Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I think many Americans who are watching this and our colleagues and staffers around the Hill are going, this absolutely does not make sense. If they have not listened to this debate before, it is like, how could this be happening? About the only people who could possibly defend this would be somebody in prison; but we are not saying they are not going to have a job or income, because you and I have both advocated for many years that, and have been personally interested in how you deal and rehabilitate people in prisons and give them job skills. That is not what this is about. So who could possibly be blocking this? What is the problem? It makes no sense. It is one of these things that you hear the Federal Government does and you think, well, how does this keep happening? Is it the dollars that are generated by some benefit to employees in Federal Prison Industries who are contracted to supervise the prisoners? Is it the amount of money that has been given to different agencies? Is it inertia, that government will not do it? It is not a defensible policy. No one likes to stand up and defend this. And when they do, quite frankly, the few times we have ever had any kind of debate, the debate has not been anchored to reality. As I recall, some of our colleagues, they talk about the importance of employing prisoners, but they cannot deal with the fact that people in your district or my district have been following the law have been laid off to employ somebody who violated the law. They cannot defend that position and usually they do not try. So who exactly has held this up, and what is the problem here and why do they not pay attention?

Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman will yield, one of my concerns is that this inertia starts to develop a bigger and bigger base; and I hope our colleagues understand that if they do not move soon, the bigger this machine gets, the more people that get involved in contracting and building the prison industry infrastructure itself, all of a sudden we will have a monster that starts to consume society. The other day when I was driving to the airport, or being driven to the airport, I saw a crew out cleaning the roads who were on a work- release-type program. Imagine if our county and State governments picked this up and instead of doing a work-release program, they decided they will run the local gas station, which would be the equivalent here. So when you come up to an interstate exit or a highway exit you would now have gas stations operated by people who are in prison, restaurants operated by people in prison. There would be an outrage. But manufacturing is not as visible to the consumer eye as retailing. They are taking jobs away in the industrial sector and transferring them. And by the way, those industrial sector jobs have the biggest multiplier effect on our economy. You know, I am a little older, too; and when I was getting my MBA back in 1974 from Notre Dame, one manufacturing job was the equivalent of seven. Now it is closer to 15 in its impact that brings dollars into the community. So when you rip those manufacturing jobs away, maybe they are in a building you cannot see. But if you start to visualize that you are taking as many jobs in my little hometown, say 40, as would be employed in the grocery store, plus the dairy sweet, plus the gas station, plus a couple of other small retailers in this town, and say all this retail infrastructure is going to be operated by prison industries, you would have more outrage in the community. Yet those retailing jobs do not extend dollars to the community like the manufacturing jobs. We have to wake up. And lest I step on another sore point here in Congress, we years ago decided for good or ill that Indian gaming could be allowed. But Members started to realize that that same clause could be used for supergas stations or retailing operations that could be based and moved around similarly by exits. The best thing you can say about the comparison with the Native Americans and how they were using it was, hey, it was originally their land, we probably took the land unjustly, they are following the law. This group, which is doing in effect the same type of expansion of their categories of industry, putting law-abiding Americans out of work, do not have an injustice; they are there because they committed an injustice and we are trying to rehabilitate them. They do not have any prior claims, yet you see them stealthily moving through sectors of the economy threatening American jobs. The fundamental question is: Why is this not like other types of illegal dumping from other countries, where they are subsidized? Why is this not like other countries, where we lose competition because they do not have to have the same American laws? And why is it not focused on trying to gain jobs that have gone outside of America in Federal Prison Industries rather than take law-abiding jobs? How do you answer those questions? How does any Member of Congress answer the question, when some factory in America loses a job, and that person says, if I robbed a bank, if I abused cocaine, would I be able to keep my job? It is backwards, and it makes absolutely no sense. I am worried that if we do not move here with a Justice Department that you would expect to be favorable and a Congress that should be paying attention that this momentum and this inertia is just going to overwhelm us. My esteemed colleague has been gaining sponsors, but not fast enough. And we really need to get a sense of urgency in this House and in this administration. You know, you cannot talk about losing jobs in America, you cannot walk out there with a straight face and say we are trying to help the economy, and by the way we are taking away from law-abiding citizens. It does not fly.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman for his work on this and in trying to get the Department of Justice aware that they are in direct contradiction of the goals of this President and this Congress which has said we are looking at how to maximize the private sector and put Americans who are law-abiding citizens back to work. I do not want to face people in my district who might have to wear a button that says ``I follow the law, I am employed.'' We need to look for options for people to be trained. This is not about not giving people in prison an opportunity, but there is no reason that going to prison should give people an unfair advantage, particularly going through foreign countries, against people who in America have followed the law who are working hard who have actually outcompeted foreign companies to hold their sector until the U.S. Government behind them, waiving regulations and waiving capital costs, then giving them a mandatory advantage to go for higher prices with less quality and say you still must buy it, and then have the gall to come to Congress and say we are trying to contract out. We are trying to save money for the Federal Government when, in fact, they are putting people in our districts out of work. It does not make sense and it does not fly, and I hope more Members and staff will pay attention to this debate. It is pretty much of a no- brainer. I hope that the Department of Justice will turn around on this. They are projecting this as a growth industry. It is incredible to me that they would not be humiliated by this, and instead look at it as a growth industry.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this President has had few things as defining in his career as the principle of contracting out and not having things be done by the Federal Government that can be done by entrepreneurial, private sector people. He did that his first term as governor of Texas, second term as the governor of Texas, and campaigned on that. Sometimes he goes too far in contracting out. My question is how can we have such a disconnect in the Department of Justice with the goals of the President of the United States that are explicit through every agency right now ordering contracting out, and this is not contracting out, it is contracting back. It is sucking jobs out of the private sector, bringing them, kind of a reverse contracting out, and then in the proposals, proposing to increase that. At the rate of growth that this category is going, what is the point of us in Congress trying to look at contracting out if they are going to be contracting in in this area.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, for yielding to me. I would like to kind of restate in similar words the concerns that he has shared here so far this evening and thank him for taking leadership in this issue; because I believe if most Members actually looked at this bill, there is just no defensible rationale to be against it. It is something that is often under the radar. One of the good things about the district of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, is that it is good to have an industrial sector where there is a large concentration; but one of the bad things is that where you have a concentration, you do not have as many Members affected by it. Therefore, they may not feel as much pressure to do what is just and right. The Grand Rapids Holland area has long been the center of office furniture and supply-type furniture in the United States. I grew up in a furniture retailing factory, a family business started in 1907. Since the 1920s, we were retail furniture merchants. In the old days the whole furniture industry was centered in Grand Rapids. That used to be where the markets were before they moved to Chicago and then North Carolina. What we saw was first southern competition, where they did not have the unions, kind of weakened some of the northern furniture companies. Then we saw cheaper wood because the wood grew faster in some of those areas. It was not as good wood in the South as the northern hardwoods, but we saw that. Then we saw most of the furniture industry in big percentages go offshore and then overseas. But in office furniture, we had a success story. The companies, including the former employer of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, stayed, by innovation, at the front end of what we needed in the office furniture market, in the supply market in this country. It was a good-news story of how to fight off foreign competition. So what do we do? We develop internal domestic competition to the industry. I have a company that was alluded to by my colleague, Wieland Furniture in my hometown of Grayville, Indiana, a town that is now up to almost 1,000 people. In their plant, and in full disclosure, it has now been purchased by Sauder Furniture out of Archbold, Ohio. It is spelled S-A-U, and I am spelled S-O. They are distant cousins. They now own this as a division. They have 40 employees, and 20 percent of their business involves sales to the Federal Government that could be lost if FPI decides to revoke waivers on the military bases, and they have lost untold other jobs that they could have had. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) said when he visited this plant, they told him what is really completely irritating about this is that they sell it cheaper. We save dollars for the taxpayers.

Mr. SOUDER. The company, Wieland, the private sector company. Even though they have to follow all the laws that my colleagues alluded to, they sell it cheaper. And because they can sell it cheaper, that would save taxpayers money in the Defense Department, at universities, in government offices, in anyplace else that Federal Prison Industries is doing it, we would save taxpayer dollars if you bought from the private sector. Not only that, it is built better. They are selling it cheaper. It last longer. So you save money because you do not have to repurchase the goods. The sofas hold together. The tables hold together. You have now the combination of not only the immediate prices being cheaper, but the long-term cost of the value, even to the government and any agency buying it, increased exponentially, because you do not have to replace it. The wear and tear is not there. You do not have to repurchase.

Mr. SOUDER. You are far more informed on this because I clearly got involved because I had a company that got immediately impacted and was outraged by the injustice. Do they have any criteria and does the Justice Department have any response when you say why do you not pick a category that does not have U.S. competition?

Mr. SOUDER. The extraordinary thing here is that if they can meet these standards, that the Federal procurement officers would like to do this. And they are doing this, as he has so eloquently pointed out, that they do not have OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws that say you got to have this over here and this over here. Nobody walks into their plant, and I have had OSHA come into little plants in my district much smaller than the House floor saying, you do not have your exits marked. You do not have this kind of thing over here and threaten to shut them down or fine them. They do not have any of that kind of pressure. They do not have minimum wage standards. They do not have civil rights standards to see which percentage of the population is at which direction. Often these institutions are violators of even laws on water and air pollution. They do not have the same pressures that you put on the private sector. And still the private sector makes it for less price with better quality. The owners of the Wheeling Furniture ask me, could our employees get these contracts and get the points if they get busted for dealing drugs? Could our employees get these jobs if they go rob a bank? Could our employees, if they get arrested for other crimes, then become eligible to make this furniture? This is absolutely crazy. I believe that the stumbling block here is that there are many Members here like me who want to work. I am a strong supporter of Prison Fellowship and Justice Fellowship and organizations as is my colleague, that say people need to develop a skill while they are in prison. They need to develop a skill that does not take jobs from American workers. We are losing jobs all over the place. Figure out, jobs that are taken by overseas workers and give them to the prison industry people. It is not that we do not want to rehabilitate prisoners. It is not that we do not want them to learn a skill. It is not that we do not want them to have some income when they are done, and they are taking advantage of many Members here who think that, oh, well, this is the only way we can help them. If this was another industry that was represented in big numbers in their district like it was in my colleagues, if it was the building industry, they would be outraged if we said we would take prisoners to knock out your contractors. They would be outraged if we said we were going to knock out the restaurant business. They would be outraged if we said we were going to knock out telecommunications. But because this industry is concentrated in one area, and because of the general good will, there is this misunderstanding that the Justice Department continues to take advantage of, and it must be changed. It should not be in America that if you rob somebody and deal drugs, you can make the furniture, but if you are honest, you cannot. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, even if it did not cost less and be better quality. And it is particularly stupid when it costs less, better quality, and you are taking jobs away from law abiding citizens and giving it to people who violate the laws. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me take a guess. Let me take a wild guess. When a company closes and jobs are laid off in an individual's district and they say, why are they laid off? And they say it is competition from Prison Industries?

Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman from Michigan will yield, let me see if I understand this. The company in my district or your district, where the employees that have been following the law are making something that is cheaper and better made, they go in to bid.

Mr. SOUDER. Or they would like to bid for, say, military training base equipment at a housing unit, tables, sofas, other things, file cabinets, whatever it is; and they go in, and because of the points that are in effect given to prison industries, that even though they are lower priced and better quality, they might not even be competing with Federal Prison Industries; they might be competing with a Canadian or foreign-owned company? So that not only are products made unfairly in prison, but the wholesaling and marketing profits are going to a company from overseas, knocking American law-abiding workers out. So we have a double whammy that would certainly not be allowed in any kind of international trade agreement.

Mr. SOUDER. I know the gentleman is a little more liberal than I am in some of this. I do not believe they should be competing at all. It is particularly absurd to say that they are going to get a price advantage, and they get the regulations relaxed and they get the price advantage and the quality advantage. I would make it so they cannot flat out compete, but we have to work some kind of a compromise, because clearly, this has been very difficult for many years. We have laws that say that companies cannot illegally dump from overseas. You cannot come in where the government is subsidizing. Why do these laws not apply here and how would the Justice Department defend themselves when this cannot be done in any other category except by prisons?

Mr. SOUDER. We are about to mark up in the Committee on Government Reform a new defense procurement act, as is Armed Services; and I am trying to understand, again, as the Department of Defense came and talked with those of us on the committee last night, their argument was they are trying to reduce costs and get more flexibility in the Federal Government. Why would they then do something that costs more with less quality in another area? And how are they going to justify coming to Congress and asking us to vote for that acquisition act if they do not fix this?

Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman will yield, this is not like a veterans- owned company or a female-owned business or a minority-owned business where you say, okay, they get a 10 percent advantage; this is flat-out they cannot even bid, even if it was half price?

Mr. SOUDER. So it is not points.

Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman will yield, my understanding is a lot of this is defense contracting.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his amendment. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, few things are as important as trying to maintain order and safety in our schools. This is a particular opportunity to point out what has been a current interest and the personal interest of the director of SAMSA, Charles Curry, on looking at co-occurring disorders. Increasingly, we are seeing the narcotics traffickers, particularly in urban centers but also in schools and elsewhere, prey upon the most vulnerable population in this country: those people who have various disabilities. We are seeing in many of the public housing areas now, not only in the United States but around the world, the vulnerability of this population to marketing and aggressive sales. I think that the point that this amendment makes, that one of the things that keeps our schools safer for these vulnerable students is to make sure that the illegal narcotics stay out of the schools, is very important. We need to have this resolution passed. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for calling attention to the specific problem of drugs in schools, but also to the co-occurring disorders that are such a challenge in our society.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the few times I have ever been accused of shucking and jiving. It is not usually what I do for a living. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has actually made a couple of points that reinforce the point of this amendment. It is absolutely true that school districts have come to us repeatedly and said we do not have enough money to meet the IDEA standards to do the individual development plans and to meet the needs of our special needs students. It is the biggest complaint coming out of every school district in the country. If the schools actually are paying $6,000 to $7,000 a student, which sometimes, quite frankly, I think is not an accurate claim, then they should be the first ones lining up behind an amendment that says for $1,400 we are going to take $6,000 to $7,000 pressure off your school system. The opposition of those who say that they are against this because there is not enough money, the parent can choose to go to the school. If they cannot get the plan, then they do not get the money. There are groups in this country, in private schools, who are willing, through churches and others, to put up money to try to address these types of needs. We as a Federal Government are prohibiting them from addressing it and prohibiting those parents from getting the opportunity to meet those needs.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, on Veterans Day 2000 I was privileged to lead a CODEL to the beaches of Normandy. At that time it was very moving to meet with a number of French mayors, be at Omaha Beach and Utah Beach cemeteries, to visit some of their local cemeteries, the people who sacrificed their lives defending the freedom of the French people, trying to liberate Germany. The people at Normandy said they would never forget. But clearly the people in Paris forgot. So did the people in Germany. I know Germany has protected our bases. I know they have helped root out terrorist cells. I know they have allowed movement of troops through their country, which others countries have not. That is a good argument not to move all of our bases from Germany, and that should be factored there. But not after the insulting remarks of some people in the administration towards our President, after the insulting remarks of people in their government about our country, should they use American tax dollars to help rebuild. Nor should Russia. Russia, Syria, Germany, and France gave aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein at a time when American men and women were at risk of losing their lives through sweat and blood. They destroyed the last hope for peace, which was to have a united U.N. go in, encourage Saddam to leave and to turn over the government to people who wanted democracy and freedom in that country and get rid of weapons of mass destruction. But they encouraged him to go on. The blood is on their hands of Americans. Our men and women who are now risking their lives should not also have their tax dollars go to companies from those countries that brought us into this war. Furthermore, many of those countries, particularly Russia and Syria, as well as France and Germany, have given and sold weapons illegally into these countries. Furthermore, at least Russia and Syria, and possibly others, have been giving consulting and helping monitor tracking systems during the war. Now, what I want to know is what am I supposed to say to the people in my district, such as Mr. Harrison Triplett who has two sons in Iraq? He was out the other day with an American flag in one of the main sections of Fort Wayne, asking people to support his son and the troops. So I am supposed to say while his sons are over there risking their lives, that after this is over we are going to use our tax dollars to give the people who provided the weapons, who provided the aid and comfort to the people against him. And what am I supposed to say to Jerry Shultz? He is over there also. He was just on the CBS Morning Show the other week because he proposed to his sweetheart back in Fort Wayne on national TV. She is at a pizza parlor in Albion. She cannot put her ring on until he gets home. But he is being shot at, in part because of France and Germany and Russia and Syria and others who gave aid and comfort to Saddam. They gave weapons to Saddam. He may be getting shot at at this moment by weapons that were developed and provided illegally from these countries. Furthermore, and even more tragically, I have a young corporal from Warsaw, Indiana, who was a track and football star, who was moved, according to his dad, by the events of 9/11. Corporal David Fribley volunteered for the military. He was sent over to Iraq. He was one of the American soldiers who was shot under a white flag. Murdered by Iraqis. We do not know whether those weapons were provided by the French or the Germans or the Russians or the Syrians. We do not know whether this battle would have occurred without that; but what I know is I will not face his parents and say that their tax dollars are going to be used to go to companies that are headquartered in those countries, rather than to American companies, to people who fought with us in the coalition, to the British, to the Spanish, to the Australians, to those who are with us this moment. France, Germany, Russia, Syria, other countries are important in trade. I voted for the trade agreements. I know we need to have trade with these countries. We are not cutting off relations, but not one cent of my tax dollars or the dollars of the parents who have their sons and daughters over there at risk, and we need to pass the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first I think it is important that we review why we are in Colombia. Colombia is in our hemisphere and we cannot let it be overtaken by the narcoterrorists. Violence there in Colombia is primarily because of U.S. and European drug addiction. Violence in the U.S., 20,000 deaths a year, far exceeds the terrorist deaths we have in the United States. Colombia is an important trading partner. Colombia is a model of democracy, the oldest in South America. Colombia is an energy supplier to the U.S., a supply that has been basically blocked by the narcoterrorist attacks. Now, the fundamental question. If we have all of these compelling reasons to be in Colombia, more than probably any other Nation where we have troops at this point, the question comes, why are we cutting it and what are we cutting? The gentleman from Massachusetts, who I consider a friend, we do not agree on this subject, but I know he has been down there as I have many times. We have looked at it. We do not agree on some fundamental facts. He sees the glass half empty, I see it half full. We have been making progress on human rights, we have been making progress on controlling the terrorism, and we need to make more aggressive progress and keep it up. His amendment proposes to cut the funding that provides the intelligence base with which to do the rest of the operations. He did not cut the funding to protect President Uribe, which is critical. The man is under daily attack. They are trying to kill him like they killed his father, like they threatened his family. But we are going to cut the intelligence in this bill to protect Uribe. We say that we want the Colombian units to go out and eradicate the drugs, but we want to cut with this amendment the money that would enable us to identify where the drugs are. We say we want to help the Colombians tackle the problem, but we are cutting with this amendment the military assistance from SOUTHCOM to help train those Colombian units. That is the $34 million he has in particular targeted, the money that goes to SOUTHCOM. Now, General Hill from SOUTHCOM said that the terrorist threat coming from Colombia through the narcoterrorists is greater than the other terrorist threats. What does he mean precisely by that? Did he mean al Qaeda? No, he did not mean al Qaeda. There may be future ties to the money, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, that the greatest funding of the al Qaeda has come from Asian heroin. However, Hamas, the Russian Mafia, and others have started to interconnect with the narcoterrorists. Let us be blunt here. I have spent the last 2 years doing hearings on our north and south border. We have better control over Middle Eastern illegal immigrants right now, with the possible exception of at Detroit and Buffalo, than we do of our south border. We are completely vulnerable right now to terrorist attacks coming from Hispanic attacks, coming from the south, particularly the FARC and Mexican Mafia-type groups who are directed at us. As we are more effective in Colombia, as we cut off this multibillion-dollar industry of selling narcotics to the United States, those groups are going to fight back. As they have developed with our money, with our drug users' in the United States money, as they have developed the shoulder packs with which to attack, as they have had the ability to shoot down our helicopters to go off and take down military forces in Colombia, as they bring that to our soil, we better be focused on Colombia. We better be going after those terrorist groups as well. I strongly oppose this amendment which would cripple our operations. The following is a letter to other Members of Congress sent online today by Chairman Tom Davis and me: April 3, 2003. Dear Colleague: We strongly encourage you to oppose the McGovern Amendment to cut vitally needed assistance to Colombia and the Andean region. In a time of war, withdrawing American aid to help end political instability and conflict in our own hemisphere is shortsighted and against our national interests for several reasons: Colombian Instability Directly Threatens U.S. National Security: Political violence and instability in Colombia threatens the security of the United States as much as the instability in Iraq for which America is now engaged in war. Three Americans have been held hostage in Colombia since January by the FARC, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Other major groups fighting against the democratically elected Government of Colombia have also been designated as terrorist organizations. Public reports recently revealed that Osama bin Laden had visited the tri-border region in South America to meet with terrorists. The supplemental funding is directed to a serious and proven national security threat in America's own hemisphere. Drug Eradication Efforts Are Succeeding: Nearly 20,000 Americans die each year of drug-induced causes--substantially more than the toll terrorism has taken in the United States to date. Last month, official estimates from both the CIA and the United Nations indicated that the coca crop in Colombia had declined substantially for the first time in years--as a direct result of U.S.-funded drug control programs. Our efforts have finally reached a turning point, and it would be foolhardy to cut off the program just as it is beginning to succeed. Domestic Preparedness Funding Is Currently Available: Currently appropriated funding is already available for assistance in first responders and has not yet been obligated. Plan Colombia Aids Human Rights: The State Department's annual Human Rights report this week examined violations of human rights on all sides of the complex conflict in Colombia. American assistance through Plan Colombia addresses human rights issues by providing $230 million in aid to directly improve human rights and administration of justice, preserve the environment, and foster economic development. Further, by bolstering political stability and the acceleration of peace in Colombia American assistance aims to end the root conflicts driving human rights violations. To withdraw aid from Colombia will cause more, not less, violence and more, not less, violations of human rights. We strongly encourage you to oppose the McGovern Amendment. Sincerely, Tom Davis, Chairman. Mark E. Souder, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I stand before you today. Near An Nasiriyah, Iraq, 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. Reports of the incident indicate that a group of Iraqi soldiers approached the Marines under a flag of surrender and proceeded to open fire. It is tragic that Corporal Fribley died. It is outrageous that he was murdered under a white flag. David grew up in Kosciusko County. There he attended Warsaw Community High School, where he lettered 4 years in football and track and field. A former teacher said of David that he could not think of anyone who worked harder, both on the field and the classroom. David continued his track career at Indiana State University. After graduating from college in 2001, David moved to Fort Myers, Florida. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, his father said, played a major role in motivating David to join the Marine Corps. Lance Corporal David Fribley is survived by his parents, Gary and Linda Fribley, who remain residents of Kosciusko County. I ask that my colleagues join me and my fellow residents of the Third District in offering our most sincere condolences to the Fribley family and all who loved David.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, last year, northeast Indiana had one of the highest rates of West Nile virus in the country, a total of 157 probable cases. Not being swampland or having the traditional problems of the South and Southeast, we were taken by surprise. A large percentage of these cases were reported in my hometown of Fort Wayne and in Allen County around it. In fact, I believe nearly two-thirds of the cases in all of the State of Indiana were in my Congressional district. Not only did we have animal deaths, not only is our bird population drastically reduced, but we have human deaths. We had multiple human deaths caused by the West Nile virus in my district. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the counties outside of Chicago as well as my home county represented the bulk of the cases in the entire Midwest and should be the focus on any future studies in the Great Lakes because they were also the two highest counties with the St. Louis virus a number of years ago. The encephalitis virus seems to have replicated itself a number of years later in the same counties. The concern that we have in my home county, because of the human deaths, is that it is impossible to communicate to the rest of the public. As we saw a number of people in the hospitals, very ill, including a reporter and a cameraman who were covering the case and were in miserable condition for a number of weeks, fear spread throughout my district. In my son's high school, they had spray booths outside the games. The football players, the band members, the cheerleaders felt under direct attack. A long-time friend of mine, a State Representative and State Senator Dick Worman, told me his daughter, Terry Lightfoot, who is on the East Allen County School Board, in all his years in the State legislature, he never had as many irate calls to his home, as his daughter did at the school board. As they would cancel a football game, football players would call in and say they would not be able to compete. If they canceled band practice, band parents would call in. If they kept it on, parents would call in and say you are putting my children at risk. It was near chaos in our area. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform, and chairman of its subcommittee with jurisdiction over matters relating to public health, I commend the efforts of my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) for addressing this critical public health dilemma. We held an oversight hearing last fall to try to look at some of the lessons that we learned, and one of those lessons was that we completely missed at the Federal Government what was going to happen in the Great Lakes. They projected it would be the Southeast. So it better be included in future planning by the government to try to address what happens in the Great Lakes areas so more people do not die because the government missed the plan. Furthermore, we learned in that hearing from a gentleman from Lee County, Florida, Fort Myers, a representative of the mosquito supply people, that we may not even have adequate supplies, as a particular spray that is used is not commonly used in other areas now and they are worried about having the supply for mosquito eradication we need to look at. We also need to make sure that we do adequate spraying. Counties like Lee County and others, where they are aggressive, managed to control this in the human populations. There was hesitancy in my hometown by some who tried to block the spraying initially. If we do not do this spraying, we put people at risk. In addition to the animals and the birds and others, we need to make sure that there is adequate research, we need to make sure there is adequate supplies on the market, and we need to make sure there is adequate political will among political officials to take the actions. Because if they do, lives, in fact, are saved, and we have heard from counties around the country where this is true. H.R. 342 is a step in the right direction towards equipping our communities with the tools necessary to prevent and control mosquito- borne diseases. Federal agencies and regulations should empower rather than hinder the ability of States and municipalities to identify and eradicate mosquitoes and the diseases they carry and spread. Aside from the funds to help our communities to establish or maintain an existing mosquito control program, which, by the way, we desperately need help from the Federal Government because this just overwhelmed our local budget in trying to deal with all the spraying in so many different points and school budgets as well. We need to make sure there are research dollars to further our knowledge of mosquito-borne viruses and their behavior. This is of vital interest to every parent, every person threatened. We learned in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that everybody was vulnerable, from the youngest to the oldest. Some of the deaths and some of those most ill were 25 to 45, which the health department said was not likely, that it would be the young and elderly. We had deaths and severely illness in the midlife, well people, like I mentioned the reporter and the photographer from one of the major TV stations, in fact the number one rated. So the consequences of not having an effective mosquito control program can lead to serious public health concerns. During the scope of the hearing that I mentioned earlier, we included such issues as funding levels for research of the virus as well as other issues. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and that of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) as well for his leadership.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, last May, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a hearing on human cloning. The subcommittee was informed that research cloning of humans was unnecessary due to the exciting medical breakthroughs utilizing adult stem cells and other ethical avenues of research. We were told that scientists agree that cloning is dangerous and clones suffer from countless severe genetic disorders. The Department of Justice informed us that it would be impossible to enforce a bill that allowed human cloning for the purpose of research and not reproduction. And we were warned by Dr. Zavos of Kentucky that unless a ban on human cloning was enacted, he and other rogue scientists would soon successfully clone humans. Despite these warnings, researchers seeking to clone humans for research make hollow promises and offer false hope that such research will result in cures for numerous human ailments. The fact is human cloning is never necessary regardless of its intent, and better ethical research alternatives do exist. Nearly every week, for example, new scientific breakthroughs utilizing adult stem cells are announced. Researchers report that they have grown an entire organ from adult stem cells. And just this week, scientists have announced that a type of cell found in blood can be turned into nearly any cell in the body. These findings and others like them suggest that every one of us may carry our own ``repair kit'' that can be used to treat countless medical disorders and genetic diseases by allowing doctors to regrow organs and tissues from our own cells. And unlike destructive human cloning research that remains entirely speculative, adult stem cell therapies are already currently being used to treat a host of medical conditions. There are no guarantees that allowing human cloning for research will produce cures or that cloned embryos will not be misused for other purposes. If we now permit the manufacturing of human embryos for human research, where do we draw the line? Do we only allow cloned embryos to grow for 5 days before they are destroyed in the process of extracting their stem cells? What about removing tissue from 5-week-old embryos? Should we consider harvesting the organs from 5-month-old fetuses? What will those who support destructive research claim is necessary next to advance science? We must finally draw the line and stop the exploitation of all forms of human life. The science is clear. So is the moral issue. In my favorite movie, ``Rudy,'' a great scene has the priest telling Rudy there are two things in life he knows for sure, one is that there is a God, and, secondly, that he is not God. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Weldon-Stupak bill.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following information from National Right-to-Life: Congress is renewing consideration of whether to ban all human cloning, as a number of other major nations have already done. On Wednesday, February 12, the House Judiciary Committee will act on the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534). This bill, which is backed by President Bush, would ban the creation of human embryos by cloning. In the Senate, the same policy is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245). Those who favor cloning human embryos are proposing competing legislation that would allow the mass cloning of human embryos to be killed in research, but attempt to ban implanation of such an embryo in a womb. In the House, we expect that this ``clone and kill'' approach will be advanced by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), who offered such a proposal in 2001. In the Senate, a cloning-embryos-for-research bill has been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 303. In recent days, a number of news outlets have transmitted inaccurate reports about what these competing bills would each allow and forbid--reports that obscure what the argument is really about. These points of confusion are discussed in more detail below. president bush's position President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In remarks on January 22, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28 State of the Union speech, the President said, ``Because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning.'' In a speech on human cloning last year, President Bush warned that unless such legislation is enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be established in the United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/ news/releases/2002/04/print/20020410-4.html) the situation in congress The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at 10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the committee completes its work, the full House could take up the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively rejected (249-178) as substitute amendment, the Greenwood- Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of human embryos for research (roll call no. 302). The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26 cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch- Feinstein bill (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it has considerable additional support, mostly among Senate Democrats. The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch- Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of these diametrically conflicting approaches. The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist (R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday, ``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself with the purpose being destruction, and that would include the so-called research cloning. And remember, research, cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you ought to destroy life. . .'' The key differences between the two bills are discussed below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit have been widely misunderstood. misconceptions and facts Misconception: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak legislation prohibits cloning of human ``cells,'' while the Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of ``cells.'' Reality: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534)-- like their predecessors in the 107th Congress--explicitly allow ``the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'' [Sec. 2 of the bill, at (d) in H.R. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface added for emphasis] Thus, the methods currently used to ``clone'' new skin, for example, or to ``clone'' DNA, are perfectly okay under the Brownback-Landrieu bill. Moreover, any cloning method that would produce stem cells without first producing and killing a human embryo--as some researchers have claimed that they eventually will be able to do--is explicitly permitted by this language. In addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills place no restrictions on research of any kind on human ova (``eggs''). In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch- Feinstein legislation are alike in that they would both permit cloning involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but they differ on one proground issue: The Hatch-Feinstein/Greenwood proposals would allow the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone human embryos, and the Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT to clone human embryos. Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about ``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to clone human embryos. Misconception: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not involve creating human embryos. Fact: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in 2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts. Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/ Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html To cite just one example here, a group of scientists, ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called ``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.'' In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone, genetically virtually identical to the individual that was the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic clone of the donor.'' The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to distinguish between two of the purposes for which human embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and ``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as discussed below), and the process is certainly not ``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which is what the argument is about. MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow research only ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.'' REALITY: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg'' is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23 chromosomes. An ovum has no sex. As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from any species that is activated (whether by sexual fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg'' or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists should enlist. The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term ``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But ``blastocyst'' is simply a technical term for an embryo at an early stage of development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is just another word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no sperm. Every cloned mammal in the world was unfertilized from the one- celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted in a womb, is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still be unfertilized. MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning ``reproductive cloning.'' REALITY: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It will not become law. But that does not bother many of its backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation of human embryos for research. Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology industry lobby and its allies, the policy the Hatch-Feinstein bill or the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is far from a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the substantial majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in May 2002 found that 61% of the American people opposed ``cloning of human embryos for use in medical research'' (34% approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls, substantially higher numbers are opposed when it explained that the human embryos will die in the research. The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction. The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the establishment of human embryo farms. The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be treated differently, given that they both require the creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . . . the Administration could not support any measure that purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/ ThompsontoBrownback.pdf) The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no remedy to apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted here: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/ Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human cloning'' or ``ban the closing of human beings.'' REALITY: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (Not counting time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to procure an abortion. In other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but the survival of human clones, which is a very different thing. Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,'' because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always a member of the species Ovis aries). As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a ``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (If not, what species of being is it?) It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22 statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added] The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a cloned human being is born, she should have the same status as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002, Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human being would even be the correct term for such an individual heretofore unknown in nature.'' As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/), ``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her-- won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/ arecloneshuman.html) MISCONCEPTION: Those who favor cloning for research would never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age. REALITY: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones, there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology industry would support such a limitation in a bill it actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones. For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development, even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB 1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/ document/document020303c.asp) Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so- called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the only two animal studies that have claimed to show ``therapeutic'' results from cloning.