Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), committee member and also another appropriator.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank all the sponsors of the bill that went into this historic omnibus. It is very important that we preserve the natural sites but also the tremendous history of our country, the oil, the National Aviation Heritage out of Dayton. Alexander Hamilton's home and business are still there in the Virgin Islands Heritage Area that we are looking at. This is an important bill. I hope it receives unanimous support.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 280) to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and near neighbor, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I share the gentleman from New Jersey's concerns about the permitting process with guides and outfitters. I think we have reached a compromise that will enable this bill to move forward, but I do trust that the Fish and Wildlife Service will do further clarification and work with this process.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1204) to amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to establish requirements for the award of concessions in the National Wildlife Refuge System, to provide for maintenance and repair of properties located in the System by concessionaires authorized to use such properties, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My bill, H.R. 1204, would reform the concessions process within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Under current law, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service structures such as restrooms, boat docks and other buildings have fallen into disrepair because the service does not have the resources necessary to adequately maintain its facilities. Over the past three Congresses, over 5 years, I have worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife refuge managers, and outside groups to write a bill that helps the Fish and Wildlife Service to address this problem. H.R. 1204 is historic legislation that establishes a consistent facility maintenance policy for facilities that are leased by concessionaires in National Wildlife Refuge System areas. This bill would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to credit a concessionaire for any fees they pay in the future. This money would be retained at the local refuge and used to build, maintain and repair structural problems, to restore habitat, and to protect refuge resources. Furthermore, in an effort to address the concerns of groups such as guides and outfitters that use wildlife refuges but do not maintain significant structures, I have added provisions to the bill that exempt these groups from the new policy. During the 107th Congress, this legislation passed the House by voice vote. There is no reason why it should not pass the House again in the same way. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), chairman of the subcommittee, for again moving this bill forward. I also want to personally thank Lou Hinds, who, while he was wildlife refuge manager of the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island, I visited with him and his kind encouraging me, helping me understand the problems, led to the drafting of this bill. Without his advice, we would not be at this historic point where we may finally have a concessions policy for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for this resolution. There are many great basketball coaches, Mr. Speaker; but John Wooden was certainly the greatest basketball coach of all time. His 88-game winning streak has never been matched. Notre Dame beat him at the beginning and the end, I have to point out, but it was nevertheless a tremendous winning streak. But given the debate here, you would think he was a Californian. In fact, I think it is the same John Wooden who was a Purdue All-American and who led them to the national championship. When he was at South Bend Washington High School, where he started out in coaching, he used to go to my father-in-law's Zimmer Food Shoppes for breakfast before he went over there, which is in South Bend, Indiana. And then he coached at Martinsville and a number of small colleges in Indiana. Much like Illinois trying to claim Lincoln, we say Indiana made Lincoln, Lincoln made Illinois; and so Indiana made Wooden, Wooden made UCLA.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1651, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), provides for the exchange of lands within the Sierra National Forest, California, and for other purposes. The bill would exchange 160 acres of Forest Service property, of which only 15 acres is above water, for 80 acres of private land surrounded by National Forest. The landowner has agreed to pay the difference of $50,000 to the Forest Service to finalize the land transfer. After the completion of the exchange, the landowner will then convey the property to the Sequoia Council Boy Scouts, who have run a camp on the land through a special use permit for the last 30 years. This bill will benefit both the Forest Service and the Sequoia Council Boy Scouts. I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the continuing and deeply troubling situation in Burma. Last week over 900 Buddhist monks marched through the streets of Mandalay. The military thugs ruling Burma responded by shooting, beating, and smoke bombing the demonstrators. Unfortunately, news of this latest affront to peace and democracy has not reached a wide audience. With limited exception, the plight of the people of Burma and its duly elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi are never reported in the press. There is no doubt as to the ruthlessness and brutality of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The evil dictators continue to rape, enslave, imprison, and murder innocent civilians from every ethnic group. Despite talk about democracy and road maps toward peace and civilian rule, we have seen no tangible and positive steps in that direction. Their actions betray their real motives and goals. For the past few years, the United Nations has undertaken a process of trying to convince Burma's military regime to engage in a dialogue with the legitimate leaders of Burma. We must recognize that the United Nations process, as it has played out, has failed. The efforts at gently persuading the Burmese regime to move in a positive direction while simultaneously warding off international pressure have been fruitless. The United Nations must re-evaluate its policies and Burmese strategy. U.N. pronouncements on Burma have not told the world of the full situation in Burma. They have not condemned the military for its actions. We need to find a new U.N. envoy to Burma and give this person the authority to rally international pressure against Burma's military regime. Although the United States and a number of other nations have increased the pressure on the SPDC, we must encourage other nations, particularly Burma's neighbors, to end their support of the current regime. India must be made aware that $57 million lines of credit to the regime and doubling Indo-Burmese trade do not help promote democracy and human rights in Burma. Thailand must be told that increasing cross border contacts with the Burmese government will not bring democracy to Burma, stem the flow of refugees across the border, nor end the trade in illegal narcotics currently being supported by the Burmese military. Freedom will come to Burma. The United States must assist the Burmese forces for freedom and democracy. We must do so sooner, not later.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, after 10 months of serving our Nation in Iraq, the heroic soldiers of the 293rd National Guard Division of Indiana have returned home. These brave soldiers left three of their colleagues behind: SFC Craig A. Bolling, SPC Brian M. Clemens, and PFC Anthony R. Wagner. They gave the ultimate sacrifice so the rest of us may be free. The soldiers of the 293rd are not full-time soldiers. They have other jobs. Their families, and their employers, did not expect them to be gone so long. They too have made sacrifices in the war on terrorism. Because of their efforts, we are fighting in the streets of Baghdad-- not in the streets of Indiana and the United States. Because of their efforts we have at least temporarily disrupted the worldwide terrorist networks. Because of their efforts the people of Iraq at least have a chance to exercise freedom and a life free from terror. We know not what the future holds. But we do know that because of the soldiers in the 293rd Indiana Guard, as well as all the other brave men and women serving in the Iraq arena, we at least have done what we can in the battle for freedom and against terrorism. We honor them for their sacrifices for us. The following is a list of all those who served in the 293rd.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise with reluctance to oppose this bill. I have not opposed an appropriations bill for many years. I appreciate the difficulty the subcommittee chairman and the gentleman from Florida have with the Senate, with the budget, and with all of the demands from Members, but I stand with the chairman of the Committee on Resources. I believe the administration committed an egregious process, a mistake, in going around the authorizing committee at the last minute without even telling the authorizing committee, and we cannot do business that way. I have a second problem with the bill, but it would not have caused me to vote against the bill. I believe the provision by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) on the National Park Service should have been left in the bill. It is the most successful outsourcing organization in the country, and instead of attacking the most successful and highly-rated government organization in the country, even with the guidelines of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) which are very well written, basically guarantee that this money will be wasted. This is the type of thing that when President Bush has made national parks a centerpiece, his staff did him a disservice by having this in the bill that is aggressively focused at the park service when they are already over a majority, one of the only organizations in the government that is over a majority already outsourced, it is not only wrong, wasteful, but it is politically stupid. I hope we can get this fixed with the administration as we work through. I know the committee understands my concerns, and we will continue to work with them, but we have to have some kind of process where the authorizing committees are respected, and I stand with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). It is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose this appropriations bill. I rarely vote against appropriations bills because I know how hard it is to reach the compromises necessary to pass these bills. I rise partly in opposition to the imposed language, with no participation from the authorizing committee on the Tribal funds issue. We have clear conference guidelines to protect against this very thing and this was a blatant violation that threatens the committee system. Secondly, I deeply believe that the provisions on outsourcing in the National Park Service is a terrible policy mistake. I have been a consistent supporter of competitive bidding, outsourcing and/or privatization. But the way OMB is approaching this issue endangers the process as a whole. Employee work in our national parks is already under 50 percent. It is a serious story. Some outsourcing has been pulled back because, for example, private contractors found that it was hard to remove waste from remote mountain ranges. Or they only wanted to do it when economic times were hard. In other cases, bids were sought and none arrived. In other words, the National Park Service is a success model. But if OMB won't distinguish between success and failure, if money must be wasted in a never-ending hunt, not only will organizations like the National Park Service become demoralized, there will be no voluntary efforts, even more resistance and bitterness, and eventually a revolt against all outsourcing. Relatively mindless ``cookie-cutter'' approaches are an abdication of responsible government. The National Park Service rangers have among the highest, if not the highest, public approval ratings of any government or private sector employee. Even if the Park Service wasn't already 50 percent contracted out, why fix something that is not broken? We have enough problem areas on which to focus. Furthermore, President George W. Bush fully understands the importance of our national parks, to our nation, and from his personal comments, to his family. While the President favors outsourcing, as I do, it is poor staff work to further attack the National Park Service and waste more funds on outsourcing. Instead, the funds should be used to help eliminate the national parks maintenance backlog. Or it could be used to reduce the $30 million this bill is overbudget. Instead of staff attacking the National Park Service, the President should be told of its successes, and bragging about it. The original House language exempted the National Park Service. By friends and colleagues, Congressman Tom Davis and Pete Sessions were going to introduce an amendment to remove the provision. After discussions, during which it was apparent the amendment would likely overwhelmingly lose, they withdrew their amendment. Later in the bill, Congressman Bereuter offered a specific exclusion amendment for the archaeological centers. He won overwhelmingly. Repeatedly this House has made it clear that the National Park Service is not like other agencies. I do want to thank the Committee for definitive language forcing detailed guidelines on such studies. It means that, most likely, most of the outsourcing dollars being spent will be wasted money but at least it will be reasonably fair. As chairman of a subcommittee with National Parks oversight and as a member of the Resources full committee and National Parks subcommittee, I will be closely monitoring every threat to dangering our Park Service.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today in support of H.R. 3365, the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act. While there has been debate over how strong our national defense should be in order to preserve the freedom of others, I think you will find that everyone in this chamber is in agreement when it comes to the treatment of our fallen soldiers and their families. This bill would be an invaluable way of expressing our country's gratitude to the brave men and women who have died giving their last full measure of devotion. In March of this year, Marine Lance Corporal David K. Fribley, from Atwood, Indiana, and seven of his fellow Marines, were killed in the opening march of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While the gratuity that is owed to the Fribley family has historically been exempt from taxation, an oversight in the tax code after 1991 left half of the $6,000 gratuity subject to taxation. Families who have had to suffer because of the loss of a loved one are now being asked to pay taxes on what was set up to be a one time, tax-free gift. It is for this reason and for families like the Fribley's that I pledge my full support to this bill. If adopted, this legislation would increase the gratuity payable to survivors of deceased members of the armed forces to $12,000 retroactive to September 11, 2001, and would make the payment fully tax-exempt. As we carry on this struggle against evil, it is a most tragic fact of war that we are sure to lose more young people like Lance Corporal David Fribley. As they courageously make the sacrifice for our liberty and the safety of our world, we must never fail to honor their memory and see that their loss has not been in vain.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, The Conservative Mind is an historic book that has profoundly affected many of us in this chamber. Indeed, some of us may be in this very chamber because of its great influence. Published in 1953, the masterpiece was penned by the late Dr. Russell Amos Kirk, the foremost philosopher of the modern conservative movement. His writings--not to mention his Piety Hill seminars--served as part of the philosophical foundation for such important moments in American political history as the 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign, the Reagan Revolution of 1980, and, most recently, the Republican Revolution of 1994. How does one begin to sum up conservatism? One can start, as Dr. Kirk did in The Conservative Mind, by stating what it is not. He wrote that the conservative abhors all forms of ideology. Promising a ``terrestrial paradise,'' an ideology is anathema to the conservative, who knows it to be the tool and weapon of the coffeehouse fanatics--a substitute for religion--that will ensure an ``earthly hell.'' No manual for partisan action, then, The Conservative Mind does not-- cannot--point the way to Zion. Instead, the man of letters wisely explained, we must turn to custom, convention, constitution and prescription. And we must apply variously and with prudence the general principles he delineated. The brilliance of The Conservative Mind is its cogent synthesis of the works of historical icons--ranging from Edmund Burke to T.S. Eliot--into six canons of conservative thought. The resolution that I have introduced acknowledges these canons and honors the golden jubilee of Dr. Kirk's magnum opus. It also recognizes the tireless work of the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, presided over by Dr. Kirk's widow, Annette, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which is republishing many of his master works. It is time that the House of Representatives affords this man, this book and these institutions with such recognition. I hope that the members of this body will join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Conservative Mind and those custodians of this wonderful patrimony.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and support the Road Map for Democracy in Burma Conference, which was held in Fort Wayne, Indiana, my hometown, on October 11 through 12, 2003. I had the distinct pleasure to address the conference and speak to some of the attendees. I pledged to them to insert this Road Map for Democracy in Burma into the Congressional Record, and let me explain why. My colleagues are well aware of the military dictatorship currently ruling in Burma. In July of this year, the House passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which imposes sanctions on Burma until the military gives up power and a new democratic Burma is established. While the Burmese appreciate the support of the United States, they are working among themselves to organize a future democratic Burma. The conference in Fort Wayne brought together members of the democratically elected Burmese government-in-exile and various Burmese ethnic groups. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) recently explained in the last few minutes, the problems that we face in Iraq, Burma, in fact, is trying to address these in advance. They had a democratic government overthrown by the junta, and they are now trying to pull the different factions together to be prepared, when this junta collapses, with a balanced democratic government. Burma has long been plagued with ethnic tensions. The delicate balance among ethnic groups was shattered early in Burmese independence. Since the military takeover in the 1960s, many ethnic groups have been persecuted and harassed. In such an atmosphere, suspicion and mistrust have been the norm. This conference was particularly significant, because so many of the Burmese ethnic groups were brought together to discuss Burma's future. The fact that the groups were able to meet in one room together is a noteworthy accomplishment. Compare this to the problems we had in Iraq. In my hometown we have 125 Iraqis who fled. There are Sunni, Shia and Kurds. Prior to the recent conflict in Iraq, when I wanted to meet with the different groups, they would not meet together. That was a pretty good forerunner of what was going to happen when we got into Iraq. In fact, we have nearly 2,000 Burmese in Fort Wayne. When we tried to meet there, initially some of the ethnic divisions were a problem even in meeting with their United States Congressman from that district. This conference, unlike what we are seeing in many places of the world, we see the Burmese and the different ethnic groups trying to pull together to address what kind of country should Burma be when democracy is restored. Cooperation among the groups at this conference is an important step towards a future democratic Burma. The road to democracy is not easy for any country, and Burma is no exception. I believe that the resolution unanimously passed by the conference is a positive step in the right direction. Democracy in Burma will only be achieved if all Burmese work together. I encourage the groups to continue their dialogue and their work together. I admire the courage and tenacity of all the Burmese people, and I will continue to work with them and do what I can to help them achieve their goal of a free and democratic Burma for all Burmese. Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record following my remarks ``The Full Road Map for Democracy,'' and I will just summarize a couple points. In this Road Map for Democracy, they established a long-term goal. For example, number one is, ``To fully realize that goal, the committee in charge of establishing a self-help, fund-raising body has been formed.'' Because, as they state right at the beginning, ``The conference firmly believes that the objective of the struggle to abolish dictatorship and promote democracy in our country,'' Burma, ``can successfully be achieved only through self-reliance.'' They understand that basic principle. In the section ``Future Plan for Inland and Overseas Democratic Struggles,'' they say, ``In accordance with the belief of the Road Map for Democracy in Burma Conference held in Fort Wayne, that the elimination of the dictatorial system in Burma is the only way to successfully achieve genuine democracy and genuine national reconciliation among all ethnic nationalities, and that the only path that can lead to the realization of that goal is a correct road map from all of us.'' Then they proceed to lay out who are some of the steering committees. Under ``Solidarity of Nationalities of Burma,'' point Number 1 is, ``There must be equality and self-determination for all ethnic nationalities,'' a major step that we do not see in many other nations around the world. They have detailed things on unity-building committees. Under strengthening ethnic unity, for example, they say, ``All nationalities should learn the language of at least one nationality other than their own,'' and ``Ethnic nationalities should mutually respect each other.'' For a strategy to end military dictatorship in Burma, they have things as diverse as, ``Accept the leadership of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy,'' the elected president who has been held in exile. Number 2 is, ``Any political change not based on the results of the 1990 elections will not be accepted.'' They also point out, ``The unwavering political objective of this conference is democracy and the establishment of a federal union.'' So they are very clear where they stand on the issue of democracy. They have also, in conclusion, how to press the military regime in Burma by international communities and the United Nations. Point one was to step up economic sanctions against the military regime of Burma through the United Nations Security Council. Two is to seek stronger pressure from the international community to secure the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners. But they also have very explicit things in the resolutions. For example, to urge the Burmese expatriate communities to stop paying tax to SPDC, the military junta, embassies, and other specific things. I commend this group and this conference for actually laying out a road map, having a plan of how to work together, how to build a country, so we do not see repeats of our struggles in Iraq, which are very important, which we must back up. We do not really have much option. But, at the same time, to the degree we can to this in advance of a people getting their freedom back, this is what we need to do. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [From the News Sentinel, Oct. 13, 2003] Participants Worked Out Several Key Resolutions (By Kevin Kilbane) They agreed any transition to democracy in Burma would begin with leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whom the ruling military dictatorship has kept under virtual house arrest for more than a decade. Members of the various ethnic groups making up the Burmese refugee community agreed they all must be given political equality and the right of self-determination. Most importantly, however, Burmese attending the two-day Road Map for Democracy in Burma conference this weekend in Fort Wayne agreed to work together. ``All arguments are settled,'' said U Peter Limbin of Bluffton, who was elected to the Burmese parliament in 1990. He and other pro-democracy officials elected then had to flee to escape government persecution. About 300 Burmese gathered for the conference Saturday and Sunday at Neff Hall on the campus of Indiana University- Purdue University Fort Wayne. Organizers held the event here because the 1,500 Burmese in Fort Wayne make up the largest Burmese community in the United States. The conference drew representatives from Burmese pro- democracy groups around the world. People flew in from Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Thailand, said Zar Wint, 30, of Fort Wayne, who attended the conference. ``I feel like I am home again,'' Wint said as many different conversations swirled around him, all in Burmese. Guests also included Sein Win, acting prime minister of the exiled democratic government. Burmese pro-democracy groups have enjoyed support from the United States and European Union, Win said during a break Sunday. Trade sanctions and travel restrictions those nations have placed on the Burmese government apply pressure for change. But Burmese refugees must network more to increase the pressure on the regime to step down. ``We need more push,'' he said. To develop such strategies, people attending the conference broke into six panels to discuss key topics and propose future action. Discussion topics included how to replace the ruling military dictatorship and how to build solidarity among Burma's ethnic groups. Panels also debated how to fund the democratic movement and how to increase international and United Nations pressure on the ruling regime to step aside. Some of the key resolutions passed included: To lobby leaders of conference goers' current country of residence to increase pressure on Burma's military rulers to relinquish control. To follow Aung San Suu Kyi (pronounced Ahn Sahn Sue She) once military dictators leave power. The 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate largely has been kept under house arrest since the government cracked down in 1988 on a student pro- democracy movement. To unify pro-democracy groups' power by working through the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the exile government based in Washington, D.C. To more actively support prodemocracy movements inside Burma, which the current rulers have renamed Myanmar. To recognize the equality and right to self-determination of all Burmese ethnic groups. Members of the Mon, Karen, Shan and Chin ethnic groups exhibited unprecedented cooperation when planning the conference. The resolutions how to replace the ruling government and on ethnic solidarity generated the most emotional debate. All of the discussion took place in Burmese peppered with occasional English words or phrases--``U.S.-China dialogue,'' for example--when no Burmese equivalent existed. The room where the presentation's took place, Neff Hall's auditorium, resembled an international hearing room. The red, gold and white flag of the Democratic Burmese Students Association and letters spelling out ``Road Map for Democracy in Burma Conference'' hung on a velvet curtain behind the long tables set up on stage for panel members. Portraits and posters of Aung San Suu Kyi hung on the sides and front of the stage. Men in blue jeans, suits and ties or traditional skirtlike longis--and, occasionally, women in business or traditional attire--would stand to make a comment or propose an amendment. Listeners often clapped or cheered in response. The proposed resolutions for following Aung San Suu Kyi and working for replacement of Burma's dictatorship drew the most enthusiastic cheers and applause. The conference closed with an appearance by area U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, who pledged to get resolutions ``in the hands of the right people'' in Washington.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, one of the most difficult challenges of this job is to balance the responsibilities of being an elected official with those of one's family. Too often, the family is sacrificed. On Monday, my mother-in-law, Helen Zimmer, passed away. At 91 she lived a full life as a wife and mother, serving her family, friends, and God. Today she is in paradise with the Lord, her husband George, her brothers and sisters, her parents, my dad, and others who died before her. She has no more pain or periods of loneliness, because there are no tears in heaven. She is celebrating with our Lord and Saviour. It is her family who is left behind that grieves. Edmund Burke referred to family as our ``Little Platoons.'' Weddings, funerals, and the occasional reunions are the times we pass our values to our children and to one another. Our time together reminds us all of the comparative brevity of our lives. How do we redeem the time God has given us? Did we use it selfishly? Did we spend our life serving others or serving ourselves? Did we stand up and be counted? Were we ``strong and courageous'' or did we crave popularity? Were we fearful of being looked down upon or laughed at for standing for what is right and just? I wanted to be with my family as we spend these rare days together from far and near. Thus, I will miss these critical votes. I personally prepared this statement because I didn't want my absence to be misunderstood as any sign of weakening of my support for President Bush and his policies. And, if my vote is needed--which my understanding is that it is not-- I will fly back to vote in favor of this supplemental. But I will not abandon my family at this time for a vote that is not needed. I have been disappointed in some of my colleagues who have been expressing ``surprise'' and ``frustration'' at the difficulty of the reconstruction of Iraq. Where were you the last few years? Did you meet with any Iraqis before you voted? In Fort Wayne we have Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, all with substantially different experiences. If there are Iraqis in Fort Wayne, they are probably in the home districts of many, if not most, Members. Are you leading us to believe you were uninformed when you voted to send our troops to war? Are you learning just now that there are no other democracies among Arab nations in the region? If no such examples exist, it only makes sense that trying to establish one is a massive challenge. Those of us who voted for the war, like me, have no excuse for not knowing that this would be expensive, hard, and potentially lengthy. President Bush came before this body and clearly laid out his goals and the work necessary to achieve them. Members in this Chamber applauded and cheered. Now, some of the same Members whine: ``$87 billion is too much.'' Sixty-seven billion of this emergency funding request is for our soldiers. It seems to me that many of the critics want these same troops to do even more--be museum curators, traffic cops, and water system managers--but without casualties. How do they propose to do this without spending the dollars? The $20 billion for reconstruction will go largely to American companies employing American workers. We are, for the most part, paying ourselves. As for loan repayments, can you imagine the outcome if we were to take revenue from the limited current Iraqi oil as payment for a staggering long-term debt that no elected Iraqi chose to obligate? We will face additional funding requests to rebuild Iraq, and I support the Administration in trying to develop some variation of the idea put forth by Congressman Charles Taylor of North Carolina. Congressman Taylor proposes a blended cost recovery--as oil revenues rise, a proportion of previous debt and American taxpayer contributions are retired, but at a level that gives the free Iraq room to grow and breathe. If in the future, Iraq enjoys massive oil revenue increases, the American taxpayer should be repaid accordingly. More repayment than France ever received. At the end of World War II, the United States invested billions of dollars in Western Europe. The United States believed rebuilding war torn Western Europe would keep Communism from spreading. The Marshall Plan, perhaps some of my colleagues have heard of it, is often considered one of America's most successful foreign policy initiatives. From the amount of reconstruction necessary to the existence of a functioning government, Western Europe and Iraq are worlds apart, but there is one unifying goal that transcends any differences between the two situations--stability and democracy. What alternative do we actually have? If we pull out now, we probably will have to return to Iraq yet again when terrorists regain government control. An investment of billions of dollars is painful but less than large human losses in combat or thousands of deaths from weapons of mass destruction. We--the United States, President Bush, and Congress--may fail to give the Iraqi people the chance for peace and freedom but we will have exhausted every effort in doing so because it is the right thing to do. The alternatives seem to guarantee more death and destruction in the future. And of course, greater financial costs over the long run. To my Republican colleagues especially, let's not be ``summertime soldiers'' and ``sunshine patriots'' who pose with President Bush when he's at 75 percent in the polls, and criticize him and whine when he is not as popular. We need to do this. We need to do it because it is the right thing to do, not because it is popular or unpopular.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first let me make it clear that I strongly support this legislation and also the necessary appropriations to follow through on the authorizing, and I think it is important we do it as soon as possible. I would first like to express on the record a concern here, and that is that while it is a win-win situation for all the stakeholders involved, I personally believe there should have been a land swap. I believe the land swap was a reasonable request. What this is going to do is cost the taxpayers money that could have been used in other environmental projects in other parks around the country where we are still trying to buy out inholdings, to pay back people who, in fact, are restricted in their land use. That said, for 17 years that has not happened. The owner is continuing to be deprived of his ability to use his property, and we do not want him to develop condominiums or housing developments along the beautiful Crystal River. It would destroy a very scenic area. So we have little choice in this area about what to do, and I believe this legislation will indeed compensate the owner, protect all the national park lands and expand the Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. I do not have any constituents in this area. I am not from the State of Michigan. I have many people from northern Indiana, including myself, who go up to Sleeping Bear. But I want to make a couple other general comments for the other Members of our body. As you have heard from obviously the people from Michigan, just because they are pro-Michigan does not mean it is not true. This fresh water coast has the best dunes and the best beaches in the United States. I serve on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands. I have traveled around this country for multiple years. The dunes are more spectacular, more wild and more scenic than what you see in Oregon, than what you see in Kitty Hawk. The beaches are more private and rural in ability to enjoy than you see on any of our other coasts, as someone who visits those coasts as well. This is incredibly scenic country in a very populace State. This is not like the Indiana Dunes Lakeshore, where we preserved an ecosystem right at the edge of Chicago where other cities are. This is one, however, that still has a number of inholdings, small towns, and, as we work this through, what used to be largely a series of State parks, like DH Day and Platte River and other State parks, has now been joined together, not only where the spectacular dunes are, but the ecosystem that is dependent on the dunes' survival, one of which is the Crystal River. This beautiful, scenic area comes in through the town of Glen Arbor and out by Glen Haven, as well as the Platte River coming in another part, and the ability for canoeists to enjoy this, the ability to keep the watershed and the trees preserved, so that not only do we have those moving dunes, the largest moving dunes in the world preserved, but the ecosystem that people, like I did when I was in college every spring, we went up and camped at Sleeping Bear, and my parents took me up there when I was young, so that other families can enjoy a wilderness in a fairly populus area of America. We do not have enough, unlike the speaker from Idaho and others, we do not have a lot of public lands in the Midwest. We do not have a lot of public lands, like many of my colleagues on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, like the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who are looking often at districts that range anywhere from 30 to 90 percent Federal public lands. In the Midwest we have a shortage. This is helping fill an important gap in an important ecosystem with animal and bird diversity, with sand dunes, with rivers; and it is a rare opportunity to purchase this. So I hope we not only authorize this, but move the appropriations soon. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), and all of the others who have been involved. It has been a pleasure in preserving this important part of our natural and cultural heritage in the Midwest.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it has now been more than a decade since partial-birth abortion was first exposed for the horrific and violent act that it is. In that time, tens of thousands of healthy babies have been brutally killed as they exited the birth canal--just moments from their first breath. Then, as now, the details of the partial-birth abortion procedure led to public outrage among the American people. The most recent poll on this issue found that 70 percent of the public favors the ban we will vote on today. How can it be that it has taken more than 10 years to ban a procedure so many Americans find outright repugnant and immoral? Twice, Congress has passed similar legislation, only to be voted by the previous administration. Today, I am grateful for the courageous stand of our current president, President George W. Bush, who, earlier this year in his State of the Union Address, called on Congress to pass the ban on partial-birth abortions. It is an honor to serve alongside this great president, and I look forward to his quick signature on this bill. As we consider the partial-birth abortion ban conference report today, I'd like to address some of the misconceptions being circulated by those opposed to this bill. Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others are claiming S. 3, The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, will ``halt safe, pre-viability abortions from occurring, which violates a woman's right to choose.'' This is simply false. S. 3 was crafted carefully to ensure its constitutionality. It addresses the concerns cited in the Supreme Court's Stenberg v. Carhart decision, which struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion, that the definition of partial-birth abortion was too vague and could prohibit a common abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation abortions. Today's bill corrects any potential for misinterpretation by specifically defining partial-birth abortion as: The person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus. Secondly, some proponents of partial-birth abortion are advocating for a ``health'' of the mother exception in the bill. Such an exception is unnecessary, as the findings in the bill point out. The first section of S. 3 contains Congress's 14 factual findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled during congressional hearings, a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman. In fact, the highly regarded American Medical Association has said the procedure is ``not good medicine'' and is ``not medically indicated'' in any situation. A more narrow ``life of the mother'' exception is included in the bill, which would allow partial-birth abortions in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. As we vote on final passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act today, let us keep in mind the faces of the babies whose lives might be saved as a result of this bill. Many newspapers around the country have recently run stories about new 4-D ultrasound technology that is able to photograph very real-life pictures of the baby in the womb. Gracing the tops of the stories have been pictures of a perfectly formed baby in the womb with a smile on her face. The baby looks so different than it does just a short time later after its birth. Who could possibly look at these pictures and still support the killing of such beautiful babies by the violent death of scissors being stabbed in the baby's head? The long-awaited passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act today is a historic event, the answer to much prayer, and the result of the work of thousands of heroes across this country. I thank my colleagues in the House, Congressman Chabot, and Chairman Sensenbrenner, for their dedication to passing this bill. I also thank our House Leadership for making this bill a priority for so many years. Finally, I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and end the reprehensible procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for his leadership in organizing this tonight and letting me participate in this. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for many years. Not as long as Grandpa Smith who literally, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), have been the crusaders in the United States Congress and have kept this issue alive and have never let anyone in this Congress, House or Senate, or the administration, forget the importance of this. This is just a huge day for him in particular. Because I have been in many meetings with leadership over the years and different things and they say, man, that Chris Smith, sometimes he just gets obsessed on this issue. And he has, literally, while he has done many other things here in Congress, has focused on this issue and helped keep Congress focused on this. I want to share a little bit of a different thought, not about the procedure itself, but some of the history behind it, because I am a little older than some of the other guys here. When the pro-life movement really started in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as we became concerned that California and New York had opened up abortion procedures and were letting people from States like Indiana where people had chosen not to have abortion moved to those States, we were stunned. I was in graduate school at the University of Notre Dame. We had organized a conservative club there, and we had started to look at the abortion movement when, on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court took in its hands, overruled all of the States in America, and said, these poor little children are unprotected. We were stunned. In those first 48 hours, Dr. Charles Rice, who was our advisor to our group, wrote the Human Life Amendment for then-Congressman Larry Hogan, and it was introduced shortly after that decision. Dr. John Wilke, who was one of the original founders of the National Right to Life's daughter was at Notre Dame and she and I, along with Chuck Donavan and Rich Maji and Leo Bukinani and others, formed a group called the Student Committee for the Human Life Amendment within 48 hours of that decision. We organized across the country. In fact, one of the first meetings I was at was with the bishop in South Bend with a lot of the leaders, different priests and other activists; and after we talked about abortion a little bit, they talked about baptizing the fetuses. I held up my hand and I said, I think that actually is a religious issue. And the bishop leaned back and said, ah, a Protestant among us. The truth is that in the early days of the pro- life movement, the Protestant Church was asleep. Most of America was asleep. The Catholic Church understood more what was happening. Over the years, the pro-life movement got organized, and we thought that we could roll back that decision politically. The Human Life Amendment, surely, the American people, when they saw the truth, we could change this. As they understood the slaughter that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) just described of millions of babies, surely they would overrule. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan won and the Republicans took the Senate, where pro-lifers and conservatives for the first time started to look at the political system and said, we need to get involved, we thought it would change. We got tax cuts, we fought back communism, but we did not make progress on abortion; and it was incredibly frustrating over the years, as people came out for 30 years to march here in Washington. One of the things we hear back home repeatedly is, does it do any good? I have been working in this movement for 30 years. Does it do any good? Is there any hope? What has happened in America? Is anybody sensitive? I remember one time when I was an undergraduate in our student government office, there was a debate about whether unwanted children should be born, and one of my friends turned to one of the abortion advocates and said, you know, my mom told me that at the time I was born, she really did not want me, and if abortion had been legal, she would have killed me. And he turned to this person and said, you would have killed me. I would be dead. Do my colleagues know what? One of my big fears about talking tonight is that somehow, something is going to go wrong. It seems like after 30 years, we cannot possibly get something into law. But after all of those years of marches, we have not made a lot of progress, but this is an important step. Because if we pass this and then the Senate passes this, and then we have this President, we are actually going to save some babies' lives. We are actually going to pass legislation so people like my friend can say, I am alive because of how people voted, how people marched, how people spoke out. When people say there is no difference, that I cannot make a difference in this system, that my involvement does not do any good, I say to them, when this bill passes, those of us who have worked in the trenches, those of us who have been speaking out for years, those of us who have gotten involved in campaigns, in fact, your vote makes a difference, your actions make a difference; and there are going to be babies growing up to be young adults and adults who will create families who would have been dead if you had not been involved. So I thank my colleagues for their work. I thank the Members here, because this is a great day for America and a great day for those children.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I earlier mentioned, the famous Yankees dynasty compares like to the Boston Celtics who had Larry Bird from Indiana as one of their anchors and the University of Notre Dame which, of course, is based in Indiana, although most people do not realize that. I do want to pay tribute to two Yankee ties who clearly show that even the Yankees have Hoosier ties, which partly makes them successful. Don Mattingly will not be remembered in the same light as Ruth, Mantle, and DiMaggio given his lack of World Series rings; but this Evansville- native-turned-New York Yankees legend has made a claim to be one of the best pure baseball players the Yankees ever had. During his prime in the 1980s, he had an on-base slugging of over .900, bettered only by Wade Boggs. On top of his outstanding hitting, he also tied for having the best fielding percentage of any first baseman ever to play the game. Between 1985 and 1989, he won a Yankee record for five consecutive Gold Glove awards at first base. Indiana is proud to be the home of this Yankee legend. The second Yankee I want to highlight with Hoosier ties is a man who never played a game for this proud organization. George Steinbrenner, better known as The Boss, has been called many things by his critics. Unsuccessful will never be one of them. During his tenure as the principal owner of the Yankees, he has guided this franchise to six World Series titles and put them back on top as the most recognized sports franchise in the world. I highlight this because Steinbrenner was a 1948 graduate of the Culver Military Academy in Culver, Indiana. The Steinbrenners are a three-generation Culver family. George Steinbrenner's father, Henry, was a 1919 Culver Summer Schools graduate, and each of his children graduated from the academy as well. So I not only pay tribute to the New York Yankees but some of their Hoosier roots with the New York Yankees. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.