Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an extremely simple, commonsense amendment that is a first step towards restoring the rights of self- protection, a right guaranteed under the second amendment to the citizens of the District of Columbia. My amendment would restrict funds from being used to enforce section 703 of the D.C. Firearms Control Act. This section requires that every registered gun owner ``shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.'' This amendment does not legalize anything that cannot be legally owned now: No machine gun, sawed-off shotguns, AK-47s, or Uzis. All it does is let people keep the handguns purchased before 1976, shotguns, or rifles unlocked or loaded that they already have registered in their homes. My amendment gives D.C. citizens the same rights at home as they have at work. Under the current law, a legal gun owner who owns a business in the District of Columbia can register a gun at their place of business to defend their business against criminals. The same person cannot use a legally registered gun to protect his or her life or family at home. Over the past 30 years, there have been too many times where staffers or residents who live and work right here on the Hill have been at home and have come under attack from dangerous criminals. The way the current law is set up, these law-abiding citizens are forbidden from using a legally registered gun in defense of his or her home or family. I believe the good people of D.C. deserve the recognition of this basic civil right. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, I want to say again for the record this only applies to one's home. It does not also apply to Uzis. It applies to already registered legal guns that one is forced to put under lock and key and separate; and if a criminal breaks into their house, unlike a business, they have to find their key, unlock the box, put the gun together to defend themselves, and if they defend themselves, they can be prosecuted. This is a straight second amendment vote. If Members believe in the right to bear arms, if Members believe in the second amendment, it is not a question of home rule. Home rule does not cover the right to abrogate constitutional rights. It does not give the right to abolish free speech. It does not give the right to abolish freedom of religion, and it does not give the right to abolish the right to bear arms. Last year on a broader vote, we had 250 votes in this House. We had 230 cosponsors of this bill. We have 210 this year. This is a much narrower amendment. But I would urge my colleagues who support the second amendment, who believe that the Constitution overrides local laws, to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. She serves on my subcommittee. We work together on many issues and we have a deep disagreement on this one. I believe a constitutional right to bear arms supersedes local authority. A couple of facts here are very stubborn things: One is that as far as accidents, the total rate of firearm accidents from 1981 to 2002 in the District of Columbia was 2.5 times higher than across the border in Maryland which does not have a storage law. The fact is that it has not reduced accidents. It is a nice thought to talk about that, but the facts don't bear that out. Secondly, this has nothing to do with businesses. This is about self-protection in your home. If a rapist is breaking into your house or a murderer is coming after you and your children and you are struggling to find the key to the lock and then have to get your gun out and put it together, odds are pretty good you are not going to make it. And under current D.C. law, if you find the lock and get your gun out and get your gun put back together and defend yourself, you can be prosecuted. What in the world is going on? We heard that the crime rate has dropped in the District of Columbia. For 15 of the last 16 years, the District of Columbia has been the murder capital of the United States. In the last statistics, they were again for the fourth year in a row. How can it get worse than that? Former Mayor Barry has one of my favorite quotes: Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in America.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple amendment. It increases the national ad campaign run under the Office of National Drug Control Policy by $25 million. The authorizing bill is moving through the process. If we can get these additional funds, it will be spent on meth and designated as such. The offset comes from the GSA. They have a $338 million increase for rental of space. They have $175 million building operations plus-up, so net this particular account has increased by a half a billion dollars. The national ad campaign has been reduced from 180 in the 90s down to 120. If we are going to continue its success combined with the Partnership For Drug Free America, we need these additional dollars. I think the meth crisis in America deserves these dollars and deserves this focus. More is needed in GSA, but not to the tune of a half a billion increase. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I understand the difficulty on the government buildings. They were plussed up nearly over half a billion dollars to start with. Clearly, at the very beginning of this, we transferred a lot to Amtrak, two lines of which are closing in my district. That is why we are here. It is about priorities. I believe we need to make changes in our government buildings. Quite frankly, we have a meth crisis in America that is knocking at the doors of homes across this country, and it is about to steamroll all of us. The question is, are we going to attack this before it runs us over? Are we going to attack it aggressively? Are we going to rue the day and spend hundreds of millions trying to address it after it has moved into our suburbs and cities just as crack cocaine did, and then we spent 10 or 15 years fighting it? We have had the warnings. It is moving into rural areas. It is moving into suburban areas. It is moving in some urban areas, and this is a freight train coming, and we need to get at the front end of it. We are here about priorities. I believe $25 million does not irrevocably damage GSA. I know it has been a difficult night, but I urge the passage of the Souder-Larsen amendment because this is one way we can address meth.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), my colleague, the cosponsor of this amendment and co-chairman of the Meth Caucus.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to make sure that the HIDTAs are funded, but this is the most effective organization we have at the grassroots level. Almost all the new HIDTAs are dealing with meth. The demand for new HIDTAs is great, and thus I support her amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who has been a leader in the fight against meth.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his efforts to preserve the HIDTA program, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking program, as well as the National media campaign under the Drug Czar's office. There will be several amendments offered today by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) and myself, one related to ad campaign and one related to HIDTA to further increase those fundings. We have a meth epidemic sweeping this country. It is absolutely critical that we address it in our national ad campaign, which has been substantially reduced over the years, and through the most aggressive law enforcement program and the most effective law enforcement program, the HIDTAs. We held a hearing Monday in Minneapolis. If you do not have meth next door to you, it is coming soon. It started in the rural areas and the rural States, and everybody kind of ignored it. But as it moves to the suburbs and as it moves to the east, we are seeing an epidemic of proportions we have not seen since the first outbreak of the crack epidemic. We either get on it now, or we are in deep trouble. In Ramsey County, St. Paul, Minnesota, between 80 and 90 percent of all children in Child Protective Services right now are coming from meth families. That is not a rural community; it is a big city. Next door, in Hennepin County, 50 percent of the women in treatment right now through the drug courts are because of meth. Formally, this was just at the little towns, and we saw it, although we could ignore it. But this is a freight train. We have to grab it. And in the authorization bill that matches this appropriations bill, we will make sure the ad campaign is designated, that a percentage of it has to go to meth if we can get adequate dollars to run that campaign. In the HIDTAs, we have the first meth HIDTA in Missouri. We are moving to more meth HIDTAs, because we must get control of this before it wrecks every family in this country. When people become addicted to this, they go crazy. We have never seen a drug that is harder to treat, that is more violent, has more environmental damage, and this Congress has to start to grab hold of the meth problem before it chokes our country.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I also want to talk briefly about the offset from ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the national ad campaign. This was funded under former President Clinton at a level of $180 million back in the 1990s. What we have seen is it is reduced all the way down to $120 million in this bill, which means that it is barely able to sustain itself, given that advertising costs have gone up. There is an amendment later in this bill that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and I are doing in a bipartisan way to try to increase the dollars so we can afford and fund anti-meth campaigns around this country, as we are also doing under ONDCP in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking area. This amendment, though it is not a large amount, would potentially be an absolutely crippling blow to this particular program and certainly would end any chance for us to do any meth advertising in this budget. Thus, I ask people who support our efforts to combat methamphetamine to vote against this amendment.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first, let me make a couple of points clear. This amendment does not save a dime. It merely transfers money from counternarcotics efforts to other efforts. Those Members who act like it saves money are wrong. Secondly, it is about kids and families in America. It is not about contractors; it is about the cocaine on our streets and what is the best way to deal with it. Look, this is a tough problem. I am not going to admit that it is not a tough problem. Rape is a tough problem. Child abuse is a tough problem. Spouse abuse is a tough problem, but we do not say let us give up efforts; let us give in because we have not seen a drop in spouse abuse or child abuse; why do we not just surrender and give the fight up. Our problem is difficult here. This is a map of Colombia. If you look at the map, the reason you hear passing statistics going on here is because basically our policies have pushed the narcoterrorists out into the jungle, instead of on the streets of Bogota where they are assassinating elected officials, terrorizing individuals, as reported in Garcia Marquez's book, ``Diary of a Kidnapping.'' We have pushed them into the jungle, so we have seen a tremendous drop in kidnappings and a tremendous drop in murders and blockades and all other types of things in the populist areas of this part of the country. The fact is that now for the first time in modern history, every single city and town in this country has an elected official because he is not worried about being murdered. I am all for alternative development. Alternative development, however, first requires you to get the guy from the FARC and the ultraparamilitary rightist groups away from them with a machine gun saying, plant palm heart and I will kill you. As you talk to the individuals, you can offer all of the incentives you want; but, quite frankly, they can make more money in coca. And as long as they are being terrorized and as long as they think they can make the money in coca and the terrorists think they can make money in coca, they are not going to let them do alternative development. So we have to get control of the land. Just like in Afghanistan with heroin, it is fine for us to talk about alternative problems; but until you eradicate the heroin, it does not do any good to talk to them about planting a crop that will yield only about one-fifth the amount. Now, I want to put a couple of other charts up here to show Members the depth of this problem. This is the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic. In this map from southwest Colombia in the eastern Pacific, you see the main trafficking routes. This is a Caribbean route, basically, going over to Yucatan. The reason that is important is if you look at this map, the area we are trying to patrol in the eastern Pacific is basically as big as the continental United States. That does not even count the Caribbean. Now, facts are stubborn things. In 1993, we cut 75 percent of the interdiction budget. What we saw was cocaine and heroin pour in from Colombia in that region to the point where after basically 10 years of effort, we have steadily reduced it back to where we were. It jumped 50 percent in 12 months when we cut the budget. We are now gradually working our way back down and trying to restabilize. Let me conclude with this. This is not a Colombian problem; it is our problem. It is our addictions and Europe's addictions that have terrorized this 200-year-old democracy. Because we have not licked drug abuse in America, they have had 30,000 police killed. President Clinton, while initially he had bad policies in his administration, he is the one who came up with the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and came up with the Colombian Initiative, working with this Congress, because he realized it did not work to cut back. It was terrorizing a legitimate democracy. An economy that has coffee, emeralds, oil, flowers, that had a flourishing middle class, that is an example of a country that fights for itself, where their police are dying. Unlike what it has taken in Afghanistan and Iraq to rebuild a police force, they had a police force. What they needed was helicopters, bullets, and communications systems. They needed help with their legal system and alternative development. They needed help with building roads into some of the rural areas where they had fled to. We provided that help to the Colombians. This is a model of what we are trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan; but it shows that when the terrorists can get drug money, whether it be in Afghanistan or Colombia, they are a threat to the stability, to the law and order, and to the people who want to follow the law. We need to stand behind them because it is our habit that has caused the problem.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, pretty much everybody tonight has been upset about something, and often when I come to the floor, I am too. But I wanted to share some good news, actually some good news inside the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, which is very tight in funding, and it involves the GEAR UP program, which I believe is a very important program, and, in fact, the President has proposed to zero it out and the Committee on Appropriations had put $306 million, the same funding as fiscal year 2005, in this. It is a program that, from the first time we funded it in 1999, had only $120 million in it after we finally got it appropriated; and now it is up to $306 million in spite of a very tight budget. I would like to give just a brief history of this program. The gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), when I was first elected in the class of 1994, came to me with this proposal of how to reach minority and low-income kids and give them some hope that someday they might be able to get student loans and someday might be able to get scholarships and aid, because it is one thing for a middle class or upper class suburban family where somewhere between prenatal care and child care the parents are already getting their college catalogues out and trying to encourage them to go to college versus many families where they have never had anybody go to college, where they do not really feel there is going to be a chance. And sometimes in Head Start and elementary school, when we go visit, we see the bright hopes in these kids' eyes and they want to be this and they want to be that, but somewhere around junior high they start to lose these hopes. That is why the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) originally called this program High Hopes, because at eighth grade we now have a program that moves on through the high school years and the bulk of these dollars, half of it, go roughly to scholarships and half of it to help go into the schools to provide financial advice, to provide support, to basically tell these kids that if they keep a 2.0 grade average, and depending upon the State's program in Indiana where they have some other supplemental things, that they will guarantee them to get into a State university with financial aid, that they will be eligible for scholarship aid but will be guaranteed financial aid, that they will be worked through with this financial aid, that they will continue to receive some support. And I believe that this program was a very critical program that, as we first moved it through committee, it was clear that we were very close in the votes. And with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and then Congressman McIntosh and me, it wound up to be a tie vote, and Joe Scarborough, who is now on TV, cast the deciding vote, which caused quite a bit of uproar on our side, but we got it authorized. Then it moved through the appropriations process where we continued to move that, and by that time President Clinton adopted the program and changed the name to GEAR UP and helped push this program. In fact, one of my more difficult moments was when we went to the signing ceremony, and then Congressman Lindsey Graham and I went to the ceremony, and our goal was particularly not to be in the picture with President Clinton. As a conservative Republican, it could have been the death of me politically. But we went to the White House, and when I left I made it through without a picture, and when I turned around, there was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and he said, somebody wants to talk to you, and the whole press corps was there, and there is President Clinton. He starts talking to me about this program and thanking me for my help, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) on this program. The bottom line was, I thought my career was going to be over. But, secondly, it showed that you can do things in a bipartisan way. What I saw in the President's eyes was a commitment to these kids. What we have seen is the dangers of a lot of these programs, is when the Presidency changes the program gets abandoned. Mr. Speaker, we have continued and expanded this program, even under a Republican administration, in a bipartisan way. At a time when we are divided on so many different issues, to be able to take an education program that is targeted for low-income kids across this country and continue to fund this is a tremendous credit, first to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and his committed leadership, to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) in continuing to fund this, and it is a credit to this House that we at least have this program in place, supplemented with TRIO programs and other things, where we can tell young people in America that we can help provide some assistance to them and that, indeed, while you may not get exactly equal chances to everybody else, we are going to give you an opportunity in America, and we are going to give at least some assistance so you too can have some hope in this country. And if we are going to compete worldwide, as Thomas Friedman in his great book says about the flattening of the earth, we have to have everybody in this country understand that if we are going to compete, we have to succeed. So it is important that we have some programs to supplement the family support system and the lack of some of the educational history in these high-risk families. Because they too have to get up to much higher competitive standards, and we have not been able to do this, and the GEAR UP program is one small step in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the subcommittee and the full committee and the United States Senate for continuing to fund the GEAR UP program.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 52 and of the people of Burma. The people of Burma toil every day under the cruel and heavy yoke of military dictatorship. The military rulers of Burma stifle dissent, persecute minorities, and thwart every attempt at democracy. The democratically elected and legal leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, remains imprisoned. Contact between Suu Kyi and the outside is virtually non-existent. Despite growing calls for her release, there is no sign that she will be released from her prison any time soon. Many hundreds of other Burmese men and women remain in appallingly horrible prisons, not because of any truly criminal act, but because of their efforts to bring freedom to Burma. Burma has more than 600,000 internally displaced people. Furthermore, over 100,000 people are living in refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border. Thousands more are in hiding in China and India. Where Burma was once a country of peaceful coexistence, it has, under this brutal regime, become a place of strife and discord. The military junta in Burma continues to persecute minority groups. The Burmese military continues to burn villages, destroy crops, and eliminate opponents no matter how peaceful or non-threatening. The destruction of medical supplies and first aid stations continues apace. These acts are not random acts of a few rogue military units far from any authority. These acts are orchestrated at the highest levels by cruel generals sitting in government offices in Rangoon. Now more than ever, the democratic forces at work in Burma need the continued support of the United States of America. H.J. Res. 52, which I am proud to co-sponsor, will continue the sanctions imposed by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. When the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was passed, few other countries paid more than scant attention to the tragedy unfolding in Burma. More interested in regional comity or economic gain, many of the same countries we call allies were content to turn a blind eye to Burma's abuses and despicable cruelty. Since 2003, the veil has been lifted somewhat. Calls for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and the establishment of democracy have gone out from previously silent quarters. Once mute ASEAN nations, particularly Singapore, the Philippines, and Malaysia, have gradually increased pressure on Burma to change. Support for this bill will make it clear to Burmese despots that their military dictatorship, which maintains power through force and terror, is unacceptable. Support for continued sanctions will demonstrate to the world that the United States is serious about bringing change to Burma. It is my hope that our efforts embodied in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act sanctions will encourage more countries, organizations, and individuals to work for freedom, democracy, and a prosperous Burma. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.J. Res. 52.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this promarijuana amendment. It has little, little to do with compassion. It is hiding behind a few sick people to try to, in effect, legalize, back door, marijuana in this country. This amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from enforcing Federal drug laws against anyone hiding behind a State medical marijuana statute. If passed, this amendment would put people in danger of shysters and quacks willing to recommend a dangerous drug, marijuana, in place of federally approved safe and proven medicines. You can get Marinol. We have got other ways by taking a pill to treat this. There are multiple chemicals in marijuana. It is not medicine. Marijuana is just as much medicine as the carbolic smoke ball from the late 19th century was medicine. The carbolic smoke ball promised in this ad we can see promised to cure everything from asthma to sore eyes to diphtheria. Consumers were told to smoke the carbolic smoke ball three times a day for what ailed them. Similarly, snake-oil salesmen promised through their quackery that their product could cure all aches and pains. This is why we passed the Food and Drug Act. That is why we have an FDA, to protect consumers from the nostrums of the day. Congress acted responsibly in protecting this country from fraudulent claims of nostrum sellers and from using unsafe drugs from being taken by sick or afflicted consumers. Do the Members think these people were not sick and these people did not want to be cured? But they were sold products that, in fact, could not deliver. They made them drunk just like marijuana makes one high. What they do is isolate the chemicals inside to treat the disease. One does not smoke pot. I have told this body several times before about Irma Perez, but many seem to have a short memory about this. The rhetoric about marijuana as a ``treatment'' for medical purposes, which probably was dreamed up at some college dorm, was a factor in the death of Irma Perez. She was 14 years old. She heard all this talk about medical marijuana even on the floors of Congress, and she was suffering from an Ecstasy overdose. And her friends gave her marijuana, thinking it was medical instead of getting her a doctor. A medical examiner said that had she received real medical attention rather than so-called medical marijuana, Irma Perez would still be alive. There is a reason that marijuana is illegal, a Schedule I controlled substance. It has not met the rigorous approval process of the FDA. In fact, nearly 60 percent of people in drug treatment in America are in treatment for marijuana. Marijuana has never been proven safe and effective for any disease. To the contrary, it has been linked to a greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. The Office of National Drug Control Policy notes evidence that marijuana can increase the risk of serious mental health problems, and in teens marijuana can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide, and schizophrenia. There is a cost to Members of Congress standing up here and pretending that this is medical. This is not safe medicine. It is not safe and effective. It is dangerous. It contains more than 400 chemicals. Moreover, we know from survey data that so-called medical marijuana is not used for medicinal purposes except in very few cases, but for recreational and emotional reasons. One single doctor in Oregon wrote more than 4,000 prescriptions for people to use marijuana. His medical license was finally suspended last year for his failure to provide proper examinations or oversight of this so-called ``treatment.'' We have marijuana coffee houses proliferating in these States that are supposedly for cancer patients. There are people growing tens of hundreds of acres and putting medical marijuana in front of it and hiding and saying ``we are helping cancer patients,'' which is not true. Finally, pro-marijuana advocates exploit the stories of people who are suffering from real pain or illness as a wedge for their pro-drug agenda, claiming that marijuana is necessary to alleviate their pain. It is simply not proven, not true, and becoming less true every single year for even the exceptional case. The good news is that Marinol, a synthetic version of marijuana's derivative THC, has been approved by FDA as medication for appropriate treatment by prescription. Marinol has met the rigorous standard for ``safe and effective'' that is required for all drugs. It will be great for cancer patients and is working now in all of them. Originally, Members got on this floor and said it could not stop vomiting. It does. The bad news is that proponents of medical marijuana are perpetrating a fraud on the public by claiming that home-grown weed, pot, reefer, marijuana, or whatever one wants to call it, should be used as medicine. Medical marijuana is a ruse. Marijuana is a dangerous and illicit drug, period. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, let me state that my mother and father-in- law both recently died of cancer as well. Compassion is not limited to either side, but there is science and there is not science. In fact, the Carbolic Smoke Balls and the snake oil is very similar; getting high is the same as getting splashed. There are, in fact, medical solutions to what has been talked about today. Serostim deals with wasting in AIDS, as does Megestrol, and they have been found by FDA to treat the very things they claim that you want treated today. You do not get high in the process, but your pain is relieved. Marinol treats the vomiting questions and other questions. It isolates the substances in it. There are 200 chemicals in marijuana. One gets you high, but other parts actually can be isolated just like in other things. Furthermore, we have heard kind of a silly argument here on the House floor today that physicians should be making up FDA law. Physicians do not do trials of different drugs when they come to market. Physicians do not have big testing agencies. That is why we have a Food and Drug Administration. This is in effect asking to repeal the Food and Drug Administration. Then we have kind of a very interesting legal argument going on here, not whether States have rights, but when the Federal Government has ruled, can States nullify a Federal law? The Supreme Court has always ruled unanimously that they do not, ever since the Civil War. We fought a war over nullification. We do not believe in States rights on civil rights questions and others. When the Federal Government rules, the Court is unanimous. The split decision the other week was best explained by Justice Scalia for the majority, who said that you cannot have intrastate and interstate definitions when you are dealing with marijuana. These huge marijuana plantations that are growing in the State of California, which, by the way, there is no limitation on doctors to cancer patients. We had one testify in our committee who gave so-called medical marijuana to teenagers for ADD, that doctors prescribe it for fingernail pain. There is not this restriction on cancer. It is a bogus debate. California does not have that restriction. These huge marijuana plantations, nobody is going after individual doctors except in a test case where somebody wants to do it. We are going after the people prescribing to thousands of people, to the coffee shops that are proliferating in these States where the people were sold a bill of goods that they were working with cancer patients, and instead now they see the proliferation of coffee houses, they see the proliferation of marijuana plantations, with signs up in front of them saying, ``This is all for medical purposes.'' We in Congress have a responsibility to lead in this country, not to buy into college dormitory-type thoughts of ``wouldn't it be great if we called marijuana medical, and then we could smoke pot?'' That is why the vote has actually declined the last few years here in Congress, and after the Supreme Court ruling last week, I believe it will decline even further, because there is not an intrastate. Not only was it previously upheld on interstate, it has now been upheld on intrastate, with Scalia being one of the great conservatives who historically has stood up for States rights explaining the difference very clearly. I hope Members will join with the chairman in voting down this amendment.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying bill; but I have some deep concerns with this bill, and I will probably support a number of amendments today. I want to lay out a little of my concerns about this bill. This bill has to be taken in the context of a number of appropriation requests that the administration made in their budget. I chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources in the Committee on Government Reform, as well as co-chair of the Speaker's Task Force; and I have been appalled at the President's approach to drug policy. OMB did uninformed meddling in this budget process. There was lack of leadership out of the drug czar's office, and benign neglect out of the White House. There is no other simple way to say it. They proposed zeroing out Byrne grants, which would devastate all the drug task forces across the United States. They proposed zeroing out a number of other local law enforcement programs that are critical, including meth hot spots programs. In another appropriations bill, they proposed knocking out 60 percent of all State and local participation in HIDTAs and transferring it under Federal control and cutting the program immensely. They proposed changing the CPOT program, which gives aid to State and local law enforcement to fight methamphetamines and other issues, that and Safe and Drug Free Schools, which will be coming in another appropriations bill, they propose zeroing out the State and local funding for drug prevention. The question is: Where is the antidrug strategy of this administration? Many of us on this side of the aisle took to the floor to criticize the last administration when in the first parts of their term they abandoned the national narcotics strategy and did misguided efforts. What should be good for one party should good for the other. We should have a consistent antidrug strategy. And this is particularly appalling in the area of methamphetamines that are sweeping across every State and are moving increasingly from the rural areas into the suburbs and then into our major cities. If they hit our major cities and major suburbs, this will be an epidemic like we have never seen. The reaction out of the Federal Government is nothing. It is not in the national ad campaign. The Partnership For a Drug Free America is addressing it some, but it is not in our national ad campaign. It is not in our drug-free prevention programs. They are proposing to zero out the meth hot spots programs, they propose to zero out the Byrne grant programs, they propose to knock out the meth hot spots, or the meth program that the last HIDTA is in, which is in Missouri. It was a meth program, and they said they did not want the new HIDTA programs. Now, there will be a number of amendments today, we may have a few more this year, but these will be the only votes we will have that will enable us to address the meth question. Chairman Wolf, to his credit, in a very tight budget, recognized the failure of the administration's policies and put many of these dollars back. Unfortunately, in many of the categories, meth hot spots got more funding even than last year, even though the administration tried to zero it out. He put much of the Byrne grant money back in, much of the State and local funding back in, but the fact is we are still looking at merely a 50 percent whacking in some categories of these task forces. There are likely to be a number of amendments today to try to address the Byrne grants, to try to address meth in particular, and a number of other subjects. I support Chairman Wolf and his efforts in every way; but at some point we have to stand up as a Congress and say, if this administration is not going to come up with a meth strategy, then this is the way it gets done on the House floor, amendment by amendment, in a fairly chaotic way. It is time this administration faced up to the fact that gangs are not our number one problem in America, meth is our number one growing problem in America; and it is closely related to the gang problem. We need a coordinated methamphetamine strategy out of this administration. And quite frankly, the same thing is happening over in the United States Senate. And if administration does not address the meth question, then it will be addressed by the House and the Senate in the force of law, unfortunately often chaotically through the appropriations process or random little pieces of bills. So while I plan to vote for this rule and I plan to vote for the underlying bill, even if these amendments do not pass, I strongly urge Members to realize what is happening here. We are going to have a meth epidemic in America unless we increasingly address it with some of the amendments that will be offered today.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. The gentleman brings up a very critical other point. That is that the map we saw earlier that Coach, Congressman, maybe Governor Osborne had up here showed all these States where meth has been in. But it has been predominantly in the rural areas. But what we are seeing is that it is starting to come into towns like Fort Wayne, a town of 230,000, in Omaha, and if this stuff hits the major cities, if it gets into Minneapolis and St. Paul, as it comes in from the rural areas and into the suburbs and into those cities, we are going to see an epidemic in America like we have not seen in a long time. Things like what you are talking about with the snipers, in one place in Hawaii, they are now charging people to go in, I think it is $200, to get their apartment cleaned before they come in because if somebody has been cooking in Honolulu and a kid gets into that, they can get sick and die. So now there is a charge in some apartment complexes to be able to go in.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his continued leadership over the past few weeks in trying to help make the rest of Congress aware of this and the importance of the votes we have this week, and to try to address the devastating proposals that came out of this administration that just flabbergast those of us who are Republicans, in particular who support this President, have supported this administration. And it is just unbelievable that a conservative President of the United States would have proposed to nationalize and take away the dollars that were going to local drug law enforcement and the years of effort that we put together to get State, local and Federal cooperation and, in one budget, attempt to wipe out this by zeroing out category after category. First, I want to thank Chairman Wolf for putting some of this back, but clearly there is a revolution going on in the House of Representatives, in the United States Senate, that is furious at this administration's proposals. Before I make a few comments here, I wanted to make Members and their staff and others aware that if you want to learn, the best source of information right now on meth is ironically by a reporter named Steve Suo from the Portland Oregonian newspaper. He has spent and deserves a Pulitzer Prize. He has dug into this. He has identified that China and India are the primary precursor chemical countries, as well as Mexico, the amount that is coming in from Mexico; details more of this over the last 2 years; has covered hearings throughout the country, the different problems around the country. You can get through their home page a lot of information, the best information that exists currently on meth. Also, for Members in their districts, while our national ad campaign has been very disappointingly silent on meth, silent on meth, the Partnership For a Drug Free America has, in fact, created a number of ads that have started to run around the country. They have offered that any Member who would like to run these in their districts or figure out how to get them in the schools, they will make those available to any Member for free, produced by the top ad guys in the country. They are going to continue to develop additional ads because in spite of the Federal Government not responding aggressively enough on meth, at least the Partnership For a Drug Free America is. A lot of times people say, How come you guys can't work together across the aisle? Why isn't there bipartisan effort? A few years ago, probably now about 6 years ago, I would guess, Congressman Doug Ose of California was the first to raise this question of the superlabs and meth in California. It was just starting to move. It may have even been 8 years ago now that we had our first hearing. I chair the narcotics subcommittee over in Government Reform. We had our first hearing in California. I was not chairman at that time. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) was chairman. At this point we have held multiple hearings through our committee. Two Members, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), which is historically, along with California, the oldest State to face the meth problem, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), which is arguably, along with southwest Missouri, the hardest hit right now in the congressional districts with the number of labs combined with the superlab material coming in, asked for hearings, and we did those, the gentleman from Hawaii being a Democrat, the gentleman from Arkansas being a Republican. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), who is here on the floor, has asked for a hearing in Minnesota along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), four Members from Minnesota. We are having a hearing in St. Paul at Congressman Kennedy's request next Monday on meth. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who chairs the Committee on Homeland Security, has a tremendous coordinated effort to try to address meth and OxyContin in Kentucky. We are going to be going down there and looking at theirs. We have hearing requests in from at least 10 congressional districts on this hearing, including from the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), where we have a lot of pressure, as well as Washington State. I say that because this is bipartisan. When you see a bipartisan effort coming out of the House of Representatives throughout the entire Nation, why in the world would the President's budget propose to zero out the meth hot spots program, to zero out the Byrne grants, to zero out and transfer the money, basically wipe out the HIDTAs and move that to the Federal Government, to zero out program after program that was addressing this question and as an alternative propose nothing except the nationalization and say, well, this problem isn't at the local level. It is fine to say that, but as we have heard earlier, and this is from the FBI reports, 95 percent, I heard earlier 90, according to the FBI, 95 percent of the arrests of drug violators are at the State and local level, not at the Federal level. If you think about it, we are working so aggressively on border security right now, but what happens the other week? A guy comes across the Canadian border, even though he was supposed to be at a hearing, so the RCMP said that he should have been held, comes across with a bloody chainsaw, with knuckles, with knives and guns, and he comes across. How does he get picked up? The information goes out, but he was not caught by the FBI, he was not caught by the DEA, he was not caught by the Department of Homeland Security; he was caught by a State and local official, because when the Federal Government put out the announcements, that is who picks them up. If you are looking for major drug dealers, often you get them like Al Capone. You get them on some other count. You do not get him on murder. You get him on an IRS charge. In the case of drug violators, gang violators, the State and locals get notified by the Federal system, but ultimately they are the people to pick them up. But if there are no State and local drug task forces, if they do not have any money, nobody is going to be picking them up. And so what if you have a bunch of great task forces sitting here in Washington. Nobody is going to be out there to coordinate and arrest them and get the information. You can send out all the bulletins you want, but if there are not any drug task forces in America, nobody is going to go find the criminals that you sent your notices out about. Let me make a couple of comments. We held a hearing on the HIDTAs and the Byrne grants in my subcommittee. Sheriff Jack Merritt of Greene County, Missouri, suggested by our majority whip, Congressman Blunt, his hometown sheriff, said this, that he would not be able to maintain the joint DEA, State and local antimeth task force in his county if these funds were cut. Vital equipment such as bulletproof vests and in- car cameras, which his officers need to protect themselves while carrying out meth traffic investigations, could not be purchased because the administration proposed to get rid of the CPOT funding. He spoke eloquently of the children he and his officers find at meth lab sites, children who are at severe risk. He stated that if his task forces are forced to shut down, he wonders how many more generations of children will be condemned to the same fate. Mr. Mark Henry, president of the Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers Association in the Speaker's home State of Illinois, said that Byrne grants help local police departments fill a critical gap which exists between Federal drug enforcement programs. The overwhelming majority, 87.6 percent, of all police departments in the United States have less than 50 officers, and Byrne grants play a critical role in supporting multijurisdictional drug task forces which are the backbone of law enforcement agencies. So we had asked Mr. Henry, and he came to our hearing with a list of comments from the State of Illinois that said the following: If Federal funds under the Byrne program are eliminated, our unit will lose three agents. The loss of these agents will cripple our ability to continue effective narcotics investigations. Narcotics trafficking will go unchecked and spread. We might as well turn the keys to our communities over to the gangs. Another sheriff said, Although the local law enforcement agencies, the business and education community rely heavily on the task force expertise in combating the fight against drugs, without the existence of the task force, violent crime and burglaries will likely increase dramatically. Another sheriff said, The elimination of the Byrne grant would have a catastrophic effect on the metropolitan enforcement group of southwest Illinois. Another sheriff in Illinois said, Without the funding that we currently receive from the Byrne grant, our mission would be all but nonexistent. Another sheriff said, and this is the Illinois Narcotics Officers Association polled their State membership, The elimination or reduction of Byrne funding would force police officers off the street to do clerical work, eliminate communication equipment such as pagers and cell phones, and eliminate Federal funding to reimburse a portion of officer overtime cost. Yet another department said, The elimination of the Byrne funding will have a very negative impact on our ability to address the drug problems in the Lake County area of Illinois. The loss of funding will cause us to eliminate the staff positions. This will cause the jobs they now perform to be reassigned to police officers. Yet another department said, Task Force 6 is the primary drug enforcement entity in this area and has been a fixture in this area since 1983. Proposed Byrne cuts will result in the closure of this unit. Narcotics-related crime will increase dramatically, and drug dealers will operate at will without the presence of Task Force 6. Yet another department said, The elimination or reduction of this grant would have a very severe impact on the task force. At the present time the funding accounts for 50 percent of the task force funds, with the remaining 50 percent made up from fines and forfeitures. I strongly believe the elimination of this funding will force the task force to close its doors. That is from the Speaker's home State of Illinois. From my home State of Indiana in Fort Wayne, Indiana, we do not have a HIDTA. We did not apply for a HIDTA because we have Byrne grants. Our task force has told me in northeast Indiana, it will shut down without the Byrne grants. Fifty percent means only 50 percent shuts down. We have tremendous budget pressures in the United States, and all of us know we have these tremendous budget pressures. But the people back home are not telling us, Let the criminals go free. Let's concentrate on foreign aid. Let's concentrate on all sorts of different programs. What they believe is the minimum standard out of the Federal Government is that we should be shutting down crime, controlling our borders, getting rid of the threats to their daily lives. It is just incredible to me that a conservative administration would propose bringing the power to Washington rather than leaving it at the grassroots where we are having an effect, where drug use in the United States has been declining. And where is our drug czar? Where is our administration? As we are making progress, they are proposing to go backwards. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his leadership and the others here tonight because we have to stand up and say, you cannot forget the people back home and say, we are going to turn you loose, and good luck in fighting all these criminals.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize an individual from my district who has dedicated his life to making our country safer. Not only has this man served our Country in WorId War II, but he continues to go beyond the call of duty by providing his service to military funerals and always being available to lend a helping hand for the community. George F. Heffner was born on March 30, 1923 in Osceola, Indiana. He served in the U.S. Army in France and Germany during WWII, and was wounded in action. Mr. Heffner received the Purple Heart three times and was awarded the Bronze Star for his valiant actions. He married Senora who passed away in 2002. Together they have one son and one daughter. After returning home from the war, Mr. Heffner was one of the founders of Auspro Manufacturing in the 1950s which has enabled him the time to freely dedicate his life to service for others. Mr. Heffner has held many offices in the Veterans of Foreign Wars, including Commander in 1964. He is also a member of the Disabled American Veterans and the American Legion. Mr. Heffner was honored on April 29, 2005 by the United Labor Agency for Community Services as their ``Retiree of the Year'' for his volunteer work in Elkhart County with the Harvest Basket for the past 8 years. He has spent many hours assisting the Salvation Army in ringing bells at Christmas time and helping with their community-wide breakfasts. He has been active in the VFW in helping with purchasing the food and delivering the baskets to the needy at Christmas. He always volunteers to distribute ``Buddy Poppys'' at Memorial Day and helps put crosses on the gravesites of deceased members during the month of May. Every January he hosts a meal at the VFW Post of ham and beans, paying for the food and cooking it himself. He is an active member of the Goshen Military Funeral Detail which conducts gravesite services for deceased veterans. He always insists on driving members to the cemetery in his van. He always has a smile on his face and tries to make everyone smile. His personality shines through to make everyone a happier person. He has helped many organizations in many different ways and continues to make a difference in the community.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, recently I was made aware of a discriminatory policy within the Department of Defense that is preventing some of America's best young people from enlisting in the military. At a time when we need as many individuals as are interested to consider a career in the military, it is outrageous that the DoD is turning away home school students--a group of young people who happen to be, generally speaking, very mature, smart, well-disciplined and highly patriotic. What more is our military looking for? If any students should qualify for priority enlistment it is these students! Instead, however, a young man in my district was recently informed that he would have an extremely difficult time being accepted into the Air Force merely because he was educated at home. He was told that home-schooled students were categorized as Tier 2 applicants--the same category in which high school dropouts are classified. Upon further inquiry by my office, the Air Force confirmed that, yes, home school applicants could not be considered on a level playing field with other high school graduates and that, ``as a rule, less than 1 percent of [the Air Force's] annual non-prior service accessions [would] be alternate credential holders.'' Additionally, even if a home school student is accepted into a branch of the military, the fact that he or she started in Tier 2 means that they will not qualify for the same benefits and positions available to traditional high school students. I am aware that a 5-year pilot project was initiated in 1998 that allowed home-schoolers greater access to the Armed Services by considering them as Tier 1 applicants. While the project was extended an additional year, it expired without further extension on September 30, 2004. In January of this year, the DoD appeared to make an effort to remove remaining obstacles to home-schoolers entering the military. However, the memo that was issued contained conflicting language, and ultimately, the classification of home school students as Tier 2 applicants remains on the books, perpetuating the military's policy of discrimination. While the Army has recently found a way to get around the Tier 2 categorization, the other branches of the military are still excluding home school students from priority consideration. It doesn't matter how qualified and motivated a home school student may be, it is highly unlikely that he or she will be able to serve their country in the Marines, Navy or Air Force. Mr. Speaker, I raise this disturbing situation to the House today to highlight the lack of fairness and equality within our military with respect to home school students. While I will not be offering an amendment today, it is my intention to introduce a bill soon to address this problem. I sincerely hope that with the Armed Services Chairman's support, we will be able to find a resolution to this issue that will enable all qualified students to live out their dream of serving their country in the U.S. Armed Services.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a letter from a young girl in my district: ``Dear House of Representatives: ``My name is Kelsea King. I am 14 years old and have been dealing with diabetes for nearly 3 years now. There are many challenges in having this disease, both physical and emotional. Though it may be hard to believe, the emotional pain greatly outweighs the physical pain. ``My sister, Kendall, was also diagnosed with diabetes 2 years ago. She is now 7. It is very hard going through life knowing that both our lives could be shortened by this disease. It is also very difficult knowing what this disease makes us prone to, such as heart disease, liver problems, blindness and in extreme cases loss of limb. But the most difficult part of all is worrying about passing out due to low blood sugars, or being hospitalized. It is too large of a responsibility and too large of a burden for any 7-year-old and even for a 14-year-old. ``As you can see, my need for a cure to this disease is very great. But I do not want a cure if it takes the lives of others. I do not support embryonic stem cell research. I believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any reason, even if it benefits me. There are other ways of a cure. We just need proper funding. If we work together, we can find a cure through adult stem cell research. ``My hope and prayer is for my sister and I to be cured before we are adults so we can both live long and healthy lives. No one deserves diabetes but everyone deserves a cure through adult stem cell research.'' The campaign for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has been a campaign of half-truths, and at times, outright deception. Advocates of federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research do three things consistently: (1) Obfuscate the fact that a living human embryo is killed in the process of extracting the cells. (2) Obfuscate the fact that there have been no cures, treatments, therapies, or even clinical trials using embryonic stem cells. (3) Obfuscate the fact that there is unlimited private funding allowed for embryonic stem cell research. As Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I sent a letter to the Director of the National Institutes of Health in October, 2002 requesting a detailed report providing comprehensive information about the medical applications of adult and embryonic stem cells. It took almost two years to get a response from the NIH, and the response omitted many of the advances, applications and trials for adult stem cell research that had already been reported in peer reviewed journals. The one thing that was complete in the NIH response to our oversight request, was the listing of applications for embryonic stem cells: zero. The applications for embryonic stem cell research was zero then, in June of 2004, and it's zero now. The human applications for adult stem cells currently number 58, and range from lymphoma to chrones disease to heart damage to immunodeficiency syndrome. Finally, let me be clear: there is no ``ban'' on embryonic stem cell research. There is no limit to the amount of private money that may be devoted to this research. The research is being conducted throughout the country. The critical fact is that we are responsible for the public purse, and forcing the public to fund unproven research where living human embryos are destroyed is completely unconscionable. If private industry sees promise in embryonic stem cell research, you can be certain that investors will find it. But the public should not be forced to subsidize a speculative venture involving destruction of human life. Fourteen-year-old Kelsea King, an articulate young constituent of mine, has Juvenile Diabetes. Her struggle with this disease is emotionally and physically challenging, but she is strongly opposed to the idea of developing a cure that would involve the destruction of human life. As she wrote in a letter to me, ``I believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any reason, even if it benefits me.'' I am submitting Miss King's letter in its entirety for the record. H.R. 810 requires the public to pay for destructive embryonic research that has no current applications. It's an empty promise to the millions who suffer with disease, and would surely pave the way for embryo cloning. I am voting against H.R. 810, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Avila, IN, May 23, 2005. Dear House of Representatives, my name is Kelsea King. I am fourteen years old and have been dealing with diabetes for nearly three years now. There are many challenges in having this disease, both physical and emotional. Though it may be hard to believe, the emotional pain greatly outweighs the physical pain. My sister, Kendall, was also diagnosed with diabetes two years ago. She is now seven. It is very hard going through life knowing that both our lives could be shortened by this disease. It is also very difficult knowing what this disease makes us prone to, such as heart disease, liver problems, blindness, and in extreme cases, loss of limb. But the most difficult part of all is worrying about passing out due to low blood sugars, or being hospitalized for ketoacidosis (which is caused by blood sugar being too high). It is too large of a responsibility and too large of a burden for any seven-year-old, and even for a fourteen-year- old. As you can see, my need for a cure to this disease is very great. But I do not want a cure if it takes the lives of others. I do not support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. I believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any reason, even if it benefits me. There are other ways of a cure; we just need proper funding. There is no proof that Embryonic Stem Cell Research is better or more successful than Adult Stem Cell Research. If we work together, we can find a cure through Adult Stem Cell Research. My hope and prayer is for my sister and I to be cured before we are adults so we can both live long and healthy lives. No one deserves diabetes, but everyone deserves a cure through Adult Stem Cell Research. My sister and I need this, as well as the millions of other children in America who are afflicted with this disease. Please help us--support Adult Stem Cell Research! Sincerely, Kelsea King.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 606, the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act. Historic preservation is the key to remembering our past. Without key places and artifacts from our history, it would be impossible to tell future generations of Americans how, when and where our country came to be what it is. Whenever a place or object is lost, a piece of history is gone forever. It is our duty to ensure that history is preserved. The Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act aims to preserve part of our history. Known as the Ellis Island of the West, Angel Island was the primary entry point for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Pacific Rim, including Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Russia, and in particular, Asia. During Angel Island's years of operation (1910-1940), an estimated 175,000 Chinese immigrants were processed through Angel Island. In 1940, Angel Island Immigration Station closed after a fire destroyed the Administration Building. Following the Army's departure from Angel Island, the structures fell into disrepair. Many were removed by the Army Corps of Engineers and California State Parks. Of the original Immigration Station structures, only the Detention Barracks, Hospital, Power House, Pump House and Mule Barn remain. Today, these structures are in various states of disrepair; hence the need for this legislation. Without H.R. 606, the structures on Angel Island will fall further into decay. Many of the buildings are crumbling and leak; consequently, many poems written by the Chinese immigrants detained at Angel Island are in danger of being destroyed. State, private, and local entities have already contributed mightily to this project; sadly, they have not been able to complete the project. This bill will authorize $15 million in funding so that this unique aspect of our history can be preserved for future generations. Compared to the $156 million spent to restore Ellis Island, this restoration project is a bargain and of no less significance. Millions of people journey to Ellis Island every year in order to see where their ancestors came ashore. This bill would allow descendents of Angel Island arrivals the same opportunity to visit the place where their ancestors' American Dreams started. Although the status of Angel Island as part of the California State Parks system sets it apart from many other historic sites that receive federal funding, the importance of the site and its contribution to the United States makes its official designation irrelevant. Our nation's history must be preserved regardless of official status. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 606, the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act. Keeping our immigration heritage in good repair is essential if the United States is to maintain its unique status as a beacon of democracy and opportunity.