Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) whose efforts in Cincinnati were an early model for this and who, without his persistence at a time when Congress was not adapting too many new programs, managed to move this bill through and is really the father of this legislation.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2291) to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years, to authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is appropriate and an honor that the first legislation we are to address upon our return is to fund community- based drug prevention programs. Nothing is tearing at the social fabric of our Nation like the abuse of illegal narcotics and alcohol. Madam Speaker, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program Reauthorization Act is one of the cornerstones of our national strategy to reduce the demand for illegal drugs; and its reauthorization has strong bipartisan support, not only here in the House, but also in communities across the Nation. The bill is also a priority for the Bush administration. The Drug- Free Communities Support Program, administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, works to prevent drug use among youth at the community level by providing Federal financial incentives for coalitions to join together at the local level to keep their children from using drugs. This legislation will reauthorize the program for 5 years through fiscal year 2007 and improve the services provided to grantees in several important ways. I would like to thank the primary House sponsors of this bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), as well as the primary Senate sponsors, Senator Grassley and Senator Biden, for their bipartisan and bicameral leadership on this bill. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), for his work on the bill, and particularly for his efforts to ensure that drug-free communities' assistance reaches economically disadvantaged areas. Madam Speaker, prevention and treatment is probably the most challenging area of our Nation's narcotic strategy, largely because it remains so difficult to determine with certainty which strategies and programs work and which do not. The Drug-Free Communities Support Program, however, is one of the few programs which have clearly had a meaningful impact on reducing drug abuse by our youth, and it deserves not only our strong support but also the significant increases in authorized funding which are provided in the bill. The program today assists 307 communities in 49 States, from Ketchikan, Alaska to Kauai, Hawaii; from Old Town, Maine to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and to San Juan, Puerto Rico, all of which raise the majority of their funds from the private sector rather than from government grants. I would like to highlight two coalitions from my district with which I am very familiar: Drug-Free Noble County and the United Way of Allen County, both in northeast Indiana. In Fort Wayne, multiple groups, including faith-based organizations, have joined together to help prevent usage of illegal narcotics. Drug- Free Noble County, under the commendable leadership of Judge Michael Kramer and Barry Humble, won national recognition for the excellence of his PRIDE program, which was supported by Drug-Free Communities Support funds. Rural communities often do not have the resources to adequately address drug prevention issues, and the success of the Drug-Free Noble County program demonstrates how this program helps build meaningful partnerships between local grass roots coalitions and the Federal government in such rural and small town areas. We also know that the Drug-Free Communities Support Program can make a meaningful difference from the results obtained by other coalitions nationwide. In Miami, the percentage of seniors who reported using marijuana dropped from over 22 percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997. In San Antonio, the average age of first illegal drug use among teens increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997. In Nashville, school attendance and test scores rose measurably as a result of the efforts of the Nashville Prevention Partnership. All of these successes support not only the reauthorization of the program, but also increased funding. This bill supports President Bush's request to increase the authorization from $43.5 million to $50.6 million in fiscal year 2002, accompanied by steady increases each year through fiscal year 2007. This program has had steadily increasing interest from communities across the Nation looking for assistance with community anti-drug efforts. Our purpose in increasing the authorized funding in this bill was to ensure that adequate funds would be available for grants to deserving communities. We have also encouraged ONDCP, as well as our oversight committee, to conduct careful evaluation and oversight to ensure that the increased funding does not dilute the recognized quality of drug-free communities support programs or coalitions. The bill also provides for several improvements to the Drug-Free Communities Support Program over the next 5 years, each of which is aimed at improving the quality of services to be offered to grantees and local coalitions. First, we have provided for additional grants to be made available to successful coalitions for the purpose of mentoring prospective new coalitions. The program was always intended as one which would foster grass roots anti-drug activity and interaction, and I believe that this new provision will work to achieve that goal. Also, experience has shown that successful coalitions have already been enlisted to help others in neighboring areas build their own program. It is not fair to ask the taxpayers of those areas to bear the cost for others. I believe that Federal assistance is appropriate. Second, the bill provides for the creation and modest funding to initially support a new Community Antidrug Coalitions Institute to act as a national clearinghouse for technical assistance and training to be provided to local coalitions. Just as with the grants to the coalitions themselves, the institute is eventually intended to be financed entirely by the private sector. Given the significant increase in the prospective number of coalitions, the committee believed that the creation of the institute was a good and prudent step to ensure the continued quality and effectiveness of the work of the drug-free communities participants. I would finally like to highlight a couple of additional issues which were addressed in the subcommittee and full committee and are reflected in the reported bill which is the committee amendment under consideration this afternoon. First, although each of the new entities we are creating to assist grantees is needed and appropriate, it is important to ensure that there is no duplication of effort among the several entities that will now be providing assistance, and the committee amendment directs ONDCP to take steps to prevent such duplication. Second, the subcommittee has reduced the proposed increase in the current 3 percent statuary cap for administrative expenses from 8 percent down to 6 percent. An analysis of this issue is available in the committee's report. We wanted to ensure, however, that the maximum possible amount of funding in fact is to go to community coalitions. I very much appreciate the willingness of the bill's sponsors to work with us on this issue. Third, the committee bill includes an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), which I supported, to ensure that drug-free communities assistance is targeted to economically disadvantaged areas. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for working with us to move this bill quickly to the floor. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of correspondence regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is a worldwide battle. It is not a battle just in the United States. Yesterday five Colombian national police were painfully gassed in police headquarters in large part because of a war caused in Colombia because of American drug consumption. Last week some Members were in Venezuela at the Andean parliament session to discuss antinarcotics efforts in the Andean nations where most of our cocaine and heroin comes from. As they look at creative ways to reduce the amount of poppy and coca that is grown, as they look for ways to reduce the consumption in their area, what we do in America has a direct impact on South America and Central America. Madam Speaker, we went up to Pucalpa and we saw in the Amazonian jungle fires coming up throughout this national park as peasants stripped the woods along the Amazon basin in order to plant more coca for American consumption. While Plan Colombia is important and the Andean Initiative is important, and law enforcement efforts are important and interdiction efforts are important, the fact is, unless we concentrate more aggressively on prevention and treatment in America where the demand begins, we cannot make any other program work. The demand is beginning here, and this bill is the anchor of our Federal prevention efforts in America. This is a desperate battle we cannot afford to lose.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the principal cosponsor.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to again thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for bringing this to the floor in an expeditious way and also the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for their leadership and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his statement. It reminds us again and we are going officially on record that we need to think beyond ourselves and think of others and pay tribute to the millions of Americans who already donate blood and encourage that at this time of need. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 202 expresses the sense of Congress that the President should establish a Summer Emergency Blood Donor Month to encourage eligible donors in the United States to donate blood. Although we just celebrated Labor Day, which is the traditional end of summer, the health care system continues to experience a shortage of blood donors. This resolution expresses the support of Congress to encourage blood donors to help their families and neighbors in times of need and will hopefully serve to increase public awareness of this issue. I thank the principal sponsors of this resolution, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), for their work on this resolution, which I support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res 202) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the establishment of a Summer Emergency Blood Donor Month to encourage eligible donors in the United States to donate blood, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points. One is, this is a very difficult vote for me and many others who are concerned about our fish and wildlife areas. But there was an agreement made in Alaska that set part of this area aside for potential oil and gas drilling, a very small portion. This amendment is an excellent amendment because it limits it even further. How do we balance environment and energy needs in our country? This is another attempt to try to do that. In fact, if you try to undo deals that have already been made, are we going to go to Massachusetts with the Boston Islands national park area and say all of a sudden Logan Airport has to be kicked out after when they created a park area, they agreed with certain things in the restrictions with that park area. I also want to strongly support the gentleman from New Hampshire's earlier amendment that takes the funds into the national parks and other public areas. Some have criticized that amendment as well as nothing but a ruse, as a gimmick. But the fact is in the CARA bill, which I support, we said when we do offshore drilling we are going to take those funds and put them into environmentally-sensitive areas in the States where the drilling occurs. The gentleman from New Hampshire's two amendments, in fact, are perfecting amendments that make this bill better. I cannot imagine why anybody who is pro-environmental would vote against either one.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his willingness to work together. This is a tough issue. Nobody wants to have children or families damaged by any type of chemical eradication or any other sort of method of destroying drugs. It is important that we understand that this is not Agent Orange. This herbicide, the only one that is used in aerial eradication, actually our government uses less than 10 percent of what is used in Colombia. The remaining 90 percent is predominantly used to spray coffee and also for other agricultural products such as soybeans. It is used for weed control in plantations of fruit trees and bananas. It is also used in areas for sugar cane. We do not not drink Colombian coffee, not use the fruit nor the soybeans nor the sugar cane from Colombia because it has been sprayed with these items, nor do the people in Colombia. Furthermore, the narco-people themselves use the same chemical to get rid of the weeds inside the poppy and the coca. We need to look at the best way possible to use this, but it is not that the herbicide is dangerous. Yes, lawsuits can back off companies from offering it, and say that there are potential problems in any chemical. But 90 percent of this is used in Colombia for food products and it is also used by the heroine coca growers themselves. There were also some comments made about alternative developments not being in many parts of Colombia. Alternative development is a very difficult issue. For example, in Bolivia where they do the hand eradication. Mr. Chairman, I have been down in Colombia at least five or six times and down in Peru multiple times and in Bolivia about four or five times. What we see in alternative development and in their eradication, they were able to do the hand eradication which is very expensive, but they were not getting shot at like in Colombia. If you had agricultural extension agents in America who had to carry an Uzi, we probably would not have as many people willing to be an agricultural extension agent. We have to get some semblance of law and order. It would be better if we can do hand eradication. It would be more expensive for us, more expensive for the Colombians, but first we have to have some sense of order on the ground or the people trying to do that manual eradication will be killed. They will be massacred. We have to look for ways to do this. Furthermore, I have met with different people representing all the regions of Colombia and in Peru and have seen projects, particularly in Bolivia and Peru, where alternative development is starting to work. This year's bill has $482 million for social, legal and alternative development projects. We have some in Plan Colombia. The funny thing about last year's bill is it takes a while to build a helicopter. The helicopters are just getting there. The aid is just getting there to Colombia. If we can get the order, hopefully the alternative development and the social development can continue, and then we can look at other ways to deal with eradication if we can get a little bit of order. One last story that I want to share, because it was a very unusual moment for me and several other Members. While we were waiting for Speaker Hastert to come together with the rest of our delegation, we met a young man who had been with the FARC, and he had been collecting the dues from the agricultural growers. We asked him, just offhand, if he had ever killed anybody. He said, ``Yes.'' We said, ``Why?'' He said, ``Because the man was late in his payment.'' We said, ``How did you kill him?'' He said, ``I warned him twice. The man was late on his bill.'' We said, ``But how would you do something like that?'' He said, ``Well, I tried to collect it twice. Then he and his son were eating in town, and I went up behind him with a gun and shot him in the back of the head. But he deserved to die. He hadn't paid his money to us.'' That is the type of battle that we are in in Colombia because of our drug habits in America. We need to work on drug treatment, prevention, but we also need to help these people whose country is being overrun. We need to do it in a way that is safe for children and families. Hopefully, we can work together to do that.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. This amendment has the right heart but the wrong idea. We all support increased efforts to address the world's HIV-AIDS crisis and the chairman of this committee is to be commended for his efforts to fund such programs. But the solution to AIDS is not to reduce the funding to combat illegal drugs on the streets of the United States or to reduce assistance to our allies. This amendment reduces military assistance to many of our allies. Approximately half of this budget is dedicated to Israel and another large percent to Egypt. It is earmarked. That leaves only $177 million for the rest of the world, of which this amendment would strike $22 million, putting pressure both on Israel and Egypt as well as the rest of the countries of the world. I represent a large Macedonian population. The country of Macedonia allowed our troops to be based there. They were drawn into the Balkan wars. A unified government that represented all different parts of Macedonia has come under duress because of their willingness to support America. Now we would turn around with this amendment and reduce aid to them. I particularly rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources to discuss the importance of fully funding the Andean Regional Initiative, to ensure we continue effective efforts to reduce the supply of drugs to the United States. Of our total narcotics control budget, and I believe in a balanced approach, we spend just 17 percent on interdiction and all international aid programs, including our past support of Plan Colombia at $1.3 billion. We spend almost twice as much, 31 percent, on demand- reduction programs as well as other issues. Although I strongly believe we must pursue a national strategy evenly balanced between supply and demand reduction, it is clear that our funding for international programs is not only extremely reasonable in proportion to overall drug control spending, but dollar for dollar has a disproportionate impact on our strategy. Moreover, it is a critical time to our allies in Central and South America. In Colombia, opium growing in the north has continued unchecked and now provides the vast majority of the heroin that is on the streets of America and in our neighborhoods. In south Colombia, we are at the start of an aggressive program to eradicate the primary source of the world's cocaine. It is important for my colleagues to understand that we are still at the start of Plan Colombia. We are likely to falsely hear over and over today that it somehow has not worked. How can the plan have worked when the first helicopters are just arriving at the end of this month and in the next month? Last year's funding is just reaching there now. Yet we already see the coca growers and the poppy growers starting to move to other countries which is why we now have an Andean initiative. The political situation continues to be unstable and politically volatile. The consequences of a lack of resolve on the part of the United States to maintain stability and democracy in Colombia will be monumental. Many of those consequences will be felt almost as harshly on the streets in our hometowns and in our neighborhoods in America. To ensure that our efforts are effective, it is equally critical to support a regional strategy to maintain stability and democracy throughout the Andean region. Almost half of the money requested for the Andean initiative is for countries other than Colombia. Without military aid to help restore order, terrorism and conflict funded by American and European drug habits have exported terrorism and an unbelievable mess in each of these countries. When you look at this, we talk about rebuilding their legal systems, we talk about alternative economic development, but when the judges are being killed, when families and children are being kidnapped, we first need to get order. As we work towards order, then we help to rebuild their countries. These countries need our help to ensure that narco- traffic does not simply spread from Colombia to destabilize and corrupt other nations, especially those who have made a concerted effort to eliminate the drug trade from their countries. We need to battle the AIDS virus but we also need to battle the drug crisis. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Andean regional initiative in the bill is already $55 million below the President's request. At the same time, this bill has already provided $1.39 billion for child survival and disease programs, which has significantly increased. Let us talk about health programs in particular. I want to talk about the public health effects of illegal drugs in the United States. The cocaine and heroin which comes to the United States from the Andean region, and almost all of our cocaine and heroin comes from the Andean region, seriously impact our hospital emergency departments. Heroin visits are rising and cocaine visits are holding steady. In 1999, more than half a million drug-related emergency room visits were reported, over 196,000 related to Andean cocaine and over 84,000 in American hospitals related to Andean heroin. Every year, our Nation spends $12.9 billion to cover the health costs of illegal drugs, which have predominantly come in from the Andean region. I support the bill's generous funding level for international health programs. I believe it is extremely ill-advised to further increase this spending at the expense of a significant portion of our international narcotics control program, which is fundamentally designed to protect the health of American citizens by keeping illegal drugs out of the United States. These programs account for just 5 percent of our overall drug budget. In fact, the $100 million at stake in this amendment is 11 percent of the entire U.S. budget for international narcotics control. We cannot and should not trade the health of American citizens simply to make a political statement. Now, I would like to respond to a number of false allegations that have occurred regarding what is going on in Colombia. Colombia is not Vietnam. It is a longtime democracy. It is one of the oldest democracies in this hemisphere. Vietnam was not. The Colombians themselves are fighting and dying. They are not fighting and dying because of their political problems, they are fighting and dying because of our narcotics addictions in the United States. This is not a civil war, this is a war funded, whether they be the ultra-rightist groups or whether they be the FARC, whether they be the ELN, through narco-protection and narco-dollars. We have caused their conflict. We have moral obligations to help them address their conflicts. They have had the equivalent of 30,000 American police officers killed in the line of combat trying to eradicate drugs that are being grown for our neighborhoods and our streets. It is not like Vietnam. It is a country that was a democracy where now, people have fled because they are kidnapped, because they are terrorized, because of our addictions. We are not engaged in a war in Colombia. We are trying to assist them fight a war that was driven by us. Furthermore, we heard about the peace process in Colombia. President Pastrana, whether we agreed with it or not, and I had some reservations, he gave a demilitarized zone. He bent over backwards to work with the FARC. What he got was slapped in the face. He turned his other cheek. They continued to grow drugs and they expanded their operations, and what he got when he turned his cheek was they slapped him in the face. The failure of the peace process is not with the Colombian government. They have turned their cheek and turned their cheek and turned their cheek. We have also heard that many crops were eradicated that were food crops. That is simply a false allegation on fumigation, and I am sure we are going to debate that further today. Furthermore, there have been smears on the Colombian military. We have worked to improve the human rights division. A number of us on the Republican side have been criticized in the past for being too oriented towards the Colombian National Police which had a great human rights record. With the last administration and with the support of the House, we expanded our aid to the military in return for commitments on human rights. It is not an easy process, as we have tried to educate other countries where we provide military aid around the world in addition to our military when they are overseas and our police forces, so occasionally there are human rights violations. It has not been proven that they have gotten worse, nor is it proven that they have ties to the ultra-rightists in that country and where there are, we ought to rout them out. That is why some of us have been more oriented towards giving the money to the Colombian national police rather than the military. Their elected government in Colombia asked us for help for their military, rather than just the Colombian national police. We responded to an elected government unlike Vietnam, and then we get criticized because some of the funds went to the military. Furthermore, some of the blame in Colombia being placed on the government or on our anti-narcotics efforts is like blaming police officers for the fact that crime has increased. It is like blaming judges and the citizens for the fact that terrorism has increased. What they have is a rampant problem in their country that is indeed threatening democracy, and what we seem to want to do at times is stick our head in the sand and say, well, this does not have anything to do with us. In 1992 to 1994 this House, along with the newly elected President, cut the interdiction budget. What we saw was a supply coming into America soar. We saw the prices on the street drop. We saw the purities come up. To get back to where we were in 1992, we would have to have a 50 percent reduction in drug abuse in America.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it is critical, not because of what is happening in Colombia, but because 67 to 80 percent of all the crime in every Member's district is drug-related. We should not cut back our efforts when we know where the coca is being grown; we know where the heroin poppy is being grown. When it spreads into the oceans and then crosses our borders, from the Canadian border, the Mexican border, the East and West Coast and starts to moving into our streets, it becomes more expensive to find it, it becomes more expensive to treat it, it becomes more expensive to lock people up, than if we can help the Colombians and the Peruvians and the Equadorians and the Bolivians fight the battle in their homelands.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, Colombia is critical to our efforts to keep the devastation of narcotics from American streets but just as importantly to the overall security of our hemisphere. I chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which is the authorizing subcommittee for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the oversight committee for all anti-drug efforts in all branches of our Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I want to clear up as we begin this debate a key point. I have also worked on the Drug-Free Schools Program in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We authorize the Drug-Free Communities Act through our committee. I support efforts to boost drug treatment funding. I have worked in the student loan area with the drug-free student loan amendment. I have worked across the board on treatment, on prevention, on interdiction, on law enforcement, on eradication, and alternative development. But we cannot have a fair debate if we continue to have a distortion of where our expenditures go. Five percent go to international. Thirty- three percent to prevention and treatment. We can argue whether the ratio should be 7, 10 times for prevention treatment as opposed to the 5 percent international, but let us not get this false impression that we are spending more. Not only in Colombia but in all of our international we spend 5 percent according to the Office of Drug Control Policy. Now, my amendment specifically addresses something that we have worked with in cooperation with other committees, the Department of State and the Government of Colombia to ensure that Colombia receives effective aid from the United States and that these programs are administered to ensure maximum support to the Government of Colombia in its extremely difficult and challenging fight against narcotics traffic. This amendment deals with two very specific needs which have been identified by our oversight activities. This reflective of a request which was endorsed by holdover members of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America, several members of the Committee on International Relations, including Chairman Hyde, Chairman Emeritus Gilman, and Subcommittee Chairman Ballenger as well as Chairman Burton of the full Committee on Government Reform. This amendment would provide $27 million to the Colombian National Police for the purchase of two Buffalo transport/supply aircraft, $12 million to the Colombian Navy to purchase six Huey-II patrol helicopters to enhance drug interdiction efforts along the north coast of Colombia and inland rivers, and $5 million to the Colombian Navy for operating fuel for the same purpose. Our oversight activities have strongly suggested that these pieces of equipment are urgently needed to fill important unmet needs in Colombia. The Colombian National Police continues to require airlift capability in support of interdiction and law enforcement activities which is capable of providing significant lift at high altitude where the heroin poppy grows and the ability to land at remote and short- field airstrips. Without this type of equipment, there are parts of the country which are extremely difficult to reach and that are effectively under the control of narcotics traffickers. The House committees who have studied this issue believe that the aircraft which have been recommended by the State Department will not be sufficient for this purpose and that the planes will not be forthcoming without congressional action. Similarly, the Colombian Navy requires assistance and suitable equipment to patrol the north coast of Colombia and inland rivers which are extremely difficult to access and often left to narcotics traffic because of the lack of suitable equipment to enforce the rule of law. Again this particular assistance has not to date been provided by the United States and needs to be supported by congressional action. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I have looked very carefully at this issue and believe that these particular pieces of equipment will make a significant and meaningful contribution to narcotics control. Colombians continue to put their lives on the line every day under extremely volatile circumstances to fight a narcotics problem which is caused, to a great extent, by American demand as well as European demand but, to a great extent, by our demand. We are undertaking a comprehensive approach to address all facets of this problem, including reducing that demand. But it is certainly the least we can do to help with basic equipment needs. I understand that this amendment is subject to a point of order. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman as do the other sponsors of this amendment and with the State Department in these specifics. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill for a number of reasons. I would also like to initially say that I appreciate the strong support for Israel in its present crisis, surrounded by people desiring its destruction. It is very important in these times that we stand with our friends. Also, I have talked with the chairman about the support for Macedonia, another friend of ours in the Balkans crisis, which has now been driven into internal conflict because they stood with us, and it is important as we watch this conflict, and I am sure in Macedonia, that as it develops, if additional funds are needed through this process, that they will be there. But tonight I would like to specifically speak to the appropriations on the Andean initiative. I think it is very important to put some perspective on the cost of the Andean initiative in the overall cost of our narcotics strategy. International programs cost just 5 percent of the national drug control budget. Let me say that again, because I think it is critical to this debate and will be very much confused. International programs cost just 5 percent of our drug control budget. Demand reduction accounts for 33 percent of that budget, over six times the amount we spend on international programs, and domestic law enforcement 51 percent. Reducing the small amount of spending for international programs would clearly have a devastating effect on the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Our international programs have achieved significant success. In Bolivia, coca cultivation has decreased by more than 70 percent due to the commitment of President Banzer, who I wish well as he continues to fight cancer. His fight against the drug lords will forever honor his name. Also, Vice President Quiroga, and the numerous Bolivian soldiers who used American assistance to go into the jungle and uproot almost every coca plant in their country one by one, by hand. American- sponsored development programs are beginning to provide meaningful alternatives to the drug trade to everyday Bolivians. When I visited there with the Speaker a number of times, we went into the coca fields with the people and looked at the alternative development. It has taken us 4 years. This is not easy. In Peru, coca cultivation decreased by more than 70 percent between 1995 and 2000. I also ask my colleagues to consider the critical impact of the Andean Regional Initiative on the overall stability of our allies in Central and South America. As we all know, Colombia is at a precarious and crucial point in its democracy, which is one of the oldest in the Western Hemisphere. Without our help, there is a significant likelihood that it will become an outright narcostate effectively under the control of armed terrorists and narcolords. Likewise, in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and other vulnerable nations, we will provide assistance not only to bolster their fight against narcotics but also to help build democracies. But they have to get control of their narcotics to help build the democracy, the rule of law, and follow human rights. We will also promote alternative economic development programs and provide reasonable levels of assistance for economic development. We must also acknowledge that the Andean initiative presents significant challenges, which will have to be closely monitored and followed every step of the way. It is nearly as fraught with possibility for failure as it is with hope for success, but we have no alternatives.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to praise the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for his ability to work his contributions within the budget context. We would have all preferred to go to $500, but he has taken a stair-step method that enables people who do not take large tax deductions to take the small increments that many small churches were asking us to do. It is appalling that Members have stood on this floor and mocked those who do not have large resources, but who would like to contribute to their local resources. I praise the gentleman for his effort. But I think it is also important to make clear today that in fact we are not looking just to protect religious liberty in this bill; but the way it has been debated on this floor, it would repeal religious liberty that has stood for many years. For example, if we make religious liberty subject to State and local laws, contractual provisions that prohibit a religious organization from maintaining its internal autonomy, which is not true currently, could be used to require religious health services to distribute condoms. If we repeal the religious liberty amendment and make it subservient to State and local laws, it is a slippery slope for other issues such as Medicaid, where it could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. This has huge ramifications in our society, if you make religious liberty subject to State and local laws. Religious liberty. We are in a very difficult area. It is a very uncomfortable area to debate, whether people of faith who have had centuries of positions on difficult issues like homosexuality, or other churches that may or may not, for example, have male nuns or female priests, whether they have to, in order to participate in any government program, lose their religious liberty. It will have a chilling effect not only on what could be done, but we are looking at reach-back provisions here if we start to apply this standard on what we are already doing in the AIDS area, where many churches have reached out over the years and have never been told before that suddenly they have to change their internal structure of their church to be eligible for government money. We are heading down a very slippery slope if we repeal religious liberty in America.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. First, I want to make a comment on the rule itself, which is this debate. The gentleman from Virginia just commented that he was frustrated that the rule does not allow for the ability to offer amendments. I cast a very difficult vote the other day. I do not favor campaign finance reform, but I believe that our leadership had been trying to work out a way for Shays-Meehan to have a straight up-or-down vote. In fact, this is what we need on charitable choice and this is what we need in health care. I believe this rule is fair. Most Members of this House, in effect, both on this side and on the other side, argued for a rule that gave people who are arguing a position the ability to have a vote on their bill, and I believe this bill falls into the same category as campaign finance reform, the Fletcher medical bill, and other bills. When we have these conflicts where there are two clear sides, we ought to have straight up-or-down votes on those bills. Secondly, while the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is technically correct that this bill is different, it actually protects current religious exemptions. It does not change the religious freedom law. What we have done in this country is said that people who want to preserve their religious freedom are not eligible, even if they do not proselytize, even if they are just distributing soup to the hungry or if they are building a home for somebody who is homeless or if they are helping somebody who is dying of AIDS. Even if they do no evangelization, even if they do not pray with that individual, they are not allowed to build the house unless they change their entire religion or basic beliefs. That is what religious freedom is in this country, and that is what this bill is trying to uphold with current procedures as to how we do charitable work in this country so as to not step on religious freedom, and this bill attempts to rectify that.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, let us point out that were this amendment to become law, we would raise the nullification question. I believe this has been decided in United States history. The Supreme Court has clearly decided that, in fact, Federal law preempts State law in matters that are of national concern. I think we need to understand that in the South Carolina example we reject nullification, and that is, in fact, what a number of States are attempting to do with Federal law by circumventing it through largely highly funded efforts by George Soros and his allies who have distorted the record, distorted the approach, and resulted in people preying on people's legitimate concerns in how to deal in these very tough minimal number of cases where, in fact, marinol did not suffice to alleviate the vomiting. That is really what we are debating, a very limited number of cases. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from several of us on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. Congress of the United States, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, May 23, 2001. Hon. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Washington, DC. Dear General Ashcroft: As members of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, we write to commend you on the outstanding performance of the Justice Department in obtaining a decisive Supreme Court ruling in the Oakland Cannabis case. We urge you to now move swiftly to give effect to that ruling throughout the United States with respect to ``medical marijuana'' provisions contrary to the Court's unanimous decision. As you know, the Court's determined that the express congressional determination in the Controlled Substances Act (``CSA'') that marijuana and other Schedule I drugs have ``no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States'' (21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(b)(1)(B)) is clear and controlling law. Accordingly, the CSA's prohibitions against manufacturing, distribution, and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances such as marijuana (21 U.S.C. Sec. 844(a)), are the law of the land across the United States under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. As President Bush recently made clear, ``we emphatically disagree with those who favor drug legalization.'' Yet eight states and the District of Columbia purport to permit the use of marijuana in a way wholly contrary to the explicit reading of the Controlled Substances Act explained by the Supreme Court. The fringe drug legalization movement hopes this will send a message to our children and society that drug use is tolerable. Marijuana use is not tolerable under any circumstances. Accordingly, we are asking you to direct the Department of Justice to immediately seek injunctive relief in federal courts in each of these states similar to the order in California which was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in Oakland Cannabis. Since state ``medical marijuana'' initiatives which purport to allow the manufacture, distribution or individual possession of marijuana contrary to the Controlled Substances Act are clearly unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, we believe that injunctive relief prohibiting such manufacturing, distribution and individual possession is well warranted as a matter of law. This action would also decisively resolve significant uncertainties with respect to marijuana which have greatly hampered federal, state and local law enforcement activities in each of these areas and send a critical anti-drug message to our nation. We appreciate the leadership of President Bush and you in this important area and look forward to continuing to work with you to protect our families from illegal drugs. Sincerely, Mark E. Souder, Chairman. Bob Barr, Member of Congress. Doug Ose, Member of Congress. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Government Reform subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources actually held a hearing on this subject, medical marijuana, Federal drug law, and the Constitution's supremacy clause that is available for people who want to look at the constitutional question. I include for the Record the brief to the United States Supreme Court that resulted in the national unanimous decision that State law does not reign supreme to Federal law, and two articles from Mendocino, where we have actually seen the confrontation of the abuse of the California law. The documents referred to are as follows: [From the Press Democrat, March 7, 2001] Raids Reveal Fake Homes Filled With Marijuana Farms 120 local, state, federal agents target 11 growing operations in humboldt, mendocino counties (By Mike Geniella) UKIAH--About 120 drug agents early Tuesday fanned across the rugged backwoods of Mendocino and Humboldt counties, raiding 11 sophisticated, indoor marijuana growing operations, including some built to look like houses. Authorities said there were no interior walls in the ``fake homes,'' nor did the structures have such things as kitchens or bathrooms. Instead, the buildings contained thousands of marijuana plants flourishing under lights powered by diesel generators. ``Even though they look like houses, these are commercial buildings built specifically for growing marijuana indoors,'' said Gilbert Bruce, special agent in charge of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency's San Francisco office. At each site, agents found high-tech security systems, along with guns and ammunition, said Bruce, who oversaw Tuesday's raids near the communities of Laytonville, Hunt Ranch, Garberville and Redway. Mendocino County Sheriff's Capt. Kevin Broin accompanied drug agents who drove up miles of rugged dirt roads to reach the six pot-growing structures that were camouflaged to look like houses. ``At first glance, they looked like any other rural home,'' Broin said. ``A couple of them were two stories, and even had wrap-around porches.'' But Broin said closer inspection revealed that the structures were never built with the intention of being occupied. ``There was nothing to them on the inside. There were just four walls and a lot of marijuana,'' he said. Bruce said the structures were designed to elude detection by drug teams who often rely on aerial overflights to uncover large-scale marijuana growing operations. ``We've seen places like this before but never so many clustered in one region,'' he said. Armed with federal warrants, teams of local, state and federal agents early Tuesday used two helicopters and a fleet of 4-wheel-drive vehicles to reach the remote pot-growing operations spread across sites in northern Mendocino and southern Humboldt counties. The federal operation was dubbed ``Emerald Triangle'' in recognition of Mendocino, Humboldt and neighboring Trinity County having the dubious distinction of being the biggest marijuana producers in the state. Targeted on Tuesday were at least three separate marijuana- growing sites responsible for ``operating multi-stage marijuana production and distribution facilities in Northern California,'' Bruce said. By mid-day, he said, agents had arrested three men, uprooted more than 14,000 pot plants and seized $206,000 in cash. He said the raids were the culmination of a two-year investigation. He said a federal grand jury ultimately will review results of the investigation and return criminal indictments as necessary. ``We have the outline, but we're still not sure where the investigation will finally lead us,'' he said. In this specific case, Mexican drug cartels are not suspected of being in control, Bruce said. In recent years, local authorities have been plagued by a rash of violent incidents involving armed Mexican nationals hired to guard illicit pot gardens on the North Coast. ``We believe the responsible people are all residents of the U.S.,'' Bruce said. A multiagency task force including representatives of local sheriff's departments, the state Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, CHP, DEA, FBI and Internal Revenue Service has spent two years probing the suspected pot farms that were raided Tuesday. Part of the investigation centers on suspected money laundering and the purchase of large tracts of remote North Coast land by unidentified individuals who subdivided the property with the specific intent of creating commercial indoor marijuana-growing sites. Mendocino County Sheriff Tony Craver and Humboldt County Sheriff Dennis Lewis on Tuesday applauded the federal intervention. ``This is the kind of sophisticated drug operation that we can't properly investigate at the local level,'' Craver said. Lewis said Humboldt authorities are routinely encountering more large-scale indoor marijuana growing operations, although not on the scale announced Tuesday. He said Tuesday's raids uncovered information that led teams to two additional indoor pot-growing sites in southern Humboldt County. Two brothers who live in Redway were among those arrested Tuesday on suspicion of having ties to the pot-growing operations. Shane and Terry Miller had $200,000 in cash in their possession at the time of their arrests Tuesday morning. Another Redway man, Zachary Stone, also was taken into custody at a separate residence. He had $6,000 in cash, Bruce said. So far, the Millers and Stone face charges related to weapons and possession of marijuana for sale. Bruce said further arrests are expected.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor, his enthusiasm for the concept, as he has battled through committee and defended the whole concept, but particularly this in the private sector. I would like to make a couple other comments here at the beginning as well. Those in the gallery and those who have been here to the House floor can see we are surrounded by lawgivers, all whose heads are turned sideways, except for Moses, who looks straight down on the Speaker of the House, or the acting Speaker; and it says ``In God We Trust.'' Clearly, Congress has decided that what is wrong, and the reason in the Constitution they decided what was wrong, was to use government funds to proselytize for sectarian purposes. They did not mean a total separation of church and State. When the wall of separation line was developed, it was developed in Virginia because they were paying even for the pastor's home and the actual church in Virginia, and the Evangelicals objected to funding the Anglicans. That is not what the founding fathers intended. They did not want proselytization, but they did not have a complete separation as long as there was no proselytizing. I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I appreciate his support of this resolution today and working with me and others on tax alternatives. He has been consistent. We have a disagreement on charitable choice and government funding, but we do not oppose private funding. It is wrong for us to cast aspersions on others who disagree with certain parts because we have an honest disagreement about what this country should do and how we should proceed. And we have had several good debates on that. This resolution is not part of that debate. This resolution should be unanimous because those who oppose public funds also speak in favor of private funds, and this encourages more private-sector funding. But if corporate private-sector funding does not go to faith-based and is biased against faith-based organizations as well, where do these resource-poor organizations go? Many of our most effective poverty-fighting organizations are in the country's poorest areas, in the poorest areas of my hometown of Fort Wayne, of Milwaukee, of Chicago, of New York, of Boston, wherever you go, they are people rich but resource poor. They are often struggling to get through that day or that week. They often have volunteers who work many, many hours and into the night. When government employees often leave at 5 o'clock, we see these people volunteering, because many of the problems in our toughest neighborhoods occur between 10 at night and 4 in the morning; not often when government employees are there. Often they work without health benefits or any other kind of benefits. Also, the churches from which they rise often have no financial resources. We are not here talking about the church itself or the ministry. Because I agree, if the money goes straight to the churches and gets incorporated and they become dependent on that, we will wreck the churches of America, like has happened to some degree, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out, around the world. But this is in their outreach ministries. Can they, if they do not proselytize with government funds, can they be included in faith-based organizations? Now, the problem, as President Bush has pointed out and the Capital Research Center and as previous speakers have previously pointed out, many of our top organizations ban funding for faith-based organizations. Number one, General Motors, says that contributions generally are not provided to religious organizations. Number three, the Ford Motor Company, says as a general policy they do not support religious or sectarian programs. Number four, ExxonMobile, says we do not provide funds for political or religious causes. Number six, IBM, does not make corporate donations or grants from corporate philanthropic funds to religious groups. Where are they to turn? If the biggest funders deny them, if the government denies them, if their churches are poor, and yet they are the most effective, where do they turn? In President Bush's Notre Dame commencement speech, and I am proud I graduated from Notre Dame and I am thrilled he gave this speech at Notre Dame, he quoted Knute Rockne, certainly the most famous football coach in American history, next to our fellow congressman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), Knute Rockne said, ``I have found prayers work best when you have big players.'' Big players in this case are the volunteers and also the dollars. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about President Bush's faith-based initiative. He has always said from the beginning that private giving is first and foremost. The amount of private giving in America far exceeds anything that the government will do in these areas. Number one are individual contributions, which are in this bill, which would allow nonitemizers to tax deduct, as well as some other incentives for individual giving and corporate giving; and, number two, is to urge corporate foundations and corporate entities themselves to give private donations. That is where the real dollars will come, and that is where there is the least strings. At a minimum, this Congress should not only pass this resolution today but the tax part of the President's initiative. His second most important part was the so-called compassion fund, because even now faith-based organizations are eligible but they have no idea where the grants are. They have no idea, a lot of times, what the laws are on proselytizing, how to set up 501(c)(3)'s, how to have an isolated fund so they do not get sued and so they do not get intermingled. That compassion fund is a critical part of the President's agenda. All the focus has been on number three, which we have already passed through the House, which is already law in welfare reform, and which is law in other areas, and that is the so-called charitable choice provision. It is important. I strongly support it. The bill that passed out of the committees just before we left for the July 4th break made the differentiations that I believe are needed to follow constitutional law, and I strongly support that. But it is most important for us to remember that the key thing is to get the dollars to where the resources, the people resources are. And that starts first and foremost with individual giving and corporate giving. Once again, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his resolution today, for our House leadership, for the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and others, for doing this. We are a diverse country. We need to protect our diversity. But our multiple faiths in this country will always be the anchor of our diversity. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the commencement speech the President gave at Notre Dame, which I referred to earlier. Remarks By The President In Commencement Address THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Father Malloy. Thank you all for that warm welcome. Chairman McCartan, Father Scully, Dr. Hatch, Notre Dame trustees, members of the class of 2001. (Applause.) It is a high privilege to receive this degree. I'm particularly pleased that it bears the great name of Notre Dame. My brother, Jeb, may be the Catholic in the family--(laughter)--but between us, I'm the only Domer. (Laughter and applause.) I have spoken in this campus once before. It was in 1980, the year my Dad ran for Vice President with Ronald Reagan. I think I really won over the crowd that day. (Laughter). In fact, I'm sure of it, because all six of them walked me to my car. (Laughter.) That was back when Father Hesburgh was president of this university, during a tenure that in many ways defined the reputation and values of Notre Dame. It's a real honor to be with Father Hesburgh, and with Father Joyce. Between them, these two good priests have given nearly a century of service to Notre Dame. I'm told that Father Hesburgh now holds 146 honorary degrees. (Applause.) That's pretty darn impressive. Father, but I'm gaining on you. (Laughter.) As of today, I'm only 140 behind. (Laughter.) Let me congratulate all the members of the class of 2001. (Applause.) You made it, and we're all proud of you on this big day. I also congratulate the parents, who, after these years, are happy, proud--and broke. (Laughter and applause.) I commend this fine faculty, for the years of work and instruction that produced this outstanding class. And I'm pleased to join my fellow honorees, as well. I'm in incredibly distinguished company with authors, executives, educators, church officials and an eminent scientist. We're sharing a memorable day and a great honor, and I congratulate you all. (Applause.) Notre Dame, as a Catholic university, carries forward a great tradition of social teaching. It calls on all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic, to honor family, to protect life in all its stages, to serve and uplift the poor. This university is more than a community of scholars, it is a community of conscience--and an ideal place to report on our nation's commitment to the poor, and how we're keeping it. In 1964, the year I started college, another President from Texas delivered a commencement address talking about this national commitment. In that speech, President Lyndon Johnson issued a challenge. He said, ``This is the time for decision. You are the generation which must decide. Will you decide to leave the future a society where a man is condemned to hopelessness because he was born poor? Or will you join to wipe out poverty in this land? In that speech, Lyndon Johnson advocated a War on Poverty which has noble intentions and enduring success. Poor families got basic health care; disadvantaged children were given a head start in life. Yet, there were also some consequences that no one wanted or intended. The welfare entitlement became an enemy of personal effort and responsibility, turning many recipients into dependents. The War on Poverty also turned too many citizens into bystanders, convinced that compassion had become the work of government alone. In 1996, welfare reform confronted the first of these problems, with a five-year time limit on benefits, and a work requirement to receive them. Instead of a way of life, welfare became an officer of temporary help--not an entitlement, but a transition. Thanks in large part of this change, welfare rolls have been cut in half. Work and self- respect have been returned to many lives. This is a tribute to the Republicans and democrats we agreed on reform, and to the President who signed it: President Bill Clinton. (Applause.) Our nation has confronted welfare dependency. But our work is only half done. Now we must confront the second problem: to revive the spirit of citizenship--to marshal the compassion of our people to meet the continuing needs of our nation. This is a challenge to my administration, and to each one of you. We must meet that challenge--because it is right, and because it is urgent. Welfare as we knew it has ended, but poverty has not. When over 12 million children live below the poverty line, we are not a post-poverty America. Most states are seeing the first wave of welfare recipients who have reached the law's five- year time limit. The easy cases have already left the welfare rolls. The hardest problems remain--people with far fewer skills and greater barriers to work. People with complex human problems, like illiteracy and addiction, abuse and mental illness. We do not yet know what will happen to these men and women, or to their children. But we cannot sit and watch, leaving them to their own struggles and their own fate. There is a great deal at stake. In our attitudes and actions, we are determining the character of our country. When poverty is considered hopeless, America is condemned to permanent social division, becoming a nation of caste and class, divided by fences and gates and guards. Our task is clear, and it's difficult: we must build our country's unity by extending our country's blessings. We make that commitment because we are Americans. Aspiration is the essence of our country. We believe in social mobility, not social Darwinism. We are the country of the second chance, where failure is never final. And that dream has sometimes been deferred. It must never be abandoned. We are committed to compassion for practical reasons. When men and women are lost to themselves, they are also lost to our nation. When millions are hopeless, all of us are diminished by the loss of their gifts. And we're committed to compassion for moral reasons. Jewish prophets and Catholic teaching both speak of God's special concern for the poor. This is perhaps the most radical teaching of faith--that the value of life is not contingent on wealth or strength or skill. That value is a reflection of God's image. Much of today's poverty has more to do with troubled lives than a troubled economy. And often when a life is broken, it can only be restored by another caring, concerned human being. The answer for an abandoned child is not a job requirement--it is the loving presence of a mentor. The answer to addiction is not a demand for self-sufficiency--it is personal support on the hard road to recovery. The hope we seek is found in safe havens for battered women and children, in homeless shelters, in crisis pregnancy centers, in programs that tutor and conduct job training and help young people when they happen to be on parole. All these efforts provide not just a benefit, but attention and kindness, a touch of courtesy, a dose of grace. Mother Teresa said that what the poor often need, even more than shelter and food--though these are desperately needed, as well--is to be wanted. And that sense of belonging is within the power of each of us to provide. Many in this community have shown what compassion can accomplish. Notre Dame's own Lou Nanni is the former director of South Bend's Center for the Homeless--an institution founded by two Notre Dame professors. It provides guests with everything from drug treatment to mental health service, to classes in the Great Books, to preschool for young children. Discipline is tough. Faith is encouraged, not required. Student volunteers are committed and consistent and central to its mission. Lou Nanni describes this mission as ``repairing the fabric'' of society by letting people see the inherent ``worth and dignity and God-given potential'' of every human being. Compassion often works best on a small and human scale. It is generally better when a call for help is local, not long distance. Here at this university, you've heard that call and responded. It is part of what makes Notre Dame a great university. This is my message today: there is no great society which is not a caring society. And any effective war on poverty must deploy what Dorothy Day called ``the weapons of spirit.'' There is only one problem with groups like South Bend's Center for the Homeless--there are not enough of them. It's not sufficient to praise charities and community groups, we must support them. And this is both a public obligation and a personal responsibility. The War on Poverty established a federal commitment to the poor. The welfare reform legislation of 1996 made that commitment more effective. For the task ahead, we must move to the third stage of combating poverty in America. Our society must enlist, equip and empower idealistic Americans in the works of compassion that only they can provide. Government has an important role. It will never be replaced by charities. My administration increases funding for major social welfare and poverty programs by 8 percent. Yet, government must also do more to take the side of charities and community healers, and support their work. We've had enough of the stale debate between big government and indifferent government. Government must be active enough to fund services for the poor--and humble enough to let good people in local communities provide those services. So I have created a White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (Applause.) Through that office we are working to ensure that local community helpers and healers receive more federal dollars, greater private support and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. We have proposed a ``compassion capital fund,'' that will match private giving with federal dollars. (Applause.) We have proposed allowing all taxpayers to deduct their charitable contributions--including non-itemizers. (Applause.) This could encourage almost $15 billion a year in new charitable giving. My attitude is, everyone in America-- whether they are well-off or not--should have the same incentive and reward for giving. And we're in the process of implementing and expanding ``charitable choice''--the principle, already established in federal law, that faith-based organizations should not suffer discrimination when they compete for contracts to provide social services. (Applause.) Government should never fund the teaching of faith, but it should support the good works of the faithful. (Applause.) Some critics of this approach object to the idea of government funding going to any group motivated by faith. But they should take a look around them. Public money already goes to groups like the Center for the Homeless and, on a larger scale, to Catholic Charities. Do the critics really want to cut them off? Medicaid and Medicare money currently goes to religious hospitals. Should this practice be ended? Child care vouchers for low income families are redeemed every day at houses of worship across America. Should this be prevented? Government loans send countless students to religious colleges. Should that be banned? Of course not. (Applause.) America has a long tradition of accommodating and encouraging religious institutions when they pursue public goals. My administration did not create that tradition--but we will expand it to confront some urgent problems. Today, I am adding two initiatives to our agenda, in the areas of housing and drug treatment. Owning a home is a source of dignity for families and stability for communities--and organizations like Habitat for Humanity make that dream possible for many low income Americans. Groups of this type currently receive some funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The budget I submit to Congress next year will propose a three-fold increase in this funding--which will expand homeownership, and the hope and pride that come with it. (Applause.) And nothing is more likely to perpetuate poverty than a life enslaved to drugs. So we've proposed $1.6 billion in new funds to close what I call the treatment gap--the gap between 5 million Americans who need drug treatment, and the 2 million who currently receive it. We will also propose that all these funds--all of them--be opened to equal competition from faith-based and community groups. The federal government should do all these things; but others have responsibilities, as well--including corporate America. Many corporations in America do good work, in good causes. But if we hope to substantially reduce poverty and suffering in our country, corporate America needs to give more--and to give better. (Applause.) Faith-based organizations receive only a tiny percentage of overall corporate giving. Currently, six of the 10 largest corporate givers in America explicitly rule out or restrict donations to faith-based groups, regardless of their effectiveness. The federal government will not discriminate against faith-based organizations, and neither should corporate America. (Applause.) In the same spirit, I hope America's foundations consider ways they may devote more of their money to our nation's neighborhood and their helpers and their healers. I will convene a summit this fall, asking corporate and philanthropic leaders throughout America to join me at the White House to discuss ways they can provide more support to community organizations--both secular and religious. Ultimately, your country is counting on each of you. Knute Rockne once said, ``I have found that prayers work best when you have big players.'' (Laugher and applause.) We can pray for the justice of our country, but you're the big players we need to achieve it. Government can promote compassion, corporations and foundations can fund it, but the citizens-- it's the citizens who provide it. A determined assault on poverty will require both an active government, and active citizens. There is more to citizenship than voting--though I urge you to do it. (Laughter.) There is more to citizenship than paying your taxes--though I'd strongly advise you to pay them. (Laughter.) Citizenship is empty without concern for our fellow citizens, without the ties that bind us to one another and build a common good. If you already realize this and you're acting on it, I thank you. If you haven't thought about it, I leave you with this challenge: serve a neighbor in need. Because a life of service is a life of significance. Because materialism, ultimately, is boring, and consumerism can build a prison of wants. Because a person who is not responsible for others is a person who is truly alone. Because there are few better ways to express our love for America than to care for other Americans. And because the same God who endows us with individual rights also calls us to social obligations. So let me return to Lyndon Johnson's charge. You're the generation that must decide. Will you ratify poverty and division with your apathy--or will you build a common good with your idealism? Will you be the spectator in the renewal of your country--or a citizen? The methods of the past may have been flawed, but the idealism of the past was not an illusion. Your calling is not easy, because you must do the acting and the caring. But there is fulfillment in that sacrifice, which creates hope for the rest of us. Every life you help proves that every life might be helped. The actual proves the possible. And hope is always the beginning of change. Thank you for having me, and God bless. (Applause.)

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, why build a memorial to John Adams along with Abigail and John Quincy? That immediately leads to the question why one, has not one been built before? John Adams was not a dramatic leader like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, or even Ronald Reagan, but John Adams was a man who rose from humble roots in Braintree, Massachusetts to the challenges of his time. He was elected our first Vice President and the second President because he was the leader of the new New England branch of the government. The Virginians loomed large and were brilliant, but they did not stand alone. From the beginning, John Adams prodded the Virginians as well as the others to independence. He had watched the British in Boston. He saw the inevitable before others in the Continental Congress did. The anchor reason for this memorial is John Adams' leadership in creating our Nation, which has been ignored for far too long. But it is also about his wife, Abigail, an extraordinary writer and political advisor. Without Abigail, it is not clear that John Adams would have been, ever been as successful as he was. The Adams, up until the Bush family, were our Nation's only father and son Presidents. John Quincy Adams, like his father, was independent. He was not establishment enough for his Federalist base nor populist enough for the Jeffersonians. Charles Francis Adams, Henry Adams and their wives complete possibly the most extraordinary family in our history. The best argument for this memorial is the extraordinary character of the Adams family, but perhaps not to the New Republic magazine, which, in a recent thoughtful cover story, criticizes John Adams and author David McCullough, partly by arguing that personality, history, and character are overrated. Were John and John Quincy Adams morally superior to the Virginians because they did not own slaves and fought against slavery? Let us see, the answer is yes. Excuses like geography and family background explain some differences, but it does not explain why some people rise above such circumstances, nor does it mean that one position is not morally superior. It took moral courage for John Quincy Adams, to make his stands, featured in the movie Armistead, courage anchored in his belief in Jesus Christ. The recent New Republic cover story can mock character, but a primary part of memorialization is to encourage future generations to emulate the virtuous character traits exemplified by our past leaders. Should we build memorials to individuals? History is not just a deterministic march like historian Richard Hofstadter and others suggest. The importance of regular people should not be underestimated. I am reading the Great Platte River Road wrote by Merrill Mattes right now which is based upon the fascinating journals of average people heading West, but, in fact, there are different makers in history. People living next door to each other, with similar opportunities and backgrounds, do respond differently to challengers. Some people rise to challenges, others shrink. If one views memorials in Washington as tributes to a sort of Greek or Roman gods, you will be deeply disappointed upon further investigation. They are merely men with all sorts of flaws. Each of the Adams would certainly acknowledge their moral shortcomings, but that does not mean that they were not extraordinary Americans worth honoring. Even Jefferson with his serious moral failings, was a brilliant writer, Western visionary, and architect, among his other attributes. Another New Republic criticism in their review of McCullough's book was that writers like McCullough promote books that millions of people like to read. This sort of elitism is often prevalent in publications read only by a small group of people who desire to seem more important than the unwashed masses. The ultimate irony is that the review concludes by saying that Adams was an elitist. Well, I guess it takes one to know one. Ultimately, the reviewer maintains that Adams' writings were out of step with his time and certainly out of step with the ideas held today. The reviewer makes some interesting points about ideological framework, some of his views were outdated, but Jefferson was a slave owner and certainly showed none of the gender equity traits of both John Adams and John Quincy Adams. So is Jefferson to be ignored as well? John Adams was an eclectic visionary and a prolific writer. He is important like Jefferson and Franklin because of his actions and leadership on the ideas which have stood the test of time, not because of a few ideas that did not. Furthermore, I would argue that John Adams' framework grounded in English law, like the writings of John Dickinson in letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer kept Jefferson and others from drifting into the disasters of the French revolution. Most forget how wrongheaded Jefferson was about the French and how close our radicals came to sending us down that path. David McCullough with his tremendous book on John Adams, number one on the New York Times best-seller list, has reached multitudes of Americans with the story of John Adams. Hurrah to him for being a popularizer to help pave the way for this memorial. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who holds the Adams seat in Congress, for their leadership in bringing this memorial forward. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, for moving this bill forward expeditiously, so that we can honor John Adams and his family over this 4th of July and that the future generations can learn from the character, valor and wisdom of John, Abigail, and John Quincy from a memorial, hopefully, near the Jefferson Memorial. In one of the most extraordinary events in American history, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, died on the same day. And that day was July 4, on the 50th anniversary of our nation's founding. In 1959 Lester Cappon edited a two-volume edition of correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Like many others in our country, reading the exchanges of intellectual leaders of the founding of our Republic, helped spark my lifelong interest in history. McCullough's book is a great place to start any study of John Adams. He makes his life vibrant--you feel like you know him well when you are done. But there is a substantial body of literature on the Adams, if you desire further reading. I own a large office of collection of Adams' books. The Book of Abigail and John edited by L.H. Butterfield features selected letters between husband and wife, probably unmatched in American history. Adams: An American Dynasty by Francis Russell and Descent from Glory by Paul Nagel are studies of the Adams generations. Passionate Sage by Joseph Ellis was just re-issued in paperback, and is an outstanding read whatever problems Professor Ellis is currently having. I purchased the Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw in 1976, 25 years ago. It had a profound impact upon me, and made me an Adams admirer ever since. Paul Nagel's biography of John Quincy Adams is probably the best book for further study of his amazing life.