopters up. Our total investment in this battle when it is directly related to the United States and our hemisphere is 400, proposed to increase to 800. It is nothing. We have got that all over the world, and they are not on the front lines getting shot at. The ones that got captured were doing backup, and the FARC basically got them by accident, shot them, kept them and killed some. We are trying our best to get them out. But they are not out there. They are not the ones in the front lines doing the fighting or getting shot at like in Iraq because the Colombians themselves are doing it, and we have been accurately and thoroughly training their forces, that they have basically taken back their country. Seventy-four percent reduction in road attacks, 67 percent reduction in bridge attacks, 67 percent reduction in electric infrastructure attacks. It is pretty tough, as we are seeing in Iraq. If you cannot get your electric system to work, if you cannot make sure that the bridges are working across a river, if you cannot make sure that people can drive down the highway, it is pretty tough to establish law and order in a country. It is pretty tough to make sure that alternative developments, palm heart or soybeans or bananas or whatever you are growing, can get to market if you are going to be kidnapped, the bridge is out, the electric system is knocked out. So it is really important that we have had this type of success in Colombia, and it is something we can brag about. They now have in every single metro area now a Colombian National Police presence. That is an extraordinary jump from just a few years ago that along the Putumayo that we are finally seeing some order. Part of our problem, what is difficult, is that as we establish order in the populated areas, they are pushing into that Amazon jungle. The biggest threat we have to the rain forests of South America are from narcotics and coca and in particular labs. Because when you fly over, you see the chemicals pouring into the rivers. It is not timber cutting that is the biggest threat. It is narcotraffickers that are the biggest threat. Furthermore, what happens is they will move these people. There is a national park in Peru that is having a similar problem. They are worried about Ecuador. But in the national parks in Colombia, they will move out there with their labs, move farmers out there, often under forest or some with lure of high pay. They will then establish a colony out in the rain forest. Then when we say we want you to do alternative development, they will go, there is no road. Of course there is no road. They are carving landing strips in national parks and planting illegally in national parks and then they complain to us that we can't do alternative development. They cannot be there. That is not a logical market-based thing, and that is a hard thing to say when we deal with alternative development, but it is the truth. So Colombia is a success story. It does not mean every day it is a success. It does not mean there are not attacks. It does not mean that we have eliminated coca and heroin, but Colombia is a remarkable success story. If we remain firm and President Uribe remains firm, we are at a very, as the drug czar, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, John Walters, says and all those involved, we are at a tipping point, that if we keep this pressure on, we may see successes like we have seen in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru which, by the way, the old idea of the balloon that if you squeeze one place, it is going to pop out, we have squeezed it in and we may be at a historical tipping point if we just stay the course. Next I want to touch on Afghanistan. Earlier today we held a hearing on Afghanistan entitled ``Afghanistan: Are the British Counternarcotics Efforts Going Wobbly?'' Where did we come up with the expression ``are the British counterdrug efforts becoming wobbly?'' Let me say a couple of different things. First off, the expression comes from this. When Margaret Thatcher received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from former President Bush, better known as Bush 41, he said about her: We will never forget her courage in helping forge a great coalition against the aggression which brutalized the Gulf. Nor will I forget one special phone conversation that I had with the Prime Minister. In the early days of the Gulf crisis--I am not sure you remember this one, Margaret--in the early days of the Gulf crisis, I called her to say that though we fully intended to interdict Iraqi shipping, we were going to let a single vessel heading for Oman enter port down at Yemen, going around Oman down to Yemen--let it enter port without being stopped. And she listened to my explanation, agreed with the decision, but then added these words of caution, words that guided me through the Gulf crisis, words I'll never forget as long as I'm alive: ``Remember, George,'' she said, ``this is no time to go wobbly.'' The question is, as we are reaching a very critical point in Afghanistan, have the British gone wobbly? Let me say, as we have repeatedly said, the British are our best friends in counterterrorism; and they have been the ones who have been most aggressive about going after heroin in Afghanistan. Let me share a couple of introductory points on this. Last year's Afghan opium production was the second highest on record. That is a sobering fact if you think about it, because that means if it is the second highest on record, it is the second highest while we were there and the British were there, opium production went to the second highest on record. According to data and maps provided to the subcommittee by a U.S. intelligence agency, Afghan opium poppy cultivation is soaring and the estimates of hectares under cultivation are now approaching the highest level of past production. I am concerned because over 20,000 Americans die every year from drugs and 7 to 10 percent of heroin sold in the U.S. is traced to the Afghan region. We do not really know exactly how much it is. It may be higher than that. We know at one point it was 50 percent, but right now the problem in Colombia is that the heroin seems to be coming in from there and most of the Afghan heroin seems to be moving to Europe. But if this much comes to market, it will pour into the U.S. and drive prices down, so even if we succeed in Colombia, Afghanistan is going to overrun us. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, has conducted annual opium poppy surveys in Afghanistan since 1994. The 2003 survey shows that Afghanistan again produced three-quarters of the world's illicit opium last year. In other words, Colombia is only really supplying opium to us. Afghanistan is supplying the rest of the world. That is not true of cocaine. Colombia supplies cocaine to the whole world, but in heroin we get it from Colombia, it appears, and most of Afghan heroin covers the rest of the world. The UNODC concluded that out of this drug chest some provincial administrators and military commanders take a considerable share. Terrorists take a cut as well. The longer this happens, the greater the threat to security within the country and on its borders. What we focused on in the hearing this morning was that the British- led effort on eradication of opium poppy is stalled just as the opium harvesting season in the south of Afghanistan is upon us. We also took our U.S. Defense Department to task as well because they have not been going after some of the storage centers and other things and the British had complained to me in London, both in their military departments and in their intelligence areas, that we had not been committed to certain eradication efforts. At an interparliamentary conference twice in the last 2 years they have complained about American enforcement, and here we seem to have some wobbling by the British and we are trying to understand what exactly is happening here. It does not appear to be Prime Minister Blair or Mr. Straw, it does not appear to be the guys precisely on the ground, but somewhere in the middle here they have put a hold. What do I mean by a hold? The Assistant Secretary of State for Narcotics, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, who oversees not only Colombia but the efforts in Afghanistan and not just the anti- narcotics efforts in Afghanistan but this agency oversees all the law enforcement efforts in Afghanistan, I am going to read some of his testimony from today: Initial reports just in from the field in Afghanistan, this is as of even yesterday, indicate that we could be in the path for a significant surge, some observers indicate perhaps as much as a 50 to 100 percent growth in the 2004 crop over the already troubling figures from last year. By these estimates, unless direct, effective and measurable action is taken immediately, we may be looking at well over 120,000 hectares of poppy cultivation this year. ``That would constitute a world record crop empowering traffickers and the terrorists they feed, raising the stakes for and vulnerability of Afghan democracy, and raising the supply of heroin in the world market.'' Assistant Secretary Charles continued: ``Even more disturbing, these reports indicate that the clock is ticking faster than many anticipated due partly to warmer than expected weather in southern and eastern Afghanistan. As a direct result, the time for action may be shorter than anyone anticipated. I,'' Assistant Secretary Charles, ``have recently learned in the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime that they expect the unusually warm weather in southern Afghanistan will result in an early harvest which in some provinces has already started.'' What does this mean? It means that they were projecting we had several more months to complete an eradication project and they need to go now, not later, now; and that if we do not move now, the whole cycle, which normally would go into fall, is going to be moved up, and if my colleagues see Afghanistan there, the southern half roughly going up to the east side, 58 percent of opium eradication is supposed to be done by the British, 42 percent by us. Because the British are in the south in the Pashtun areas and where it is warmer and also less mountainous. The mountains are not as high. It is warmer. So the opium is flowering now. And in the north, where we are more in charge of eradication largely in Tajek areas, but other areas as well, starting May 1 we will start our operations and moving in. Here is some of the political dilemma. The British for some reason, in kind of a bizarre position, seem to be saying, and this is literally what we heard from Secretary Charles under questioning today, is his understanding was they said, Since we did not get the heroin eradicated earlier and it is starting to flower, we really should not destroy it because it will destroy the farmers' income for this period and that would be terrible because they have worked this whole long period to bring it to market. And we think, wait a second, this is not soy beans. First off, let us get this straight. Ninety-two percent of the agricultural land in Afghanistan is not heroin. Afghanistan does not have a heroin tradition. It has gone in and out. But as the former King told us when we met with him when he was still in exile and then when I was recently back over in Afghanistan again, during their kind of window of 30 or 40 years of a benevolent monarchy and moving towards a democracy, in their first years of democracy, they were not a heroin country. They were the breadbasket of that whole zone because where they can grow heroin and coca, it is also great for other products. But they switched over partly because of the Taliban, which got 80 percent of their income from heroin. The question is who is going to run this country? Furthermore, a lot of the Northern Alliance groups that were aligned got their money from heroin. That was how they operated their country as they were war torn and blowing up other things in ways to make money and the regular farmers would get terrorized because they could get more money faster through heroin. It is a mess. And that as we tackle Afghanistan, if we are really going to try to restore order there and not have these terrorists and drug lords who are becoming more rapidly around the world the same people, we have to get at the heroin. Now, the argument here is we are talking about only 8 percent; so the market has covered 92 percent but these 8 percent, mostly in politically potent highly, what we would call war lord areas, is a problem. Let me finish my other point with the British in the flowering at the last minute. As Secretary Charles said today, this would be roughly akin to not apprehending a drug cartel person as they were bringing the money into the bank because they put up the whole network, they grow it, they distribute it, and now they are ready to deposit the money and they are nabbing them then. They should have got them at the beginning, not when they are getting ready to put the money in the bank. So why do they not just let them go? I mean, the logic of this is crazy. This would be as somebody does all the work to lay out a bank robbery, they conduct the bank robbery, they steal the money, and then we get them at the tail end, but they put all that work in. I do not know if we should stop them. Furthermore, this is not benign. The heroin poppy where we are trying to be so generous, apparently, and not eradicate because we do not want to deprive the farmers of their income is going to kill people. It is going to leave families addicted. It is going to have women being beaten at home and children being abused by their parents because they got this heroin poppy. This is not a benign flowering marigold flower. It is a heroin poppy that is going to kill people, maim people, lead to automobile wrecks, terrorism around the world. Why in the world would anybody think that they are not going to eradicate it when it is flowering? We cannot sit there with planes on the ground, twiddling our thumbs, while the world is about to be assaulted by the biggest crop of heroin in history. It is nonsensical. Furthermore, if we do not crack down and if the British will not be aggressive in the southern part of Afghanistan with the Pashtuns, how do we think that the Northern Alliance groups who are also growing and protecting some of the people are going to be if we go into the Tajeks and the Uzbeks and those tribal groups in the north? They are going to say we did not do it to the Pashtuns, and we are back to the tribal breakups in the country because we are discriminating between the two different groups. We have got to get this policy together. Nobody is against alternative development. Nobody is against better roads, building better hospitals, building better schools, rebuilding their legal system, protecting people. But we cannot not eradicate if they have grown something that is going to kill people. This would be akin to not getting a stash of machine guns because somebody built the machine guns or are about to get the profit and they need the income. These poor gun traffickers just need this money and they are trying to feed their kids and take care of their family and cover their health costs. We should not take all the gun traffickers' money away by getting their guns. What kind of nonsensical argument is this? We need boldness now, not wobbliness, out of both the United States and Britain. And as far as the American Government goes, we will soon be having a hearing with our Department of Defense because we finally got, at least it appears, at least a regional memo in Afghanistan where they finally are saying if they find drugs and drug paraphernalia on people they capture, they should seize it. But they still have an order that says that they cannot use our military to eradicate. And in response to my question to Assistant Secretary of State Charles today where I said if they see stockpiled laboratories which the British have been criticizing us for not going after, does the Department of Defense tell the Department of State or DEA or anybody that they are there so somebody else can go get them? Because if the Department of Defense has decided they are too busy trying to get bin Laden, which we all agree that we have to get the terrorists, but we also need to get the funding for terrorists, we also need to establish democracy, if they cannot do it with the military, will they please share the information because I and other Members who have been over there know they can see it? There is no point in denying to us that they do not know where it is or that they cannot see it. The problem is who is going to get it? We are putting more DEA people in. We are getting more drug eradication groups in, and we need to go after it. Because if we fail to eradicate, if we cannot get it at the laboratory area, if we cannot get it in the distribution centers, it is going to wind up harder and harder to get. Look at these arrows coming out of Afghanistan, a similar problem with Colombia. If we do not get it at its source, then it gets harder to find the labs. Then when it starts to move up through the Stans, through Russia, through Turkey, into Europe, down around and up the Suez Canal, they cannot get it. Then it is all over our streets. Then in America, 20,000 deaths because of drug abuse. Terrorism in its worst case killed 3,000 in a year. We have to make sure that that does not escalate. Thankfully, this President has been aggressive; and we have done a better job on our borders, and we have shut down many of the terrorists' operations in the world, and we are battling them in Afghanistan and battling them in Iraq. Finally, Libya is cooperating with us, and when we met with Colonel Kadafi the first time we went in there, and I was with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) in that tour, he did not want to be in a spider hole like his friend Saddam. So he figured the Pakistani people was providing nuclear weapons and he is cooperating with us. Now all of a sudden Pakistan is cooperating with us. We have had some major breakthroughs, thanks to this President's efforts. But at the same time we have to realize the nexus, the connections between narcotics and the stability of a country like Afghanistan long term. President Karsai and his leadership have been tremendous. It is a very difficult problem that he has got to try to establish order when they have this country divided up into different sections with different drug lords and warlords ruling that. But we have got to get it because he understands, in multiple meetings here on Capitol Hill and in Afghanistan, they cannot have a democracy in Afghanistan unless he can eliminate or at least greatly reduce the amount of opium poppy. Two other hearings we did this week in Washington: on Tuesday we had a hearing on measuring the effectiveness of drug treatment. Part of any strategy, like I said, first we have got to try to get it at its source because if we can get it at its source, even though it is expensive, it is so much cheaper than if we have to go after the labs and interdict it, whether it is Colombia, Afghanistan, Burma, wherever the problem is, if we can get it at its source. Then we try to get it as it is moving through interdiction if it is coming up from Colombia in the Caribbean or in the East Pacific. Then we try to get it at the border. If we fail at the border, we try to get it coming into the communities. I hear often on this House floor we should not lock up the poor individual user. But then many of those same people do not want to lock up the user, do not want to go after the eradication. They did not want to go after the interdiction. They do not want to do the other things. We have got to do whatever we can to try to get to the kingpins and that network of drugs coming in. We also need to work aggressively in the schools and around the country and with the community antidrug prevention groups. But when we fail, and that is what this is, a failure, and people get addicted, we have to figure out how best to provide treatment and how to do this. There were a number of interesting things that we heard. There are 7 million people in the U.S. who need treatment for drug addiction, and the President's new drug treatment plan has some initiatives to try to address that because many people who are not getting treated for drugs who have a drug problem are not interested in getting treatment. But when somebody says they want treatment and are committed to change, we need to work to make sure those people can be covered. Charles Curie, a Hoosier and a long-time friend of mine, administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, testified on the access to recovery, how they are trying to put accountability in the system, looking at co-occurring dependencies. Many people who have other problems, whether they be mental or physical, are most vulnerable to drug abuse; and those co-occurring dependencies are very difficult. He is a leader in that, like he was in Pennsylvania, in trying to look at that problem, in trying to hold an accountability of what actually works. There is not a person who has worked in this field who has not talked to people who have been through five, seven drug treatment programs. Maybe they have made a marginal commitment, and I understand drug treatment enough to know that they are not going to get them necessarily completely cured, but they can certainly make progress. And in many cases, they are not even willing to have drug testing to even make progress. Part of what Director Walters is trying to do through the new treatment program is to make sure they at least have the accountability of drug testing if they want Federal dollars. Mr. Curie has been working with this. Another thing we heard about was coordinated action. One of the witnesses was former Judge Karen Freeman Wilson, also the former Attorney General of Indiana, who is now executive director of the National Drug Court Institute; and she pointed out why drug courts work. When we say drug courts work, we do not mean they work 100 percent. We mean they work better than anything else and that they get some people completely off drugs, they get some people mostly off, some people who very infrequently relapse, and they fail on some. That is the real world. That is why we try to prevent it before it happens. As Nancy Reagan so wonderfully said, we cannot win a war by just treating the wounded. We have to treat the wounded. Nobody is proposing in a war that we do not treat the wounded. But we do not win the war just treating the wounded. ``Each drug court is required to monitor abstinence through regular, random, and observed drug testing. This means that most participants are tested at least two to three times a week.'' This is Judge Karen Freeman Wilson. ``Those who consistently test negatively are believed to be receiving effective treatment.'' In other words, we have to have accountability in it. ``Another measure of effectiveness of treatment in the drug court context is the ability of the offender to comply with other aspects of the drug court program. Is the person actively engaged in community service? Are they actively involved in a job search, vocational training or school? Are they attending self-help meetings? Are they appearing as ordered for court review hearings and meetings with probation officers and other court staff? Are they paying their fines and fees? Is the participant attending, complying, and progressing in ancillary services, referred to community service providers, to address issues other than substance abuse such as taking their prescribed medications and otherwise addressing identified co-occurring mental health issues?'' Are they attending parenting classes, anger management, life skill classes and other adjuncts to substance abuse treatment? Because each drug court participant is required to engage in treatment immediately, their compliance with the other aspects of the program that follow entry into treatment also provides insight into whether the treatment is effective. In other words, they are saying it needs to be holistic. In times when we do not have enough money for anything, this is a huge challenge. But let us be frank: if we are going to try to tackle these kinds of issues, you have to have some sort of housing options, job options. Tough, tough political questions. In Indiana, we are having a debate because in the bureau of motor vehicles, 10 percent of the people in Indianapolis had a former conviction. That sounds really terrible. But are they clean? Are they drug tested? Are they cured? Are they having relapses? What was the conviction they had? It is not necessarily evidence in and of itself bad. Now, if they continue to do it while they are employed, that is another problem. But you cannot say you can never hold a job if you have committed a drug crime or we are never going to get people rehabilitated. What is the point of treatment if they cannot find housing? Congressman Davis has a bill that I am a cosponsor of to try to provide targeted housing to people coming out of prisons. The reentry program in Fort Wayne that we have worked with and tried through the faith-based community and others will say, hey, one church, one offender, a really strong program. There are others in my hometown of Fort Wayne where they try to match up people coming out of the prison system, many of them with drug offenses, into the community, because if you do not get them integrated into the community, you are just going to keep perpetuating the cycle of crime and violence. We heard from many different witnesses at this hearing, and I appreciate each one of them, because it was very important to problem drug treatment. I want to cover briefly two more things. One, the hearing that we did this afternoon was on marijuana and medicine, the need for a science- based approach. I want to read a brief comment on this. This particular hearing addressed a controversial topic, the use of marijuana for so-called medical purposes. In recent years, a large and well-funded pro-drug movement has succeeded in convincing many Americans that marijuana is true medicine to be used in treating a wide variety of illnesses. Unable to change the Federal laws, these pro-drug activitists turned to the State referendum process and succeeded in passing a number of medical marijuana initiatives. This has set up a direct conflict between Federal and State law and put into sharp focus the competing scientific claims about the value of marijuana and its components as medicine. Marijuana was once used as a folk remedy in many primitive cultures and even in the 19th century was frequently used by some American doctors, much as alcohol, cocaine and heroine were once used by doctors. By the 20th century, however, its use by legitimate medical practitioners had dwindled, while its illegitimate use as a recreational drug had risen. The drug was finally banned as a medicine in the 1930s. Beginning in the 1970s, however, individuals began reporting anecdotal evidence that marijuana might have some medically beneficial purposes, most noticeably in suppressing the nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy. Today, the evidence is still essentially anecdotal, but many people take it as a fact that marijuana is a proven medicine. One of the main purposes of the hearing we had this afternoon was to examine that claim. At present, the evidence in favor of marijuana's utility as a medicine remains anecdotal and unproven. An Institute of Medicine study published in 1999 reviewed the available evidence and concluded that, at best, marijuana might be used as a last resort for those suffering from extreme conditions. This report is repeatedly cited by the pro-marijuana movement, it was again today, as proof that marijuana is safe for medical use. In fact, the report stressed that smoking marijuana is not a safe medical delivery device, exposes patients to a significant number of harmful substances; but only in extreme conditions back in 1999, before we had additional advances, was it to be used. In contrast to its supposed medical benefits, the negative health effects of marijuana are well-known and have been proven in scientific studies. Among other things the drug is addictive, impairs brain function, and when smoked greatly, increases the risk of lung cancer. The respiratory problems associated with smoking any substance make the use of marijuana cigarettes as medicine highly problematic. Indeed, no other modern medicine is smoked. It is quite possible, however, that some components of marijuana may have legitimate medical uses. Indeed, the Institute of Medicine report, so often erroneously cited as supporting smoking marijuana, actually stated if there is any future of marijuana as medicine, it lies in its isolated components, the cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives. Interestingly, the Federal Government has already approved a marijuana derivative called Marinol, but rarely do the pro-marijuana advocates mention this. The Federal Government has also approved further studies of the potential use of marijuana or marijuana derivatives as medicine. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, a pharmaceutical company has applied for a license to market an inhalant form of marijuana called Sativex. Thus, the real debate is not over whether marijuana could be used as medicine. The debate is over the most scientifically safe and effective way that components of marijuana may be used as medicine. The responsibility for ensuring that any drug, whether derived from marijuana or not, is safe and effective, has been entrusted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Under Federal law, the FDA must review, test, and approve each medicine and determine what conditions or diseases each drug may be used to treat and at what dosage level. The FDA continues to monitor each drug, making sure it is manufactured and marketed properly and that unforeseen side effects do not jeopardize the public health. State laws purporting to legalize marijuana for medical purposes bypass these important safeguards. California and Oregon have adopted the most wide-reaching such laws. They allow anyone to possess, use and even grow their own marijuana, provided he obtains the written recommendation of a doctor. Few, if any, restrictions are placed on what conditions marijuana may be used to treat. We had both California and Oregon there today, had some discussion about enforcement, and they have four cases in one State, minimal in the other. In effect, they only enforce if somebody from there complains, and the people who are using it are not complaining. Few, if any, restrictions are placed on what restrictions marijuana may be used to treated. Virtually no restrictions are placed on the content, potency or purity of such medical marijuana. The laws in California, Oregon and other States are extremely open- ended. California law even allows marijuana to be used for migraine headaches. One of our witnesses this afternoon also used it to treat ADD in two other indications and did not have any science whatsoever. One who just had his license taken away treated 4,000 people, and, according to the board in Oregon, had not even met with the people. So he did get a complaint. Only a small percentage of medical marijuana users in California and Oregon have actually used the drug to treat the conditions for which it was publicly promoted, namely, the nausea associated with chemotherapy and AIDS wasting syndrome. In Oregon, statistics kept by the State Medical Marijuana Program indicate that well over half the registered patients used the drug simply for ``pain'' while less than half used it for nausea, glaucoma or conditions related to cancer and multiple sclerosis. In San Mateo, California, a study of AIDS patients showed that only 28 percent of the patients who used marijuana did so even to relieve pain. Over half used it to relieve anxiety or depression, and a third for recreational purposes. This raises one of the key questions we must address. If we are going to treat marijuana as medicine, will we subject it to the same health and safety regulations that apply to other medicines? We do not allow patients to grow their own opium poppies to make painkillers like morphine, Oxycontin and even heroin with just a doctor's recommendation. We do not allow people to manufacture their own psychiatric drugs like Prozac or Xanax to treat headaches. Why should we then authorize people to grow their own marijuana, when the potential for abuse is high and there is little or no scientific evidence that it can actually treat all of these illnesses and conditions? Why would we abandon the regulatory process that ensures that drugs are manufactured at the right potency level and contaminant-free? Why should we stop the oversight that makes sure that drugs are being administered in the right dosage and in the safest manner? In our follow up, FDA said on the record today there is no, none, zero, medical marijuana; and Dr. Volkow from the National Institute for Drug Abuse said clearly there are 400 components in marijuana. Now, those of us who oppose marijuana need to do some acknowledging here too. People have real problems, particularly in treating, that there are some areas in Marinol that have not worked, although it has been improved as well. We have to look in controlled, disciplined environments to figure out how to address that. And those who advocate marijuana need to grant smoked marijuana is very dangerous, much more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke. It is a huge addiction problem in the United States. As we look at how best to make it medical, it is not the marijuana that is medical, anymore than cocaine or heroin is medical. It is made up of 400 different components, and to try to treat and work with what we are working with here, we are already working aggressively in our government to try to figure out the sub-components and how they mix and how to do it. We heard all kinds of different things of where they are working and making progress in trying to treat this. And, interestingly, most of the breakthroughs are likely to be synthetic or a blend of things from other drugs with what the different components are in marijuana. It is not the marijuana. It is not the smoke certainly that helps. It is not the marijuana; it is components inside that, often blended with other things, that can help us address the problem of nausea and the problem of relieving pain for AIDS patients. Furthermore, the dosages need to be controlled with it, or you develop another addiction. If you take out components in the marijuana, give it in tablet form, you can achieve the pain reduction. But if you are looking to get high and want to get addicted, it will not work. So Canada, as they moved to this, in Vancouver, which I opposed but it worked with the legislators there and I talked to them about this thing, what they are learning is people do not want to take the pill. They want to get a higher dose than the pill. They wanted this ``BC Bud'' high-quantity level. We have to figure out how we are going to work this through, because clearly many States are adopting this. There has been a false concept across America. Those of us who oppose drug abuse are branded then as being uncaring for the sick, which is wrong. In fighting the whole thing we are not clarifying what we are arguing over here. We need to work together to relieve pain, but we also need to have an FDA standard, and it should not be a backdoor way to legalize a dangerous drug. In our transportation bill we are moving through, we are making our first steps to make people aware that more people are killed apparently from drug addicted driving than from alcohol. That is a huge challenge in this country, that it is not just ``I am relaxed and am using it.'' Medicinal Marijuana has already challenged our transportation and drug testing laws in the State of Oregon, because it was supposedly medical. No, if you are taking a tablet form, you are not going to be at risk because you do not get that same dosage. It is a different mix. It is not marijuana. We have to figure out how to work these things through. One last comment. Yesterday, DEA broke the largest ecstasy ring in history. U.S. and Canadian drug agents broke up a distribution ring responsible for 15 percent of all the ecstasy, that is what they estimate, smuggled into this country. It was called Operation Candy Box. Approximately at their peak, they were doing 1 million tablets a month, approximately 5 million laundered dollars a month. It was in 18 cities in the United States and Canada. I am grateful for the DEA's efforts and continued efforts to point out ecstasy is a dangerous drug. There is a program on tonight that I am very concerned about based on some of the statements attributed to Peter Jennings and in the news media. I do not know if it is correct. I have not seen the show. It does not air until tonight. But the news reports are saying and suggesting that they feel the Federal Government has been inaccurate in their report of ecstasy, when we have had testimony showing the brain damage, certainly in animals, but showed us charts too of the potential and some on humans. We have heard from parents whose kids have died at ecstasy parties and have gotten addicted. We heard of people who are ecstasy addicts, and I sure hope that we continue to combat it aggressively. I thank the DEA for their efforts to shut down this dangerous drug, and I hope that our national news media does not side with the drug dealers and the drug users of this country and continues to send a positive message.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the Counter-Terrorist and Narco-Terrorist Rewards Program Act, H.R. 3782 seeks to expand the reward tools needed to encourage informants with data to come forward and help prevent or resolve acts of international terrorism against U.S. citizens and property throughout the world. Rewards also can be paid for information leading to the arrest or conviction of terrorists who attempt, commit, conspire, or aid and abet terrorist acts. Informants with the knowledge of a location or the identification of terrorist leaders can also be rewarded. Secretary of State Powell has authorized a reward of up to $25 million for information leading to the capture of bin Laden and other key al Qaeda leaders, under the provisions of the USA Patriot Act of 2001. That act specifically authorizes the Secretary of State to offer and pay rewards of greater than $5 million if it is determined that a greater amount is necessary to combat terrorism or to defend the United States against terrorist acts. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States, it is clear that a greater amount is necessary to entice informants and that the reward program must be publicized widely. An especially important component of the bill would publicize the existence of the rewards program. The measure would provide additional authority to buy radio, television and newspaper advertisements to publicize the rewards program. It also would change the name of the program from the Rewards for Justice Program to the Terrorism and Narco-Terrorism Rewards Program. The rewards incentives work. Twenty-nine people whom provided credible information that put terrorists behind bars or prevented acts of international terrorism worldwide have been rewarded with a total of more than $49 million over the last seven years by the United States. Reward incentives played a significant role in the arrest and conviction of terrorist Ramzi Yousef, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This bill would also empower the Secretary of State to make rewards in any combination of money and non-monetary instruments, including automobiles. This provision is important because people who have specific knowledge about perpetrators or their acts of terrorism may more highly value material objects, like a new tractor for their farm. The bill would also expand the eligibility criteria of informants seeking to receive a reward. The bill would increase the maximum amount that can be paid by the Department of State for information and assistance. The maximum amount of a reward increases from $5 million to a maximum of $25 million and the Secretary of State may further authorize a reward of up to $50 million for the capture of or information leading to the capture of Usama bin Laden. The bill clarifies that any information that disrupts terrorist financing networks, including information related to illicit narcotics production or international trafficking, is eligible for reward. The money laundering information does not need to be tied to a specific act of terrorism. This is particularly important, because we face threats in our own hemisphere from narco-terrorists. The common denominator for each of the many threats, however, is their funding stream. Being able to seize terrorist money has an immediate impact on their ability to conduct their horrific operations. Compensating an informant for financial information is just as vital as learning of the whereabouts of a particular actor. The provisions in this bill dramatically improve the power of the tools available to the Department of State and law enforcement agencies to attract and compensate knowledgeable informants. We can't hope to place undercover operatives into the places where terrorist and narco- terrorist leaders plan their deeds. The advanced warning of an attack and the corresponding pre-event interdiction is priceless. Therefore, a reward is easily justified.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops and the work of our armed forces in Iraq. About a year ago, our troops embarked on a mission to liberate the people of Iraq and end the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Looking back on the year, it is important that we remind ourselves of the nature of the threat against the United States, the Middle East, and the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein was nothing short of evil. He threatened his neighbors through war and invasion. He threatened his people through rape, torture, and intimidation. He threatened the United States through years of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons development. Thanks to the brave efforts of the American armed forces and our Coalition allies, we are now safer. Terrorists still prowl the earth but one of their protectors and one who wanted to add WMD to terrorism is finished. The mission has not been easy. These are attacks by terrorist and Baathist forces who remain determined to undermine the United States, the war on terror, and democracy in Iraq. Our troops, however, are equally determined to root out and destroy these forces. Despite news reports and a constant barrage of negative commentary on our mission's success, American military personnel have routed the main Iraqi forces, rounded up countless rebels, and restored much of Iraq's long neglected infrastructure. I had the opportunity and honor to visit our troops in Iraq in January. I visited with a number of troops from my district and the State of Indiana. Among these troops and among troops in general, I saw no signs of the low spirits that some media reports say are plaguing troops. The troops I met complained about the food, sand fleas and weather conditions, but felt their service is worthwhile. None of Iraq's rehabilitation and reconstruction would have been possible without the hard work of American and Allied troops, including the thousands of National Guardsmen and Reservists who put their civilian lives on hold to serve their country. Our military relies increasingly on National Guard and Reserve units to supplement regular army deployments, and the liberation of Iraq was no exception. During this war, members of the 1-293rd Army National Guard Infantry unit and the 122nd Air National Guard Fighter Wing from the Third District of Indiana served our nation and kept us secure. I rise support of this resolution because I think the worst thing would be for our troops to think there isn't support for them or their mission in the United States. This resolution sends a message to our troops that we support them. The U.S. mission was and remains justified. Our troops were and remain the key to this mission's success. I will continue to support the American troops in the field and those who have returned from their duty.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the artistic achievements of 15 students at Whitko High School in South Whitley, Indiana. Whitko High School was one of 18 schools in the United States that recently participated in the 34th World School Children's Art Exhibition in the Republic of China, Taipei. The purpose of the exhibition is to promote mutual understanding and friendship among the younger generation of the world. It is a tremendous honor for Whitko High School students to be recognized for their artistic abilities on an international level, especially considering nearly 40 countries were represented at the exhibition. I'd now like to recognize by name each of the fifteen Whitko students who received the international award medals: Hannah Brenneman, Mark Harness, Jessica Cripe, Kristine Rotach, Rebecca Morford, Kayla Green, Adam Porter, Tasia Boggs, Angie Roberts, Lisa Wilkinson, Katie Menzie, Jana Rowland, Dana Sellers, Emily Crist, and Hillary Lacy. Each of these students has demonstrated outstanding artistic skill and talent by being recognized in the World School Children's Art Exhibition, and I applaud them for their fine work. I also commend Whitko High School's art teacher Walter C. Malicki for his dedication and enthusiasm for developing the artistic abilities of Whitko students. Over the past several years, Whitko High School students have received 32 national and 95 international awards. These honors are due, in large part, to the leadership of Mr. Malicki and his encouragement of each student's artistic abilities. Once again, I extend my congratulations to the Whitko High School art students for their achievements in the 34th World School Children's Art Exhibition. Keep up the good work.