Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here tonight to support my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), who has introduced this important resolution and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), champions of human rights around the world. It is frustrating that we even have to debate a resolution like this, as to whether a free country, where they have just proven the ultimate test to democracy, and that is can a long-time power like in Taiwan and like in Mexico, where parties were in power for so many years we wondered whether it was a real democracy. But in fact, they made it a peaceful transition. The economy has not really changed. The basic institutions in the society are sound like they are in America. And Taiwan is a model of what we should be looking at. If we look at them, they have been successful in high tech. They are one of our major trading partners, important in Indiana, and important in the Midwest and important to all the United States of America. The second largest trading partner with Japan, in fact, a major investor in trade with mainland China. When we look at it, economically they are what we wanted. Politically they have undergone a transformation of power successfully without violence; that is what we ask of the world. They have religious freedom in their country with diverse religions, without warring, much of what we do not see from other member states of the United Nations. They supported financially different foreign aid projects such as in Kosovo, even though they are not allowed to be in the United Nations, and we look at it and say what exactly do we want out of a country, what can we demand of these people that they are not delivering? Why in the world would an organization like the United Nations often full of states that are actually controlled by another state, states that are in constant disarray, where democracy is not practiced, where human rights are not practiced, and yet we let them in the United Nations and we will not let Taiwan. What is it that is so intimidating us and other nations of the world. What is it that is so intimidating us and other nations of the world? Well, we have undergone a transformation in our relationships with the People's Republic of China. It is clear, as the world's largest nation, that we are going to continue to have some sort of a relationship that we need to work through with this giant nation. But that does not give them the right to push around and deny the rights to others such as Taiwan. I stand here tonight in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to reorganize James G. Mills of Fort Wayne, Indiana in my district for his recent election as chairman of the board for the National Association of Federal Credit Unions. Mr. Mills was elected on June 17, 2000 and officially took over in late July. In 1985, Mr. Mills joined Three Rivers Federal Credit Union as president and chief executive officer. Three Rivers provides important options for my constituents and as such has been an asset to Northeast Indiana. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of branches increased from one to eight with the umber of membership soared from 15,000 to 65,000 plus. Along the way, Mr. Mills worked to promote the growth of the community as well as the Credit Union. In 1995, Three Rivers FCU was able to secure Indiana's first Community Development Credit Union Expansion Charter to open the filed of membership and provide financial services to less served parts of the community. This innovation was the result of his near two-years of work with local city officials, the economic development offices of Fort Wayne, and the National Credit Union Administration. Most recently, Mr. Mills facilitate an initiative in the areas of inner city financial literacy training for an under- served group that also happens to be a new part of the FCU's field of membership. I strongly commend him for his efforts to empower those who are less economically advantaged through knowledge and the hroadening of financial services. In the role of Chairman of NAFCU, Mr. Mills will be lending the trade association that represent federal credit unions. I look forward to working with him and America's credit unions as we work to benefit families and communities, and congratulate him on this national recognition.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to oppose the Interior appropriations bill that is likely to come upon us, at least in the form that we have been hearing about. It is pumping millions of dollars into the appropriations process but guts CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, that three-quarters of this House voted to support. CARA has a trust fund. When we talk about the Medicare and Social Security trust funds being restored, we also have an obligation to put the money into other trust funds before we engage in disbursing it into various appropriations accounts. We have a number of smaller trust funds but they are nonetheless trust funds where we take fees from people and tell them they are going to be used for an intended purpose and then divert it, here in the case of many people who hunt or fish or pay different fees and have had their fund diverted into the general budget. Secondly, by gutting CARA, this will hurt our efforts to increase oil drilling and compensate for that oil drilling through additional environmental resources in the States where the drilling is done. This was a delicately crafted compromise. Alaska, California, and Louisiana are States that are going to be most directly affected by the oil drilling. I may not represent one of those States, but I represent a State right now where we desperately need more oil and gas so we can keep our energy prices down for home heating oil in the winter and for also the fact that in our district we make pickups, we make RVs, we make boats, we make lots of things that we sell to the rest of America that use gas. It is only fair if we drill for additional gas in these States and work out an agreement that funds for other environmentally-sensitive projects in those States are spent in those States. Thirdly, CARA is one of the only ways that States like Indiana can get any Federal funds for wildlife and conservation efforts. We do not have national parks like in the West. In my district, Pokagon and Chain O'Lakes State Parks have received funds from this reservoir that in the past previously had been funded by this Congress but as of late has received minimal funding, Dallas Lake County Park in LaGrange County, and city parks in Decatur and Columbia City. CARA is one of the only ways that funds get equitably distributed around the country rather than just go to the appropriators' favorite projects or people where they already have big national parks. The proposed Interior bill has many important projects in it, but it has the purpose and the practical impact of gutting CARA, a bill that three-quarters of us supported. So those who favor CARA, which is most of this body, would be wise to vote against this bill for environmental reasons; but as I pointed out last Thursday on this floor, those who have moral concerns should also vote against this bill. First off, while they have not directly funded these programs, NEA in the last few years, National Endowment for the Arts, has funded in- your-face theater programs like, for example, the Woolly Mammoth Theatre. The Woolly Mammoth Theatre in its description of its purposes says it produces plays that are questioning of mainstream American values, such as ``My Queer Body,'' where a man describes what it is like on stage to have sex with another man, then climbs naked into the lap of a spectator and attempts to arouse himself sexually in full view of the audience. They received a grant this year, by the way, Woolly Mammoth, yet another grant. Or how about blaspheming Jesus Christ? We did not fund ``Corpus Christi,'' but we fund the Manhattan Theatre prior to this being done. We funded it with two grants this year, where Jesus Christ is portrayed as having a homosexual relationship with the apostle Peter and all the apostles. We complain about Hollywood, then what are we doing funding these theaters? Thirdly, there is ``The Pope and the Witch,'' written by an Italian Communist against the Catholic Church there where the Pope, and it is performed by the Theatre for the New City which once again received a grant this year in spite of doing this offensive play where the Pope goes to the Vatican Square, there are 100,000 children, he decides it is a plot by the condo manufacturers to embarrass the Catholic Church. Fortunately, a little nun, or actually not a nun, it is a witch disguised as a nun, comes up and injects heroin into the Pope's veins. The Pope then gets addicted to drugs, to heroin. Then he sees the enlightenment, to enlighten the world by going around preaching free condom distribution, free heroin needles for drug addicts and free legalization of drugs throughout the world. Is this what we want to do with taxpayer dollars, to fund theaters that perform this? By the way, there is another interesting little play in this book called ``The First Miracle of the Boy Jesus,'' a mockery of Christ from the very beginning. I think it is time that this Congress stop pointing the finger everywhere else, and instead we have to clean up the funding that we are doing here. We asked for a simple compromise with the Senate and with the President that says no obscenity or blasphemy will be funded; that there will be a small reduction in the direct NEA funding and we would put the additional funds, up to $9 million, $7 million and if we take $2 million additional out of NEA, $9 million into a special fund for rural areas where we have not had this. I understand they can get around that, but it is like a Good Housekeeping seal. If the National Endowment for the Arts says a theater that does ``The Pope and the Witch'' is deserving of government funding, it is a Good Housekeeping seal from the Federal Government. It is time we stop that, stop criticizing Hollywood and clean up our own house first.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, some of what I have to say here this afternoon is not going to be very comfortable to hear, and it is, quite frankly, pretty uncomfortable for me to come forth and to talk about this directly. The poster my colleagues see beside me, and I will refer to this a number of times, is about a play called ``Corpus Christi.'' This is representing Jesus Christ. This is the Apostle Peter, his supposed homosexual lover. This play depicts all the Apostles as the homosexual lovers of Christ. The reason that this is of concern to me is not because the Government directly funded it, because we did not, but because through the National Endowment for the Arts we funded this theater before the play and we have continued to fund this theater after they insulted those of us who believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. They continued to insult us by funding this theater that did this play, among others. I want to put this in a little bit of context. We are having a tough debate right now over the Interior appropriations bill. I strongly support most of the money in the Interior appropriations bill and have been an advocate for it. Furthermore, I want to make it clear, as I have before on this floor, that I am not a libertarian who favors eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts unless it cannot restrict itself to really funding true art. I believe there is an important role for arts in society. In fact, I came on this floor after having led a fight in my first term to try to first eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and then to freeze the funds. I came to this floor to say that I believe that Bill Ivey has made some progress at the National Endowment for the Arts in eliminating some of the types of performance art and in trying to direct the arts to different parts of the country. I also said in my statement, which I will ask unanimous consent to reinsert at this point, why I believed it is important to fund the arts and why I believe that some of the charges that some of the conservatives were making against the National Endowment for the Arts had not been researched. In fact, I went into detail on this particular play showing how the National Endowment for the Arts did not know for sure what Terrance McNally was going to produce when they funded this theater. But I did not know at the time because the National Endowment did not provide me with the information, and since then the American Family Association has, that we were continuing to fund the theater after they insulted us, after they in effect told the American people to go stick it in your ear, then we continued to fund them. That is not progress; that is a step backwards. We are not going to buy this wink and a blink where we say, ``okay, we are not going to fund the play directly. We will just fund the theater.'' Then we will fund the theater again. Most of these theaters are small theaters. The money moves between the plays. It is a tad too cute to convince me or anyone else that we are not funding the play directly when we are funding the stage, when we are funding the repertory company, when we are funding in effect indirectly their advertising and their overhead. Of course they are funding the play. And to have the gall to try to imply otherwise to me and for me then to come down to this floor to defend the National Endowment for the Arts when in fact they were continuing to fund the very things that I was trying to say they had tried to clean up, I feel deceived and duped on top of trying to help them work it out. Even that said, the conservatives in this House went to our leadership and went to our appropriators, and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has stayed firm and our leadership has stayed firm with the House position to keep it at a freeze. But since the other body wants to increase the funds, we came forth with a compromise that any new funding would go to a separate fund targeted towards smaller and rural areas where there clearly is a shortage of arts dollars in America, where they do not have the resources to do the arts and put the new funding there and also ask that, in the regular NEA, that there either be a restriction that funds could not be given to these individual theaters, which we have learned we cannot do in the limitation of funds, or that there be additional reduction in the NEA direct funding from $98 million down to $96 million and that $2 million be put over into the reserve fund. We have bent over backwards to try to come up with a compromise on this, even though many of us are so offended by the gratuitous type of art. We have said we will stand aside knowing that the majority of this body and the Senate want to increase the funds; but there has to be some kind of restriction, including the one other thing we asked for, that obscene and pornographic theater could not be funded. The truth is we know that by banning obscene and pornographic funding that is just language, because the truth is NEA could declare that it is not obscene or not pornographic. But it is important symbolism here of what we in Congress intend the arts to be. We do not intend it to insult the majority of the American people gratuitously with our tax dollars. This is not about freedom of speech. It is not about freedom of art. Pretty much you can do whatever you want in America. And if it is in the name of art, you do not even fall under a lot of the restrictions we have on other forms of entertainment. So this is not about what you can do with your money. This is about what you can do with my money and the taxpayers of Indiana and the taxpayers of America's money. There is a difference between private art that you do and then asking everybody else to fund your art. And part of what should be funded should be what is good, what is pure, what is beautiful, what we want to preserve in America, things that uplift not that tear down or insult other parts. That is not what should be publically funded. It should be more consensus art. Obviously, there needs to be art that expresses dissent in society. And sometimes dissent eventually becomes the majority position. But it is not the job of the majority to fund with their tax dollars things that offend their fundamental beliefs in society. I want to make a couple other points on this. A book that made a big impression on me as I was growing up was ``The Christian, the Arts, and Truth'' by Frank Gaebelein, the founder of the Stonybrook School on Long Island. I read this book many years ago because many times evangelicals have not been appreciative enough of the arts. The Catholic Church has. The Jewish faith has. But the evangelicals sometimes separated themselves. And we need to be more involved. As Gaebelein said in his book, though, ``What is the function, the underlying purpose of art? What is it for? How many answers there are. Art exists to give pleasure, to edify, to represent or depict, to fulfill the artist's urge for making things, to tell us about life.'' He says, ``This is another way of stating the criterion of durability. Art that is deeply true does not succumb to time. It stands up to the passage of the centuries.'' The art we fund with public dollars should meet that standard. Furthermore, another book that made a big impression on me was ``How Should We Then Live,'' by Francis Schaeffer, a book on the arts and how Christians should look at the arts. And he shows how through the Reformation and through many things much of the great art and the great music in the world was created by Christians because they appreciated what was good and true and pure and things that came from our creator. A new book, ``Roaring Lambs,'' for which I and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and a number of others sponsored a musical celebration here on the Hill with a number of artists, talks specifically about the problem of Christians dealing with art. And interestingly, in this book it says that we need to have a more positive role, which I absolutely agree with, and figure out how to promote the arts because it makes our lives so much richer, it criticizes some of those, who criticize the National Endowment for the Arts for being too negative. Now, the dilemma I face here today is I have bent over backwards, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) who is the head of the Conservative Action Team, and the members of the Conservative Action Team, have bent over backwards to try to come up with a compromise saying we are not trying to stifle the arts, we are trying to stifle certain things that are extremely offensive to the overwhelming majority of the people and cannot stand the light of day. So let me give my colleagues some more examples of what I am talking about. The Manhattan Theater Club did ``Corpus Christi.'' I already referred to that. And this year they got two more grants, not one but two grants. Women Make Movies, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) will be following me and talking about education through his subcommittee on education, showed that they got $100,000 over a 3-year period for pornographic films such as ``Sex Fish,'' ``Watermelon Woman,'' and ``Blood Sisters.'' They depict explicit lesbian pornography and oral sex. They got two grants last year after they told us this was going to be cleaned up. The Woolly Mammoth Theater Company, which staged the ``My Queer Body'' play, where the performer describes on stage what it is like to have sex with another man, climbs naked into the lap of a spectator and attempts to arouse himself sexually in full view of the audience. So what did we do in the National Endowment for the Arts? We funded it this year. After they in effect funded that play, we said, oh, well, we will fund that theater. They do great art. Now, I cannot stand here and say they funded that play because they did not. It is too cute. They gave money to the theater after they did it. My criterion is that sometimes we do not know what a theater is going to do in advance, but if they do things that offend the overwhelming majority of the American people, they should have their money taken away or not given to them the next year. But that is not the position of the NEA. They went right back. And this is an NEA that is claiming they are cleaning it up. At the Whitny Museum of American Art, where they had previously done this famous so-called ``Piss Christ'' where the crucifix was in a jar of urine and they had another porn film on ``Sluts and Goddesses Video Workshop and How to be a Sex God in 100 Easy Steps,'' now they have a marquee for a crucifix, a naked Jesus Christ surrounded by sadomasochistic obscene imagery and many grotesque portrayals of corpses and body parts. They got $40,000 this year. The Walker Arts Center had an AIDS artist that pierced his body with needles, cut designs into the back of another man. He then blotted the man's blood with paper towels and set the towels over the audience on a clothes line. This theater really needs our funding. I am glad my tax dollars are going to this theater. The Walker Arts Center, and I used to live in Minneapolis, is a tremendous contemporary art theater. But they do not need our money. And if they are going to use money that gets comingled with funds in this way, they do not deserve to get the public money. The New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York has an exhibit with Annie Sprinkle, whose pornographic and NEA funded works have already in the past caused problems. This new Schneeman exhibit includes film footage of the artist hanging naked from ropes and engaging in very graphic sex with her partner. Well, this is great. They got $10,000 this year to kind of thank them for their great public service. Franklin Furnace, in New York, receives NEA funds and they usually also promote homosexuality and blast traditional morality. In fact, the Woolly Mammoth says openly that the purpose of their theater is to challenge the established morality of our society. I am really glad that my tax dollars are continuing to go to them. This is not a question of what has happened in the past. This is a question of what has happened this year in funding. Now, the Theater for the New City, and I want to talk a little bit about this play in particular, they have a play that they did called the ``Pope and the Witch.'' They received $30,000 before the play and this year we funded them again. I am going to read a review of ``The Pope and the Witch'' that actually views it from a fairly positive way. It is actually describing some of the controversies. I have the wrong release in front of me, but basically the thrust of ``The Pope and the Witch'' and the reviewer in outlining the play says that, first off, the person who wrote this play, an Italian playwright, is a Communist, a member of the Communist party in Italy, and his goal was to contradict and undermine the Catholic church in Italy. So they come to America and we fund the theater, the stage, the performers before they perform the play and then this year we go back. So what is this play? To show a paranoic Pope who is so paranoid that when 100,000 children gather in Vatican Square, he decides that this is a plot by condom manufacturers to embarrass the Catholic church. So he goes berserk in a paranoic way. So then a nun, who happens to be a little witch dressed up in a nun's outfit, kidnaps the Pope. They give a heroin needle, an insertion into the Pope whose head then clears up and he starts to distribute free heroin needles, advocate the legalization of drugs, and promote the distribution of birth control throughout the world now that the witch has helped him understand that drugs are a positive influence and birth control is a positive influence. I am sure glad that our tax dollars are used to fund a theater that puts out something that bigoted against the Catholic church of the United States. Can you imagine if any theater in America did anything that bigoted against African Americans, against Jews, against many groups in America, but it is still okay to pick on and discriminate and insult Catholics who believe the Pope is a direct lineage from the original apostles and speaks for the Church and for God. That is okay. That is okay to give money to those theaters. Now, Republicans and Democrats in this body and the Presidential candidates in both parties are busy saying, ``Hollywood's bad. We need to clean up Hollywood. They have terrible things on TV.'' You heard me describe some of the terrible things that we are indirectly funding, the stages, the actors, the promotions, the lights, the overhead in these theaters with your tax dollars. Hollywood's dollars are their own. I want to clean up Hollywood, too. But how dare Members of Congress stand on this floor and in particular in the other body and say Hollywood is bad when we fund this here. How can you do that? Will the American voters look at us and say, ``Man, you guys aren't very consistent there''? We really do need to clean up America. People have a right to free speech. We can try to advocate what to do in the free speech arena, but we do not have to fund the speech. The court has already ruled that an artist does not have the right to be publicly subsidized. That is a privilege, not a right. It is something to build on, to uplift, to preserve. We have theaters and art museums and philharmonics that are drowning because they do not have enough money. We have places all through the Midwest and the West and the Plains and the South and little cities and little towns that need art funding. But, no, we give it to these places that insult our basic values in America. It is beyond and it defies belief how those people can defend this type of funding. I hope that before the Interior bill comes to the floor, a few people can see the light of day and work with our House leadership that has been steadfast in trying to work with rules. We have held out a compromise. We are not asking to eliminate NEA. We are not asking to cut NEA. We are actually willing to put more money into arts. But I stand here before you and say there is nothing more important in my life than God. People can mock that. They can disagree with me. But if it was not for Jesus Christ, I believe that I would be lost. And I have a right to not have my tax dollars and my government do gratuitous insults to everything I believe, making my Lord and Savior a homosexual who is having affairs with the apostles when there is no historical evidence, when it is made up merely to rub it into my soul, so to speak. As a Catholic, you have the right not to have your tax dollars insult the Pope and undermine him directly or indirectly. I am not arguing it is directly. I am arguing it is indirectly. I will make this point again. Do not play games with us. You will hear people stand up in the coming debate most likely and say that these things were not direct funded. I did not assert that they were direct funded. What I asserted was these are mostly repertory theaters. I am a business person. I understand the difference between variable, fixed and mixed costs. When you get a grant, some of that grant goes directly for the play, some of it goes to cover the overhead of the theater and some of it goes to cover what they call mixed costs that vary some with the thing. When you only have four plays in a season and we fund one of them, it is a disproportionate covering of your cost. Do not play games and tell the American people you are not funding these kind of plays. If you fund those theaters, you are funding those kind of plays. We need the arts in America. We need the National Endowment for the Arts to stand up and say there is good art. We need to promote good art. We have a program called FAME in northeast Indiana that gets some NEA funds, where school kids all over our district in high schools, elementary and junior high kids touch into art and produce good and beautiful art. They do not produce the type of obscene things that we are funding here. Why do we not fund that? We fund the first chair in one of our philharmonic positions in the Fort Wayne Philharmonic so they can go out and teach music in the school and it helps our philharmonic to have a stronger first chair. That is a good use of art. Why do we have to fund a homosexual Christ? Let them find the funding for that. If that theater wants to challenge the principles and the foundations upon which this country is and insult the religious beliefs of the majority of America, let them go raise the money to do it. Why do they have to get public money? Members can tell I am very frustrated. It is hard for me to do this, because I have a number of things I have worked very hard for in this appropriations bill. We have worked hard for weeks to come up with a compromise. I am very disappointed that we are at this point where not only did the other body say that they would not even consider our last offer but then went and tried to blame it on the Conservative Action Team. A press release went out saying the Conservative Action Team signed off on this. We did not. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) has written the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) about that. The leadership understands it. They are trying to address that. But misinformation went out and when we tried to work out an agreement that I have defined here, they turned that on us. It is very frustrating. I am sorry that I have been so upset. I am sorry even that I had to read some of the graphic materials that I did. But sometimes as a Congressman, even if it is not in your best interest, you have to say, am I so compromised that I am unwilling to speak about things that matter most to my soul, matter most to my life? And am I so worried about every grant that I might get in some appropriations bill or that I might tick somebody off if I say these kinds of things, or that there might be retaliation later that I will not even speak out for the things that are most important to me, most important to my family, and that is my Lord and Savior. I stand here today as someone who worked hard to come up with a compromise with others and I am deeply disappointed at the attitudes. I hope people will be held accountable and you will not let them off by trying to do a slide or by trying to say Hollywood is bad when we in fact are funding this type of activity indirectly through the Federal Government.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for moving this bill forward, as well as the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), and his cosponsorship. I very much appreciate the bipartisan effort that we have been able to develop on this bill. I also want to publicly thank Senator Murkowski of Alaska, who has been the leader in passing this in the last Congress in the Senate and through the Committee on Resources this time, and I hope we can finally get this bill done. This bill would amend the National Historic Preservation Act to establish a historic lighthouse preservation program within the Department of the Interior. It also directs an improved process for conveying historic lighthouses. It has not been fair that some community organizations have worked to preserve and restore these lighthouses only in the conveyance process to have to go through a bidding process where first government agencies sometimes get a crack at it, other times private entities, and the very groups that worked so hard to preserve it get to be last in line. This, I believe, will correct that. When a historic lighthouse has been deemed excess to the needs of the Federal Government, the General Services Administration will convey it, for free, so the groups do not get in a bidding war, to a selected entity for education, park, recreation, cultural, and historic preservation purposes. It is important to note that groups selected for conveyance will be obligated to maintain the integrity of these historic structures. In fact, lighthouses conveyed pursuant to this act would convert back to the Federal Government if the property ceases to be used for education, park, recreation, cultural or historic preservation purposes; or if it is not maintained in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Having public access to these lighthouses is extremely important, and there are many more lighthouses, more than we have had in the many years up to this point that are about to be conveyed into the private sector. I have a couple of beautiful models from my office to illustrate this point. This is near Stony Brook on Long Island at Old Field Lighthouse. Here the local town uses this building for a community office and then the public can arrange tours to go through the lighthouse. That is a multiple-use purpose where the public can still appreciate this beautiful lighthouse. I brought this one from my office today, the Spectacle Reef in the Great Lakes region, to illustrate another point that I want to make sure the legislative language reflects. Some of these are out in the middle of the Great Lakes, or off the shore in the ocean, or in Chesapeake Bay. Those lighthouses, we need to understand, will not have the same public access as would a lighthouse on the shore. While that is not in the bill, I think we understand that and it has been a point brought to our attention by the Great Lakes lightkeepers. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman again for his leadership, and I submit for the Record testimony offered at a hearing held before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands regarding this topic: Testimony of Richard L. Moehl, President, Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association The Process and Policy process of this Bill (H.R. 4613) will determine the success of the legislation. 1. Off-shore and remote light stations deserve special considerations. a. Seasonal and weather related access limits the practical and productive time at these light stations. b. The cost of restoring and preserving these light stations is five to ten times the cost of restoring and preserving a drive-up-to light station. c. Sanitation conditions are a challenge. Taking care of human waste is different today than when these light stations were originally operated. This may be THE major problem in restoring offshore lighthouses. A solution MUST be found. d. Boat expenses for mooring, insurance, inspections, maintenance and operations can run into the tens of thousands of dollars per year. 2. The ``open to the public'' portion of the Bill needs some``teeth'' put into the Process and Policy decision. Regulations are needed such as the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco products at the light station. We see too many boaters smoking and with alcohol products in hand visiting the St. Helena Island Light Station. Prohibition of these risky activities would carry more enforcement weight if included in deeds. 3. The limitation on commercial activities cannot exclude fund raising for restoration, preservation and operational expenses. 4. Michigan Lighthouse Project: This collaboration of agencies and organizations to facilitate the transfer of historic light stations in the State of Michigan can be a model for other states and regions. 5. The State of Michigan, and possibly other states, has a law of public trust that prohibits certain uses of bottomlands upon which the off-shore lights in the State of Michigan are built. The interpretation of this ``public trust'' needs to be resolved in order for any of these light stations to be transferred. In the meanwhile long-term leases can transfer control; but there needs to be a little transfer provision for the lessee should the public trust law be resolved. 6. All eligible entities need to have access to surplus Federal personal property i.e. generators, boats and other needed supplies. 7. Group insurance, liability and theft/vandalism for valuable historic artifacts, coordinated with these transfers needs to be a consideration. 8. A National Lighthouse Preservation Fund should be put into place. Upwards of $750,000 can be spent abating, stabilizing, dealing with public health issues, and completing a Historic Structures Report to begin the needed restoration process.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the subcommittee chairman, for bringing this bill to the floor and also Speaker Hastert, who, when he chaired the subcommittee on oversight, held a number of hearings to try to promote an increasing awareness of our space program and try to rekindle the national interest; and also the cosponsors of this bill, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the principal cosponsor, and the 33 other cosponsors, including many Democrats, all of whom join with me today to provide a historic recognition of the accomplishments of the Apollo program on its 30th anniversary. In doing so we hope to recapture some of the vision and excitement of the space program for Americans as we enter the 21st century. We are currently in the midst of observing the 30th anniversary. I introduced this bill on July 20, 1999, on the anniversary of the first lunar landing. It is by no means an exaggeration to say that the landing was one of the most significant events in human history. The Apollo program not only was and still is one of the most significant technological accomplishments but also marked the first time that mankind left the planet Earth to explore another celestial body. The Apollo program demonstrated that it is possible for Americans to accomplish anything if they have a dream and a vision to work and to make it come true. As astronaut Walt Cunningham said, ``Today we fail not because of our inability to do something, we fail today because of our unwillingness to tackle it in the first place. We are unwilling to take a chance, stick our neck out and go and do some of these things.'' The Apollo astronauts have continued to stand as living monuments to that drive and vision. Many of today's adults were not even born at the time of the Apollo landing, even though they and their children hold the potential to be the generation that first sets foot on Mars. The vision is still a living vision, however, because it is rekindled by the Apollo astronauts who continue to bear witness to the possibility of making even seemingly outlandish dreams into reality. We recently had sad reminders of just how precious these men are. Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was laid to rest last year in Arlington National Cemetery. Four of the 12 men to have set foot on the Moon have now passed away. A total of seven of the Apollo astronauts are no longer with us. Just outside this Chamber stands one of the newest additions to Statuary Hall, a statue of Apollo 13 astronaut Jack Swigert of Colorado, who was elected to the House but never was able to serve. In my view, there would be no better recognition for these heroes nor better way to rekindle the accomplishments of Apollo in the public imagination than this award. The only fitting commemoration for those who have touched the Moon or made that great achievement possible could be a piece of the Moon itself. And such recognition is long overdue. In addition, this is a simple issue of fairness. On the same day I introduced this bill, the Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Oval Office and presented President Clinton with a Moon rock which he promptly put beside his desk in the Oval Office. NASA has already given out a number of lunar samples to foreign leaders with no restrictions at all. In fact, a sample that was dedicated to ``the People of Honduras'' recently was found in private hands. If Bill Clinton can have a Moon rock in his office and we can give them to foreign leaders, I think it is only fair and just that the men who risked their lives for science and for their country of all people should have the same honor. When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon in 1969, Bill Clinton was home for the summer from Oxford, according to David Marannis, ``feverishly trying to find a way to avoid entering the Army as a drafted private.'' And it is dumbfounding to me that after the President received his Moon rock, his administration apparently yesterday decided to oppose this bill giving a Moon rock to the astronauts who performed the missions. Furthermore, it is not just that some 250 foreign leaders have been given pieces of the Moon rock but none to our astronauts. NASA has recovered more than 2,000 different samples of the Moon in six landings, so the rocks required for presentation would be a tiny portion of our total holdings. The bill also maintains careful control over the lunar rocks, preventing them from being sold or transferred to anyone besides the astronaut, his family, or a museum. And the lunar material could be recalled by NASA if needed for scientific research. Mr. Speaker, America was founded on the principle of exploration. We have it in our power to continue this great tradition as a spacefaring Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Apollo Exploration Act--Questions and Answers Rep. Mark Souder H.R. 2572, The Apollo Exploration Award Act, would create an award to be presented as a lasting commemoration for the American astronauts who made the first voyages to the moon. The award would contain an actual lunar sample (or ``moon rock'') retrieved on the Apollo missions as a uniquely fitting and appropriate presentation. This fact sheet answers questions about the bill and responds to some issues which have been raised by NASA. Q: Why bring up the bill now? A. The bill was introduced on the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July of 1999. Some of the former Apollo astronauts have now died, and as time passes others will become less able to participate in public events and commemorations. Because we are still fortunate to have most of the former astronauts engaged in public life, this is a fitting time to provide an appropriate recognition of the extraordinary significance of their deeds with the benefit of historical hindsight. In doing so, the bill is also intended to remind the American public of their accomplishments and rekindle the vision of a great American space program. The bill has significant bipartisan support, particularly from members who represent NASA facilities. Of the 34 cosponsors, 14 are Democrats. NASA was contacted and provided with a copy of the bill at the time of its introduction. Q: Our ``Moon Rocks'' are a national asset--would this harm their preservation and scientific research? A: The Apollo missions collected 2,196 lunar samples weighing 843 pounds. The bill provides for just 32 awards to be issued to the Apollo Astronauts--a minuscule portion (1.5 percent) of our holdings. In addition, the bill explicitly provides that NASA may recall any of the lunar samples used for the award should they be needed for scientific research. Q: Would this bill set a bad precedent by transferring moon rocks for commemorative purposes? A: The fact of the matter is that NASA has already transferred moon rocks for commemorative purposes, with far fewer restrictions than are contained in this bill. A number of the Apollo crews made ``goodwill tours'' of foreign nations, during which lunar samples were presented to heads of state by the astronauts as a commemoration. Although these were ostensibly presented as gifts to each country rather than to the individuals, we are not aware of any restrictions placed on these rocks. In fact, at least one of these samples, presented to the ``People of Honduras,'' found its way into private hands. We are unable to find ``any'' accounting for the whereabouts of the samples that were presented to foreign countries. NASA officials at the time of the missions said they could make available 150 to 200 presentation samples--a number which makes the 32 samples here look very modest indeed. In addition, the Apollo 11 crew recently presented a rock to President Clinton for commemorative purposes. Although NASA goes to great lengths to specify that that rock is ``on loan,'' White House Spokesman Barry Toiv said ``I have a feeling it will be here awhile.'' President Clinton put the rock by his desk in the Oval Office. The samples in question are not being presented to strangers to NASA or to the public at large--they would go to the astronauts who went to get them. This is only fitting, just and appropriate. Q: What controls are put on the samples? Could the astronauts sell them? A: The bill puts very tight controls on the samples. Astronauts could not sell or transfer their award or receive any monetary gain from its use. They could only keep it, give or leave it as an inheritance to members of their family under the same conditions, or loan it to a museum. If these conditions are not met, the award and lunar sample return to the possession of NASA. Q: Wouldn't that require NASA to keep track of the awards? A: Technically, the bill does not require NASA to keep track of the awards--it gives them a right of recall if the lunar samples are needed for scientific purposes. Moreover, even if NASA chose to track the awards, it is difficult to imagine that keeping track of 32 of them would be an undue burden on the Agency. In fact, NASA already lends (and successfully tracks) up to 10 lunar samples a week to schools across the country.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud conservative cosponsor of the gentleman from South Carolina's bill to provide loan forgiveness to teachers in title I schools and special ed. Sometimes, just once in a while, our liberal friends accuse conservatives of not caring about improving education because we do not favor a Federal takeover in education. In fact, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and I were leaders in the fight against national testing standards. We fought against the national curriculum and national teaching standards. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has committed his entire career to trying to provide better quality with local control, and this bill is yet another example. We Republicans say everyone should compete. Yet we do not believe in guaranteeing absolute equality. Parents' education differs, their income differs, some kids are going to have computers at home, some kids are going to have parents who can teach. There is not just a whole lot we can do about that. But we do believe that there ought to be basic opportunities for all kids in America. And so we support title I and we support IDEA. The chairman has been a leader in Even Start, in Head Start. We have had many such bills. This bill combines many of the principles that we as conservatives believe are valuable in trying to help low-income students. It does it with incentives, not mandates. It does not tell people what they actually have to do; it forgives their loans and gives them the flexibility; and it requires them to serve first. Often we give money to somebody, and they may or may not serve. In this case if they serve the 3 years, then they get 3 years forgiven; 4 years, then they get more forgiven the fifth year. If we give the money up front, we find that many times in other programs where we have done this we may or may not get people to serve, and we may battle over that forgiveness. That is a conservative principle. We also say that when you give it to an individual student who then goes and teaches, it does not come with the Federal strings. It gives the teachers the flexibility to determine what they are going to do, special ed or a title I school; it gives the school the flexibility without the strings that come from many of this administration's proposals. When people ask what conservatives are doing to help those who are hurting, to those who are behind, those who potentially can be left behind, this is yet one more example of what this Congress has done. It is a small step, but it is an important step. My daughter is currently teaching at a title I school. It is a new job. She has found that as opposed to a suburban school she gets less money to help in the classroom. Fewer of the parents show up. It is hard even to get as many parents to participate in bringing refreshments for the kids because they do not have the income. We need to do some special steps in America to make sure that those who are college graduated even though we support alternative certification, even though we support creative ways to fill those gaps, we need creative ways like the gentleman from South Carolina's bill to encourage our young people in college today to take at least part of their career, many of whom will then fall in love with these kids who so much need their help to work in our title I and special ed programs. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling); I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for his great work and add my enthusiastic support to this bill.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support of this legislation expanding the Gettysburg National Military Park. The Wills House is an important historical property in the borough of Gettysburg. It is important in a number of ways. The Battle at Gettysburg was critical to preserving the Union, and was the high water mark of the Southern invasion of the North while the victory was hardly decisive, or even much more than a draw, it nevertheless was a pivotal point in the Civil War. But it is a legitimate question as to whether Gettysburg would be remembered as much today were it not for the Gettysburg Address by President Abraham Lincoln. Arguably, the Gettysburg Address along with the Declaration of Independence, are the most known documents to Americans. Many of the phrases in the Gettysburg Address are among the only famous passages recognized by most Americans. Some simple--``four score and seven years ago'' and ``government of the people, by the people, for the people''-- and some more complex--``our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' Garry Wills, a brilliant author who is sometimes very wrong-headed, has written one of the best books I've ever read. It is titled ``Lincoln at Gettysburg, The Words That Remade America.'' He lays out the background of the speech, of the times, and, most importantly, the significance of the words themselves and their impact. This remarkable short address shaped how we think about ourselves as a nation. Building on his book on the Declaration, Wills demonstrates that the Gettysburg Address redefined much of how we view government and our Nation. Lincoln did this without mentioning Gettysburg, slavery, the North, the South, or even the Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, he didn't speak to the immediate issues before him but in a timeless way about the principles of our Nation. Gettysburg today is not just about the battle. But it is also about the Address, in how it helped turn the bitterness of the Civil War into nationally uniting themes. The Wills House is a key site to Gettysburg. Not only did President Lincoln spend the night before his speech at the Wills House, and probably did his final editing at the home, but without David Wills efforts there would have been no ``Gettysburg Address.'' David Wills had studied law under Thaddeus Stevens, the Radical Republican from Pennsylvania who was key leader in the House for many years. He owned the largest house on the Gettsyburg Town Square. As a leading citizen, he put an end to land speculation for the burial of soldiers killed at Gettysburg, and formed an interstate commission to collect funds for the cleansing of the battlefield. But in Garry Wills book on Gettysburg, he points out that David Wills had another goal. ``He wanted to dedicate the ground that would hold them even before the corpses were moved. He felt the need for artful words to sweeten the poisoned air of Gettysburg.'' First, David Wills asked the poets to appear--Longfellow, Whittier and Bryant--but they declined. But he was able to attract Edward Everett, perhaps the foremost orator of the time. President Lincoln was kind of an afterthought, included among many officials. No one really understood the potential impact he would have, or even understood it at the time. But key facts remain--it was David Wills who led the effort to create the cemetery and he specifically hoped to accomplish what Lincoln actually did accomplish, an act of healing aimed at the ages. In a historical sense, it is a bonus that Lincoln actually stayed at the Wills House, finished the polishing of the speech at that house, and delivered a brief speech that evening to those gathered to greet him at the house. It is indeed a site worth inclusion in this national battlefield so vital to our national memory. Furthermore, this can be an important part of resolving some of the conflict at the most recent battle of Gettysburg. Clearly Gettysburg needs to move its visitor center from the critical area of the battlefield. It is also essential that additional storage space for priceless artifacts, with proper climate control, be created as rapidly as possible. Because the new location is farther from the town, in which many local businesses have developed concessions dependent upon visitors to the park, there is concern that the new visitor center could result in financial damages to the borough of Gettysburg. While I disagree with this concern because I believe a new visitor center will draw more visitors for longer periods, regardless of one's views on that subject, it is clear that development of the Wills House site in town, along with creative changes around the cemetery to better highlight the exalted place in American history of the Gettysburg Address, would draw visitors to the village itself. It would probably also add to the length of stay of the visitors, which would also benefit those in the borough. And, from a national perspective, this Wills House site and further highlighting the memorable address that stands as a seminal document in understanding who we are as Americans, will make every American- including the thousands of schoolchildren who visit Gettysburg each year--much richer. Address delivered at the dedication of the cemetery at Gettysburg. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate--we can not consecrate--we can not hallow--this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. November 19, 1863. Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and also want to commend his leadership on the education issue. As I was a staffer here for 10 years, 6 on the House side and 4 on the Senate, I watched as he moved Even Start through. I watched as he has tried to change Head Start back into a literacy program, to try to reach out to those who are hurting and those who are behind and actually get them up to the academic level with which to compete and to advance in school so that they have the opportunities that the rest of America has. I simply do not understand, in bill after bill after bill, why some Members on the minority side object to having an opportunity in this mix for faith-based organizations. The faith-based organizations that we are talking about are so narrowly defined by court decisions, they cannot spend taxpayers' dollars for any type of proselytization. In this bill, because it goes through education, they have to be cleared through the education institutions. We agreed that they have to have a separation of anything else they do, including child care, from this program. But many of the most innovative leaders in America, particularly in the black and Hispanic and other immigrant communities, are faith based. When they first come to America, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, not a hotbed of immigration, but we do have the largest Burmese immigration in the United States. We have, like many areas, a huge Hispanic immigration. We see areas of Fort Wayne, where the black churches have worked together and are now the agent for the Federal Government in housing partnerships, and as they try to redevelop the Hannah Creighton and work with Head Start and other programs, why if the school system decides they are not the best to do Even Start, what is this opposition so much to faith-based organizations? It is a shame for the minority leadership in this country, because they need back up at the grassroots level.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for her efforts and should have said that earlier on the full bill. I appreciate her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a lot of discussion here about the amazing wonders that some of these groups are accomplishing around the country that are faith based, but I want to get into the technical thing. As a person who has been a primary negotiator with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on this, I immediately realized when the phone call came to me a couple of days ago in Indiana that this was not the same amendment, and it has an overwhelming difference which made me resist it. I have worked with the gentleman because we agree with many of the basic parts of this, that you cannot fund through government funds sectarian worship, instruction or proselytizing, and that there are certain civil rights laws that are required to be upheld regardless in employment discrimination. But what this program does and this amendment would do is reach into the private funding. The differences, for example, are as we went through Even Start, where people are often in a school or on school grounds and in a defined program, a fatherhood program may have different components, and the way the gentleman has worded this, ``in a program,'' ``program'' is not clearly defined, that it could be a fatherhood initiative that has many components. The component funded by the Federal Government cannot proselytize. But, as I mentioned earlier, we also have a Supreme Court decision that has come through since we have had these discussions at the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mitchell versus Helms. The majority clearly ruled that, for example, a computer can be given to a religious institution, because the computer does not do the proselytizing, nor does a building do the proselytizing, nor does a book that does not have proselytizing in it do proselytizing. If other funds from that organization do proselytizing, then, as long as an individual recipient has a choice, as long as there is not discrimination based on religion and who is in the program, things which we agreed with before and which are protected under law, whether or not the Scott amendment passes, you cannot discriminate on who you serve if you get government funds; you cannot discriminate and use government funds for proselytizing; you cannot practice racial discrimination, for example. But you can, for example, have a program that if part of the fatherhood program gets a computer, or if we help fund a building, and that group happens to have a religious component to their program not funded by the Federal Government, it does not mean that they have to drop everything else that is in their fatherhood program, such as Charles Ballard's in Cleveland does. He cannot use government funds to proselytize, but he can use government funds to do other things. I think it is wonderful, and I think the programs are wonderful.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very critical vote. The question is whether we are going to repeal title VII of the Civil Rights Act that has exempted churches from being regulated in their employment patterns. This is a question of church governance and whether we are now going to say that churches, if they are going to participate in any Federal program, can no longer be churches. If we take the religious nature out of the churches and say that they cannot control who they hire, we have changed the nature of current law. We have changed the nature of the Civil Rights Act, title VII, that was given in particular to churches so they did not fall under this type of thing. In the recent decision on Mitchell versus Helms, for the majority, Justice Thomas wrote, ``The religious nature of a recipient should not matter to the constitutional analysis so long as the recipient adequately furthers the government's secular purpose.'' We all agree they cannot proselytize with government funds. If they are accomplishing our goal of fatherhood, of housing, of juvenile justice, whatever our goal is, to get kids off drugs, as long as they are not proselytizing with our government funds, I do not believe we in Congress should tell a church that they should no longer be a church or they cannot participate. We need the involvement of all parts of our community. This amendment would in fact gut almost any denomination from being willing to participate in trying to address the problems that so desperately need our cooperative efforts.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill for several reasons, and I want to enunciate a few of them. We will have a more extended discussion on charitable choice in a little bit. First off, I think it is important that conservatives understand that tough child support, child support that lets parents know, particularly fathers, that they cannot abandon their families is not only important for the financial support of families, but to send a message to America that, in fact, when one gets married, it is a serious thing that can have long-term consequences. When we have children, we have a lifetime obligation to do that. This bill also makes sure that the money collected from those fathers in the efforts that we have done here in the House to expand child support collection actually goes to the families and not merely to replace the government income that goes out to those families, but gives an incentive to help empower those families to move out of poverty because many times, after a divorce or after a separation, those families are driven into poverty. Many of the people who are there transition into poverty before they move off, because many of what usually are the mothers have the custody of the children, are trapped in poverty for a period of time. And the noncustodial parent falls behind in their child support payments or does not make it a full amount of payment or drives those payments low, and until there is a remarriage and until there is a career change, often there is a penalty on that. This bill tries to address those problems of child support. As a conservative, I am also particularly pleased in the efforts in the fatherhood area. Some have legitimate concerns as to the expanding role of government, and one question that comes up from some of my conservative colleagues is why would the government become involved in fatherhood initiatives? Partly it is because the government indirectly violated the do no harm goal of what I believe should be the number one priority of the Federal Government. What the Federal Government has done over time, by programs that are well intentioned, they have given, in fact, a disincentive to marriage in this country, they have made it easier for fathers to abandon their families, to not provide the support. In public housing, we have had discrimination on families. In fact, if you have two incomes blended together, you go over the income cap, so there is a disincentive in much of public housing in the United States. To stay married, the marriage penalty and the tax code gives economic disincentives to stay married. We have program after program that is, in fact, in the name of good intentioned efforts to help single moms has, in fact, separated the dad from many families because of indirectly many government programs. I believe that fatherhood is, in fact, essential and having fathers involved in the life of their children is essential. We have seen creative programs in Oklahoma, in many States, Oklahoma being a model, in many States in fatherhood initiatives. We need to expand these programs. We need and cannot address the problems of teen violence, of drug abuse and many other things unless we have both parents involved, unless in particular as many books are currently pointing out, fathers need to be involved with young boys, they also need to be involved with their daughters in a different way, but particularly as we look at questions of youth violence and school dropouts and many of the problems in society, we must have fathers involved. My belief is, we would not be facing this crisis as much today if the Federal Government had not already messed this up, and this is part a compensatory way not to take over these programs but to facilitate, which leads us to the question of charitable choice. It is my great honor to be House cochair with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) of the Empowerment Caucus, the Senate cosponsors and leaders of that are Senator Santorum and Senator Lieberman. In our empowerment package which Senator Lieberman, vice presidential candidate Lieberman, said the legislation we introduced today is really a model of cooperation and innovation. It combines much of the President's new markets initiatives and Republican-favored American Community Renewal Act and a progressive new synthesis for stimulating investment entrepreneurship and economic opportunity in disadvantaged communities. In that package sponsored by Senator Lieberman, unless he would change his mind on what he has backed for years here, it allows religious faith-based providers to become involved in this without diminishing the religious freedom of the beneficiaries or of the organizations. Vice President Gore has also supported as has Governor Bush faith- based organizations in being eligible for government grants without changing the nature of those religious institutions, i.e., employment questions that are within the law, and, b, without restricting and reaching into other programs that they do that are not funded with government funds. Let us make it sure as we debate this today, we cannot use government funds to proselytize, that is clear. We can never use government funds to proselytize. This amendment that we are going to debate today is in advance over any other debate we have, which now is reaching into the private funds of those organizations, as to whether they can do anything of religious character, we all agree no public funds can be used for proselytization, that is a government principle that is long standing and upheld by the courts. But the courts have recently ruled that you cannot also reach into the faith-based organizations that in fact we are allowed to give computers to religious schools because the computers themselves do not proselytize. It is not the business of the government to decide whether proselytization will occur on those computers, we just cannot directly fund it.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, does the gentleman grant that there is a difference between ``during,'' which we have had before, and ``in a program''? Because we have agreed that during a program funded by government funds, that is directly funded, you cannot, but ``in a program'' is broader. Does the gentleman agree with that being the difference?

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear. There are only two scientific long-term studies, one in Vancouver and one in Montreal. In Montreal, the number that contracted the AIDS virus more than doubled; in Vancouver, it was higher among participants in the program. Furthermore, one prominent advocate of the needle exchange program said most needle exchange programs provide a valuable service to users. They serve as sites of informal and increasingly formal organizing and coming together. A user might be able to do the networking needed to find good drugs in the half an hour he spends at the street-based needle exchange site, networking that might otherwise have taken half a day. This does not help HIV people. This does not help drug addicts. The merciful thing to do, the caring thing to do is to help people get off of their addiction, not to fuel their habit by giving them free needles paid for by the taxpayers either directly or indirectly. This idea that the money is not fungible is laughable. Either directly or indirectly, it should not come from the taxpayers of Indiana or anywhere else to fuel people's drug habits that also can lead them to the HIV virus. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of any of the funds appropriated by this bill to finance needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. The reasoning is simple: needle exchange programs sanction and facilitate the use of the same illegal drugs we are spending billions of dollars to keep off our streets, send the wrong message, and simply don't work. It is consistent with the needle exchange ban we passed and that was enacted in the bill last year, and I urge my colleagues to maintain the ban in this bill. This amendment restores the exact language that passed last year with 240 votes and was signed by the President. needle exchange promotes drug use Our experience with the needle exchange programs so far has shown us that needle exchange programs can become havens not only for drug use, but also magnets for drug dealers and networking sites for addicts to learn where to find more drugs. For example, Donald Grovers, who is a prominent advocate of needle exchange programs, has said: Most needle exchange programs provide a valuable service to users. . . . They serve as sites of informal (and increasingly formal) organizing and coming together. A user might be able to do the networking needed to find good drugs in the half an hour he spends at the street-based needle exchange site--networking that might otherwise have taken half a day. It's also a basic economic law that sellers go where their customers are, and for a drug dealer there can be few targets of opportunity riper than a needle exchange location. It is almost literally bringing sheep to the wolf. The New York Times reported in 1997 that: When a storefront is handing out 20,000 syringes a week, suppliers are not far away. East Villagers who have been trying to rebuild a neighborhood devastated by drugs during the 1980s complain that the needle exchange has brought more dealers back to the streets and more addicts into the halls of the public housing projects at the corner. James Curtis, a Columbia University Professor, observed in a New York Times Op Ed that tenant groups around one of New York's largest needle exchange programs told him that the center had become a magnet for dealers, and that used needles, syringes and crack vials litter their sidewalks. The police do nothing. Needle exchange sites have become, for all practical purposes, safe havens for drug users to escape law enforcement. The office of the DC Police Chief has previously said that its policy is to ``look the other way'' when drug addicts approach the Whitman-Walker clinic's mobile van unit to receive needles, and other programs are designated ``police- free zones.'' The Office of National Drug Control Policy concluded that the highest rates of property crime in Vancouver were within two blocks of the needle exchange. needle exchange programs send the wrong message Mr. Chairman, we have already appropriated billions of dollars for next year to keep drugs off our streets through drug interdiction and law enforcement, including aid to the states and the District of Columbia. We have also appropriated substantial sums to help those who are addicted to drugs get off and stay off through prevention and treatment efforts, also including aid to the states and the District of Columbia. It makes no sense whatsoever to turn around in this bill and appropriate more funds to directly counter those efforts by passing out free needles to addicts, or to support efforts by the District of Columbia (or any state for that matter) to counter the goals of federal policy in these areas. Finally, General McCaffrey also pointed out that: Needle exchange programs are almost exclusively located in disadvantaged, predominantly minority, low income neighborhoods. . . . These programs are magnets for all social ills--pulling in crime, violence, addicts, prostitution, dealers, and gangs and driving out hope and opportunity. The overwhelming likelihood is that the burdens of any expansion in needle exchange programs will continue to fall upon those already struggling to get by. Just yesterday, we passed the Community Renewal bill, one of the most hopeful and optimistic pieces of legislation we have considered this Congress. Do we want to turn around today and go in the other direction? needle exchange programs don't work Finally, even if we were to ignore all of that and adopt for the purposes of argument the fundamental premises of needle exchange advocates, the cold fact of the matter is that needle exchange programs simply don't work. Dr. Fred Payne, medical advisor to the Children's AIDS Fund, found that ``the data from four studies . . . strongly indicate that needle exchange is ineffective in reducing HIV transmission among study participants,'' and concluded that the evidence on the whole indicated that programs were ineffective.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman who chairs the Subcommittee on Criminal, Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of any funds appropriated by this bill to finance needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. The reasoning is simple: Needle exchange programs sanction and facilitate the use of the same illegal drugs we are spending billions of dollars to keep off our streets. They send the wrong message, and it simply does not work. This is consistent with the needle exchange ban we passed and that was enacted in the bill last year, and I urge my colleagues to maintain the ban in this bill. This amendment restores the exact same language as the amendment that passed last year with 240 votes and was signed by the President. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, one thing we need to clarify right off the bat is what the intent of the Founding Fathers was, in fact, in religion; and this bill does not go near that far. In fact, the Founding Fathers printed twice copies of Bibles to be distributed in American schools because there was a shortage of Bibles, and they printed them with taxpayer dollars. This bill does not do that. Furthermore, anybody in this House gallery can see of all the lawgivers, one is looking down at us. It is Moses, and he is looking down at ``In God We Trust.'' But this bill does not go that far. It does not mandate that everybody be in a Chamber that says ``In God We Trust.'' It gives some flexibility as we try to address the problems of the cities of this country and the low-income areas of this country. Problems which are heavily rooted in economics, and this bill has wonderful things in economics but are also matters of how to reach the soul, how to reach the families, how to help people who are hurting, who are broken, who are hungry, who are struggling with drug and alcohol abuse, and this bill does open that. The question was raised, have we debated it in this House? We have debated it in this House five times. We passed it in welfare reform, we passed it in social services reform, both signed by the President. We passed it in juvenile justice; we passed it in housing. Every time this House has passed this bill. Every time we debated it. We have debated it here, we have debated it in the Senate, we debated it in conference. Some people do not like the bill, and they do not like it that there should even be a choice that people should have religious options. Furthermore, the President of the United States has signed off on this compromise, Governor Bush of Texas has been very innovative in using faith-based organizations as alternatives in prison reform and actually in alcohol and drug assistance. Vice President Gore has on his home page that in the specific instance of alcohol and drug abuse, that faith-based organizations ought to be allowed to be used. The Drug Czar of the United States, General Barry McCaffrey says, ONDCP applauds your work with President Clinton on this historic initiative. We welcome broad involvement by private volunteer and religious groups in support of the national drug control strategy. Throughout the country, faith-based organizations are making significant contributions to educating our youngsters about the dangers of substance abuse and helping many thousands of addicted Americans to achieve and maintain recovery through the added motivation faith can provide. There is no question that at the minimum, faith-based organizations are as effective as other programs in alcohol and drug abuse. The fact is the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that faith- based addiction programs are much more likely, up to 45 percent, to report success. Any study that has been done, non-biased, shows in fact they are cheaper to administer, because you have so many volunteers and other people willing to produce it, so it helps the taxpayers and the individual. Now, one of the great ironies of this as I work with this in the City of Fort Wayne that I represent is many of these programs that people are so afraid of that are effective are in fact run by the communities themselves, by the minority leaders in their communities. In my hometown, Reverend Jesse White has a computer program, as does Otha Aden, a pastor in Fort Wayne; so does Reverend Jesse Beasley is working with a program, Reverend Mike Nicholson has put together a community housing program through the Associated Black Churches. I have worked with George Middleton, who has taken his savings to help build a community center because his faith has motivated him to do so, and Andre Patterson. I have worked with Reverend Marshall White, who has a program for music, that in San Antonio, Texas, is one of the most remarkable programs in the United States. Freddie Garcia, a former cocaine addict, has run a program that has brought thousands to change their lives, many of whom are currently ministers and who are back on the streets. I personally have met over 200 former addicts in San Antonio in two different visits who have had their lives changed and are now reaching young people in the neighborhoods going door-to-door working in the different housing units in the city. Bishop Raul Gonzalez in Hartford, Connecticut, has had a tremendous program to reach out through Youth Challenge to young people who are struggling with drug and alcohol addiction. He has reached into their hearts and tried to change their lives. It is not enough just to give somebody a job who has messed up. One has to change both the soul and the ability to have a job. It is not enough sometimes just to change somebody internally either and help them get off drug and alcohol abuse. If they are going to live in a place that is unsafe, is intolerable living conditions and they do not have anything to do, they will fall back into drug and alcohol abuse. That is what is so great about this bill is it mixes the two. Reverend Eugene Rivers, and I have a number of things I am going to insert in the Record, but this Newsweek story shows the debate of faith-based organizations and what he has done working with gangs in Massachusetts. When one talks to the people in the street there who have been working with these kids they say, Why, if we are faith-based, can we not get any money if we have all of these groups that have nothing to do with religion who are ineffective, who had no impact in our community, yet the people who live here, who are active in the community, have not been able to get access to the funds? This bill will rectify that; and I congratulate my friends, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), on their efforts. Bishop Raul Gonzalez, Executive Director, Youth Challenge ``Youth Challenge has now expanded to 25 centers in 10 states and foreign countries. It has grown because it is based on a model of discipleship, where ``sons'' of Youth Challenge, who have a common heart and vision, go into the world to serve others. In Guatemala, we have a drug program for males. We have food programs, which we call ``love kitchens.'' We begin by going into the streets, offering drug addicts and alcoholics food and clothing. From there, we share the gospel them food, we witness to them, and we convince them to enter the drug program. We also have strong prison ministries. Many of our chaplains are, themselves, doing time--some for as many as 40 or 60 years. they are some of our best and most committed pastors, because they ain't going nowhere. Members of our prison churches actually tithe of soap and toothpaste and things like that. We provide our services gratis. We only ask the families to donate at ten dollars a week, if they can. Our Youth Challenge ministers are committed and impassioned because they understand that we are in a virtual war and that this revolution is forever. Not long ago, an AP story noted the findings of a 13-member group of experts on a panel set up by the UN. They announced that drug use is growing among youth in the United States. Now, the UN didn't have to spend all that money conducting that study. They could have just asked us who are working on the streets, and we would have told them that drug abuse was growing! All the ministers of Youth Challenge stay in touch with what's happening on the streets. From the beginning, I made that our policy and I think that is one reason that our program has lasted so long. I've been involved in outreach to addicts for 30 years. Thousands of people have come through our doors. We have tracked what happens to them, and we have documented a success rate that ranges from 60 to 80 percent. Our program has made unique progress as a faith-based organization, because we have been able to break ground in working cooperatively with the state. We are licensed, and no demands have been placed on us to cease preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are ``professional'' without being ``professionalized.'' I'm governed by a board. We have a men's home, a women's home, and a training center in Connecticut. Our relationship with the State did not come overnight. For five years, I fought the regulators on the issue of licensure. I lost in the first count, where the decision was made by one judge. Then we took our case to a court with three judges. Eventually, our case was heard by five judges. Our position was that we were a religious organization, not a ``drug treatment service'' and that, as such, we shouldn't need a license. We said, ``Okay, before you guys demand that we apply for a license, we want you to look at our materials.'' And we brought in a pile of Bibles and stack of scriptural readings. Our lawyer is retired, but was at the top of his field, and he proved that Youth Challenge taught more scripture than any seminary in new England. What I learned from this experience was that when the state wants to do something, they just do it. Forget about this separation of church and state deal. They see what they want to see. You know what they did to us? They actually licensed our Bible training center. That's how my license reads-- ``Youth Challenge Bible Training Center.'' So the state thinks it has the power even to license the Bible! I could have fought them and refused to be licensed and gone to jail, but they would have closed us down. So I was forced to accept the license. In spite of their regulations and guidelines, I believe if they leave programs like ours alone, we would do a better job. But it was not an option for them to leave us alone. I believe that if you know the Lord you can have the power to deliver a person from addiction. If you don't, but have all the education in the world, you are not going to deliver anybody. Yale University is only a half an hour from us, and they haven't been able to deliver nobody. The most they have done is to give out needles. Not far away, in Massachusetts, there is Harvard University. They haven't been able to do anything about the drug crisis expect document it. Yet, if somebody believes in Jesus Christ and has the power working through him, he's able to deliver people. I know because that is what happened to me 29 years ago, when a group of people laid hands on me. I met someone who knew God and I was set free.''

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for this bill sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Ohio. I believe the bill he has worked so diligently on is fundamental to re-discovering, preserving, and trumpeting the important contribution of the Underground Railroad in chipping away at the institution of slavery. I am a cosponsor of this bill, which will provide funding to establish the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is important to keep in mind that only 20 percent of total funding for the Freedom Center will come from the Federal Government--the lion's share of funding will be from private and local sources. This important Center--the first of its kind in the nation--will be a clearinghouse for the education, collection, and dissemination of information on the Underground Railroad. The Underground Railroad spanned 29 states, and is known for its role in the mid-1800s movement of enslaved African Americans seeking freedom from bondage in the South. For the slaves who had the courage and determination to free themselves, the Underground Railroad network provided shelter, food, supplies, transport, and discretion, which was invaluable during the dangerous journey to freedom. The history of the Underground Railroad tells a story of strong determination of those who were dedicated to the freedom of a people. It also tells a story of very special collaborations between people of diverse racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Without modern methods of communication--telephones, faxes, or the Internet--many people--Africans, Caucasians, Native Americans, and Quakers--banded together for a greater good: to provide freedom to some, and to end the abomination of slavery for all. These people risked their lives on a daily basis to seek freedom or assist in helping others find it. It is estimated that in the 20 years prior to the Civil War, upwards of 40,000 slaves escaped bondage via the Underground Railroad. Because of the nearly silent legacy of the people who passed through the Underground Railroad and provided assistance to freedom-seeking slaves, this Center is vital to reconstructing and communicating the significance of the Underground Railroad. As a ``distributive educational museum,'' an additional mission of the Freedom Center will be to establish regional centers, or ``freedom stations.'' In my district in northeast Indiana, we have been working to identify and protect numerous sites in Steuben, Allen and Noble Counties. Carl Wilson has been working with a regional group in Ft. Wayne for two years. Carl and I have also worked with the Steuben County group as well. A key stop on the Underground Railroad may become a key point of a new bike trail in Angola, Indiana. We have been pleased to work with the Cincinnati museum in these efforts. I believe one of the greatest challenges will be to distinguish between alleged and genuine Underground Railroad sites. Many of these alleged sites have been identified through the decades by local folklore--oral histories, notes found in family Bibles, and other unofficial documentation. To complicate the identification process, many of these sites are in significant decay or are no longer known as part of Underground Railroad network. These sites will need to be systematically reviewed and scientifically established. Then, these sites should be linked together to provide Americans with a ``holistic'' approach to visiting and studying Underground Railroad locations. It is my understanding that the Freedom Center will assist in identifying nearly 60 Freedom Stations across America by 2003. The history of the Underground Railroad is not only fundamental to understand the history of African Americans in this nation, the anti- slavery movement, and the Civil War, it is also fundamental to truly understand the significance of the cornerstone tenant of this nation: freedom. This Center will educate and remind all of us about the long and winding path we have taken in America to achieve the goal of freedom for all. I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill to provide funding for the Freedom Center in Cincinnati. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes ago on this House floor we heard about the sad plight of some children in Africa. We deal with many cases of child abuse and persecution and the violence against children. Many of us believe that human life begins at conception. In fact, most Americans do. When you look at the brutality of the abortion procedure, whether it is burning the skin off the babies, whether it is cutting them up, whether it is blowing them to pieces as they bring them out, or the partial-birth abortion where they kill them with a blunt instrument when all but the head is out, it is a brutal procedure. But this is not a debate over whether abortion is legal because whether I like it or not, abortion is legal. This is a question over whether people like me and other Americans in Indiana and other States around the country have to be forced to pay for the killing of what we believe is innocent, defenseless little children. The earliest speaker here, the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, said that these were plans paid for by Federal employees. She neglected a teensy-weensy little fact, and, that is, our health care plans, including mine, are 28 percent roughly, depending on which plan you choose, paid by you and 72 percent by everybody else. This is whether or not we have to be forced to pay for other people's choices. The Supreme Court has been clear. We do not have to pay for someone's abortion. They have a right to choose abortion, but they do not have a right to have me violate my beliefs, the majority of the people of Indiana who share that belief and other parts of the country who share that belief have to pay for a procedure that they find offensive. Now, the truth is, many Americans are on the fence here. They find abortion abhorrent, but they believe other people should be allowed to choose. But it is clear, the majority of Americans do not want what they believe is the blood on their hands, and I do not believe that we should be forced to pay for other people's abortion by subsidizing as we do in Congress 75 percent of the procedure.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the family and staff of Senator Paul Coverdell. I admired and appreciated Senator Coverdell's commitment to stopping the flow of illegal drugs across our borders and his tireless efforts to expand educational opportunity in America. Senator Coverdell demonstrated the effectiveness of quiet, but persistent, leadership. He has been hailed as a workhorse and, indeed, his dedication to public service is an example to every official at every level of Government who works for the public good. My former chief of staff, Ziad Ojakli, is the chief of staff in the Senator's leadership office. On behalf of all of us who are friends of Z and have worked with him over the years, I wish to convey our deepest sympathy to the family, friends and staff of Senator Paul Coverdell. They are in our prayers.