Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the lead Democratic cosponsor of this bill. We have 44 Democratic cosponsors, and I very much appreciate his leadership and help on this issue.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 803, I call up the bill (H.R. 3193) to restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a series of stories of individuals who were terrified but defended themselves and could have been prosecuted under the D.C. law. I will also include for the Record, what would the District of Columbia's gun laws look like after this law passes? What Would the District of Columbia's Gun Laws Look Like After H.R. 3193? Even if H.R. 3193 were signed into law in its present form, it would leave in place an extensive set of laws governing possession, sale and use of guns. District laws would still be far more restrictive than the laws of most states: It would still be illegal to carry firearms outside one's own property, either openly or concealed. Violations would still be punishable by a fine of up to $1000 or imprisonment for not moire than one year for a first offense, and up to $10,000 and 10 years' imprisonment, or both, for a second offense or for any violation by a convicted felon. All penalties are doubled for illegal carry in a ``gun free zone'' within 1000 feet of a school, day care center, college, or various youth recreation facilities such as swimming pools and video arcades. Possession or use of a firearm while committing a crime of violence would remain punishable by up to 30 years in prison, with a minimum of 5 years served before parole or probation. Handgun possession would remain illegal for drug addicts, convicted felons, and persons convicted of various public order offenses such as vagrancy. It would still be illegal to possess machineguns, sawed-off shotguns or short-barreled rifles. The definition of ``sawed- off shotgun'' is more restrictive than federal law. It would still be illegal to manufacture firearms or ammunition in the District. Vehicles used to illegally transport firearms would still be subject to seizure and forfeiture. All these provisions are in addition to federal laws that extensively regulate commerce in firearms, and which provide strict penalties for gun possession by convicted felons and other ``prohibited persons'' and for use of firearms in violent crimes. H.R. 3193 focuses entirely on restoring fundamental self- defense rights to honest citizens, by repealing the handgun ban, gun registration laws, and laws on carry and storage in the home that prevent people from exercising those rights.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One would think that the District of Columbia has a good record rather than eight times the national average, leading the Nation 14 of the past 15 years in the murder rate. As a former mayor said, ``Other than the killings, their crime rate is not too bad.'' ``Other than the killings'' is a relevant thing here. We are trying to make sure honest citizens can protect themselves, not just the criminals. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), a member of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee, and a former judge.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for bringing up a very good rule today. I rise in support of this rule, and would like to alert all of my colleagues, the vote for a rule is a vote for allowing debate on restoring the second amendment rights to the District of Columbia residents. Members have heard much of the debate today that citizens are prevented from owning a handgun at all. My bill says even if citizens have a gun, let me first state this, even if you have a gun, you store a rifle or shotgun, you are prohibited from using them to defend your own life, family, and home. District law threatens honest people with imprisonment if they unlock, assemble, or load their guns even when under attack. For this reason, I am bringing before the House a bill that this rule would make in order that would restore the second amendment rights of D.C. citizens. I think it is important to note that my bill would not repeal any provision of D.C. law that bans gun possession by criminals or that punishes violent crime. The rule also makes two important changes to my bill which would clarify the original intent. There has been a misrepresentation in ``Dear Colleagues'' to this House that said we would allow concealed and open carrying of any firearm, loaded or unloaded, outside the owner's property. It did not. It said three times in the bill, property, home, business or other land, but this clarifies it. It also strengthens D.C. code by providing a more complete set of exemptions based on Maryland law to allow citizens to transport unloaded, cased firearms to and from lawful activities, such as hunting, target shooting, and firearm safety training. I want to address a number of the things that have come up during debate. One is if someone has a gun in their home, could someone go in and rob? Of course they could. They can now. It is just the person defending their home cannot defend their home, but it is not loaded, it has to be encased and cannot be used. But if someone wants to steal the guns, they can do that now. What happens if they go on the street with an illegal gun? Guess what; they are doing that now. That penalty stays in effect. If somebody steals the gun or goes off their property with the gun, it is already against the law. It will still be against the law, and all Members are arguing is the ineffectiveness of the law. For years in the United States we have heard this rumor that if we ban guns, only the criminals would have guns. In D.C. that seems to have come true, because now what we are arguing is that people who follow the law are somehow going to turn into criminals. The people who are criminals are already making Washington, D.C. the murder capital of the United States 14 of the last 15 years. How can it get worse? What we are doing is letting the people who are in the homes, as people have written in and stated, that when they told, even though the gun was illegal, when they said they had a gun inside, people left the attacking of their homes. This should increase property values in Washington, D.C. It should make people safer, and I think it is the right thing to do. Another subject that came up was the so-called AK-47s and Uzis. They are constantly mentioned, but they are not legal to import now. Even though the assault weapon ban has expired, those and other foreign-made guns were prohibited under the Federal Firearm Importation Act in 1989, and they will still remain prohibited. We heard about so-called ``cop killer bullets.'' The fact is on the armor piercing ammunition bill, there was a bill passed in 1986 when the Democrats controlled this House. After several years of debate and discussion, Congress prohibited certain kinds of bullets that could be used in a handgun and which were capable of defeating the kinds of bullet-resistant vests that police officers wear for protection. Some wanted to ban all ammunition. That was defeated. It came up again. In 1997, a study conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that existing laws are working and no additional legislation regarding such laws is necessary. The study also found that no law enforcement officer had ever been killed or even injured because of these so-called bullets penetrating a bullet-resistant vest. It urged Congress to avoid any experimentation with police officer lives that could conceivably lead to numerous additional officer fatalities. The problem here is all we are doing is making D.C. in conformance with the rest of the United States, which is a constitutional right to bear arms, and this rule would go forth and do that. I include for printing in the Congressional Record the cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 752, expressing continued support for the construction of the Victims of Communism Memorial. In 1993, recognizing ``the deaths of over 100,000,000 victims in an unprecedented imperial communist holocaust,'' Congress authorized the construction of the Victims of Communism Memorial in our Nation's capital, ``so that never again will nations and peoples allow so evil a tyranny to terrorize the world.'' Today, H. Res. 752 reaffirms the importance of the Victims of Communism Memorial and reminds our nation that the men and women whose sacrifice the memorial honors must not be forgotten. Over the past year, significant strides have been made toward the realization of the memorial, including the consideration of a potential location. Several months ago, the National Park Service recommended a site for the Victims of Communism Memorial at Maryland and Constitution Avenues, NE. In July, I and 26 other Members of Congress wrote to the chairman of the National Capital Memorial Commission, encouraging the commission to approve this site for the memorial. Later that month, the commission met to consider this location for the memorial. Citizens representing the Baltic-American, Vietnamese-American and Polish- American communities expressed their strong support for the memorial. They spoke of its importance both for their own communities in commemorating those who have suffered under communist oppression and for our whole nation, which has shared in the struggle against communism. That day, the commission unanimously approved the site for the Victims of Communism Memorial. The Victims of Communism Memorial continues to make its way through the approved process for its site and design. Now that the National Capital Memorial Commission has approved a location, the site must also be approved by Neighborhood Advisory Commission 6-C for Capitol Hill, the Commission on Fine Arts, and the National Capital Planning Commission. The Memorial must then go through the same procedure for design approval. These are important and exciting steps on the way to establishing the memorial to honor over 100 million victims of communism. It is vital that we as Americans remember the sacrifice so many brave men and women have made in the hope of achieving freedom from communist tyranny. Our Nation has long struggled along with them as the leader in fighting communism. This history is also very personal for the estimated 26 million Americans who trace their heritage to former communist countries. When the Victims of Communism Memorial is constructed, it will provide our Nation with a place to commemorate the lives and heroism of those the memorial honors, and to remember the terrible cost of communism. This is a message that neither we nor future generations of Americans can afford to forget. I urge my colleagues to support the efforts to establish the Victims of Communism Memorial and H. Res. 752.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). There are so many aspects to the 9/11 Commission report and all the many day-to-day activities in fighting terrorism that it is hard to even begin to fathom the number of issues that we have to deal with as we move through the committee process. Before I continue, I want to make sure that I point out to the gentlewoman from Michigan that I meant no offense by my Notre Dame tie, just because Notre Dame is the champion of Michigan this year, both Michigan and Michigan State. I actually wore my Notre Dame shirt after they lost to Brigham Young at a State park in Michigan when I thought we were in a dismal year. I am a Notre Dame hot dog regardless of the time. I hope no offense was taken by this wonderful Fighting Irish tie. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about another aspect of the 9/11 Commission, but first I would like to say a little bit about how we got here. I know there are some Members in this body over the next few days, and they have been saying it in the news media, that think that just because there was a commission that somehow we have now checked our voting cards at the door and we are supposed to adopt this report lock, stock and barrel. I was one who actually opposed this commission at the start, because I was afraid it was going to be overly political. In fact, there were times in the commission hearings that I felt that. For example, in Dick Clarke's self-serving testimony, it became very critical and was more focused on attacking the President than trying to move forward. I felt that not addressing the values of the PATRIOT Act was something that was kind of a gross omission of something we have actually done that has worked extremely well in this country in helping thwart future terrorist attacks. Overall, however, it is not only an excellent document, but one of the best written government reports you will ever read. It is actually interesting; it is compelling as it goes through the testimony. The fact remains, however, that it is the opinion of a few individuals. Now, a number of those individuals served in Congress, not many but at least three; and all of them were from the other party. The Republicans appointed to the commission were largely executive branch people at the State or the Federal level. Each of them had their own biases as they came in and had their own committee backgrounds as they came. So while they have many excellent recommendations, we have to now work through a committee process by elected representatives, people in the House and Senate, who have many other opinions in addition to this commission. But the one thing this commission absolutely accomplished was it forced us to deal with this yet this fall. And it kept the pressure up such that tomorrow we are actually starting markups in multiple committees to try to move through as many things as we can without moving so hastily that we make major mistakes. One problem with just rushing to judgment in an area as comprehensive as telecommunications and border security and individual liberties and privacy and travel visas, and all sorts of, just an incredible number of issues potentially here, relations with individual countries around the world, how we reorganize defense intelligence, narcotics intelligence, border intelligence, domestic and international intelligence, how you put different bureaucracies together when we are still struggling in the Department of Homeland Security, it is unclear how we absolutely merge Defense intelligence, the CIA, and the FBI. Their cultures are even more pronouncedly different than the cultures that were merged inside DHS, which is taking quite a bit of time. Nevertheless, we need to continue to move ahead. Let me reiterate one other thing. It is not as though Congress has not been doing anything, not only after 9/11 but before 9/11. On the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, when I was vice chairman of the subcommittee that now Speaker Hastert chaired, we went over to Saudi Arabia after Khobar Towers. We heard from the counterintelligence people in many classified as well as public hearings about the increasing attacks on our military and our civilians around the world. Although they had not attacked us, although they had attempted to attack us at the World Trade Center, they had not successfully had a disaster like happened on 9/11. We were already moving to improve and to consolidate, but there was not as much consensus on how to do it. Then, after 9/11, we went and wiped out terrorist bases in Afghanistan and deprived them of one of the major funding sources and routes to terrorism for al Qaeda through the Taliban. We moved into Iraq, which was not only attempting, if not absolutely having developed, weapons of mass destruction with which to attack us. They not only provided some tangential assistance to al Qaeda and other terrorist networks in ``the enemy of my enemy is my friend'' theory, but more directly were preparing to be an even bigger threat than al Qaeda itself. Because we went into Iraq, Mohamar Qadafi decided he did not want to be in a spider hole, and all of a sudden he is fingering Pakistan, that they are providing him with nuclear parts. Then Pakistan moves over and provides some help to us. As we now look at the potential terrorist nations of Iran and Korea, one of the questions we had when we looked at Iran was, where would you even base Americans. Until we moved into Iraq and Afghanistan and had a change in attitude at least of Pakistan, it was not clear how we would be able to deal with Iran. So we have to take steps and look at this in a historical perspective of it was not like 9/11 occurred and nothing happened until there was a 9/11 Commission, they do a report, and suddenly there is panic. No, we have been dealing with this steadily and consistently. My subcommittee, which predominantly deals with narcotics but also deals with immigration and all sorts of criminal justice things, and particularly on the border, spent 2 years focusing on our borders. We did multiple hearings and in July of 2002 issued this border report, which then we used partly as an information base as the Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security of the Select Committee on Homeland Security was organized, because this was the first comprehensive document where we pulled together information on which border crossings are the major truck crossings, which ones are the major car crossings, where do individuals cross, where do we have multiple people putting pressure on our borders, and what things do we need to do to improve our security clearance systems, what things do we do to move the port security away from the U.S. but do the clearances farther out, whether it be Singapore or over in Europe at Rotterdam, for example. How can we preclear these things before they get to our borders? It is fine to say we are going to add border patrol agents, but we are having trouble recruiting for the existing slots we have. What do we need to do internally to make sure we have an adequate supply of people who are willing to serve in the Department of Homeland Security, at the border and other things? How do we not lose other missions as we work on the border? So there were a lot of things we were already progressing on at the legislative side. The executive branch has been working diligently to improve, for example, the border security. Let me give some examples related to border security. It does not do any good to try to have all sorts of different approaches and have electronic systems that can talk to each other, and everybody wants to strengthen emergency response, and I am on the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, but that is all dealing with after disasters happen. The goal is to try to prevent a disaster from occurring. To do that, you have to make sure the terrorists do not get into our country; and when they come in, you have to make sure you have some means to track them. This means that, A, we have to get our borders more secure, both north and south; B, we have to have information systems at the border that can identify the people and give us the ability to track them. That also means that if you are going to have an ID, and this is one of the things that will be moving through this week, you need to have some kind of thing that makes the identification secure. If we do not have secure IDs, whether it is the U.S. visit program, whether it is from U.S. citizens, whether it is from noncitizens living in the United States, whether it is from people from Mexico or Canada or other countries that are coming in, we are only as safe as the ID system they have. We are only as safe as our birth certificate system is. If you can forge a birth certificate or a Social Security number and then get a legal ID, the whole system is broken. There is no tracking of money. It does not do us any good to have banking laws. It does not do us any good to have wiretap laws. It does not do us any good to be tracking people who have false IDs. So clearly, we have to get better systems of identification and more secure systems. Secondly, we need to have machines that talk to each other. You cannot have somebody on the north border with one kind of machine over at the Detroit-Windsor crossing, and somebody with another kind of machine down there at the El Paso-Juarez crossing and find they cannot talk to each other; and if people cross different points, the machines cannot read the same information going into the same information bank. If somebody gets on at an airport in Europe to come in and we want to pre-check them, and somebody is coming in at the Los Angeles airport and our systems cannot cross-check or read each other, what is the point of doing all this? So we have to have better integration. These will be expensive systems, and so we will have to make decisions on which ones will work, and we are testing. This does not happen real fast. You do not walk into Wal-Mart and say, by the way, we would like 2,000 of these systems tomorrow. They are not there. We have to make some basic decisions, then you have to produce on those decisions, and that is the process we are working through. We have a multitude of other things. I have two small companies in Angola, Indiana, that are part of the two largest companies that make the container seals. We talk about port security. One of the vulnerabilities we have to nuclear weapons, chemical, and biological weapons is port security. When something comes into the Los Angeles area or into the New York area, the question is do we know for sure whether there are nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in that container before it blows up the city? The answer is, well, we are preclearing and we are checking the IDs and so on. But if the container seal can be broken, so what if the bill of lading matches? All they do is pull the little sealant loose, put something in, and replace it at whatever point we have precleared. One of the problems we have, for example, is no international standards on these container seals. Well, why? Partly, bluntly put, China has taken intellectual property rights and are mass producing these seals and they do not want to have anybody check for international standards because what they are making is illegal because they stole somebody's license. So that means that most of the container seals being used right now, are actually pirated and there is no security or way to check to see if those container seals can be modified or changed, or whether the number of seals is out there or whether they have rigged the market where some are on the black market and somebody could change the container seals. So we can do all this other stuff, but if the container is not sealed and does not have protection, it does not do any good. That is why we talk about layered security. You have preclearance. You even need eventually to move downstream from preclearance, because the things coming in from Singapore are coming in from China and India and other places. You then need to be able to check them on the ship. You need to know that the sealant is there. You need to check the people who are moving these things at the harbor where it is loaded, on the ship as it is moving through, in the harbor as it is unloaded, and on the train. For example, some stuff comes from China to Singapore to Vancouver, British Columbia, crosses at North Dakota on a train, the seventh biggest crossing is in North Dakota, headed down to Chicago and the Midwest. If it gets precleared in Singapore, think how many places that container could be modified if we do not have checks and have a secured container. So there are lots of different small aspects of this. Now, let me mention a couple of other things that are difficult. There is a lot of criticism about merging all the different agencies. I do not sit on the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, but I want to suggest that there are things that are unique in the different branches of government that make this harder than the simplistic let us consolidate everything. There are some missions that are more military, some missions that are more antiterrorist. Let me give an example of a couple of other things, and this has been a very bitter controversy in the Committee on Homeland Security as we fight over jurisdiction, and there are reasons we are having fights for jurisdiction. For example, the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is one of the major ways that we fight narcotics. If you are from Alaska, the Coast Guard provides some narcotics protection and pipeline protection and harbor protection, but the number one thing is fisheries. If the Coast Guard is not guarding the international waters, the Russian trawlers, among other countries, would take the salmon that do a circular route and they would net those salmon and destroy the salmon industry in the United States. So to Alaska, it is a lot of fisheries. On the Great Lakes when we think of the Coast Guard, we think to some degree homeland security, to some degree narcotics; but you think search and rescue. The same thing off Florida. It is fine to say I think that those boats ought to be focused on homeland security, but do not let the overturned sailboat people drown. Do not let the narcotics come in. There are multiple missions to the Coast Guard. We hear all politics are local. No one wants to die. Obviously, if we have a nuclear bomb and we are all destroyed, jobs do not matter much. But ultimately, jobs are the number one local issue. So let us talk about the legacy customs department inside homeland security. Their number one priority is homeland security, but if they allow goods in, I remember one case when I was a staffer, there was a dumping case in Seattle where they were going to dump enough lawn mower motors below the cost of production. It would have put a major company in Indiana out of business. It would have taken 2 years of market. The goal was to say you cannot illegally dump. If the Customs people had not stopped the ship from unloading, then the unemployment rate in that area would have soared and people would have said to the then- Congressman, it is jobs. How could you let this company go? Partly in fighting on international customs questions, as well as narcotics questions, the Department of Homeland Security has duties beyond just homeland security. We cannot just by a broad statement of saying oh well, let us just do homeland security, forget there are many reasons that these agencies exist beyond just homeland security. For example, we do not want the FBI just to do homeland security and forget about racketeering, which may or may not be related to al Qaeda, but may in fact result in lots of different deaths in the United States or driving people out of business or terrorizing people. There are other functions for these agencies. This is not going to be worked out in 30 days, but a lot of it is. What we are seeing is progress in trying to work out a national intelligence director, progress on some new international initiatives, progress on cutting off financial support to terrorists, and isolating different terrorists. There will be bills passed this week in parts of this package regarding border security, international cooperation, government restructuring, and first responders. Much of what is in this report will be moving. The parts that are not moving are things that we have internally through the elected process in the United States said do not make a mistake that is more costly even than the current system. One other brief point, and then I want to conclude with some remarks on drugs and terrorism. The weekend before last, I went with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) to Russia. We went to the city of Beslan; and it was the most awful single experience that I have seen. In that school, 32 terrorists attacked a school on the second day of school. They came up on the school yard and drove approximately 1,500 teachers, students, and parents into the school building. Apparently they had planted bombs earlier to go off in different parts of the school if they needed to. Initially, they pushed the kids in. Immediately, the 22 people they felt most likely to resist, young men and male teachers, were killed and thrown out of a second story window. We were the first Americans. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) went a couple days later, and he visited the people in the hospitals and said it was the most emotional experience he had been through because of the brutality of terrorists who seized children and shot them. Many parents were killed and the teachers were killed, and many of the kids were wounded with head wounds and different things as the parents tried to cover them up, and they could not get them covered. They deprived them of water and food for 3 days. At the site in this picture are all of the bottles of water, thousands of bottles of water, because those kids were deprived of water and if they complained, they shot them. In this burned-out gym, the kids were crying. One man lost his wife and five children. The emotionalism, we felt it was important for us to stand with them. I have been to new graves, but never to a whole new graveyard, 300 some graves, mostly children spread over a big field. We felt it was important to say as Americans, and all of us broke down because it was so emotional. This man, Speaker of the House, he had a 7-year-old son and a 10- year-old daughter inside. They put one of his children on the telephone. The boy said, ``Daddy, if you storm this, they are going to kill me and my sister.'' They stalled for a number of days. A bomb went off. A number of people got killed. They put his little boy on the telephone. Meanwhile kids, many were dead, some started to run out of the building. The terrorists started gunning down the children as they left. The parents outside decided to storm as well as the police outside, and they went in. It was important for us as Americans to stand there and say, look, terrorism is evil wherever it occurs in the world, and we are in this fight together. This might have started as a local battle in Chechnya, but the proclaimed leader went to Afghanistan and he was trained by al Qaeda, and he came back a different man. Instead of fighting for freedom in Chechnya, he decide to murder children and parents and teachers and parent-volunteers in the second day of school, and to kill as many as 500, 600 kids. Do you think Russia after having two planes go down and this school bombed, after hitting a theater, after hitting a subway, they do not understand the battle we are in right now? One of the things that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) was talking to them about was having a homeland security conference over there and over here as we all look for new technologies to fight this battle because these crazed people who think they can do these suicide attacks on anybody at any time are a different breed. We have to take strong actions. I want to make sure I make these points tonight that are the connections between narcotics and terrorism. I chair the narcotics committee and have for the last 4 years. And as the 9/11 Commission has pointed out and President Bush has pointed out, there are huge profits through drug trafficking that will continue to finance terrorism throughout the world. As President Bush pointed out in September 2001, ``The traffic in drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists. Terrorists use drug profits to fund their cells to commit acts of murder.'' Furthermore, as the U.S. steps up its efforts against more legitimate sources of funding, terrorist organizations will increasingly turn to drugs and similar illegal sources. As the 9/11 Commission has noted, the Federal Government, including DHS, must be able to adapt to these shifting strategies of the terrorists. ``Instead of facing a few very dangerous adversaries, the United States confronts a number of less visible challenges that surpass the boundaries of traditional nation- states and call for quick, quick imaginative, and agile responses.'' That is page 399. Recognizing the central importance of stopping terrorist financing, the 9/11 Commission reported: ``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The government has recognized that information about terrorist money helps us to understand their networks, search them out, and disrupt their operations.'' Page 382. The connections between drugs and terrorism are well-documented. In Afghanistan, our subcommittee was told February 26, 2004, the State Department provided declassified information, which is just the tip of the iceberg, showing in Afghanistan two terrorist insurgent groups are financed by drug money and most likely are provided with logistical support by drug traffickers. Two other groups, al Qaeda and the IMU, probably receive at least logistical support from drug traffickers, and some reports suggest that they receive funds from drug trafficking as well. Drugs and al Qaeda, in November 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft announced the arrest of three al Qaeda operatives who offered 600 kilograms of heroin and five metric tons of hashish in exchange for four Stinger shoulder anti-aircraft missiles. With respect to terrorist groups in Colombia, the State Department has noted that the main terrorist organizations are heavily dependent on the funds derived from drug trafficking. Worldwide, testimony before our subcommittee on May 11, 2004, Donald Semesky, DEA Chief of Financial Operations, stated that drug income is among the sources of revenue for some international terrorist groups, and the Department of Justice has highlighted links between groups and individuals under investigation for drug violations and terrorist organizations. In fact, 47 percent of the 36 foreign terrorist organizations identified and updated by the Department of State in October 2003 are on record with DEA as having possible ties to the drug trade. Strong DHS action against drug trafficking is vital to overall efforts to stop the financing of terrorist activities. It was for this reason that Congress specifically provided that the primary mission of the Department included the responsibility to ``monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever such connections, and otherwise contribute to efforts to interdict illegal drug trafficking.'' For example, the Coast Guard, part of DHS, has seized a record 240,518 pounds of cocaine in fiscal year 2004, shattering the previous record of 138,393 pounds set in 2001. That is nearly double. That is $7.7 billion that will not go into the hands of the narcoterrorists. Just this month, Federal agencies joined together to make a record seizure of an estimated 27 tons of cocaine on board three fishing vessels in the vicinity of the Galapagos Islands. These record-breaking seizures, coupled with the record-breaking year, are an excellent example of what can be accomplished if DHS continues to improve intelligence-sharing and interagency cooperation. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I would like to highlight two provisions of the bill that we are doing this week that address the importance of stopping drug trafficking to homeland security. The first strengthens and clarifies the role of the counternarcotics officer at the Department of Homeland Security. The second requires that drug enforcement activities be one of the benchmarks for relevant employee performance appraisals at DHS. I proposed both of these reforms which will improve the Department's anti-drug efforts. The two provisions promote two key objectives, to deprive terrorists of their means of financing their operations: first, strengthening the effectiveness of the Department's narcotics interdiction efforts; and, second, improving coordination and cooperation among the Department's subdivisions and between the Department and other agencies with counterterrorism missions. As the 9/11 Commission reported: ``We recommend significant changes in the organization of the government. Good people can overcome bad structures. They should not have to.'' The Counternarcotics Office at DHS, this proviso was added. This office was not in the original draft of the President's bill. Thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), we were able to put this in the original reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security. This provision will modify that. The first provision, section 5025 of the Speaker's bill, and that could be changed, but that is where it is right now, would add a new section 878 to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the new Department. The new section replaces the current position of counternarcotics officer that was contained in the original 2002 act with an Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement headed by a director. At present, the counternarcotics officer, which we worked hard to get in, is nevertheless not actually an employee of DHS. Instead, he is a detailee employed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP. Furthermore, he has no authority to hire staff to assist him. The current law also fails to clearly define how the counternarcotics officer is to carry out his responsibilities. The new section 878 would rectify this problem by replacing the CNO with a director of counternarcotics enforcement, subject to Senate confirmation and reporting directly to the Secretary; assigning specific responsibilities to the new director, including oversight of DHS counterdrug activities and the submission of reports to Congress; and authorizing permanent staff assigned to an Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement as well as detailees from relevant agencies to assist the director. In other words, we need a department with teeth. Quite frankly, there is no antidrug effort if we don't have legacy Customs, legacy Coast Guard, legacy Border Patrol fighting narcotics. We have no protection. Thirty thousand people died last year from narcotics, none from international terrorism, inside the United States. We have to remember, don't throw out the baby with the bath water and when we are doing reorganization, let us stay focused on multiple missions. Secondly, the use of counternarcotics performance for certain DHS personnel evaluations. The second provision, section 5026 of the Speaker's bill, would add a new section 843 to the 2002 act, ensuring that employees involved in counternarcotics activities will be evaluated in part on the basis of such activities. It is vital that DHS encourage its law enforcement personnel to continue their efforts to stop illegal drug trafficking. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether drug enforcement is being given sufficient consideration by the department in developing its employee performance management system. A word search of the department's proposed new personnel rules, including those for performance management, 69 Federal Registry 8030-01, February 20, 2004 shows that the words ``narcotics'' and ``drugs'' do not appear at all. This, in the number one agency that is supposed to protect us. New section 843 would require DHS to include as one of its criteria in a performance appraisal system for relevant employees performance of counternarcotics duties. In order to encourage such personnel to cooperate and coordinate efforts with other agencies, the new section also requires that this be a factor for consideration in performance appraisals as well. I was hoping that we could address two things that are critical to our border efforts. One is, we have made some movement on and we are continuing to negotiate with the executive branch on what to do with the air marine division of the legacy Customs. The second is with the shadow wolves. If we cannot get control of the border at the Tohono O'odham or up on the north border in upstate New York where we have Indian nations on those borders and we cannot use creative things like the shadow wolves to do it, we have no protection on the border. We held a hearing at Sells, Arizona, inside the Tohono O'odham nation. I asked one question of the Border Patrol. I said, when you see the cars go by here, are any of these people here for legitimate purposes? They said, no, we could stop any car and arrest anybody because all of them are pretty much here unless they are a member of the Tohono O'odham nation. What does that mean? It means that at the national park on the border there, we have had a ranger killed, they have closed down some of the best hiking trails in the United States. The day we held our hearing, the previous year they had, I think, 250 or 500 pounds of drug seizure the first 3 months of the year because other parts of the border were sealed off. They had something like 1,000 pounds. And the day of our hearing, when we had all these government officials there, they picked up a load of 300 pounds, 500 pounds, a load of 400 pounds, then got another load of 500 pounds. They took down more in one day while the Federal agents happened to be there for our hearing than they had in the previous 3 months, which was more by double the previous year. It is an open border in parts of Arizona and Texas right now. And particularly where you have a nation that borders that and you have a functional group, you cannot be so rigid in DHS parliamentary guidelines that you cannot have some flexibility to keep inside these independent nations a group that was working and one of the only things that was working in that area. We need a similar thing up at the Indian nation on the north border in New York. We are making lots of steps this week. There are many things that I and many other Members of this body would like to have in this bill, but it is an important step, and in fact we are moving with major legislation in multiple committees that will make our country even safer. We have made steady progress prior to 9/11, we have made dramatic progress since 9/11, and this week we are going to make even more dramatic progress working with this administration to make our country safer from terrorists.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, tomorrow starts an historic process as we move through the 9/11 Commission recommendations and other actions by this Congress in committee to try to address many of the terrorist concerns and how we are going to handle those terrorist concerns with new legislation. We have already taken many actions in this Congress, we have already taken many actions in the executive branch, but tomorrow we start a committee process where we are going to implement many other historic pieces of legislation. Madam Speaker, I would now yield to my colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) who is going to address a number of the aspects that we will be starting in our deliberations this week.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4469, 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 175,0000 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. 4469, 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 descendants 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. 4469, 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.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order today.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about H.R. 3922, the Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004 that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) introduced in this House earlier this year, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and myself. Mr. Speaker, we often hear about drunk driving, but we have not heard enough about drug-impaired driving. Let me read some of the findings in this bill. Driving under the influence of or after having used illegal drugs has become a significant problem worldwide. 35 million persons in the United States age 12 or older had used illegal drugs this past year, and almost 11 million of those persons age 12 or older and 31 percent in the past year had driven under the influence of or after having used illegal drugs. This is a sobering thought when you are driving down the highway. Not only may somebody be high on alcohol, but they may be whacked out on drugs, and they may be combining the drugs, alcohol and illegal drugs to put you and your family at risk. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, illegal drugs are used by approximately 10 to 22 percent of all drivers in motor vehicle crashes. In other words, when we talk about what the problems are on the road, we have to have illegal drugs in that mix. Across the country, we do not have in many cases the ability to detect or prosecute, because we do not have the detection, the use of illegal drugs in automobile wrecks, particularly in higher incidence most likely of deaths than even other types of automobile wrecks. Too few police officers have been trained, and there is lack of uniformity and consistency in State laws. What this bill would do is provide grants and money to the different States for model legislation on how to do drug-impaired driving statutes, to ensure drivers in need of drug education or treatment are identified and provided with the appropriate assistance, to advance research and development of testing mechanisms and knowledge about drug driving and its impact on traffic safety, and to enhance the training of traffic safety officers and prosecutors to detect, enforce and prosecute drug- impaired driving laws. I hope that each Member of Congress will sponsor this bill and that we can move this bill, if not as part of the larger transportation will, as a freestanding bill. I also wanted to call attention and will include in the Record this article about a DEA exhibit that highlights, among other things, the drug-impaired driving accidents. This was in USA Today yesterday, September 13, 2004, about an exhibit that is opening in One Times Square, New York City, today. It will be a three floor exhibit on the perils of drug use and what it is doing to devastate American youth, adults and people in our country, as well as around the world. The exhibit also links terror and drug traffic. The picture here shows an automobile obliterated in a wreck, I believe in Ohio, a 1994 Ford Thunderbird, whose driver killed a woman and just obliterated the car. We have had multiple deaths in my hometown because of drug-impaired driving, even though we have a very limited ability to test. It has been clear that the marijuana in particular has been the primary culprit. We have had multiple deaths related to meth, and in addition kids using that and taking other kids out. We even had a couple of grizzly murders where it appears the kids were either after the Ecstasy or some other drug, at the very minimum, marijuana. In this DEA exhibit, among other things, in addition to the display regarding the automobile wrecks and the deaths due to drug-impaired driving, on the third floor they have a ``Wall of Lost Talent,'' a display of prom, graduation and school photos of those who have died because of drugs. Visitors are encouraged to leave photos of friends and family members who have been harmed by drugs as well. Karen Tandy, the Director of DEA, said, ``I want Americans to realize that although they may not use drugs, everyone is impacted by drug use in this country. That car,'' and she is referring to the devastated car that caused the deaths, ``represents the threat to every one of us on the road.'' I am glad that the DEA administrator and the DEA is taking the message out to the general public that drug use is not just something you do at home on your own or a recreational-type thing. When you use drugs and you get behind the wheel, you are putting everybody else on the road at risk. Mr. Speaker, I chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform, and what we have heard in testimony after testimony after testimony is not only when you go out on the road, but even in the home, is of young kids terrorized by their parents, who come home and beat them or just ignore them but use up their food money. This article also links the terrorists to drug money and much destabilization in other countries. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the DEA has done this, and it is very important that we pass the legislation in the House. [From the USA Today, Sept. 13, 2004] Exhibit Links Terror, Drug Traffic (By Donna Leinwand) New York.--The crumpled green 1994 Thunderbird is a jarring sight in the lobby of One Times Square. The driver, DEA agents say, was high on cocaine, barbiturates and marijuana when he hit and killed a 31-year-old Ohio woman. The man is serving 10 years. The car is the opening assault in an exhibit meant to lay bare the harsh world of illicit drugs from the intensely personal car accident to the global financing of rebel armies and terrorists. Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists and You is an expanded version of a Drug enforcement Administration Museum traveling exhibit that opens here Tuesday. The exhibit, housed in three floors of borrowed space, is designed to illustrate through graphic photos and artifacts the societal costs of the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs. ``I want Americans to realize that, although they may not use drugs, everyone is impacted by drug use in this country,'' DEA administrator Karen Tandy says. ``That car represents the threat to every one of us on the road.'' The car is the centerpiece of a field of debris piled in the lobby of the tall retail-and-office building. The wreck is surrounded by drug paraphernalia and barrels of chemicals used to make methamphetamine, as well as broken toys representing children neglected by drug-addled parents. The overriding theme of the exhibit, visible from Times Square through plate-glass windows, is the link between drug trafficking and global terrorism. The exhibit invites visitors to trace the path of cocaine and heroin from drug labs in Afghanistan and Colombia to the pockets of insurgents in Colombia and Peru and to such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah. But it also makes a more controversial link between terrorism and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The exhibit includes a large display of debris collected from both sites. The exhibit does not specifically tie the attacks to drug trafficking, but it uses the events to explain how terrorists use the drug trade as one of several methods to fund attacks. It cites U.S. intelligence linking the Taliban in Afghanistan, and by extension its thriving heroin economy, to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. ``Someone who thinks he or she is making an individual choice that won't harm anyone else is not seeing the larger picture of where their money eventually goes,'' says Anthony Placido, special agent in charge of the New York division of the DEA. In Peru, for example, Shining Path insurgents ``killed thousands of people, destroyed the economy, reduced the country to rubble, and paid for it all with the cocaine trade,'' Placido says. After 9/11, Americans shifted their focus from the war on drugs to the war on terror, Placido says. The exhibit, he says, will help relate the illicit drug trade to homeland security. ``The same techniques used to smuggle in drugs can be used to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction,'' Placido says. Terrorists and drug criminals ``fish out of the same sewer.'' Although the exhibit includes the events of Sept. 11, it takes a broader look at the drug trade, tracing its history from the Silk Road routes between China and Europe, says Sean Ferans, director of the exhibit and also the small DEA museum in the agency's headquarters in Arlington, Va. The Times Square exhibit is loaded with whiz-bang law enforcement memorabilia. Visitors can beep into an actual cocaine lab uncovered by DEA agents in Colombia, dismantled and shipped to the USA; a Stinger missile launcher; heroin tax receipts from the Taliban; Ecstasy pills; and photos of arrested drug kingpins. On the second floor, visitors will see a replica of a crack den cluttered with soiled diapers and guns. There are photographs of children rescued from their parents' meth labs, including one who was covered in car battery acid. A ``Wall of Lost Talent'' is a display of prom, graduation and school photos of those who have died because of drugs. Visitors are encourage to leave photos of friends and family members who have been harmed by drugs. Parts of the exhibit have traveled to other cities, including Dallas and Omaha. Sections may go on the road again; no schedule has been set. In New York, hours are 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily through January. Information: www.usdoj.gov/dea/deamuseum/website/index.html. Admission is free.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the fourth proviso under the heading, ``High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas'' program on page 85, lines 10 to 19. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and proposes to change existing law within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the House rules. Mr. Chairman, this provision is clearly authorizing language in appropriations legislation, and I am disappointed that it is in the bill. It directly violates language used in H.R. 2096, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act 2003. Not only did this pass the House, it passed our subcommittee and full committee unanimously, which is no small feat. Four major committees of this House either waived or sent additional information into the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Education and Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Then it came to the floor of the House and passed unanimously. So I do not understand why in the relations with other committees they would not have worked with us when they choose to authorize on an appropriations bill. Let me get to the specifics of this. This has to do with High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. What has happened to this program, which was supposed to focus on High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, it has become a pork program in many cases to move money around to individual Members' personal HIDTAs. The bill that passed the House unanimously says that will give flexibility to the appropriators, but there has to be a fixed amount that goes to the southwest border HIDTA, which is the number one drug trafficking point we have in the United States, and then next to the seven HIDTAs originally authorized and appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations, and then the rest of the money can be divided; but you have to have some priority system in the HIDTA program. We have passed this unanimously in the House. We see the changing patterns of drug trafficking. We know we need more HIDTAs. We know we need more money. We have methamphetamine problems across the country. But when we establish a program and we have rules of the House, that needs to be followed. So I appreciate all of the work that the chairman has done in the drug area, and I regret that I have to make a point of order; but I believe that without this point of order, this bill is in clear violation of the House rules and would also devastate our High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the bill relates specifically to harm on the athletic field. We offered the Democrats this amendment, and they still opposed the bill. Mr. Speaker, every single State high school athletic association supports this bill. So Members of Congress, if we have a recorded vote on this, need to know their high school association is already on record, including California, including Virginia, including Texas, every single State high school athletic association supports this bill. Mr. Speaker, I will insert the list of these State associations into the Record. National Federation of State High School Associations, Indianapolis, IN, September 10, 2004. Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), I am writing to voice our strong support for the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003'', H.R. 3369, and urge you to vote for this legislation when it reaches the House floor. On September 8, the Judiciary Committee voted to support moving this bill forward and we understand it will reach the House floor soon. The National Federation of State High School Associations, a non-profit organization that administers education-based athletic competitions, has been the target of liability claims alleging negligence due to the passage or adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved competitions. These allegations have resulted in an increase in the number of liability claims against this organization. The claims are beginning to have a detrimental financial impact on the NFHS and could affect our ability to continue to provide services to the nation's 20,000 high schools. While these claims are believed to be without merit, the cost of defending claims and the uncertainty of judicial proceedings have caused significant financial challenges. It is possible we will need to reconsider providing such rules or guidelines in the future. This may also be true of other amateur sports rule makers. Without this legislation, we expect this will continue to deteriorate and will further jeopardize non-profit organizations that administer athletic competition and publish rules. For education-based athletics to continue in America, nonprofit athletic organizations must have the ability to make rules without the constant threat of litigation. Earlier this summer, the Federation adopted a resolution supporting H.R. 3369. A list of each state association supporting this legislation is attached. Sincerely, Robert Kanaby, Executive Director. State High School Athletic Associations Supporting H.R. 3369--The Non Profit Athletic Association Protection Act Alabama High School Athletic Association Alaska School Activities Association Arizona Interscholastic Association Arkansas Activities Association California Interscholastic Federation Colorado High School Activities Association Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference Delaware Secondary School Association District of Columbia Interscholastic Athletic Association Florida High School Activities Association Georgia High School Association Hawaii High School Athletic Association Idaho High School Activities Association Illinois High School Association Indiana High School Athletic Association Iowa High School Athletic Association Kansas High Activities Association Kentucky High School Athletic Association Louisiana High School Athletic Association Maine Principals' Association Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association Michigan High School Athletic Association Minnesota State High School League Mississippi High School Activities Association Missouri High School Activities Association Montana High School Association Nebraska School Activities Association Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association New Mexico Activities Association New York State Public High School Athletic Association North Carolina High School Athletic Association North Dakota High School Activities Association Ohio High School Athletic Association Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association Oregon School Activities Association Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association Rhode Island Interscholastic League South Carolina High School League South Dakota High School Activities Association Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association Texas University Interscholastic League Utah High School Activities Association Vermont Principals' Association Virginia High School League Washington Interscholastic Activities Association West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association Wyoming High School Activities Association

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for moving this bill. I very much appreciate his leadership in the whole area of tort reform and particularly appreciate his willingness to move this bill. I also would like to thank the original cosponsors of the bill, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave). My colleagues have heard some of the opening debate on this, and let me say, to put this in realistic terms, in a new book by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), he talks about how he injured his shoulder off-season practicing wrestling. Then he wanted to play football, and his coach and the association rules outfitted him in a shoulder pad, and he played with pain. He goes through a number of things that he and his good friend Tom Jarman did with that shoulder. Then he went through the wrestling season. Then he had surgery. The question is and the plain truth is, under today's society, he could have sued the State of Illinois blind. He could have sued his school. He could be as outrageous as some of these other people because, in wrestling and football, occasionally people get hurt. And it does not give people the right to sue the schools and to make it hard for every other kid to play the sport. What we have seen in this country, just recently, costs of lawsuits have gone out of control. One provider has informed us that they have gone up 300 percent; another one, 600 percent. One has dropped coverage of all high school associations and Little Leagues and Pop Warners. Three more are considering it. Their costs are going up every year faster than they can charge assessments. One governing body that provides for 5,000 athletes, some of the elite athletes in the country, for an Olympic sport has had a 1,000 percent increase in their costs. How are they supposed to deal with this? Who pays for this? Often, it is the taxpayer, but in this case, the taxpayers are not giving more money to the schools. So, if the Indiana State High School Athletic Association has to absorb 300, 600 percent, 1,000 percent increases in costs, they do not have anywhere to pass it. The kids pay it. They will lose certain sports that are higher risk. They have computers reduced in the schools, books reduced in the schools. Sometimes even teachers, when they retire, are not replaced. And so we have class size increase because the taxpayers are not giving the schools more money. So what happens when they increase their rates? Something has to give. What happens when a Little League or a Pop Warner league has a 300 percent or a 600 percent or 1,000 percent increase in their costs? Where do they get their money? They get it from the kids who are playing. If one is a mom or dad and you are working on a tight budget and you wanted your kid to play Pee Wee Football or Little League and you want to have them go and you just saw a 300 percent or 600 percent or 1,000 percent increase in the cost of playing and you do not have much money, you are not going to let them play. In many middle class families, I know in my family, we make the judgment, boy, we have got spring soccer, fall soccer, summer, winter, indoor, okay, you know, you start taking double, triple costs on these type of things, even middle- and upper-income families are going to restrict the amount. At a time of rising obesity in this country, the last thing we need to do right now is shut down high school sports. The plain truth of the matter is that some of the objections my good friend from Virginia raised, we have been trying to negotiate. We offered amendments. They said that they still would not support the bill. Then they came up with this last one on physical injury, because the bill does not even relate to other things other than physical injury. But we said, Okay, we will put them in, even though they are extraneous. If you are worried about them, we have protections about State laws. We have protection on civil rights laws, but if you want to put that in, we will put it in. Then they went physical injury. What is a pitcher supposed to do in Little League? Unless you can throw it straight over the plate, you are not allowed to pitch or the umpire is going to be held liable. The coach is going to be held liable. The association is going to be held liable. In football, when a linebacker's coming up, does he have to say, Excuse me, brace yourself, I am going to hit you at the knees, I am going to hit you in your back? In wrestling, are you supposed to say, before a take-down in the State rules, Uh-oh, I am going to go for a pin now, be ready? How does this actually work? The way we have governing bodies is, they have to take into account the risk to the individual plus the historic purpose of the sport. They have governing bodies that change these rules every year to try to make them safer, but you know what? Sports are not always safe. If we are going to have these ridiculous suits that go for millions of dollars, nobody's doing physical damages, hospital costs. This is for nonrelated to physical costs. If this is what we are going to do in our society, what we are going to have is silly sports or no sports, and everybody's going to be playing Frisbee unless the Frisbee hits somebody in the head, and then there will be a lawsuit off that, too.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), and I appreciate the challenge that diabetes faces in the United States. I will insert in the Record a letter, and I had considered an amendment, but actually it fits really well with this. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform, we have been trying for about 2 years to get from the Department of HHS a listing of the studies on adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research, and others. Finally, yesterday, after a full 23 months, the Department gave us a listing of all the studies that have been done on stem cell research as it relates to diabetes, as it relates to Parkinson's disease and others. I will insert the correspondence that we have had back and forth for the Record, as well as the list of studies and their conclusions about the effectiveness of adult stem cell research and the fact that they do not have any successful clinical studies on embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Chairman, one of the most exciting and controversial areas of clinical research in recent years has involved stem cells. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on stem cell research. We have learned dramatic advances in medicine have been made utilizing stem cells obtained from adult tissues and cord blood. Yet proponents of human cloning and destructive embryonic stem cell research continue to promise ailing patients and their families and friends and members of Congress that stem cells from these controversial sources will yield even greater medical breakthroughs. When the subcommittee held its hearings, we located a number of patients successfully treated with stem cells derived from cord blood and adult tissues. Yet we were unable to find a single patient or a single disease that has ever been successfully treated with embryonic stem cells or through cloning human embryos. In October 2002, nearly 2 years ago, Congressman Chris Smith and I sent a letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, requesting that the agency prepare a comprehensive report of all medical therapies for humans that currently exist and ongoing clinical trials which utilize (1) adult stem cells, (2) cord blood stem cells, (3) embryonic stem cells, (4) fetal (germ) cells or (5) stem cells from cloned embryos. We believe that this information is vitally important for patients, scientists and lawmakers so we can turn our attention away from media hype and focus our attention and resources on real medical breakthroughs that are offering the best hope and promise for real people. Knowing the high profile stem cell research has had in recent years, we expected that NIH, with a budget of nearly $30 billion, would be quick to respond to Congress to demonstrate that taxpayer-funded research on stem cells--including embryonic stem cells--was indeed living up to the promises. After repeated inquiries by my staff on the status on this report over a year and a half, on June 17, 2004, Chairman Tom Davis and I sent a written ultimatum inquiring about the status of the report. The following day, the subcommittee received a response signed by Dr. James Battey, Director of the National Institutes on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) and Director of the Stem Cell Task Force. The letter we received, however, did not fully answer the questions we had posed and was clearly inadequate. Subcommittee staff, in fact, identified five NIH-sponsored clinical trials in which human patients are being treated with adult stem cell therapies, which, astonishingly, were not included in the NIH response. At a meeting on July 2 between subcommittee staff and NIH staff, Dr. Battey agreed that he and his colleagues would assemble a comprehensive report as originally requested. Since that meeting just 2 months ago, researchers in Germany have successfully utilized adult stem cells to reconstruct a man's jawbone and researchers at the Northwestern University in Chicago successfully cured a woman with severe rheumatoid arthritis by transplanting adult stem cells from her sister. Still there have been no cures, treatments, clinical trials or published studies reported utilizing stem cells derived from human embryos or clones. Just yesterday--a full 23 months after sending our initial request to the agency and following another written inquiry--NIH finally delivered a 79-page report on stem cell therapies. The NIH report finds that over 100 health disorders and conditions are currently treatable with non- embryonic stem cells. Yet, not a single condition has been treated with embryonic stem cells. Based on the available medical data provided by the Nation's premier scientific institute, adult stem cell research clearly continues to live up to its promise by yielding real results while embryonic stem cell and cloning research remains unproven. These findings underscore the need to continue to prioritize adult stem cell research that has actually yielded the most practical results for patients rather than siphoning resources away to gamble on purely speculative research. I would like to submit for the Record the cover letter from NIH's report, a list of conditions currently being treated with adult stem cells and a letter sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson in July regarding our request as well as a letter to the Director of the NIH sent last week. September 8, 2004. Hon. Mark Souder, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Souder: Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), asked me to provide additional materials to respond to your questions for the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regarding the current status of medical therapies and clinical research using stem cells. In your recent letter of July 9, 2004 to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, you reiterated four areas for which you are requesting information: 1. A comprehensive listing of all medical therapies which utilize various types of stem cells, 2. A listing of all ongoing clinical trials or experiments involving human subjects using these same categories of stem cells, 3. The findings of any studies that utilized stem cells or tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat human patients from Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes, and 4. A listing of alternatives to stem cells from embryos and fetuses that have shown promise in human subjects for treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease. To develop responses to these questions, my staff reviewed over 18,000 published biomedical journal articles for the past 10 years (1994-June 2004) using the database PubMed. PubMed was developed at the NIH/National Library of Medicine (NLM) and provides access to citations and abstracts from the biomedical journal literature. In developing the response it was decided to limit the literature search to publications within the past 10 years due to the overwhelming volume of articles on bone marrow treatments prior to 1995. The terms for the search strategy and a glossary of medical terms are included in the accompanying notebook under Tabs 1 and 2. Our review did not include any results published or added to PubMed after June 2004, since NIH had to proceed with the analysis on a fixed set of data. Since June 2004, it is estimated there are over 300 published articles that meet our search criteria. Any specific biomedical journal articles that you may be aware of that were published after June 2004 are listed through PubMed at http://www.nlm.nih.gov. As a result of the analysis, my staff compiled a listing of medical therapies which utilize various types of stem cells as published in the scientific literature over the past 10 years. This listing is provided as Tab 3. In addition, my staff conducted a search of current clinical trials that involve stem cells as a part of the treatment protocol. The clinical trials database used in this search is available from the NIH/NLM at http:// clinicaltrials.gov. The database provides regularly updated information about clinical research in human volunteers. The clinical trials database currently contains approximately 11,400 clinical studies sponsored by the NIH, other federal agencies, and some privately funded trials. The listing of ongoing clinical trials is provided under Tab 4. The search terms used were ``stem cell transplantation or stem cells'' and retrieved 563 studies of trial records as of August 24, 2004. For access to the full clinical trial records, search http://clinicaltrials.gov/. I would like to underscore that while there have been claims in the popular press and elsewhere of people who have been helped or cured by stem cell therapies, the NIH cannot attest to their veracity as proven therapies until such time as scientific clinical trials have been conducted and the results of those trials have been published in the scientific peer-reviewed literature. I am also providing information from our analysis on any findings of studies that use stem cells or tissues from human embryos or fetuses to treat Parkinson's disease or juvenile diabetes. There are currently no studies using stem cells or tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat type 1 diabetes. With regards to Parkinson's disease, we found that scientists have tried two approaches utilizing tissues from embryos or fetuses to treat human patients with Parkinson's disease. The first study showed that human embryonic dopamine-neuron tissue transplants survive in patients with severe Parkinson's disease and result in some clinical benefit in younger but not in older patients. In addition, dystonia and dyskinesias recurred in 15 percent of the patients who received transplants, even after reduction or discontinuation of the dose of dopaminergic medications, like levodopa. In a follow-up article looking at the same patients, scientists measured cognitive performance at 1 year after transplantation. Performance was not significantly different between the two patient groups (transplanted and no transplant). The second study showed that, as with embryonic tissue transplanted PD patients, younger PD patients with fetal tissue transplants do show motor improvement. However, the underlying disease process does not slow down after fetal transplantation, and Parkinson symptoms ultimately recur. Moreover, fifty-six percent of transplanted patients developed dyskinesia that persisted after overnight withdrawal of dopaminergic medication. A further discussion of these results is contained in Tab 5. Under the second question in Tab 5, we describe a potential tissue-based alternative to stem cells from embryos and fetuses that has shown promise for treating juvenile diabetes. In addition, NIH funds significant research in focusing on other possible therapies for each of these diseases, and would be glad to provide further information on these upon request. Finally, in order to better manage the results of the PubMed journal literature that were used in our analysis, my staff developed a database of the 18,349 records, which can be searched by keywords, author, and other searchable limits. The database URL and passwords will be sent to you under separate cover. An example of the user interface with descriptions of search field capabilities is appended in Tab 1. I hope you find this information satisfactory in responding to your questions on stem cell treatment. Sincerely, James F. Battey, Jr., M.D., PhD. Director, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Chair, NIH Stem Cell Task Force. disorders and conditions treated with non-embryonic stem cells Note: Not all of these treatments are considered ``standard' treatments--many are experimental Source: Compiled from NIH's database search and the National Marrow Donor Program Acute Leukemias: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL); Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML); Acute Biphenotypic Leukemia; Acute Undifferentiated Leukemia; Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Chronic Leukemias: Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia; Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia; Juvenile Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia; Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia. Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia; Refractory Anemia. Stem Cell Disorders: Aplastic Anemia; Fanconi's Anemia; Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH); Pure Red Cell Aplasia. Myeloproliferative Disorders: Acute Myelofibrosis; Agnogenic Myeloid Metaplasia (myelofibrosis); Essential Thrombocythemia; Polcythemia Vera. Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomia; Hodgkin's Disease. Phagocyte Disorders: Chediak-Higashi Syndrome; Chronic Granulomatous Disease; Neutrophil Actin Deficiency; Reticular Dysgenesis. Inherited Metabolic Disorders: Adrenoleukodystrophy; Gaucher's Disease; Hunter's Syndrome (MPS-II); Hurler's Syndrome (MPS-IH); Krabbe Disease; Lysosomal Storage Disorders; Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome (MPS-VI); Metachromactic Leukodystrophy; Morquio Syndrome (MPS-IV); Mucolopidosis II (I-cell Disease); Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS); Niemann-Pick Disease; Peroxisomal Disorders; Sanfilippo Syndrome (MPS- III); Scheie Syndrome (MPS-IS); Sly Syndrome, Beta- Glucuronidase Deficiency (MPS-VII); Wolman Disease. Histiocytic Disorders; Familial Erythrophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis; Hemophagocytosis; Histiocytosis-X; Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Inherited Erythrocyte Abnormalities: Cooley's Anemia; Diamond Blackfan Anemia; Fanconi's Anemia; Sickle Cell Disease; Thalessemias. Inherited Immune System Disorders: Ataxia-Telangiectasia; Bare Lymphocyte Syndrome; DiGeorge Syndrome; Kostmann Syndrome; Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency; Omenn's Sydrome; Severe Combned Immunodeficiency (SCID); SCID with Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency; SCID with Absence of T & B Cells; SCID with Absence of T Cells, Normal B Cell Common Variable Immunodeficiency; Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome; X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Disorder. Other Inherited Disorders: Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome; Cartilage- Hair Hypoplasia; Glanzmann Thrombasthenia; Leukodystrophy; Osteogenesis Imperfecta; Osteopetrosis. Inherited Platelet Abnormalities: Amegakaryocytosis; Congenital Thrombocytopenia. Plasma Cell Disorders: Multiple Myeloma; Plasma Cell Leukemia; Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Other Malignancies: Brain cancer; Breast cancer; Ewing's Sarcoma/Ewing's family of tumors; Gastrointestinal cancers; Lung cancers; Malignant Thyoma; Meningeal cancer; Musculoskeletal cancers; Neuroblastoma; Renal cell carcinoma; Reproductive cancers (ovary, testes, stem cells cancer); Retinoblastoma; Sarcoma; Skin cancer/melanoma; Urinary cancer. Autoimmune Disorders: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome (ALPS); Crohn's Disease; Juvenile arthritis; Multiple sclerosis; Rheumatoid arthritis; Systemic lupus erythematosus. Other Diseases/Conditions: AIDS; Alzheimer's Disease; Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease); Chronic myeloproliferative disorders; Coronary (Heart) Disease; Cytomegalovirus Infection; Graft versus Host Disease (GVHD); Nervous system repair; Ocular/Corneal Damage; Parkinson's disease; Skeletal and cartilage repair; Stroke.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, its fall was heralded as a new era of peace and prosperity, when the victims of communism would learn what it means to live in freedom. The establishment of capitalism in the capital of communism was no less significant. Sadly, the brand of Russian capitalism practiced today is just another form of materialism without moral foundation. As rivals jockey for a share of the market and the trappings of a high flying Western lifestyle, Russia's amoral brand of the market economy has led to a last man standing mentality where shooting and bombing rivals and critics are nearly as common as balancing the books. This past week, the Al Capones of Russia's business world claimed yet another victim. Paul Klebnikov, an American and editor of Forbes Magazine in Russia, was shot to death outside his office. Klebnikov's only crime was reporting on the Russian business world and criticizing what he viewed as the too close relationship between Russia's elite businessmen and the government. Paul Klebnikov's fearlessness and sense of right and wrong ultimately were his undoing. Had he been more circumspect in his views or less vocal with his criticism, he would probably be alive today. Those who knew Klebnikov, however, would be the first to say that he would not have changed a thing. He believed in Russia and in Russia's future. He could not simply sweep Russia's problems under the rug. He knew that the only way to move democracy and market capitalism toward a normal existence was to condemn the excessive and corrupt. Like so many other similar crimes, Paul Klebnikov's assassination has not been solved. Given the current strength of the Russian mafia and rampant corruption in the Russian government, I don't know if his murderers will ever be brought to justice. I am submitting for the Record an article from the Washington Post. In it, Michael Caputo, a friend and colleague of Paul Klebnikov, honors his friend better than I can. [The Washington Post, July 13, 2004] Same Old Ruthless Russia (By Michael R. Caputo) American journalist Paul Klebnikov was shot to death outside my office building on Friday. At least it used to be my office. I worked with Klebnikov, Forbes magazine's maverick correspondent, several times in the past 10 years, sometimes in Moscow, sometimes in New York. Our paths crossed often through one of Russia's wildest decades. Eight years after we first met as he covered Boris Yeltsin's 1996 presidential election, his murder brings clarity: Nothing has changed. Brutal criminals still run amok in Russia, operating with impunity and no fear of prosecution. Klebnikov had high hopes for Russia and was determined to urge democracy along. He grew up in the United States, cradled in the close-knit Russian American community; his Russian skills were perfect and his devotion to the culture ran deep. He blossomed in journalism just as the communist bloc crumbled, and his unique understanding of ``the story'' in the region propelled his career. As we toured the Russian countryside eight years ago, he talked to peasants waiting in line to vote and grilled me with questions, too. Had I run across billionaire Boris Berezovsky in my work with the Yeltsin administration? I hadn't. Klebnikov had recently been scratching the surface of Berezovsky's brazen get-rich-quick schemes. He was convinced there was much more to the oligarch. He was in town to investigate him as well as to cover the elections. Berezovsky was one of several super-wealthy men who had back doors to Yeltsin's Kremlin. His popularity waxed and waned, but as he amassed wealth he gained unparalleled power. Experienced expatriates in Russia shared an essential rule: Don't cross these brutal billionaires, ever, or you're likely to go home in a box. Klebnikov knew this well. In Russia the mafia kills every day. He knew Paul Tatum, the Oklahoma entrepreneur who ran afoul of Moscow's mafia and was shot dead just a few hundred yards from a hotel he had founded and had fought against Mayor Yuri Luzhkov to control. After Tatum's murder, Hizzoner promised swift justice. We're still waiting. Tatum had led a loud life in Moscow. Klebnikov told me he knew Tatum's battle with city ``authorities'' was never a sound strategy for survival. The Tatum murder shook him, but he was determined to go forward with what grew into a series of articles exposing Russian corruption. After all, he was a reporter, not a businessman. As a journalist, Klebnikov was the real deal. He was based in New York through the 1990s but had more contacts in Moscow than most reporters on the ground full time. During his frequent trips to the region he accomplished more meetings before lunch than many of us could pull off in a week. Klebnikov listened as intently to the griping of a pensioner as he did to the drone of politicians. He was quick to the point, wasted no time, and drove to the center of his story like a tank. Some thought he was bold, others thought him brash, but everyone was reading. ``Godfather of the Kremlin,'' his December 1996 Forbes cover story on Berezovsky, threw new light on the doings of Russia's oligarchs. The story grew into Klebnikov's first book, with the same title, published in 2001. The exiled industrialist took the magazine to court in London, and eventually Forbes recanted accusations of violence. Those of us who lived in Moscow during Berezovsky's heyday still believe. His follow-up stories on Russian industrialists were always fair and thorough, but he didn't make many friends in the country. Soon after Vladimir Putin stepped into the presidency, Klebnikov and I met in New York. I told him he needed to watch his back with so much change afoot. He shrugged and said he was uniquely positioned to get to the heart of corruption in Russia. ``Who else is going to do it?'' he asked. I had no answer. When Forbes announced Klebnikov would lead its new Russian publication and relocate to Moscow, I immediately feared for his safety. A few months later he was dead. I think about him, sprawled bleeding on the sidewalk, coughing his final words to a reporter colleague who found him dying. Russia hasn't changed in the past decade and at this trajectory it won't be truly civilized for generations. Those who killed Klebnikov are killing today, plan to kill tomorrow, and know they'll roam free to kill for years to come. Hellbent on getting rich, they have no boundaries. Raised in a communist world devoid of morals, they have no soul. There is no valid reason why a nation so tolerant--even complicit--in organized crime should stand on par with world leaders in groups such as the World Trade Organization. Putin must stand as the guarantor of media freedom. And the Bush administration must demand results in this murder investigation and require the assassins and their bosses be detected, arrested, tried and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Or will it let Paul Klebnikov, like Paul Tatum, be just another footnote in Russia's disingenuous flirtation with world-class rule of law? We're waiting.

Mr. SOUDER

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