Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman for the colloquy.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I personally find this a very difficult issue. On one hand, I think it should be abundantly clear that gambling is corroding the fundamental moral fabric of our Nation, as hard work is being disconnected from financial success. We see more and more Americans thinking that somewhere it is in the lottery or by manipulation through the stock market or manipulating the bank statements of different companies; that there is an easy way out. The more we see the advertising for the lotteries, the ads for the casinos, it is undermining the moral fabric. We are also seeing families deprived of the income that they need. As adult members of their family blow their savings, thinking they are going to see some pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow, it is hitting their potential to actually care for the health care or the education needs of their children because of the gambling epidemic we have in our country. That said, this is still a complicated issue, because I believe that some seem to argue that the only people who should not be allowed to have gaming are the tribal nations of America; that it is okay for all the politicians to run lotteries; it is okay for them to have the casinos, and not the Indian nations. I think it is indisputable that there have been some financial gains to the Indian nations from this, and it has caused some transformation of the different nations. I have also seen in the State of Indiana where the Potowatomie Indians are being deprived their tribal status because competing gaming interests, as well as those of us who oppose gambling, do not want to see them own a casino. The Miami Indians of Indiana have been deprived tribal status, even though they unanimously voted not to have a casino. Because of the fear that they might do a casino, they cannot get their tribal status recognized because of the opposition to gambling. Plus, those people have a vested interest in the gambling people. That said, we still have a fundamental question that needs to be looked at. Yes, we have had studies. We have studies on child abuse all the time. We have studies on juvenile delinquency all the time. We have studies on drug abuse all the time because conditions change, variables change, and also the different studies change. This government would not be spending hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars in studies, if the criteria for a study was, oh, we researched that before. We research all the time looking for new angles and information. There are a couple of questions that clearly need to be looked at. While, superficially, additional dollars are being brought in to the Indian nations, but net, what is being actually transformed in those communities, and is it reaching the communities? Or, secondarily, are there damages being done that are going to be very difficult to undermine? Are there dependency things, and are we substituting quick financial success for the real things that we need to do: how to develop an infrastructure and an independence for these communities? Secondly, when I was just in New Mexico, we could see every pueblo had been turned into a big casino operation; and the historic structures and things that historically were the way people viewed the Pueblan people were not the way they do them currently. Most of those cars at those casinos were not, there are not enough Indians to fill those casinos. It is also having an impact on the communities around them. We need to be looking at the broader impact, in addition to the Indian nations. I hope we will go ahead with this study. I am not hostile in particular to whether Native Americans should have casinos and the government should be allowed to do this, but I do believe we need to look at the impact on the peoples themselves and whether we have reached the limit, whether it is a corrupting influence on the families there and outside, and what the balances are. I believe the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is important. Where we get the money should not be the fundamental question; it is that we need this information to do a wise job managing funds.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first, I do not want to be appearing to be joining the minority whining session. I certainly have a legitimate complaint in the bill because mine was actually a technical correction. The technical corrections bill is supposed to be mostly grammatical and things that were misunderstood. And the things that are being debated on the floor right now are supposed to come up under separate legislation when we do a higher ed bill. To quote the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) when I was trying to do what was actually a technical correction, she wrote, ``Our understanding was that this technical correction bill would not include any item that was controversial or which would be objected to by a significant number of Members.'' What we have been debating here is a higher ed bill or individual bills. My technical correction is very simple. The Clinton administration, either through deliberate, malicious intent, or incompetence, and I believe incompetence, ruled that students who are receiving a loan who got convicted of a drug offense applied to people 20 years back. A 14-year-old who had committed three offenses could not get a student loan. Our debate was clear. An exchange the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I had made it clear we were talking about students who were convicted while they were getting a college loan. They applied and denied thousands of students because of a laughable interpretation of the law. We have twice passed this technical correction in the House. We tried to put it in this bill, and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) objected because she said it was a substantive change when this was a technical correction. To his credit, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) disagreed, and so did the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the cosponsor of this bill, and we tried to move it through. Finally it looked like we were going to move it through, and then there was a budget objection. As an absurdity of congressional accounting, when we first passed my amendment, we did not get a debit or any balance based on the number of students who would lose the loan. But when we tried to follow the House law and the law as it was passed, then they said we had to get an offset if we let students who were not to be deprived in the first place get those loans back. So we also had a budget objection. Mr. Speaker, I have a legitimate complaint in this technical corrections process, but I am going to vote for this bill because I know the higher ed bill is coming next year. We will deal with loan forgiveness, with which I agree, and other issues when we actually do a higher ed bill. This is to be a technical corrections bill.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, due to a series of visits to national parks in Colorado and New Mexico, I was not in Washington on July 8, 2002 when the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act of 2002 passed the House. If I had been here, I would have voted for the bill. I was a cosponsor of this bill and worked closely with Representative Wu and Representative Baird to help this nationally significant legislation pass through the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, and the full Resources Committee. The Fort Clatsop bill is time-sensitive because the important celebration of the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition is just about to begin. This celebration is not only historically significant for celebrating what the Corps of Discovery accomplished, but also for recognizing its part in creating the spirit of what being an American is all about. The expansion of Fort Clatsop lends credence not only to the importance of the completion of the expedition's journey, but also to the beginning of the growth of a nation. This new trail will enable visitors to the inland campsite to experience, as the expedition did, the walk to the beautiful Oregon coast. The members of the expedition regularly hiked to the salt works, as well as to experience their first views of a whale, that was beached. This proposal also calls for further consideration of the important Washington State side of the Columbia River, where the Lewis and Clark Expedition first explored a wintering site and first saw the Pacific Ocean. Developing these sites for future Americans to appreciate will be an enduring legacy of this Congress.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, recently a scientific study was published that should have ended the ongoing debate regarding human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Researchers reported that they have identified a cell from bone marrow that is capable of transforming itself into most, or even all, of the specialized cells in the body. This finding suggests that every one of us may carry our own ``repair kit'' that can be used to treat countless medical conditions and genetic disorders. The New York Times reports that these ``cells could in principle do everything expected of embryonic stem cells, with two extra advantages.'' They do not form tumors, which are a serious hazard associated with embryonic stem cells, and they could be derived from the patient to be treated. ``Being the patient's own cells, they would be at no risk of immune rejection.'' And the Washington Post notes that this discovery ``heightens the prospect that therapies scientists are trying to create--cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease, hemophilia and many others--can be made entirely with adult cells alleviating moral concerns'' that exist with the research involving embryos and clones. Yet, proponents of these unethical and unproven practices have largely ignored theses adult stem cell breakthroughs. But the facts are simple. Research using embryos and clones requires the creation and destruction of a form of human life. Adult stem cell research does not. In fact, adult stem cells are widely available in every one of us. Research using embryos and clones has yet to produce any clinical applications for human patients. Adult stem cell therapies are currently used to treat a host of medical conditions with new breakthroughs announced on an almost weekly basis. Without a doubt, embryonic stem cell research and cloning are highly speculative and problematic. Both require the destruction of human embryos and the diversion of finite, and much needed, funds and resources away from more promising research avenues, such as adult stem cells. [From the Washington Post, Fri. June 21, 2002] Study Finds Potential in Adult Cells; Discovery Will Likely Fuel Ethical Debate (By Justin Gillis) Researchers have isolated a type of cell from bone marrow that seems capable of transforming itself into most or all of the specialized cells in the body, a dramatic new finding likely to fuel the debate over the ethics of stemcell research. The finding was reported by researchers at the University of Minnesota and published online yesterday by the journal Nature. It heightens the prospect that therapies scientists are trying to create--cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease, hemophilia and many others--can be made entirely with adult cells, alleviating moral concerns over using discarded embryos and fetuses as sources of tissue. There has been conflicting evidence about whether cells found in adults might be as useful as those derived from embryos. But the work by Catherine Verfaillie, known as a fastidious and cautious researcher, was widely acknowledged as the most definitive evidence to date that adult cells may be almost as versatile as embryonic cells. Austin Smith, a prominent researcher in Scotland who has criticized some prior studies using such cells, called the Verfaillie paper ``extraordinary.'' The work is still at an early stage, however, and Verfaillie asked that it not be used as a political weapon to fight simultaneous work on embryonic and fetal cells. ``I think it is going to be important to be in a position to really compare and contrast the cells,'' she said, with the ultimate goal of determining ``which cells are going to work for which therapy.'' As if to underscore that point, Nature simultaneously published work at the National Institutes of Health showing that embryo-derived cells can vastly improve symptoms similar to those associated with Parkinson's disease in mice. That work, led by Ron McKay, is one of the most convincing demonstrations to date that such embryonic cells may be useful in medical care. The cells in McKay's experiments, derived from mouse embryos, took up residence at the right spot in the brains of adult mice and produced dopamine--a critical substance that is in short supply in Parkinson's disease--in exactly the way that would be needed to relieve the symptoms of the ailment. It is far from proof of a cure, but ``it's absolutely definitive evidence that these cells can work in the brain,'' McKay said. The more unexpected finding was that of Verfaillie, director of the University of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute. With the paper, she joined the company of biologists who are overturning the dogma that animal development proceeds in one irreversible direction, from the unspecialized cell formed when sperm and egg fuse to the highly specialized cells of an adult body. Hints of her work had been emerging for two years in papers and scientific conferences, and scientists had been eagerly awaiting it. Many other reports, some of them controversial, already emerged in recent years of various adult cell types being able to perform unexpected feats of transformation. But Verfaillie has discovered what appears to be the most flexible adult-derived cell yet. She calls the cells in question ``multipotent adult progenitor cells.'' She and her colleagues have isolated them from mice, rats and people, though they are only able to do so in 70 percent to 80 percent of the people they test, for unknown reasons. In animal experiments, the cells proved to lack certain characteristics of embryonic stem cells, which are capable of making every tissue in an animal's body. But they shared many other characteristics and proved to be able to transform into cells of the liver, lung, gut, blood, brain and other organs. They have proven particularly amenable to transformation into liver cells. Many of the types of experiments Verfaillie reported, which involved injecting the adult cells into developing mouse embryos, cannot ethically be done in humans. But further animal experimentation may clear the way to use the cells in treating human disease. Several scientists cautioned that this will take years, at best. Verfaillie's results suggest the tantalizing possibility that every adult may carry around the raw material of his or her own repair kit--one that nature is somehow failing to use in many diseases but that scientists might be able to exploit to make new tissues and revivify failing organs. Cells derived from a person's bone marrow would be unlikely to be rejected by the immune system, a potential problem with treatments based on embryonic- or fetal-derived cells. Verfaillie said the cells might even be useful for correcting genetic diseases. They could be taken out of the body, a repaired gene could be inserted, doctors could grow many copies and then the cells would be inserted into a deficient organ such as the liver, along with proper manipulations to get them to turn into functional liver cells. The Verfaillie work ``is a nice research paper,'' said John Gearhart, a biologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and one of the two American scientists known for isolating human embryonic and fetal stem cells. ``I think it's good, solid work. We'll see where it goes.'' Verfaillie's work was particularly welcomed yesterday by opponents of embryonic stem cell research. They have long contended that adult-derived cells offer just as much promise and don't pose the same moral concerns as embryonic cells. The Senate is embroiled in arguments over a related issue. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wants a federal ban on the transfer of nuclei from adult cells into hollowed-out human eggs. The intent of the scientists who want to perform that procedure, a type of cloning, would be to derive healthy replacement cells that are a perfect genetic match for a human patient. But because the procedure would create a microscopic embryo that would be capable, briefly, of turning into a human clone if implanted into a woman's uterus, some groups oppose it, saying destruction of the microscopic embryo would be tantamount to murder.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, scientists stunned the world five years ago when they announced the creation of the world's first clone, a sheep named Dolly. In the short time since, cattle, goats, mice, rabbits and a cat have also been cloned. And efforts are now underway in the United States and elsewhere to create cloned human beings. The President, the public, religious leaders, and many scientists have all expressed their disapproval for efforts to conduct human cloning, for any reason. And the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation last year to prohibit all human cloning. Opposition to human cloning is based upon both ethical and scientific considerations. All clones have been found to suffer from severe abnormalities, premature aging and early death. In addition to these problems, cloning also poses significant health risks to the mother of a clone and to the women from whom the eggs necessary for cloning are harvested. These dangers have not, however, deterred some from attempting to produce cloned humans. Scientists--such as Dr. Panos Zavos, who recently testified before the Criminal Justice Subcommittee which I chair--are pursuing cloning as a means of producing live human offspring while others seek to create cloned human embryos in order to destroy them for scientific research with the hopes that such research may potentially yield treatments or cures. Regardless of the goals of those who are attempting to manufacture human clones, the fact is that cloning, for whatever purpose, creates human life. There is no difference between a cloned human embryo created for procreation or for research purposes. Whether or not the newly created embryo is implanted with the intent of reproduction or destroyed for the purpose of research is irrelevant to the fact that a cloned human embryo has been created. Therefore, a prohibition on cloning that is limited only to preventing the implantation of a cloned embryo as some have suggested in effect legalizes human cloning, and raises additional ethical dilemmas. A ban that permits embryonic clones to be created but forbids them to be implanted in utero legally requires the destruction of human life and criminalizes efforts to preserve and protect such life once created. Under a partial ban that permits the creation of cloned embryos for research, human embryos would be manufactured in numerous laboratories around the country. Once cloned embryos are available, it would be virtually impossible to monitor or control what is done with them. Stockpiles of embryonic human clones could be produced, bought and sold. Implantation of cloned embryos--an easy procedure--could take place out of sight, and not even the most elaborate and intrusive regulations and policing could detect or prevent the initiation of a clonal pregnancy. Scientists agree that once begun, a clonal pregnancy would be virtually impossible to detect or differentiate from a routine pregnancy. And if detected, what could the government do? Would a woman with a clonal pregnancy be forced, or coerced with severe penalties, to abort the child? Allowing human cloning for research brings us further down the slippery slope that devalues the sanctity of human life. Not even a year ago, supporters of embryonic stem cell research-- which requires the destruction of a living human embryo--found ``extremely troubling'' the announcement that embryos were being created in order to conduct stem cell research. There was a consensus among opponents and supporters of embryonic stem cell research that embryos should never be created solely and specifically for research. But now that is exactly what proponents of research cloning are demanding. If we now permit the manufacturing of human embryos for 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 next claim is necessary in the name of research? We must finally draw the line that stops the exploitation of any form of human life. Cloning, regardless of the intent, reduces human life to a commodity that is created and destroyed for convenience. And despite the claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that cloning can, or ever will, cure diseases. Such statements are purely speculative and pursuing cloning merely diverts limited resources away from more promising research that is already producing promising results. It is clear that a ban that applies only to ``reproductive'' cloning is a false ban, which merely creates an illusion that human cloning has been prohibited. The fact is that all cloning is reproductive cloning, and therefore human cloning for any reason should be banned. Dr. Zavos announced his goal of producing a cloned human child by the end of this year. Some of his colleagues claim to already have created cloned pregnancies. Congress must not act as an accomplice to these sinister acts by failing to enact a ban now, before it is too late.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for missing my earlier time slot. We were meeting with President Uribe of Colombia, the President- elect of Colombia, and we were very encouraged with his words on how he plans to address terrorism inside Colombia, narcoterrorism funded by American drug consumption. I am pleased for his initiatives and his intention to increase the Colombian contribution to the military and antidrug efforts in Colombia to address some of the concerns this Congress has had as far as who is involved in their armed forces and to have it more democratically spread through their country and his determination and will to fight the narcoterrorists in Colombia. As I had mentioned yesterday on this floor, our subcommittee on government reform as well as other subcommittees and tomorrow the full committee will be starting to address the Department of Homeland Security. I wanted to raise a few other issues this evening. One in particular has to do with visa clearance, as we have learned, that really the Department of Homeland Security is more aptly called the Department of Border Security for Catastrophic Security. In other words, it has predominantly to deal with the meeters and greeters, those people as they are coming through ports of entry, as they are coming in airports, as they are crossing borders, as they are making decisions to come to the United States, and the primary concern of this department is catastrophic terrorism, not day-to-day terrorism. If you look at it in that sense, that is why the President has chosen to put the agencies that he has inside the Department of Homeland Security. But there are a number of things that we need to look at hard in Congress. In section 403, visa issuance, it says in the proposed legislation that exclusive authority to issue regulations with respect to, administer and enforce the provisions of this act and all other immigration and nationality laws relating to the functions of diplomatic and consular offices of the United States will be given to this department, but it says, through the Secretary of State. One fundamental question is, why are the people who are making the visa decisions at the embassies not considered part of the homeland security since otherwise the people at the Border Patrol, the Customs, the INS and others who are making those decisions at the border are merely reacting to what has been cleared at the embassy? Secretary of State Powell has objected with several comments and I wanted to respond to those. He says that the Secretary of State and the State Department no longer have command over employees at the embassy. Of course not. There are other people who work at our embassies abroad, DEA, for example, and other agencies of the United States Government, the Defense Department, who work through our embassies and are not the direct employees of the Secretary of State. They have different missions. In this case, visa clearance, in my opinion, is a homeland security question predominantly and secondarily a foreign affairs question. And where it is a foreign affairs question in the case of China, the Secretary of State should be weighing in; but where it is a homeland security question, that person ought to be a line person in the Department of Homeland Security. He says there would be conflicting information and guidelines for visa adjudication policy. No, there are currently conflicting things. Both the Justice Department and the State Department input and quite frankly homeland security ought to be the preeminent concern and then other political interests should be a concern. He says the Secretary of State's ability to set foreign policy would be limited, only limited based on terrorism. The next question would be, Would this diminish the role of American ambassadors? No more than having DEA and other Defense Department personnel and other Commerce Department personnel in the embassy. We all recognize the importance of each ambassador being the American voice in those countries. No matter who works in that embassy, no matter who visits as a Member of Congress, our job is to back up the American voice in that country and not to cause cognitive dissonance in those countries. I do not believe it undermines the ambassador, I do not believe it undermines the Secretary of State, but if we are serious that this is at least the Department of Border Security, then we need to make sure that visa clearance comes under the Department of Homeland Security. I also wanted to address a few questions related to Customs and illustrate a few points and challenges we have there. Clearly Customs is patrolling the border. This picture is one that I took along the Canadian border east of Blaine, Washington. This is Cascades National Park coming up on this side, which is further to the east. You can see the Canadian border running along here, a ditch that you could maybe sprain your ankle if you were running fast, but basically it is a completely unprotected border. Furthermore when you go in through the mountains, it is even less protected. As we tighten the borders at the crossings, we have to address the broader questions of how we are going to deal with the border; and if we overtighten at the crossing which will also restrict commerce, not only will we push it to the east in some cases, to the west in others and in the mountains and into the water, we also will have slowed down commerce. So it is important to understand that while the primary mission of the customs department in homeland security will be security, it is also important that they keep the trade moving. We will continue to discuss this in committee and on the floor because it is very important we maintain the balance in Customs and Coast Guard in addition to homeland security for trade and other missions that they have.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, last week the hearings began on the new Department of Homeland Security. Yesterday my Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a hearing titled ``Homeland Security Reorganization: What Impact on Federal Law Enforcement and Drug Interdiction?'' Last week in the Committee on Government Reform, our Subcommittees on Civil Service and on National Security held a joint committee hearing, the first ones on homeland security. I wanted to share a few of the things that we have already learned through these hearings as well as in the media the last few days, because we are starting these and we may be actually moving the markup through committee next week. So we are on a fast track. Many people are reacting, ``Aren't you moving awfully fast?'' The answer is yes. The biggest problem we face in the government whenever you tackle one of these things is bureaucratic inertia combined with congressional committee inertia, and everybody can find many reasons not to go ahead. Unless we put this on a fast track to get it out of committee by the July break and out of the full House and Senate by the August break, the likelihood is that this government reorganization will die just like they have every other year. In fact, the class of 1994 came in committed to all sorts of reforms of government, and anything we did not achieve that first year was very difficult to achieve as the organization and the inertia kind of takes over. So I strongly support moving ahead. But it also means that we need to understand certain basic trade-offs we are making and go into this with our eyes wide open. The witnesses yesterday at our hearing were all nongovernmental, which meant that they had the ability to speak out without any restrictions. They included the former Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Kramek; Mr. Donnie Marshall, the former Director of DEA; Mr. Peter Nunez, former Assistant Secretary for Enforcement of the Treasury Department; Mr. Doug Kruhm, former Assistant Commissioner for the U.S. Border Patrol in INS; Mr. Sam Banks, former Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs; and Dr. Stephen Flynn from the Council on Foreign Relations, who had worked with the Rudman-Hart Commission. Among the things that they pointed out at the hearing, and I thought Dr. Flynn made a terrific point that many in Congress and many in the media simply do not understand, which has led to much of the confusion about why is this agency not in, why is this agency not in, why is it done this way, and that is if you look at this, and this is the way the Rudman-Hart Commission looked at it and clearly was behind the President's thought, is this really deals with catastrophic security. It is our basic function of every department to provide for security, and most of those are homeland security. We cannot have one Cabinet agency have everybody in it. So you look at this as catastrophic. Furthermore, the agencies that have been combined in the Department of Homeland Security are basically the meet-and-greet, in Dr. Flynn's words, basically; in other words, a border agency. So if you called this the Department of Border Catastrophic Security, you would understand why INS is there, why Border Patrol is there, why Customs is there, why the Coast Guard is there, and the logic behind the system that we are about to address. Because if you view it as homeland security, you can have every policeman in, you can have every enforcement division in, you can have every sort of organization in this. FEMA is also in this. It deals with the catastrophic results. So although it is not border, it also deals with catastrophic security. If we broaden this too much, we will not have any agency that makes any sense. But there are some things that possibly should go in it, and there are some things we need to look at. Number one, by putting Customs, Coast Guard, Border Patrol and INS in, we have now multitasked a number of these agencies and changed their primary mission to homeland security away from their previous mission. I would like to insert at this point an article from Newsday newspaper that ran today by Thomas Frank that picks up a couple of the difficulties on multitasking. I wanted to touch on a few of those, and then I have another insertion at the end of my remarks. [From Newsday, June 18, 2002] Getting ``Lost in the Shuffle'', Concerns on Nonterror Duties (By Thomas Frank) Washington.--A group of former top federal officials warned yesterday that President George W. Bush's proposed new Department of Homeland Security could weaken other federal law-enforcement activities, such as drug interdiction. The concerns arise because the new department would take in 22 federal agencies that do every thing from investigating counterfeiting and intercepting drugs to rescuing boaters and providing immigrant benefits. ``A major concern in a reorganization like this is that their nonterrorism duties are going to get lost in the shuffle,'' Peter Nunez, a former assistant treasury secretary for enforcement, told a congressional panel studying the proposed department. Adm. Robert Kramek, a former Coast Guard commandant, said the new department ``will be detrimental'' under the Bush administration's plan to give no additional money to the agencies. ``We're talking about moving blocks around on a playing board without increasing the number of blocks,'' Kramek said. He noted that the proposed homeland security budget of $37.5 billion would be one-tenth of the $379-billion Bush has requested for the Defense Department. With 41,000 employees, the Coast Guard would be the largest agency in the new department, followed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the new Transportation Security Administration, which will employ about 41,000 when it hires security workers at all U.S. commercial airports. Kramek said the Coast Guard is planning next year to scale back functions not related to domestic security, such as drug and migrant interdiction, maritime safety and fisheries enforcement. ``We're going to have to put some money where our intention is to make sure this is done right,'' Kramek said, echoing members of Congress who have called for additional funding for the agencies that would be moved into the new department. White House officials have said more money could be added after Congress adopts an initial 2003 budget for the new department. The hearing yesterday marked the beginning of an intense period of deliberations as Congress tries to create the new department either by the year-end goal set by Bush, or by Sept. 11, as proposed by House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.). The hearing's topic--how the new department would affect federal law enforcement--is one of many questions Congress will debate as it decides what agencies should be included and under what conditions. ``There will be a profound impact on federal law- enforcement agencies unrelated to terrorism,'' said Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), chairman of the House criminal justice subcommittee. Congress must ``determine how best to ensure the continuation and preservation of these missions in the new department,'' he added. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) pressed witnesses on whether a heightened government focus on fighting terrorism would signal a lessened emphasis on anti-drug efforts that might embolden local drug dealers who intimidate neighborhoods. ``We're fighting terror every day,'' Cummings said of his inner-city Baltimore neighborhood. Donnie Marshall, a former Drug Enforcement Administration chief, said authorities need to continue fighting dealers and recognize that terrorists will increasingly look to illegal activities such as drug dealing to finance their operations. One clear example is the Coast Guard. How does the Coast Guard make a trade-off when their primary mission before had been search and rescue? A sailboat tips over. They are now down watching, say, a midlevel warning, we do not have a hard warning, whether we are going to get attacked on a chemical plant on the water, and for practical purposes these warnings could be any water anywhere in the United States. But let us say we have a boat that is watching along the Ontario side north of Detroit. A sailboat tips over in Huron, there is only one boat there, where do they go? Do they go for the possibility that somebody may be drowning, versus protecting from a catastrophic terrorism question? If we do not put adequate resources in this Department, this will be the daily trade-off, because we are going from a mission of 2 percent on catastrophic terrorism of the Coast Guard to it now being their primary concern. What does this mean for drug interdiction, because the primary intercepts in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific, the western side of Mexico have been the Coast Guard, but the boats cannot simultaneously be off California and down off Mexico. Furthermore, what does it mean for fisheries in Alaska? When the salmon circulate through, if you see these 3-mile-long nets and things coming out of Japan or Russians and other groups that are trying to pirate the salmon in the oceans, if we do not have Coast Guard there to protect that, they could capture the salmon, and there will not be any spawning the next year. Clearly if you have a boat out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean protecting the salmon runs and the salmon's circular patterns, that boat is not off of Washington State. So there are many trade-offs, and over the next couple days I would like to talk about those. I include my opening statement from June 17 for the Record. Today's hearing is the first we have held since President Bush announced his proposal to create a new cabinet Department of Homeland Security. In that respect, we will be breaking new ground as we begin to consider how best to implement such an ambitious and important reform proposal prior to considering it in the full Government Reform Committee in the coming weeks. This is not, however, the first time we have considered the important issues of federal law enforcement organization, drug interdiction, border security, or their interrelationship with the increased demands of homeland security. We have held six field hearings on border enforcement along the northern and southern borders of the United States, I have personally visited several other ports of entry, and we have had two Washington hearings on the implications of homeland security requirements on other federal law enforcement activities. This is in addition to our ongoing oversight of America's drug interdiction efforts. Our work as a Subcommittee has made very clear that the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which are among the most prominent agencies in the proposed reorganization, have critical missions unrelated to terrorism which cannot be allowed to wane and must be fully maintained. The House has to carefully consider the interrelationship of these law enforcement missions with the demands of homeland security. The Administration has defined the mission of the proposed new Department solely as one of preventing and responding to acts of terrorism. The concept of ``homeland security'' has to be defined more broadly to include the many other diverse threats to our nation which are handled on a daily basis by these agencies, as well as other law enforcement activities. It is clear that there is simply too much else at stake for our nation to define the issues solely as ones of terrorism. Let me illustrate my point with a brief but very clear example of the risks which could be posed when resources are allocated singlemindedly. This map illustrates the deployment of Coast Guard assets prior to the September 11th attacks. They are balanced and allocated to a number of important missions, such as drug interdiction, illegal migrant interdiction, and fisheries enforcement. I believe it is apparent here that a vigorous forward American presence had been maintained in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific for counterdrug missions and law enforcement. A second map shows how the resources were temporarily (and correctly I should emphasize) deployed after the attacks to respond to the terrorist attacks. It is evident here that the enhancement of immediate homeland security had to come at the price of the customary missions of the Coast Guard. The chart also shows the redeployment of our assets from the front lines to a ``goal-line'' defense centered on the east and west coasts of the United States itself. In the critical transit zone of the Eastern Pacific, for example, the deployment went from four cutters and two aircraft to a lone cutter. This is not a criticism of the tremendous response by the Coast Guard or, by extension, any other agency. Most would agree that the approach taken was wholly appropriate over all the short term, and redeployments have subsequently moved the picture much closer to an equilibrium today. However, I believe that these charts are a clear illustration that an intensive focus on homeland security cannot be maintained over the long run without coming at the expense of other tasks. This lesson is equally applicable to every other mission of every other agency that will potentially be affected by the reorganization plan. However this reform emerges, it is inevitable that there will be a profound impact on federal law enforcement activities unrelated to terrorism, on our nation's drug interdiction and border control efforts, and on operations at several federal departments within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Our challenge as we move through this process will be to determine how best to ensure the continuation and preservation of these missions within the new Department. We also must optimize the organization of other agencies, such as the DEA, the FBI, and law enforcement in the Treasury Department, which share tasks with agencies destined for the new department. And finally, we must consider the many incidental benefits and synergies which will arise from the President's proposal. These include increased operational coordination of narcotics and migrant interdiction efforts among agencies that will now be united, as well as a significantly improved focus on the links between the drug trade and international terrorism.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the permanent repeal of the death tax. The repeal of this particular tax is especially important in ensuring that small and minority-owned businesses as well as family farms are not destroyed due to the inability to pay this archaic tax. A family death is already a difficult burden to bear. The death tax furthers the family's pain by presenting the survivors with the choice of either paying a large death tax or, if unable to secure the funds to pay the tax, selling their family's farm or business. Not only do survivors lose their jobs when forced to sell a family business, but countless employees of the business often find themselves on the streets as well, losing their job, health insurance, and benefits. We cannot continue to watch as children who have worked their entire lives in a family business lose what is rightfully theirs simply because selling their business is the only way they can raise the necessary funds to pay the estate tax. Additionally, numerous surveys of small business owners have indicated that the estate tax is a primary threat to the expansion of their businesses because they spend more money on estate planning than expansions. Lack of business expansions translates to a lack of new jobs being created at that business. Finally, I want to clarify that under the law enacted in 2001, the death tax is to be repealed in 2010 ensuring that all assets transferred from one generation to the next would not be subject to the estate tax, but would instead be subject to the capital gains tax. Appropriately, the families of the decedent would have a choice to either continue the family business or sell it and then pay a capital gains tax. Families should make the decisions regarding the sale of their farms and businesses rather than be forced to sell in order to pay an exorbitant death tax.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, Windsong Pictures, Inc., an independent, nonprofit motion picture company based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is holding its Third Annual International Windsong Film Festival. The Windsong Film Festival, which this year is featuring 25 award- winning independent motion pictures, is unique among film festivals because it specializes not only in showcasing professional independent filmmakers and films, but also in working with students of all ages who are interested in film production. This year the festival will show several motion pictures created by students at Elmhurst High School in Fort Wayne, which is also hosting the festival. College students will also be showing their work. Holding this festival is a tremendous privilege for Elmhurst. It gives the school national attention while giving students there a rare opportunity to explore the world of filmmaking. It reminds us that even with the financial pressures that are bearing on Elmhurst--and many other schools--it is important to keep fine arts education a part of our children's education. This film festival, and the tremendous film program at Elmhurst, is due in no small part to Michael Floyd. Floyd is executive producer of the festival and, perhaps more importantly, the leader of Elmhurst Cinema Productions, the club that allows so many students the opportunity to make their own movies. In addition to showcasing student work, the festival this year includes special screenings of professionally-produced independent movies for students, who after watching the films will be able to talk to the directors and ask them questions about their experiences in creating the films. Also this year, 32 student groups--from elementary age through high school--will receive awards and prizes for their own student productions. You don't have to be in Hollywood to make movies. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to wait until you graduate from high school. I am proud of our students and our community for holding this festival and displaying once again Fort Wayne's thriving arts community.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). We have traveled to Colombia together. We have some agreements and some disagreements. I think it is important that if each one of us got up and extended our remarks, we will not be following House order. It is not from any objection to the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), though I may not agree. I assume that I will stick to my 5 minutes as well; if not voluntarily, then forcibly. I think the first fundamental question here is do we have a compelling national interest. When we look at an issue like this, if we do not have a compelling national interest in Colombia, where would we have a compelling national interest? Clearly, it is in our hemisphere, Colombia; clearly, the drugs on our streets that are resulting in deaths from cocaine and heroin in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in Massachusetts, in Florida, and North Carolina, throughout our Nation, are predominantly coming from Colombia. Clearly we have a threat to the democracy in Colombia. As even the past speaker acknowledged, it is certainly exacerbated by our drugs, and we must accept responsibility. If it were not for our drug habit, quite probably Colombia could handle their problems. Fourth, we clearly have a terrorist threat as the international terrorist groups interconnect and as the drug money provides support for terrorist groups around the world, not only within their country but in international networks. We have a terrorist threat. Clearly we have a trade threat. In fact, if the pipeline in Colombia collapses, Colombia has less ability with which to defend itself, not because they could not have protected their pipeline themselves, but if it is our cocaine and heroine money that threatens their pipeline, clearly that has complicated their ability to protect themselves and we have multiple products that are critical to trade with Colombia, and it has been one of the more stable countries historically in South America, both democratically and economically. Clearly there is a threat and a potential threat to the Panama Canal, where now that we have turned it over to the Panamanians which, remember, was cut out of Colombia, and as we have seen the drug traffickers move into the Darien Peninsula and put many of their facilities in Panama, we have a direct threat to potentially cutting off our trade ability if the drug cartels get more control over Panama. Clearly we have an energy threat. Colombia is either our seventh or eighth largest supplier of oil. Our economy depends on that. We already have instability in the Middle East. We have more compelling reasons to be involved in Colombia than almost anywhere else in the world. Direct on our streets 16,000 deaths minimum last year because of illegal narcotics compared to the other categories of direct threat to the United States. They all pale in this area. So we have a bill before us today that reflects the truth, which we all have acknowledged and we realize was developing, that is, that there was a revolutionary movement that was, you can argue what their predominant roles were, but it was the FARC and other groups there, they were at one time revolutionary. As they progressed and as they funded themselves, they increasingly started to provide narcotics protection. So did the paramilitaries that were initially designed to protect the people from other revolutionary groups to provide protection to individuals and families and businessmen. As they evolved, they started to look for drug money for protection. So we have seen the paramilitary groups, we have seen the FARC and other groups basically move to protection for drug cartels and increasingly as we saw in the DMZ to actually protecting the people who were growing it, distributing it and processing it. So what we are recognizing, increasingly that we just cannot fight narcotics, we have to also be able to fight the terrorist efforts in Colombia if we are going to have an effect on narcotics, if we are going to have an effect on protecting the democracy, if we are going to have an effect on protecting the trade, the Panama Canal, the oil pipelines, and most importantly the people in my neighborhoods who are being attacked by drugs. This amendment, if it passed, would in effect start the repeal of our ability to help protect American citizens from illegal narcotics and our ability to help our friends in Colombia who have stood with us. This is not Vietnam. This is not us going in to fight. This is whether we are going to adequately equip them and train them to fight their own battle, a battle they would not be having in Colombia were it not for our drug habits in the United States. They have some drug usage in Colombia, but Western Europe and the United States are the primary places that have funded these terrorist groups. When they see these different people who are undermining the democracy in terrorizing the communities, they do not say, we are the drug division. We are the terrorist division. They cannot poll each one. We have worked hard with the government in Colombia, and we will continue in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources and the other committees of this Congress, to make sure that they follow human rights, that they follow human rights policies, that we monitor to make sure that they are doing the best they can, that as we work through trying to make sure that these groups follow the human rights and they get vetted units and they make sure that they are fighting both their battle and our battle, if they are successful, it is not just for the people of Colombia, it is for the people of Indiana. It is very important that we continue to support them and acknowledge what is going on on the ground, or we will lose Colombia and this Congress will have sat there and put our kids more at risk and our families at risk if we do not defeat this amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. I object, reluctantly. I think we should stick to the 5- minute rule.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a misstatement of fact.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I believe that some of the statements that have been made in the course of this debate, while well-intentioned, have been bordering on outrageous. I would like to correct some of the record. My particular involvement in this has been as chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources in the Committee on Government Reform, where we have authorizing and oversight authority on the drug issues, which has led me into the border issues whenever we talk about drugs. The reason our subcommittee also has jurisdiction over commerce is it leads us into trade. The reason we have jurisdiction over Justice is it leads us into immigration. We have held 6 hearings since September 11, 3 on the north border, 3 on the south border, in addition to myself visiting many of these water crossings, as well as staff doing additional border crossings. So far, we have held hearings on the Vermont and upstate New York borders, we have held hearings in the Washington State corridor with Seattle, and in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, as well as in San Diego and as well as in Douglas, Arizona, on both borders. I have also been to relatively obscure sights like Fortuna and Portal, North Dakota, where if you wanted to get a judge to clear something, you would have something in the vicinity of probably 120 miles to go with hardly a tree between there and the judge, where some of these counties only have 2 policemen in the whole county, and where our entire security perimeter is the Customs and the Border Patrol or INS agent at that little station. North Dakota ironically has more crossings with Canada than any other State. We are totally dependent on our brave personnel at the border to make judgment decisions. I want to cover a number of things in this, but first let me cover what I believe are some relatively outrageous statements made on the good faith searches. First off, under this bill, they have to follow the Customs guidelines, which explicitly say never use a person's gender, race, color, religion, or ethnic background as a factor in determining any level of suspicion. That is in the report language. In the bill it says ``good faith searches.'' This defines ``good faith searches.'' We have heard a lot of statements on the floor that are not accurate. In fact, when I met the officer, Diana Dean, at Port Angeles, who, because of her and 2 other Customs agents, they were able to intercept what was going to be a millenium bomber in Los Angeles, they themselves went outside of existing regulations in pursuit of the terrorist who had fled, because they had to make a judgment that this person seemed nervous at the border. They decided that the risk was so high that they would risk a lawsuit in order to try to save people's lives in Los Angeles. The thanks that they get is to imply that somehow they are not going to follow the Customs guidelines in gender-specific or race-specific searches because they saved people's lives. We should not have people on the border who are risking their careers or their livelihoods based on their right to protect us, and we need to work out these types of questions. They did not search somebody's mail, but, in fact, they went in hot pursuit, which was something that had they not done, the terrorist would have escaped. Had we not captured that terrorist, we would not have much of the information on al Qaeda networks that are in Montreal and other places. We would not have been able to put together the schemes. Every day on every border every Customs agent has to ask himself or herself, what is their priority; is their priority the safety of the citizens they are hired to protect, whether it be the laws of the United States or, in fact, a terrorist? They have to make a decision, what is the priority. And at every border crossing, north and south, agents have told me that they are concerned about their flexibility and what their guidelines are and that they are inhibited in their ability not to racial profile, but how they are just extra cautious because they believe that without the ability to have good-faith searches and a little more clarity inside the Customs Department to change this. This is not a dramatic change, because, as I said, good faith says they cannot profile on the basis of gender, race, color, religion or ethnic background. Now let me address another point. One of the big problems we have on the north border is that DC Bud and Quebec Gold are coming across from Canada. In the south border it is heroine and cocaine coming in. In the north border it is also precursor chemicals coming in for methamphetamines. What goes back out from American citizens the other way or from illegals or citizens of other countries is the money. If we are going to track the money that goes to terrorists and drug cartels around the world, we have to have the ability to, when there is likely suspicion based on good-faith logical efforts, to be able to search in a timely fashion without hesitance because you are making judgment at the border. You have to establish it is a good-faith effort. You have to be able to track the money. We have lost much of the terrorist networks around the world because we are losing track of the money. And much of that money is coming back from America going out. At the Canadian Parliamentary/U.S. Parliamentary session that we had this past weekend, one of their concerns is that we are slowing at certain borders, and on our side of the border we have slowed down the borders because we are doing so much checking going out. That is because a lot of the problem is not Canadian and it is not Mexican or Central American, it is American citizens who are, in fact, bringing things in and then taking it back out and we have to have some ability to track that money. Furthermore, one of the big concerns for all the communities, whether it be Southern California or Texas or Arizona or in the north States like Michigan and Indiana and Washington State, for example, a pickup that is made in Fort Wayne will have as many as a hundred border crossings put in the pickup because they basically have 40 percent Canadian parts and about 60 percent U.S.; and the same thing on the reverse of the border. When you have that happen, we cannot be random checking every single person that is going through. Clearly we have to have some form of better intelligence and better screening. But we also have to have, because of the biggest busts in United States history, whether it be of drugs on the Vermont border, whether it be at Port Angeles where people save many of thousands of lives because they use their judgment as a customs agent, they have to feel that they are making the best judgment. What one of the people at the Vermont border saw was they thought there was something funny on the bottom of a truck because the bottom of the truck, one of the pieces of equipment did not look right. They decided to check this truck. It was the biggest drug haul they ever got at that border. We depend on the discretion of these brave people on the border to do this. We need to give them some flexibility because they are trying to protect us. They still cannot harass. They still cannot single out based on that. They have to have a logical good-faith suspicion that is there. I have a full statement I would like to put on the record on the need to reauthorize the Customs Service. I am disappointed that we did not address the overtime question. We are using these people in many cases for 60 hours a week. We are running out of the budget. We need to figure out how we will deal with this. It has been a great privilege and honor to meet so many of them. I think they should be upheld and praised and not criticized. 1. need to reauthorize and improve customs service H.R. 3129 comes at an extremely critical time. In the wake of September 11, it is clear that we have to improve security at our nation's borders and ports of entry. Numerous threats face us at the borders: terrorism, narcotics smuggling, alien smuggling, weapons smuggling. The key agency in intercepting these threats is the U.S. Customs Service. Customs has not been reauthorized for many years. While I am personally impressed with the job being done by the men and women at the Customs Service, it is clear that they will need more help. H.R. 3129 addresses many of the problems faced by the Customs Service, and will strengthen it as it meets the new challenges of the 21st century. 2. manifest authority Section 143 of this bill will require all carriers who are entering the U.S., whether on land, by sea, or by air, to provide the Customs Service with advance manifests of their cargo, crew and passengers. This provision is absolutely critical in our ongoing fight against terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other illegal contraband. The Customs Service needs to have this information before a truck, ship or airplane reaches our borders and shores. Advance information allows Customs to determine which shipments and which persons need extra scrutiny, based on the level of risk. Customs can't target the riskiest cargo, crew members and passengers if it doesn't know in advance what and who they supposedly are. Currently, carriers are required to provide some information. The amount of information, however, varies widely depending on where trucks, ships and airplanes are arriving. In enacting this provision, I believe we will help Customs standardize and improve its targeting procedures, thus enhancing our security. 3. enhancements in staffing Our Subcommittee has been conducting a comprehensive study of law enforcement and security at our nation's borders and ports of entry. We have been very impressed with the job being done by Customs employees at land crossings, sea ports and airports. But it is especially clear after September 11 that they need more help, particularly on the Northern border. Section 131 of this bill authorized funds to hire 285 additional Customs inspectors for the Northern border. This is a good start in addressing the severe staffing problems faced at many of our ports of entry. After September 11, Customs went to a heightened state of alert, meaning that Customs inspectors began conducting more inspections and working much longer hours. We have spoken to many Customs inspectors, and nearly all of them are putting in long hours of overtime. This will allow our inspectors to receive fair compensation when a national emergency forces them to put in the kind of hours they had to last fall. 4. improvements in technology Section 102 of this bill provides for additional equipment and technology for Customs inspections on both the Southern and the Northern borders. At each of the ports of entry we have visited, it has been clear that the experience, dedication and judgment of individual inspectors is the most important defense we have against those who would do us harm--like Ahmed Ressam, who was caught trying to smuggle bombs into this country in December 1999 by the alertness of Customs inspectors at Port Angeles, Washington. However, our inspectors can't do their job if they don't have the right tools, and that means technology. Section 102 authorizes funds for additional equipment and technology at our borders and sea ports. This equipment, including VACIS scanning units, cargo container scanners, and other detection devices, allows Customs inspectors to examine far more trucks and cargo containers than they could manually. 5. automated commercial environment (ACE) Section 101 authorizes funds to continue the development of Customs'; ``next generation'' computer system, the ACE system. Customs is currently using computer technology that dates back to the mid-1980's. The program is cumbersome, it frequently breaks down, and it simply isn't adaptable to current trade realities. The ACE system will fix these problems and provide the international trade community with a ``single window'' through which to provide information to all government agencies that regulate and inspect the goods entering the country. 6. immunity for good faith searches Some people have criticized Section 141, which provides immunity from civil damages for U.S. officials conducting searches at our ports of entry. However, this provision is necessary if our Customs inspectors are going to be able to do the job we're asking them to do. We want our inspectors to be vigilant and thorough in protecting us from terrorists, drug smugglers and others who would do us harm. If so, then we need to give them the assurance that, if they are acting in good faith, they can't be hauled into court.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this standard and, of course, somebody can take it to court if they do not think they filed in good faith, but the fact is that the burden of proof at the time of the actual what is going on at the border, the officer has to make a decision in his mind, not in an outside mind, as to whether it was in good faith. They did at Port Angeles which helped save people in Los Angeles. They made a good-faith effort in what they thought was a good- faith effort. But it intimidates a lot of officers who know if they may think it is a good-faith effort, but somebody outside does not, depending on what that group is and how, it is an inhibiting factor. They can be sued or you can have a process if you feel it is not good faith in that officer's eyes and he would have to defend that position. It is a question of where the burden is, and you are implying that the customs officers on the border are not capable or we will have rogue officers. If they are rogue officers, they can be pursued. The question is what does the regular officer do and how is it intimidating in our border safety?

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for his standing in defense of freedom constantly around the world. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I rise in support of this important and time-sensitive legislation. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and one of the Chairs of the Speaker's Task Force on a Drug Free America, I would like to commend the Committee on International Relations for its excellent work on this bill in expediting authorization for counternarcotics assistance to the interim Afghan government. I want to take time in this debate to emphasize the potentially critical nature of the next few months in Afghanistan with respect to drug control. Historically, Afghanistan has been the main worldwide source for elicit opium and heroin production worldwide, accounting for as much as 70 percent of the total worldwide crop. But the historical political instability of the region has long prevented meaningful efforts at control and crop eradication. As John Walters, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, recently commented, now is the first opportunity in recent history to influence the worldwide opium problem by working with our allies to eradicate and disrupt this trade. The bill expressly recognizes that counternarcotics efforts such as poppy eradication and the disruption of heroin production must be a high priority of U.S. assistance to Afghanistan, as well as the importantly, equally vigorous assistance and contributions from the European Union for the same purpose. The vast majority of the opium and heroin produced in Afghanistan has been historically consumed in Europe rather than the United States, so it is critical that our European allies take a leadership role and meaningfully support this effort, as well as have the governments of the United Kingdom and Germany. There can be little doubt, however, that Afghan heroin also threatens the United States and that a meaningful blow to such a large source of worldwide opium will undoubtedly reduce availability around the world. The UNDCP, which has been heavily involved in drug control efforts in Afghanistan, estimated at an interparliamentary drug conference in Tokyo last month that as many as 2,700 metric tons of new opium could be produced in Afghanistan this year if the crop is left unchecked. Enough to fill the annual demand for European markets nearly three times over. Although Chairman Karzai clearly seeks to ban production and control of the narcotics trade, as he assured me personally several times, this simply cannot do it without the assistance provided in this bill. We must decisively take advantage of a potentially historic opportunity to stem the flow of heroin around the world. As our subcommittee; President Bush; Director Walters; and our former colleague and now DEA administrator, Asa Hutchinson, have so vocally recognized, the bill also recognizes the critical link of drug profits to international terrorism. The Taliban received as much as $40 million annually in profits derived from the Afghan opium crop which the United Nations concluded had gone directly to financing of terrorist organizations. In addition to its importance for narcotics control, we must also eliminate Afghan poppy for the simple reason that it otherwise would continue to have the potential to serve as a ready source for a huge flow of illicit drugs to any terrorist or insurgent groups that might be able to take power in Afghanistan in the future. I would also like to take this opportunity to address two important issues raised by this bill with respect to overall U.S. drug control efforts in Afghanistan. First, the bill today contains a provision encouraging the President to appoint an executive branch coordinator for all American assistance to Afghanistan, including counternarcotics assistance. As this provision is nonbinding and relatively narrow in scope, I will not object to it. As chairman of the authorizing committee for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, however, I want to express my view that this provision does not affect the otherwise existing legal authorities and prerogatives of ONDCP with respect to all government narcotics drug control programs. I also expect that any such coordinator appointed for Afghanistan would coordinate counternarcotics assistance through and in consultation with ONDCP and its Office of Supply Reduction. Second, I would like to express on the record my concern with recent media reports that the U.S. Central Command had refused to participate in efforts to eradicate opium poppy in Afghanistan. As I mentioned earlier, opium eradication is key not only to global drug control but also to cutting off sources of economic support to potential military opponents. The military interest in cooperating with this mission should be clear as a matter of both law and policy when it can be accomplished without risking American troops, as the Committee on Armed Services recognized last week in its report for next year's authorization bill. I strongly support the committee's position and will continue to closely monitor the extent and nature of Central Command and the Department of Defense participation in these essential national missions. Mr. Speaker, I emphasize again that we are potentially at a crossroads with respect to worldwide heroin trade. I look forward to discussing the DEA's new global heroin strategy in the near future in our subcommittee and reviewing the overall world situation with respect to Colombia and other source countries. For now, however, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important and potentially historic bill.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4044) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to the State of Maryland for implementation of a program to eradicate nutria and restore marshland damaged by nutria, as amended.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans chairman, has been working on this issue for many years. In fact, in 1998 Congress enacted a law he sponsored that created the Maryland Nutria Control Pilot Project, and let me briefly, for those who are not aware, as I was not, this is a nutria. It is basically a South American, somewhat of an overgrown rat, smaller sized groundhog, but it is a nonnative species that is destroying the environment in certain areas of our country. Since that time, Federal, State and local partners have worked together to develop an effective strategy on how to address the tremendous amount of environmental destruction that is being caused by an increasing population of a semi-aquatic, non-native rodent known as nutria. This partnership has conducted various studies on the rate of wetland destruction, the reproductive capacity of nutria and alternatives to control or eradicate this species from the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, the Fishing Bay Wildlife Management Area and Tudor Farms. The results of the environmental impact studies were shocking. Nutria have no natural predators in Maryland and they have already consumed nearly half of the wetland marshlands at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. The remaining acreage is in serious peril. Unless nutria are stopped, they will continue to destroy wetlands at Blackwater, the other eight wildlife refuges on the Delmarva Peninsula and marshlands throughout the Atlantic Coast. One of the problems we have often in the Fish and Wildlife Service is when the action of humans alter the environment, such as bringing in non-native species, we often have to intervene to bring back the national environment which would be destroyed. H.R. 4044 will authorize Public Law 105-322, and it will implement the next step in the process, which is the eradication of nutria and the restoration of wetlands which are vital to the survival of millions of migratory waterfowl, bald and golden eagles and the neotropical songbirds. In their testimony, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that: ``The Service recognizes the need to continue cooperative efforts to eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake Bay region and will continue its commitment as a key Federal member of the nutria eradication partnership.'' At the full committee markup of this legislation, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) successfully offered an amendment to expand the scope of this measure to address nutria in the State of Louisiana. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, these pesky rodents have damaged or destroyed over 100,000 acres of wetlands in their State. Despite extensive efforts and the consumption of thousands of nutria by American alligators, Louisiana's attempt to control their growing nutria population have proven ineffective. Under the terms of the modified bill, the Secretary of the Interior will undertake steps to control or eradicate nutria in the two States and together with the National Invasive Species Council develop a long- term nutria control and eradication program. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4044 is a carefully crafted bill that will help to solve a serious problem facing Maryland's Eastern Shore and Louisiana's marshlands. Furthermore, it will serve as a model for other States that may face the prospect of having to fight against an invading population of nutria. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 4044. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1925, introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park System. Located near the confluence of the Brazos and Bosque Rivers, the Mammoth Site has become internationally known, as it contains the remains of the largest known herd of Colombian mammoths, warm weather cousins to the wooly mammoth, dying from the same event. To date, 22 mammoths have been found at the site that date back 28,000 years. Mr. Speaker, this bill is supported by the majority and minority of the committee. In addition, the bill is supported by the administration, with the ongoing caveat that the maintenance backlog be addressed first. I would like to add my personal congratulations and interest in this. When I was student body president at Indiana Purdue, Fort Wayne, through the geology club they promoted the nickname ``The Mastedons.'' It was my honor to drive through, over the objection of many, mastedons as the school name, which has stood for over 30 years. They are kind of big cousins to the mammoths. So I am glad to see we are working to preserve this site so that we can have this for future generations to understand better the natural processes that occurred in this country and the creatures that were here before us. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1925, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

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