Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute my constituent, Harold Gaulden, a former military police officer of the Tuskegee Airmen's fire and rescue squad. Mr. Gaulden has come to Washington, DC today as one of six Tuskegee Airmen receiving the Congressional Gold Medal on behalf of the corps' surviving pilots and support personnel. The reward recognizes their heroism during World War II in facing the twin battles of the onslaught of the enemy abroad and the blight of racism at home. The Tuskegee Airmen were created by the Army in 1941 as part of an Army Air Corps program to train Black Americans as military pilots, and comprised nearly 1,000 pilots and 10,000 support staff. These men were the first Black pilots in the American military, and Harold Gaulden, originally from Louisiana but now a Hoosier in my district, spent a year at the Tuskegee airbase in Alabama valiantly and diligently helping defend our Nation. Mr. Gaulden remembers such indignities as being able to buy a Coke at the base's PX but being forced to drink it outside. Mr. Gaulden saw segregated mess hall lines at the base--one for White soldiers and German prisoners of war, and another for the Black soldiers. Harold has been an energetic airmen activist for 20 years, speaking to colleges, elementary schools, and community groups about what he and his airmen brethren endured for our country. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest civilian award that Congress can bestow upon its recipients, and I was proud to cosponsor the legislation in the 109th Congress that authorizes this award. I am pleased to see Harold being honored today for his service to our country. Although Harold has said he would gladly fight for his country, medal or not, bravery such as this should not go unrecognized--it is what has made, and continues to make, the United States of America the best nation on earth.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank Mr. Smith for his leadership on this motion to recommit and his long-standing leadership in the Judiciary Committee, and for including the Personal Protection Act in our motion to recommit. This has been passed by the House in two different forms, in the appropriations bill and as a free-standing bill. It is the first clear gun control vote, and possibly the only one we will have this year. It is a matter of whether you believe the District of Columbia should have the second amendment. We can dispute what the Constitution says in other areas, but clearly the Constitution says that people have the right to own and bear arms for self-protection. This legislation has been upheld now, in terms of homes, by the D.C. District Court, but it is only a district court ruling. This would codify it, make it clear that there are not second- class citizens on this second amendment. D.C., while it has had a decline in the homicide rate, it is less than the rest of the country, it has led the country repeatedly. It is five times the national average in murders, in spite of having the most stringent gun control law that restricts the right to bear arms. Up until the D.C. court ruling, for a gun in your home you had to have it locked, disassembled, with a key in another location, without the bullets in it. And when a criminal came into your house, you would have to go find the key for the cabinet, put your gun together, go find a bullet to protect yourself. This needs to be codified by Congress that we passed multiple times. The majority of Members of Congress are sponsors of this bill, and we need to make sure that the District of Columbia residents have this protection. There are many charges made, false charges, machine guns, all this type of stuff. This is the same right that people throughout America have that has been constitutionally upheld, and if we can pass this law, we will once again make the citizens of the District of Columbia have the same second amendment rights as the rest of America. H.R. 1399, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act what would the legislation do? H.R. 1399 would allow law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia (D.C.) to exercise their second amendment right to own rifles, shotguns and handguns by repealing the current draconian registration requirements and bans. More specifically, it would: repeal the registration requirements for firearms; eliminate criminal penalties for possession of firearms; repeal the ban on semi-automatic firearms; repeal the ban on the possession of ammunition; permit the storage of armed firearms in one's home or place of business; and eliminate the criminal penalties for carrying a handgun in a person's home or business. H.R. 1399 would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct, and would leave in place strict penalties for gun possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with guns. what are d.c.'s current gun laws? Washington, D.C. has perhaps the most restrictive gun control law in the United States. Yet, at the same time, Justice Department figures show that the District is usually ``the murder capital'' of the country. It's no coincidence that when law-abiding Americans are unable to defend themselves and their families, violent crimes and murder will increase. Here are some of the particulars of the current D.C. law: All handguns are banned unless they were owned and registered in the District before 1977; The citizens of the District--even the few remaining legal handgun owners--are prohibited from even carrying their handguns in their own homes; All guns must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department; Even rifles and shotguns that can be legally registered and owned in the District, must be stored unloaded, and disassembled or locked--rendering them useless for self- defense--unless the gun is kept at a place of business. Apparently the D.C. government thinks it's more important to let people protect their business assets than to protect their homes and families; The D.C. Code absurdly defines many (if not most) semi- automatic firearms as ``machine guns'' based on their ammunition capacity, rather than on how they work. This definition is totally inconsistent with federal law. The ``District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'' would fix each of these injustices and restore constitutional self- defense rights to the law-abiding citizens of the District. Under this bill, D.C. citizens would enjoy the same self- defense rights as residents of the 50 states. The bill would allow honest citizens to own rifles, shotguns and handguns, without the current bureaucratic registration requirements. And it would allow law-abiding people to use guns to protect their homes and families. The bill would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct, and would leave in place strict penalties for gun possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with guns. has d.c.'s gun ban worked? The ``gun control capital'' of the United States is repeatedly also the violent crime and murder capital of the nation--not coincidentally. Prior to the enactment of the gun ban, the homicide rate in D.C. had been declining, but it increased after the ban was imposed in 1976. By 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more than 200 percent. By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate rose only 12 percent during the same period. As of 2002, D.C.'s homicide rate is almost double the rate when its handgun ban took effect. As of 2002, it is almost five times higher then the national average. (Source: FBI, Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia). According to Justice Department crime statistics, 2003 saw D.C. once again earn its infamous distinction as murder capital of America. It was the 15th time in 16 years that the District has earned this dubious distinction. (Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics). A January 2004 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws help prevent violent crime, suicides or accidental injuries in the United States. The national task force of healthcare and community experts found ``insufficient evidence'' that bans on specific guns, waiting periods for gun buyers and other such laws changed the incidence of murder, rape, suicide and other types of violence. what's the constitutional justification for h.r. 1399? On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned D.C.'s gun control law, ruling it unconstitutional. The majority wrote (in a 2-1 decision): ``To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti- federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.'' The U.S. Appeals Court also concluded that the current D.C. law ``. . . amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.'' In addition, the Appeals Court rejected the argument that the second amendment does not apply to D.C. because it is not a state. how does ``home rule'' fit into this? Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever'' over the District. When Congress chose to delegate home rule to the District in the 1970s, it specified that legislation by the District must be ``consistent with the Constitution of the United States'' and ``reserve[d] the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject''. (District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (P.L. 93-198), secs. 302 and 601.) Numerous court cases have reaffirmed congressional authority over the District.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SOUDER. Did I understand because of the motion to recommit that the gentleman from Michigan has asked us to not vote and delay proceedings? I didn't understand the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. SOUDER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SOUDER. Proceeding on this bill or on all things in front of the House?

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Agriculture Day, which is celebrated each year on the first day of spring. With more than 8,000 farms, Madam Speaker, agriculture plays a critical role in the economy of the Third District. We lead the state of Indiana in the production of cattle and calves, dairy products, sheep, and goats. As a state, Indiana has long been among the leading producers of corn and soybeans--planting more than 11 million acres-- and we are first in the nation in duck production, supplying approximately 30 percent of the nation's total. Because of the hard work and dedication of farmers and ranchers, Americans have become accustomed to a safe, abundant, and affordable supply of food and fiber. Even more remarkable, and often overlooked, is the fact that farmers and ranchers feed and clothe this nation with an increasing levels of concern for environmental stewardship and animal welfare. The well-being of livestock and the sustainability of the land is a top priority. Indeed, I have seen firsthand in my district the adoption of best-management practices to conserve soil, nutrients, and water, as well as crop protection products that not only improve the viability of agriculture but also prevent flooding and improve water quality for cities and towns downstream. In addition, as we are all aware, our country is now turning to the American farmer and rancher to help solve our energy crisis. We have placed a new interest in ethanol, and the agriculture industry has responded with vigor. Our goal of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol will be attained by 2009 rather than 2012 as was expected. Some may say that our food supply is threatened by the push for ethanol. However, our farmers and ranchers have risen to the call before and will become an important part of our energy solution. Madam Speaker, agriculture's contributions to America's economy, culture, and history should be celebrated, and I ask that my colleagues join with me in wishing our farmers and ranchers continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, it is now March 1, the third month since the Democrat Party took over Congress. For the first 2 months, after campaigning on a platform of reform, after years of complaining about alleged unfair process abuse by Republicans, Americans have been able to watch an unprecedented continued abuse of power in this House. After the abuse of power during the first 100 hours, we thought the aberration would end. Surely basic voting rights would return. In February, the abuse of power continued. The minority was deprived of basic voting rights through most of February as well. The American people voted last fall for change. They don't want to hear us complain about process. But process does matter. We are a republic, where we expect a democratic process, minority protections and the right to vote. Now, to start month 3 of Democrat control, the Democratic Party has brought forth a bill that deprives the American workers of the right to a private ballot. They have moved from abuse of power and undemocratic methods in Congress to applying this abuse of power directly to the American people. Put yourself in the shoes of an average American worker trying to decide whether they want to vote for or against establishing a union at the workplace. You would get lobbied on every side, but at least you get a private ballot. The bill before us today would deprive you of that private ballot. The card check replaces the vote. If a majority signed the card, there is no private vote. So a friend comes up to you with a card asking you to sign and you say you want to think about it. So a group comes encouraging you to sign, maybe even shunning you if you don't. But it gets worse. The process called ``salting'' allows roaming union organizers to go from company to company, not as long-term employees committed to keeping the plant profitable and the jobs in the community, but committed to expanding their special interest union. Often they are heavy influencers, sometimes even a thug or two. You may receive visits from them as well. In the Education and Labor Committee, the Democrats unanimously even voted down an amendment that would have said only American citizens can vote. You now, as an American worker, can have the majority of illegals sign a card and you are now bound to a union. This bill, because of its overt hostility to business, has unfair stiffer penalties for business than unions for the same violation of the law. We wanted to offer an amendment to equalize the playing field, but Congress was denied the right to vote on this and other amendments. The Democratic Party seems determined to eliminate the right to fairness and a private vote in union organizing elections and they won't even let Congress have clear votes on many of the amendments to protect the workers. Yet people wonder why some of us refer to them as the Democrat party rather than the Democratic Party. Their actions speak louder than their words.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, well, renaming things does not change the facts. A few minutes ago we just heard that somehow the Pledge of Allegiance has something to do with banning secret ballots, and that somehow those of us who favor private elections and secret ballots are anti-God. I just simply do not understand the escalation of that rhetoric. Secondly, one of the senior Members of the other party was just down in the well and said why are we Republicans complaining about a secret ballot, more or less admitting that is what, in fact, they are eliminating, saying that votes are publicly posted. We represent, as Mr. Kline said earlier, 700,000 people. Think why you wouldn't want your vote posted. Are we heading towards posting in private elections and fall elections where there is no longer the secrecy of the private voting box? If you posted who you voted for, you could be subject to all sorts of discrimination. The practical fact here, as I said earlier in the rules debate, is an individual is going to be approached to sign his card that would circumvent a secret ballot. Then other people are going to come up to him. Furthermore, through salting, there are likely to be organizers inside that workplace putting further pressure on him. He may get shunned. He doesn't have the right to change his mind. There are all sorts of subtle, indirect, direct, physical, verbal, and business pressures put when you lose a secret ballot. A card is denying the vote. It is denying the secret ballot, and no tricky wording can change the fundamental fact of what is happening here. I would like to insert into the Record a letter from 16 Members of Congress led by the distinguished chairman of this committee, Mr. Miller, that was sent to Mexico regarding the right to a secret ballot. What he says in this letter, and we have heard it described several ways, that it had to do with a particular question around a particular Mexican election. It states: ``We are writing to encourage you to use a secret ballot in all union recognition elections.'' Apparently what is good for the Mexican worker is not good for U.S. workers. August 29, 2001. Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla, Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero, 7 Norte, Numero 1006 Altos, Colonia Centro, Puebla, Mexico

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairwoman, as much as I appreciate my friend from New Jersey's comments, in the committee we had a different amendment which said that nobody hired in the last 30 days before an election could vote, and then we wouldn't have had to be discriminatory. But, of course, that was defeated unanimously on the Democratic side. This amendment tries to address it in another way, because we weren't allowed to address it in the other way, and it was defeated. I support this because, in fact, people who aren't committed to the company come in for the sole purpose of unionizing, and we haven't been allowed to address it in any way.

Mr. SOUDER. I will let Mr. King explain the particulars, but my understanding is we have tried several ways to address this problem, and this is the only one that was allowed to be voted on.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank our leader from the Homeland Security Committee for yielding. No congressional decision is more difficult than a vote related to war, and this vote is no different. It is especially difficult when you disagree with the President of your own political party. I voted to support this war because I believe Iraq presented a direct threat to the United States. Iraq had, was developing, and was attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was, at a minimum, cooperating with the funding and harboring of terrorists committed to our destruction. Saddam Hussein was repeatedly defying U.N. resolutions, contesting no-fly zones and blocking WMD inspectors. Our intelligence estimates, never 100 percent accurate, in any case, apparently overstated the immediate risk. But the basic facts remain the same. Knowing what we know now, perhaps we could have waited another 6 to 12 months, which would have given us valuable time to solidify position in Afghanistan. But the decision to go to war was still the right decision, just possibly premature. I would not have supported this war had the initial selling point been a goal of establishing democracy in Iraq. Advancing freedom has always been an ideological goal of our Nation ever since our founding. We have long supported, from the days of Jefferson and Monroe, the causes of dissident freedom fighters. We did this in occupied Eastern Europe, in Saddam's Iraq and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. But there is a difference between aiding people fighting for freedom and doing most of the fighting for them. I stated from the beginning that after removing the direct threat of the Saddam government, it would be in our national security interests if a republican form of government, a unity government respecting the rights of others, could be established in Iraq. If this government of diverse Iraqis could prevail, it would be a model for the entire region. We needed to give them a chance for self-governance. But, and this is a big qualifier, it would ultimately be their decision, not ours. On the news we often see Iraqis saying that Americans need to do this or that to provide security. Men and women from Fort Wayne and the rest of Indiana and America can do most of the fighting for the freedom of Iraq only for so long. It is the Iraqis' country. We should have known this would not be easy. It is self-evident that democracy in the Muslim world is not common now nor in the past. A little bit hubris and more humility when we sent our soldiers into this conflict would have been helpful. This is not just hindsight. For example, the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Richard Lugar, raised concerns over and over again that pre-planning was insufficient. Certain basic arguments being made by the administration are simply not accurate. To insist that the war in Iraq is not a civil war when the entire world and the Americans all understand that it is, continues to undermine the credibility of those who make it. From the beginning, it had elements of a civil war. The Sunnis had persecuted the majority Shia as well as the Kurds. Vengeance was inevitable. The United States correctly demanded that the sectarian militias be eliminated from the Iraqi national police and the military. I, like many other Members, was asked by the administration to deliver such messages to Iraqi government officials during my visits to Iraq. Our government knew full well that a civil war was going on, even among people we selected to run the government. We had hoped that the early smaller scale civil war could be countered by a strong central government. It is now a large scale civil war, eroding the already limited power of the Iraqi Government. It is now absurd to deny it is a civil war. Making exaggerated statements of progress in Iraq also does not pass the basic credibility test. While we have made sporadic progress, a school or a project here and there, it is apparent to any Member of Congress who visited Iraq a number of years ago and again recently visited that security has deteriorated. Baby boomer Americans especially tend to see everything as Vietnam. A government that denies basic realities has little hope of persuading even its friends. We want our government to tell the truth, pleasant or not. These facts are foundational to the fundamental question currently before us. It is not whether a surge can root out terrorists. Our brave men and women can do this in door-to-door bloody combat, if necessary, and we may be able with extra troops to stabilize some areas temporarily. But then what? The President has also said that unlike past efforts, this time we will hold our gains. With whom? With what? This is the basic underlying issue. Assuming some militias are defeated and others just melt away, how do we plan to keep them from coming back? Is the surge permanent? Even if it were so, far fewer troops are required to root out terrorists than to hold gains. Will we need tens of thousands of additional soldiers to hold any gains? The obvious premise offered by the President is that the Iraqis themselves can hold the gains. Based upon everything we have seen to date, other than in isolated cases, there is no evidence that the Iraqis will fight and die to defend their central government. I have repeatedly heard from returning soldiers that when the gunfire starts the Iraqis by and large disappear. They only seem dedicated when Shia get to kill Sunnis and vice versa. By being bogged down as the main security force in Iraq and increasingly hostile cities, we are undermining our long-term potential to fight the war on terror. For years, we have now been utilizing our National Guard and our Reserves as if they were regular military. Many are about to enter their second 12-month-plus tour of duty in combat, something historically many regular military veterans did not do. Because of the heavy usage, we are starting to short training funds and repair funds for those units. We are finding that employers are getting increasingly nervous about disruptions to their firms. Family objections are becoming more intense. Recruiters are running into increasing resistance. As for our overused regular military, they are facing near exhaustion. What will be the long-term impact on these forces? What impact will this continued burning up of huge sums of military dollars do to our long-term ability to fight? It has been said many times by defenders of this surge that Iraq is the place the enemy has chosen to fight, and this is the place that we must fight. That is partly true. Hezbollah has chosen to fight us on many fronts. Iran is a threat itself, not just in funding Iraq. Terrorists attacked in Madrid, London, Afghanistan, Pakistan and many other places throughout the world, and they continue to try to attack us in the United States. Iraq is not the only place terrorists have chosen to fight. Furthermore, we face threats from North Korea, as the new Castro, Hugo Chavez, presents other challenges. We are sobered by the recent destruction of a satellite by China, potentially the most significant threat we face. If we burn up the support of the American people, our military's ability to recruit, the usage of our Guard and Reserves in Iraq, how do we defend ourselves elsewhere? It is not that this effort in Iraq is a failure, as some liberals claim. We have seen the governments in Libya and Pakistan significantly alter their ways when it comes to supporting terrorists. Hostile governments that harbor terrorists have to ask themselves whether it is worth the risk of military action by the United States, something Iran appears to be debating. And, most importantly, this fact is indisputable: Since 9/11, terrorists have not succeeded in any attacks on American soil. Because of the bravery and valor of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have disrupted the terrorists' ability to gather and plan new methods of attacking us. If they surface, we get them. During this period, we have had time to make significant progress in homeland security. While you may have heard that our Southwest border is not exactly airtight, progress certainly has been made. Every month we make additional progress. Our airports are more secure. Our ports are more secure. The PATRIOT Act has given us the ability to track and hunt down terrorists. We have improved both inside the U.S. and around the world our ability to track finances, communications and movement of terrorists. The sacrifice of our brave men and women in the military and their families bought the United States Government valuable time to further prepare our domestic and worldwide ability to cope with terrorism. We will never achieve 100 percent success. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq took the battle to them, rather than requiring us to fight at home. But we cannot sustain this intense effort indefinitely. Complete victory over terrorism is unlikely ever to occur. Sometimes you have to reposition and prepare for the broader battle, not exhaust yourself on just one front and then risk defeat in the overall conflict. I beseech our President, Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice and others, never to give up the war on terrorism, but to understand that without significant tactical drawdowns in Iraq our entire counterterrorism and military efforts are threatened. Our Nation can ill afford another decade of defeatism and retreat that seized the United States after Vietnam. All this said, I am going to vote ``no'' on the resolution. The resolution is no surge protection. The battle has already begun. Most of us have individually clearly stated our views and continue to do so. For the United States Congress as a corporate body to deliver a public rebuke to the Commander in Chief during a battle that is already commenced would potentially put our soldiers at additional risk and confuse the world. It is one thing for us to argue about strategy and tactics. It is another to have Congress openly defy the President. The world already knows we have deep divisions in America. The terrorists already know we disagree. But they also need to know that when the fight starts, as Americans we stand united. The fact is while I do not believe that the surge will succeed, none of us actually knows that it will not work. At this point it seems to me that our position as a Congress should be to encourage success in this mission. We need to support the Iraqis as they take increasing responsibility. What the world should see from us at least is shared hope for victory, not defeatism. But the President does need to understand that opposition to the surge is not just among Democrats. It is even among his strongest supporters. Some of us who deeply share his passion to fight terrorism fear that he is potentially endangering his past successes, as well as our Nation's ability to continue the war on terror beyond this administration. I hope and pray that the surge succeeds. But if it does not, we need to try a dramatically different approach that does not totally abandon Iraq, the region or the war on terror.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to take a few minutes tonight to congratulate the President on the initiative to boost funding for our national parks. Of all the news stories and the ruckus about Iraq and global warming and our borders and the death of Anna Nicole Smith, whatever bumps it out of the news, it has kind of been lost about a major new initiative for the upcoming centennial of the national parks. I say ``upcoming'' because it is actually in 2016, but a number of us in the House several years ago introduced a National Park Centennial Act. Congressman Brian Baird and I, we formed the National Parks Caucus and in the House led the effort where we had, I believe, 67 Members. We, quite frankly, would have had more, but we systematically were trying to make sure that we had both Republicans and Democrats in relatively even numbers to show it was a bipartisan effort. And in the Senate, Senator McCain and Senator Feinstein were the leaders, along with Senator Alexander. They had strong support over in the Senate. The goal was to try to get rid of not only the backlog in the national parks, but trying to address where our parks were going to head in the next 100 years; that in the national parks one of our challenges has been that we have added homeland security challenges to the national parks because many of the sites that would have the most impact if they were attacked and destroyed are actually in our national parks. Whether it be Independence Hall or the Gateway Arch, for that matter, the Golden Gate Bridge, in addition to the monuments here in Washington, all come under the national parks. That came out of the budget. It didn't come out of the Homeland Security budget, much like roads come out of the Transportation budget. They had to absorb that, they have had to move rangers in and absorb the Homeland Security costs. Of course every agency is struggling with labor costs, health care costs, pension costs. And the net result of all this pressure on the national parks is, even though we have been steadily increasing funding here, with the additional costs in homeland security, the additional costs on employees and the additional land that we have added to the national parks system, the additional sites we have added, the additional conservation areas under a whole range of heritage areas, national roads and different things that go into their responsibility. The net impact is that many of our national parks, we have seen as much as a 67 percent reduction in actual rangers at the parks. While we have put money on the backlog, a backlog doesn't mean that you have eliminated the problem. For example, if you fix the restroom at a park and you fix a visitors center or you fix a sewer system, because of amortization and declining facility and road use, you are constantly, by fixing the backlog, if you divert your money from your current operating to fix the backlog, it merely means now you are in effect getting a front-log. In other words, you are adding new expenses that then get added to the backlog. So even as we have increased funds here, we have fallen further behind. And the question is what was our national parks system going to look like for our kids and for our grandkids. It is something that can easily get lost in whatever the crush of the day is. If it is immunization, if it is Medicaid, if it is prescription drugs for seniors, if it is border security, it gets lost in the system. For the 50th anniversary that Congress passed sufficiently ahead of time, which is what we are trying to do here, what was called Mission 66, there was a commitment over a number of years to fund adequate funding for the national parks so for the 50th birthday, in 1966, we could see the roads, the visitation facilities and other things set for the 50th anniversary. That is why we require forward funding at this time. This proposal by the administration is not exactly like the Centennial Act, but very similar. It commits dollars from the government, both directly for funding, roughly it looks like around 100 to $200 million a year in direct funding, plus it creates a challenge grant. Now, the fundamental part of our bill was a challenge grant that people could take a deduction, and then whatever the shortfall was from the 270 million we needed annually, the Federal Government would make up the difference. The total here is the same in the President's bill, but it has a direct one-for-one match. Right now, if people give 20 million to the national parks, it will give up to a hundred million with a hundred million dollar match, plus additional to get to that 270 figure. We hopefully can do that up to now to 2016. And I hope this doesn't just put more rangers in the parks, as the President said, and meet the needs that we have in homeland security and infrastructure, but that we realize that our national park System isn't only wilderness, isn't only visitation, it isn't only going to the parks to see what are the classic mountain peaks or the great and wonderful deserts or the volcanoes, or whatever the particular natural park you think of, it is our number one place for historic preservation of buildings, of artifacts. It is the number one, arguably, place that we even have art in America because of all the parks and certain sites devoted to art. But it is more than just that. It is our number one laboratory in America where you still have wildlife, where you have trees and plants and frogs and things that you can scientifically study. And I would also challenge, as we develop this, to look at creative ways that the National Park Service can use the Internet, can use the education to bring this to schools all over America, to families all over America, and not just if you visit the park, a ranger talk that now can draw a few people at the campfire. If we look ahead to the year 2016, that ought to be available on the Internet where in your home, by your own campfire, you can join in with the people that are actually at the campfire. I hope that this passes Congress and that we are creatively looking at where the National Park Service will head in the year 2016. [From USA Today] President Pushes Boost in Funding for National Parks (By Richard Wolf) Washington.--National parks would be a big winner under President Bush's 2008 budget, and a plan to match up to $100 million annually in private donations could guarantee increases for a decade. Bush's budget, being unveiled today, would give the National Park Service $2.4 billion next year, administration officials told USA TODAY. That includes a $258 million increase for daily operations, up 14.5%. Since 2002, those funds have risen 1.5% above inflation. The president proposes adding at least $100 million a year for the next 10 years. The funds would be used to hire 3,000 seasonal park rangers, guides and maintenance workers each summer, an increase of more than 50%. In addition, more than 1 million children could be enrolled in youth programs. On top of that, Bush wants Congress to guarantee that the federal government would match philanthropic donations each year, up to another $100 million. Currently, about $20 million is contributed each year by supporters of national parks, such as family foundations. Taken together, the proposals could provide $3 billion in new parks funding over the coming decade. In 2016, the parks will celebrate their 100th anniversary; Bush wants them to be in better shape than they are today. ``I think it can be a source of healing for Americans,'' Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said. ``This one is not partisan. This one is American.'' The proposal is being welcomed by groups that advocate on behalf of the nearly 400 sites managed by the National Park Service and have been a thorn in the Bush administration's side during lean years. The National Parks Conservation Association was seeking an increase of $250 million in operating funds for the parks. ``This is a renewed commitment that national parks should be a national priority,'' said Tom Kiernan, the group's president. ``It's a catalyzing initiative at a wonderful time for the national parks.'' The proposals would have to be approved separately by Congress. The $2.4 billion parks budget, with its record increase in operating funds, would become final if Congress allocates the funding. The matching-funds proposal would have to be approved by committees with jurisdiction over the Interior Department. Taken together, they would add thousands of new park workers to guide visitors with programs such as interpretive walks and campfire talks. Volunteer coordinators would be added in 44 sites. Seasonal workers have been cut during lean budget years, resulting in a 10-year decline. ``We simply have lost contact people who meet the American public,'' said Stephen Whitesell, superintendent of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in Texas. ``What they're not seeing are rangers in flat hats.'' Since 9/11, most of the money added to the National Park Service budget has gone for added security in such places as New York City, Washington, D.C., and along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. Some of the new funds will be used to attract young people to the parks through Internet programs and podcasts. Kempthorne and others see it as mutually beneficial: The parks would avoid a loss of visitors in future generations, and children would reap the health benefits of the great outdoors. ``We're competing with an electronic world,'' Kempthorne said.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the taking of human life. The question that is before the House is whether or not the Federal Government should force taxpayers to fund a procedure that requires the destruction of innocent human life. Congress has always refused to allow this on the issue of abortion, only allowing Federal funding if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother or is because of rape or incest. There is no reason why this same principle should not apply here. Even President Clinton's bioethics council, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, wrote in 1999 that most would agree that human embryos deserve respect as a form of human life. Is it showing respect to kill embryos for research? To allow the seeds of the next generation to be used for the doubtful sake of our own? Furthermore, does it show respect to the consciences of Americans who oppose the research to provide public funding for it? President Clinton's bioethics council also wrote that the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments, the killing of embryos that H.R. 3 would encourage, is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research. Regrettably, the supporters of this bill seem to have forgotten that advice, and their continued support for embryonic stem cell research seems to display ignorance at the recent developments of stem cell science. Far less morally problematic alternatives are exactly what scientists are continuing to find. We have heard this referred to several times. This was the front page of the Fort Wayne News Sentinel just last weekend: ``Stem cell find gives new hope to compromise.'' In this, in addition to the hearing that we had last year, where we heard multiple scientists receive testify of promising advances in non-embryonic stem cell research, what he points out here is ``the fetus is swallowing fluid and breathing in through the nose. Not only does it travel through the respiratory tract, it gets into the gastrointestinal tract, the bladder and the kidney. The stuff is chock full of fetal cells.'' They are no longer combined but are separated, and that is why the research is working, and that is why so many scientists don't even believe embryonic stem cells will ever work. There are two fundamental questions here: What is the science, and, in this case, we have proven research that is working and additional research that shows incredible promise of working; versus embryonic stem cell going on for 25 years, not 8 years, that is, in humans, 25 years with nothing. Not a single animal. Nothing has worked in embryonic stem cell research. Yet we are underfunding the research that actually works. Why? I would argue the second point, and that is it is political. It has to do with the fundamental question of abortion. We have deep differences in America and in here on the taking of innocent human life at conception, deep differences and honest differences. But why should I, with my view, be forced, and the many Americans who believe this is the taking of innocent life and killing and murder for that matter, why should we be forced to pay for it? I just do not understand the intensity of trying to drive this down our throats. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the taking of human life. Mr. Speaker, the question that is today before the House is whether or not the Federal Government should force taxpayers to fund a procedure that requires the destruction of innocent human life. Congress has always proudly refused to allow this on the issue of abortion, only allowing federal funding if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother or is due to rape or incest. There is no reason why the same principle should not apply here. Even President Clinton's bioethics council, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission) wrote in 1999 that ``[M]ost would agree that human embryos preserve respect as a form of human life.'' Mr. Speaker, is it showing respect to kill such embryos for research--to allow the seeds of the next generation to be used for the sake of our own? Furthermore, does it show respect to the consciences of Americans who oppose this research to provide public funding for it? President Clinton's bioethics council also wrote that, ``the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments''--the killing of embryos that H.R. 3 would encourage--``is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.'' Regrettably, supporters of H.R. 3 seem to have forgotten this advice, and in their continued support for embryonic stem cell research seems to display ignorance at the recent developments of stem cell science, for less morally problematic alternatives are exactly what scientists are continuing to find. Mr. Speaker, as scientists have worked to find useful therapies using embryonic stem cells, such research has encountered only problems. Such stem cells have shown to be too unstable and likely to form tumors when transplanted into adult tissues. Indeed, despite more than 80 research projects investigating human embryonic stem cells funded by the National Institutes of Health since 2002, to date there have been no verifiable reports of any human clinical trials being conducted using embryonic, not adult, stem cells--in the U.S. or anywhere else. Despite these facts, the sponsor of H.R. 3 has stated publicly that embryonic stem cell research could help cure diseases that affect 110 million Americans. Unfortunately, scientists have been complicit in this deceit. For example, to justify this hype, stem cell researcher Ron McKay has said bluntly that people need a fairy tale. Meanwhile, adult stem cell research continues to show increasing promise. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells. In fact, it seems our whole scientific paradigm of cellular development has been wrong. It now appears that stem cells do not lose their pluripotency as they develop from the embryo to differentiated tissue types, and that adult stem cells are much more elastic than previously thought. This means that embryos are no longer the unique source of pluripotent stem cells we once thought they were. Pluripotency is the real goal; and if that can be found in adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells and the destruction of human life are no longer necessary. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my opponents to consider that they do not need to believe a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a child in order to oppose this bill. Rather, they need merely to consider the drastic step it would be to provide public sanction-- through federal funding--for life-destructive research that has, at best, ambiguous potential; when more promising and more ethical alternatives are available. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill and this research are morally wrong, but also, they are simply unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, July 17, 2006. Efforts To Discredit Adult Stem Cell Advances or ``Science by Fairy Tale'' This week's debate on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is full of disinformation. Among the many pieces of distortion you may come across is a recent letter published in ScienceExpress, written to discredit Dr. David Prentice, a high profile critic of embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Prentice is formerly Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of Medicine. He is now Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Center for Human Life and Bioethics, at the Family Research Center. Apparently, in the ``open-minded'' spirit of scientific inquiry, since Dr. Prentice opposes destructive embryonic stem cell research (as do more Americans, when fully informed about the nature of the research), his credibility is being attacked by ``scientists'' who have an agenda of research-at- all-costs-including-creation-of-human-embryos-purely-for- destructive-research. I am attaching Dr. Prentice's useful guide demonstrating the 72 adult stem cell applications for humans. I also want to emphasize, that after twenty- five years of embryo stem cell research, there are zero human applications for using embryonic stem cells in patients. I am also attaching a response to the distortions printed in ScienceExpress--distortions which I expect will be abused in this week's debate. As this response points out, illuminating the scientific facts about embryonic vs. adult stem cell research: ``It remains absolutely true that adult stem cells have benefited patients suffering from at least 72 diseases and conditions, where patient improvement is documented by peer- reviewed scientific publications.'' Pointing out that ClinicalTrials.gov shows 565 currently active FDA-approved clinical trials (and a total of 1170 total trials, including those that no longer need to recruit patients), the response also notes this critical fact about embryonic stem cell research: ``There are no human trials of embryonic stem cells, and there never have been. Nor are there any peer-reviewed references for human treatments with embryonic stem cells, because animal trials have yet to show that embryonic stem cells are safe or effective enough to initiate even Phase I human trials for any condition.'' I hope this information is helpful to you.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I would like to make several points: First off, that committee staff knows there are elections every 2 years, too. I was a staff director in the minority before we became the majority and when the ranking member changed, all staff loses their job whether there has been an election or not. Yes, you could take your personal accounts for the losing Members and cover some. But the fact is so could committees. If they withheld funds, they could have done it as well. I lose five staff. They have been very close to me. Many of them have been personal friends. They have had 2 months. It would be nice if they could have the extra months, but it is no more their right as higher- paid staff than personal office staff. We are not arguing to spend even more money. We are saying, how did you come up with the double standard? Why do leadership staff get the dollars, why do committee staff get the dollars and not the personal office? The budgets are the same. The elections are the same. You know the risks. In fact, for a committee the risks are higher, because you could change your ranking member, you could change your chairman. You could have your chairman switch subcommittees and the staff change. This is the nature of the business. I think it is great to be generous with your own dollars, but when you're generous with the taxpayers' dollars, there are obligations with that. At the very least, there should have been a discussion. There should have been hearings. We hear that all the time. There should have been hearings. Sometimes there aren't. But at this point, at the last day, for us to come up here and give special benefits to the few, including some of my own staff, is just wrong. I hope the Members give this a resounding ``no.''

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, yesterday, before we passed H.R. 6344, I took the opportunity to thank the various members of the House and Senate, without whom we could not have passed this important and long- overdue legislation. As a point of personal privilege, I want to take this opportunity to thank the many staff members who worked so long and so hard for us. First, I must thank the Staff director of our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Marc Wheat has been with us for over three years, and he has been relentless and energetic in pursuing this daunting project. There is no other staffer on the House or Senate side who deserves more credit. Subcommittee counsel Dennis Kilcoyne, who joined our staff in February, has led the negotiations with the Senate for months and skillfully steered this legislation through the demands and critiques of the many competing parties in Congress, the Administration and private sector. It was a huge task requiring patience, skill and diplomacy, without which the effort would not have succeeded. The bipartisan nature of this negotiation has been an inspiration, and that is represented on the House side by Tony Haywood, counsel to the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee, who has ably represented the interests of our ranking Subcommittee member, Elijah Cummings. He has been a team player with our staff. I cannot forget the role played by our former Staff Director Chris Donesa--now with the House Intelligence Committee--and our former Subcommittee counsel Nick Coleman. These men brought great insight and skill that has contributed much to this legislation. And I would be remiss if I didn't thank Susie Schulte of the Government Reform Committee and Matt Miller of the Speaker's Drug Task Force, as well as his predecessor Andy Tiongson. All of these people have been enthusiastic and resourceful partners in this fight. Finally, I must mention all those staff members on the Senate side who responded so well to the hard work of our House Staff. First, I must thank Gavin Young--who represents Chairman Specter on the Judiciary Committee--and his predecessor Matt McPhillips, who just left last week to take up his FBI assignment in Denver. These two proved every bit as skillful in shepherding the bill in the last few weeks of maneuvering in that mysterious body we call the United States Senate. Also we thank Jeremy Mischler and Melissa Sundberg of the Senate Drug Caucus. They have worked long on behalf of Senator Grassley to help us finally reach the elusive goal of passing this bill. Jackie Parker of Senator Levin's staff and Reagan Taylor of Senator Biden's staff have been working this issue for a long time, and my staff have nothing but high praise for their team efforts. Roscoe Jones of Senator Leahy's staff worked hard and in good faith in recent weeks with my staff to hammer out the last few wrinkles in the negotiations, and we thank him for his efforts also. I also want to salute John Mackey of the House International Relations Committee, Janice O'Connell of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Tim Rieser of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee, who did so much in the drafting of the provisions to ensure that the Director of ONDCP carries out a study on the use of mycoherbicides as a way to kill off coca and opium poppy plants in an environmentally safe manner. Their efforts may succeed where thousands of tons of chemical spraying has failed. Among the private sector groups, we are especially grateful to Sue Thau of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Marcia Lee Taylor of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and Ron Brooks of the National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalitions. From the treatment, prevention and law enforcement sides--respectively--they have been indispensable partners in our efforts to enact this law. Additionally, I must thank Professor Charles O'Keeffe of Virginia Commonwealth University, who gave us such helpful guidance on provisions to allow doctors to treat more heroin addicts who needs drugs like buprenorphine for treatment. Finally, I am particularly proud that this Act to be signed by the President takes the first step to prevent what C. S. Lewis referred to as ``the abolition of Man.'' In the section authorizing the U.S. Anti- Doping Agency, it explicitly bans from athletic competition anyone who has been genetically modified for performance enhancement. This technology of ``gene-doping'' is not yet viable in humans, but it is widely anticipated to be on the horizon. To that end, it is critical to anticipate the problem and explicitly address it. The protocol set by the U.S. Anti Doping Agency, which follows the World Anti-Doping Agency, is also the standard followed by the International Olympic Committee. These standards state that ``The non- therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or of the modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to enhance athletic performance, is prohibited.'' Although the U.S. Anti Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency presently prohibit gene-doping, there is no guarantee that gene-doping will remain on the prohibited list. The prohibition of gene-doping by statute and further public dialogue is critical. I salute my House and Senate colleagues for their foresighted efforts in this regard.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, yesterday, we passed H.R. 6344, I took the opportunity to thank the various members of the House and Senate, without whom we could not have passed this important and long-overdue legislation. As a point of personal privilege, I want to take this opportunity to thank the many staff members who worked so long and so hard for us. First, I must thank the Staff director of our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Marc Wheat has been with us for over 3 years, and he has been relentless and energetic in pursuing this daunting project. There is no other staffer on the House or Senate side who deserves more credit. Subcommittee counsel Dennis Kilcoyne, who joined our staff in February, has led the negotiations with the Senate for months and skillfully steered this legislation through the demands and critiques of the many competing parties in Congress, the Administration and private sector. It was a huge task requiring patience, skill and diplomacy, without which the effort would not have succeeded. The bipartisan nature of this negotiation has been an inspiration, and that is represented on the House side by Tony Haywood, counsel to the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee, who has ably represented the interests of our ranking Subcommittee member, Elijah Cummings. He has been a team player with our staff. I cannot forget the role played by our former Staff Director Chris Donesa--now with the House Intelligence Committee--and our former Subcommittee counsel Nick Coleman. These men brought great insight and skill that has contributed much to this legislation. And I would be remiss if I didn't thank Susie Schulte of the Government Reform Committee and Matt Miller of the Speaker's Drug Task Force, as well as his predecessor Andy Tiongson. All of these people have been enthusiastic and resourceful partners in this fight. Finally, I must mention all those staff members on the Senate side who responded so well to the hard work of our House Staff. First, I must thank Gavin Young--who represents Chairman Specter on the Judiciary Committee--and his predecessor Matt McPhillips, who just left last week to take up his FBI assignment in Denver. These two proved every bit as skillful in shepherding the bill in the last few weeks of maneuvering in that mysterious body we call the United States Senate. Caucus. Also we thank Jeremy Mischler and Melissa Sandberg of the Senate Drug Caucus. They have worked long on behalf of Senator Grassley to help us finally reach the elusive goal of passing this bill. Jackie Parker of Senator Levin's staff and Reagan Taylor of Senator Biden's staff have been working this issue for a long time, and my staff have nothing but high praise for their team efforts. Roscoe Jones of Senator Leahy's staff worked hard and in good faith in recent weeks with my staff to hammer out the last few wrinkles in the negotiations, and we thank him for his efforts also. I also want to salute John Mackey of the House International Relations Committee, Janice O'Connell of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Tim Rieser of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommitee, who did so much in the drafting of the provisions to ensure that the Director of ONDCP carries out a study on the use of mycoherbicides as a way to kill off coca and opium poppy plants in an environmentally safe manner. Their efforts may succeed where thousands of tons of chemical spraying has failed. Among the private sector groups, we are especially grateful to Sue Thau of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Marcia Lee Taylor of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and Ron Brooks of the National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalitions. From the treatment, prevention and law enforcement sides--respectively--they have been indispensable partners in our efforts to enact this law. Additionally, I must thank Professor Charles O'Keeffe of Virginia Commonwealth University, who gave us such helpful guidance on provisions to allow doctors to treat more heroin addicts who need drugs like buprenorphine for treatment. Finally, I am particularly proud that this act to be signed by the President takes the first step to prevent what C.S. Lewis referred to as ``the abolition of Man.'' In the section authorizing the U.S. Anti- Doping agency, it explicitly bans from athletic competition anyone who has been genetically modified for performance enhancement. This technology of ``gene-doping'' is not yet viable in humans, but it is widely anticipated to be on the horizon. To that end, it is critical to anticipate the problem and explicitly address it. The protocol set by the U.S. Anti Doping Agency, which follows the World Anti-Doping Agency, is also the standard followed by the International Olympic Committee. These standards state that ``The non- therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or of the modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to enhance athletic performance, is prohibited.'' Although the U.S. Anti Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency presently prohibit gene-doping, there is no guarantee that gene-doping will remain on the prohibited list. The prohibition of gene-doping by statute and further public dialogue is critical. I salute my House and Senate colleagues for their foresighted efforts in this regard.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed H.R. 1245, the Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act of which I am a co- sponsor. This bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to carry out a national campaign to increase the awareness and knowledge of gynecologic cancers. It mirrors a similar law passed by Congress in 2000 that directed HHS to educate women and health care providers about cervical cancer. Unfortunately, the 2000 law has never been fully implemented which is, in part, why this new law is needed. I am pleased that the Senate revised the bill to set a deadline of March 2008 for HHS to enact this bill and the 2000 law. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which I chair, has been very active in cervical cancer issues over the past 5 years. I have been very disappointed with the lack of progress enacting the 2000 cervical cancer awareness law. I introduced a bipartisan resolution in 2003 urging federal agencies to comply with this law, held a hearing on the topic in 2004, and have sent numerous letters to the agencies responsible for carrying out this law. Yet 6 years after being signed, the law has still not been fully enacted and that is why setting a deadline has become necessary. This is important because thousands of women die of and many more are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year in the U.S. Yet many women and few Americans are even aware of the facts about cervical cancer, including what causes it and how it can be prevented. Medical experts agree that infection with certain strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) is the primary cause of nearly all cervical cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV and 5.5 million Americans become infected with HPV every year. According to the American Cancer Society, nearly 13,000 women develop invasive cervical cancer annually in the United States and over 4,000 women die of the disease every year. HPV infection is also associated with other cancers and more than 1 million pre-cancerous lesions. By way of comparison, nearly the same number of women die annually as a result of cervical cancer as do of HIV/AIDS in the United States. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and despite claims by condom manufacturers and advocates, studies have repeatedly found that condoms do not provide effective protection against HPV infection. In a February 1999 letter to the U.S. House Commerce Committee, Dr. Richard D. Klausner, then-Director of the National Cancer Institute, stated ``Condoms are ineffective against HPV because the virus is prevalent not only in the mucosal tissue (genitalia) but also on dry skin of the surrounding abdomen and groin, and it can migrate from those areas into the vagina and the cervix. Additional research efforts by NCI on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HPV transmission are not warranted.'' In 2001, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases along with FDA, CDC, and the U.S. Agency for International Development issued a consensus report regarding condom effectiveness that concluded ``there was no epidemiologic evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection.'' In November 2002, a meta-analysis of ``the best available data describing the relationship between condoms and HPV-related conditions'' from the previous two decades was published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The meta-analysis concluded: ``There was no consistent evidence of a protective effect of condom use on HPV DNA detection, and in some studies, condom use was associated with a slightly increased risk for these lesions.'' CDC issued a report in 2004 that concluded: Because genital HPV infection is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners, abstaining from sexual activity (i.e., refraining from any genital contact with another individual) is the surest way to prevent infection. For those who choose to be sexually active, a monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. For those who choose to be sexually active but who are not in a monogamous relationship, reducing the number of sexual partners and choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. . . . The available scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend condoms as a primary prevention strategy for the prevention of genital HPV infection. Based on these findings, the law required CDC to ``prepare and distribute educational materials for health care providers and the public that include information on HPV. Such materials shall address modes of transmission, consequences of infection, including the link between HPV and cervical cancer, the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing infection with HPV, and the importance of regular Pap smears, and other diagnostics for early intervention and prevention of cervical cancer.'' The CDC has largely ignored this provision of the law and as a result few women are aware of HPV or its link to cervical cancer. According to a 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey, only 40 percent of women have ever heard about HPV. Of those that have heard of HPV, less than 20 percent knew that HPV could sometimes lead to cervical cancer, meaning that only about 8 percent of American women are aware that HPV can cause cervical cancer. The only factors associated with having accurate knowledge--knowing that it could lead to cervical cancer--was an abnormal Pap test or testing positive on an HPV test. This suggests that most women are finding out about HPV only after experiencing a negative consequence. This is the real life consequence of the CDC's failure to enact this law and to make women aware of the facts regarding HPV and cervical cancer. The law also directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that such condom labels are medically accurate regarding the lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing HPV infection. The Subcommittee first wrote to the FDA requesting a status update on the enactment of this law on August 23, 2001. ``FDA is currently developing an implementation plan for carrying out Public Law 106- 554,'' was the response from Melinda K. Plaisier, FDA Associate Commissioner for Legislation, dated November 20, 2001. On February 12, 2004, the Subcommittee wrote to Dr. Mark B. McClellan, FDA Commissioner, requesting ``the agency's timetable for relabeling condoms in compliance with Public Law 106-554.'' In a response to the Subcommittee dated March 10, 2004, Amit K. Sachdev, FDA Associate Commissioner for Legislation, stated, ``the Agency is working on developing a proposed rule to be accompanied by draft labeling guidance for public comment later this year.'' In a hearing before the Subcommittee on March 11, 2004, Dr. Daniel G. Schultz, FDA Director of Device Evaluation, stated ``FDA is working to present a balanced view of the risks and benefits in condom labeling . . . FDA is preparing new guidance on condom labeling to address these issues, with the target of publishing that guidance as a draft for public comment later this year.'' On November 19, 2004, the Subcommittee sent a letter to Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford requesting an update on whether or not the oft repeated deadline previously provided would be met. And earlier this year, I sent a letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt again asking for a date certain when the FDA will finally be in compliance with Public Law 106-554 by requiring condom labeling to be medically accurate and an explanation for the continued delay by the FDA in complying with this 4-year-old law. Just this week, mere days before the 6-year anniversary of the signing of the law, FDA staff has admitted that the agency is still in the beginning stages of crafting a new medically accurate informational label for condom packages. By way of comparison, it took 410 days to build the Empire State Building and 2 years, 2 months and 5 days to construct the Eiffel Tower. Over the 6 years since this law was signed, CDC and FDA have repeatedly delayed and found excuses to avoid complying with the simple requirements of the law that would empower women with lifesaving information. This continued delay undermines the scientific integrity of both agencies and further jeopardizes the confidence of the public and many in Congress in these agencies' ability to fulfill their very important missions. It is my hope that a year from now Congress will not have to pass yet another new law to direct HHS, CDC and FDA to enact the existing law. The lives of our sisters, daughters, mothers, or friends are too important to allow yet another one to fall victim to this silent epidemic.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6344) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, before making my opening statement, I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations chairman, Mr. Young, out of deference to his leadership and longtime activity in this field.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our Republican leadership for bringing this important bill to the floor today. At a time when our Nation is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as waging a global war on terror, we must ensure that every defense dollar we allocate is well spent on programs, equipment, and other initiatives that support our troops in winning the battle and advancing the mission of our armed services. We cannot afford to be wasteful in spending. Our freedom and the lives of our men and women in uniform are on the line if we waste or misappropriate funding. The bill before us today, the Defense Spending Report Card Act, has already passed the Senate two times as amendments to the 2007 Department of Defense appropriations and authorization bills. The first amendment passed on voice vote, and the second amendment received overwhelming bipartisan support with only one Senator voting against it, 96-1, and unanimous in the Senate. Unfortunately, the amendments were stripped out in conference. But today we have an opportunity in the House to pass similar legislation in a bipartisan way that will send a message to both our constituents and our troops overseas that we are serious about fully funding our military needs and bringing some accountability and transparency to the appropriations process. H.R. 6375 is quite simple. It requires the Department of Defense to annually report, number one, the total cost of spending initiatives in defense appropriations bills; two, the purpose of these initiatives; and, three, an analysis of the usefulness of each initiative to advancing the goals of the Department of Defense. While there are no requirements directing what Congress must do with this report card, it will provide Members of Congress with a helpful tool by which to determine the value and cost effectiveness of each defense spending initiative. This transparency will also encourage greater accountability in the funding process, which voters in both parties will truly appreciate. In recent months we have seen the potential to abuse power that can result from a closed-door favoritism approach to government spending. Most people will agree that a little sunshine on the Federal appropriations process, as well as the authorizing process, and, by the way, this bill covers any House initiative that requires the Department of Defense to spend money, is always a good thing; and this bill takes an important step towards that goal. We should not be afraid of transparency but, rather, support it for the benefit of our troops and the integrity of the Congress. Again, let me thank our leadership and Chairman Hunter for bringing this bill to the floor. I would like to address a few other questions that have been raised by many of our distinguished leaders here. My position is actually closer to Chairman Hunter's position, which is I support this bill as does Chairman Hunter, but I do not oppose what would be called earmarks or congressional narratives. I, in fact, have many defense contractors in my district. I annually make requests to the Appropriations Committee. I work with the defense authorizations committee. In fact, almost every major defense contractor has a facility in my district. I have argued with the Department of Defense about what they have as their priorities. I absolutely believe Congress has the right to initiate whatever spending we so chose. We have the right to override the Department of Defense. We have a right to plus-up the Department of Defense. And, by the way, anything that is in the President's budget that comes to us we can plus-up and it isn't covered by the report card. But I believe in transparency. I release every request I make. I defend publicly every request I make. This bill is very simple. It is about transparency. It isn't about whether or not we are going to do congressional initiatives. Of course we are. If Chairman Hunter and our ranking member and soon-to-be leader of Armed Services, Mr. Skelton, hadn't fought the Defense Department on certain things, sometimes the Defense Department does not support the troops in the field. In the Appropriations Committee sometimes they appropriate things that aren't needed, but there is nothing to fear then. If you can defend it, that the generals in the field and that the military experts believe it is a better bill, why would you be afraid of transparency? Now, to the argument of report cards, we do report cards. We do report cards and it doesn't take millions and millions of dollars and hours and hours to do report cards. And we have done report cards on multiple things over in the Government Reform Committee. We have done it in other agencies. It is a way that we can force a public measurement and a public debate about how contracts are given. Should they be given just on the basis of what is in your district or should they have a national merit? Can you defend it on a national merit? When we debate which kind of planes to move to, whether we go to more this kind of carrier or that kind of carrier, how many ships we buy, should it be driven by who has a shipbuilding district and whether one place is going to close down versus another, that should be a public debate. And if the administration and the House disagree, let us force that debate and have that transparency. Because at the end of the day, this bill is very, very simple: Do you believe in more transparency or don't you? I appreciated my distinguished friend Mr. Skelton's point on the Inspector General in Iraq. Yes, we need more Inspectors General in general. That is just part of the problem. We have lost the confidence, both parties, of the American people about the process. Those of us who are arguing for what is best for our troops, what is best to protect our country have nothing to fear, absolutely nothing to fear from transparency.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 733) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established an Irish-American Heritage Month.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. From the very beginning, the United States has been changed for the better by its citizens of Irish descent. Nineteen Presidents, including George Washington, and at least eight signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Irish ancestry; 263 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor were born in Ireland, as was John Barry, the first flag officer of the United States Navy. And the list of contributions of Irish Americans goes on: Elizabeth Cady Stanton's successful fight for women's voting rights, James Hoban's architectural design for the White House, and Annie Moore's brave passage through Ellis Island as America's first immigrant. What began as 300,000 Irish immigrants in 1776 has grown to 44 million Irish Americans today. In recognition of the countless ways in which these Irish Americans have advanced our Nation politically, economically and culturally, I rise today in support of H. Res. 733. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.