Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to reinforce some of the points that my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), made but add that it was not just the road damage. They will have 580 to $600 million estimated in trade damage and other costs. They have 50 to 60,000 refugees still there. Macedonia was in a terrible situation. Because, unlike the other Orthodox neighbors, they sided with the United States and they let us use their roads and let us use their facilities and have paid a terrible price in trade. And having the refugees there and having our armed forces go through, they have tried to sustain their balanced government, but it is under direct challenge. Because it has been a destabilizing force, now their borders are at risk. It was never a completely clear border between the different countries there, anyway. I know that my colleagues are under tremendous financial pressure. Anybody watching these debates understands that. We all have the sneaking suspicion that there will be more money later. I hope my colleagues will strongly consider adding additional funds to a country that stood with us. Many of us did not favor that intervention. But when we went in, we needed to have the protection for American soldiers and the base with which to put them through. This country cooperated with us and paid a terrible price, and we need to do what we can to help them.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this is clearly going to be an abortion debate. Others can try to turn it into recycling the old phrase about the gag rule, but this fundamentally an abortion debate, and whether those of us who strongly believe that abortion is taking the life of innocent children should have to pay, and in this question it is not for abortions in our country, but abortions overseas, whether we are going to export this doctrine of death. I have worked hard in this Congress to fight against child abuse, to fight against domestic violence, to work for creative ways to stop violence in our schools. But it is hard to take a message to our young people that it is wrong to kill other young people, it is wrong to beat children, but if the child is in the womb, you can burn their skin off, you can cut them off, you can take the baby as they are coming out and hit them with a blunt object. Now, that is another form of violence.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I do believe and what my point is is that these funds can be used directly for abortion, because the money is commingled, and while there is a bookkeeping process, the fact is that the actual dollars that are used on abortion are fungible and can be used to commit these heinous acts, and that while we may have differences about the bookkeeping, the fact is that this argument is often used when we get into voucher debates by the other side, that to give aid to a private school is promoting religion because those dollars then are fungible and can be used back and forth. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that the Republicans use fungible money when we advocate vouchers, but it is not fungible when we deal with the abortion argument. The second question on the gag rule, this is not a question of freedom of speech. This is a question of whether taxpayers' dollars can be used to fund certain types of speech, particularly in countries where they may oppose even family planning in addition to abortion. For example, in one of the more celebrated cases in the Philippines, where they had laws on what type of population methods could be allowed, we used American taxpayer dollars to try to change laws that at least half of the Americans in a deeply split general public do not favor. Why in the world would it be exporting our beliefs of freedom and democracy to use American taxpayer dollars to undermine democracy in other countries where they have concluded, like in Ireland or the Philippines or whatever the case may be, that certain laws on abortion and population control are wrong?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am aware that we have directly banned abortion funding, but the question and what we have tried to address and what this language tries to address is fungible funding. The argument of many of us is that in an organization that on the one hand does abortions, and on the other hand does family planning, which I as an individual do not oppose and believe many of these countries do in fact need family planning, that does not take life once life has begun, that these funds, even though they are claimed to be privately raised, are in fact fungible.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to do tonight is to make a few additional comments regarding the colloquy held earlier today between the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and myself concerning additional aid to Macedonia. We appreciate the consideration of the chairman for additional funding for Macedonia if additional funds become available for the foreign operations appropriations. I will include for the Record additional articles concerning the problems Macedonia is facing. I want to thank Virginia Sirso of the Macedonian Tribune in my home town of Fort Wayne, Indiana, for providing many of these materials that point out the sacrifices that Macedonia made to help us in the war in the Balkans, even though it was very decisive in that part of the world, and particularly with the majority of their population being orthodox and trying to keep a coalition government together, losing 400 to 600 million dollars because of their sacrifices. The least we could do would be to help those who sacrificed to help us. Marriage and the Family The second thing I would like to address this afternoon is an initiative, some innovative proposals on marriage and family, from Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma. The TANF funds, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family funds that have gone to Oklahoma, are being used to strengthen families and reduce the divorce rate. My friend Jerry Regier, Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, worked with Governor Keating to develop this innovative plan. Oklahoma, as of this spring when they implemented that plan, had the second highest divorce rate in the country. Governor Keating and his wife have carried the messages of the consequences of divorce, especially when children are involved, to towns throughout Oklahoma. They have involved seven sectors of Oklahoma life: business, church, education, service providers, government, legal and media. Three of the four things we in the House put in welfare reform regarding TANF that had to do with marriage and family. What is unusual about this Oklahoma program, because every State is bragging about how they have reduced welfare rolls, how they have gotten people back to work and the things they have done with the family, is that it is a comprehensive program to marriage and family issues. I want to read this, and then I will insert the full remarks into the Record. ``Community Covenants, (religious leaders join other sector leaders in community-based solutions to reduce the divorce rate.) ``Scholar-in-residence: Oklahoma State University (national marriage expert); ``Ongoing activities to keep marriage/divorce on the public agenda; ``Statewide training/service delivery system (working with the Nation's experts to develop this system/curriculum that will provide research-based skills training); ``Marriage Resource Center (information, mentorship, et cetera); ``Research/Evaluation (in consultation with Oklahoma State University and the Nation's best marital research experts); ``Improvement of our data system (to understand more about our divorce rate and where to focus our resources); ``Second Annual Governor and First Lady's Conference on Marriage; ``Fatherhood Projects (integration of fatherhood project into the marriage initiative); ``Mother Mentoring/Children First (integration of motherhood projects into the marriage initiative); ``Support of other coalitions/services (pilot demonstration projects that will strengthen couple relationships/marriage and high-risk, vulnerable populations); ``Media (tools for influencing and changing the culture; putting issues on the public agenda); ``Charitable Choice liaison to head the State's efforts to partner with charitable and faith-based organizations to providing and delivering social services; ``Youth Education/Prevention Programs (changing the attitudes of young people who are yet to personally confront the issues of marriage/ divorce).'' Mr. Speaker, this is a comprehensive way to try to tackle what people say is something that cannot be done. Constantly here, when we hear about social problems, oh, well, problems of moral issues like teen pregnancy and divorce cannot really be dealt with by the Government. Now, here is a whole series of things that they are implementing through the course of this year in Oklahoma to try to tackle what is fundamentally one of the major problems we have in the United States when we look at teen runaways, teen suicide, child abuse. We see family breakdown at the core of this. We need innovative leaders who are willing to take some risks to experiment. Not all of these programs will work. Some of them will take longer to get started, but to look at comprehensive ways to address this. In conclusion, what I want to point out is that compassionate conservatism is not just talk. We have governors like Frank Keating and Governor George W. Bush, who have actually implemented innovative ideas. Former Mayor Goldsmith of Indianapolis led the way at the city level. Here in the House, Members like the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and others; and in the Senate, Senator Brownback, Senator Santorum, Senator Abraham. We have innovative leaders throughout this country who have been, will be, and currently are working to try to implement creative ways from a conservative perspective to address these difficult social problems. Governor Frank Keating Challenges Nation to Tackle Divorce Rate Oklahoma Commits $10 Million to Address the Problem Washington, DC.--Governor Frank Keating is increasing Oklahoma's stakes in the battle to reduce its divorce rate by making a significant financial commitment to address the problem. Jerry Regier, Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, was in Washington, DC today to announce that Governor Keating is now the first governor in the country to set aside $10 million dollars in TANF (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) funds to be used to strengthen marriages and reduce the divorce rates. Oklahoma has led the nation in this arena since last year when Governor Keating announced that his state was committed to doing something to reverse the fact that Oklahoma has the 2nd highest divorce rate in the country. In both his Inaugural address and his State of the State address, Keating laid out the goal of reducing the state's divorce rate by 1/3 by 2010. Through this past year, the Governor and First Lady Cathy Keating have carried the message of the consequences of divorce, especially when children are involved, to towns throughout Oklahoma. They have developed the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative into something unique, taking a bold step forward with each new idea. They have involved leaders from seven sectors of Oklahoma life: business, church, education, service providers, government, legal, and the media. ``When we launched this initiative, frankly some people asked Cathy and me what business the government has getting involved in marriage,'' says Governor Frank Keating. ``But when you look at the consequences of divorce, the better question is `What business do we have not getting involved?' '' ``Divorce has staggering negative effects, both economically and socially. We cannot continue to ignore its impact. While we have turned our state's focus and attention to reducing divorce, we must now add our resources and greater action,'' says Keating. TANF funds are block grant funds provided to each state and marriage is a key component of three of the four goals for that funding: (1) ``To provide assistance to needy families so that the children may be cared for in their homes or in the homes of relatives.'' (2) ``To end dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage . . .'' (3) ``To prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies.'' (4) ``To encourage the formation and maintenance of two- parent families.'' On Monday of this week, Governor Keating sent a letter to the Department of Human Services board of directors officially asking them to set aside the TANF funds. Regier and DHS Director Howard Hendrick have been meeting for months, at Keating's direction, to finalize the budget allocation and an agreement was reached late last week. Regier heads the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative for Governor and Mrs. Keating and is charged with the task of developing and implementing an effective strategy to reduce the divorce rate. ``It's with great privilege that I announce today that Oklahoma is the first state to set aside a significant amount of money for reducing its divorce rate and strengthening marriages. While other states have similar TANF resources to invest in meeting this important goal, under the leadership of Governor Keating, Oklahoma is the first to take this important step by committing $10 million to achieve these goals,'' says Regier. Even before this funding commitment, Oklahoma has already begun making important changes. During 1999, the Department of Human Services began calculating the incomes of both individuals in a cohabiting (unmarried) couple when determining assistance eligibility. No longer is there a financial incentive for couples to live together outside of marriage. Over the coming months, Oklahoma will continue to finalize its action plan. The major components will include: Community Covenants (religious leaders join other sector leaders in community-based solutions to reduce the divorce rate) Scholar-in-Residence: Oklahoma State University (national marriage expert) On-going activities to keep marriage/divorce on the public agenda Statewide training/service delivery system (working with the nation's experts to develop this system/curriculum that will provide research-based skills training) Marriage Resource Center (information, mentorship, etc.) Research/Evaluation (in consultation with OSU and the nation's best marital research experts) Improvement of our data system (to understand more about our divorce rate and where to focus our resources) Second Annual Governor and First Lady's Conference on Marriage Fatherhood Projects (integration of fatherhood projects into the marriage initiative) Mother Mentoring/Children First (integration of motherhood projects into the marriage initiative Support of other coalitions/services (pilot demonstration projects that will strengthen couple relationships/marriage in high-risk, vulnerable populations.) Media (tools for influencing and changing the culture . . . putting issues on the public agenda) Charitable Choice liaison to lead the state's efforts to partner with charitable and faith-based organizations in providing and delivering social services Youth Education/Prevention Programs (changing the attitudes of young people who are yet to personally confront the issues of marriage/divorce) While in Washington, DC, Regier called on other leaders to join in this important goal to reduce the divorce rate in their own state. ``Setting a measurable goal is the first step in achieving your objective, and those of us in Oklahoma who are seeing the good impact of our work challenge other states to join us by setting measurable goals for reducing the divorce rate by a set amount in a time certain,'' says Regier. ``It's difficult to reach an undefined goal.'' ``Just as we set an Oklahoma goal of reducing the divorce rate by \1/3\, we have now also set aside a specific amount of money to achieve the objective. While the final amount of allocated resources may be more or less in the final analysis, Governor Keating, the Department of Human Services Board, and I all agreed that we must begin to move forward with a significant commitment of resources. We will not let a lack of funding deter us from meeting this goal that will positively impact Oklahomans in all walks of life,'' Regier concluded. Regier was in Washington to represent Governor Keating at a press conference for The Empowerment Network (TEN). Keating is the national co-chairman of this group which today released a bold bi-partisan platform designed to translate election-year rhetoric about American renewal into measurable gains for America's communities and families. Regier was joined at the press event by Keating's national co-chair, Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), who presented, Empowerment Blueprint 2001: Strategies for Family and Community Renewal, a ``step-by-step agenda for leaders at the national, state, and local levels, and the private sector.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my special order time at this point.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, my name was mistakenly added as an original cosponsor of H.R. 4632. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as an original cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the countless mothers, fathers, families, and individuals whose lives have been devastated by illegal drugs to introduce legislation to federally nullify movements in the states to legalize the use of narcotic drugs illegal under federal law. It is undisputed that narcotic drugs devastate our families and rot our communities literally to the core through addiction and crime. Earlier this week, we passed the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill that provided literally hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to fight drugs and drug-related crime, and we are finalizing action on $1.3 billion in assistance to our allies in Colombia, where agents of the Colombian National Police are dying in numbers to keep them off of our streets in America. Directly defying our efforts as a Congress and a nation, a small group of well-funded activists have engaged in deceptive, back door, efforts that pretend to legalize drugs under state law that are banned under federal law. These activists hide behind the myth of so-called ``medical'' use of marijuana and other drugs, despite the facts that there is no scientific proof that smoked marijuana provides any real medical relief, and that the active ingredient in marijuana is available in pill form. Increasingly, however, they have abandoned even this pretense, and made clear that their goal is the legalization or decriminalization of narcotic drugs. One activist called it the ``leaky bucket strategy . . . legalize it in one area, and sooner or later it will trickle down into the others.'' The bucket is now leaking faster. The Governor of Hawaii just signed into law state legislation that purports to allow the ``medical'' use of marijuana, even though it's still illegal under federal law. Five states have enacted laws by ballot initiative that purport to allow so-called ``medical'' use of marijuana under state laws: Alaska, California, Maine, Oregon and Washington. In furtherance of that strategy, pro-drug activists are now attempting to pass ballot initiatives for the November elections in six states to virtually decriminalize marijuana by removing criminal penalties for its use in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan. These initiatives have already given us such Alice-in-Wonderland moments as the ``nation's first bed and breakfast inn catering to medical marijuana users'' in Santa Cruz, California. This ``establishment'' was featured in People magazine with a smiling couple holding marijuana plants in front of their home, which is said to contain cannabis-themed tiles on the sidewalk, and hemp curtains and towels. That really sounds like a ``medical'' facility to me. We've also seen the bizarre decision by the Oakland City Council to declare a ``public health emergency'' after a court closed the city's medical marijuana club, and the issuance of photo ID cards supposedly allowing marijuana use by the Arcata, California police chief. But this is all an illusion--states can't permit marijuana use, because it's illegal under federal law. The legalization initiatives mislead the public into breaking federal law and directly counter congressional policies against drug use and the provisions of the federal Controlled Substances Act. Today, I am introducing legislation to stop this charade once and for all, with the support of my colleagues on the Speaker's drug task force and others, including Task Force Co-Chair McCollum, Chairman Mica of the Drug Policy Subcommittee, Chairman Gilman, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Myrick, Mr. Foley and Mr. Baker. Federal law is ordinarily assumed to preempt contrary state laws. However, the Federal Controlled Substances Act does not contain an express preemption clause, and currently has language stating that the intent of Congress is not to occupy the entire field of regulation of narcotic drugs. In light of the state initiatives, federal courts could potentially interpret the language of state efforts to regulate narcotics as legally harmonious and proper. In fact, one federal district judge has already argued in non-binding language that Congress intended federal law to regulate drug trafficking, and not ``medical'' marijuana use. My bill will remove any potential loophole or ambiguity by clearly declaring that it is the intent of Congress for federal law to supersede any and all laws of states and local governments purporting to authorize the use, growing, manufacture, distribution or importation of any controlled substance which differs from the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. It would also expressly declare such state and local enactments as null and void. If enacted, the bill would decisively prohibit federal and state judges from giving any effect to drug legalization initiatives and legislation, and send an equally clear message that Congress will not tolerate backdoor efforts to legalize narcotic drugs. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not my bill--it belongs to our mothers, fathers, families and our communities. It has strong support from numerous community groups and coalitions, narcotics activists, and tireless anti-drug advocates, who have worked closely with my office in drafting this bill. I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank Joyce Nalepka of America Cares, who first raised this important issue with me. I look forward to working with the anti-drug community to pass this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing it. [From People Magazine, June 12, 2000] Joint Venture--When Pot's Prescribed, the High Way Leads to the Compassion Flower Inn At the Compassion Flower Inn in Santa Cruz, Calif., there are smokers--and there are smokers. Cigarette smokers are banished to the front porch. Smokers, on the other hand, may feel they've died and gone to pot. Cannabisthemed tiles adorn the sidewalk outside. Curtains, linens and towels are made of hemp. And . . . say, what is that funny smell, anyway? The five-bedroom bed-and-breakfast, just a stoner's throw from the beach, exists as a safe--and perfectly legal--haven for people who smoke marijuana for medical reasons. ``Motel 6 guests probably smoke it quietly in their rooms,'' says Andrea Tischler, 57, who with her partner, Maria Mallek- Tischler, 46, opened the inn in a restored Victorian in April. ``This is more out of the closet.'' Guests who show up hoping to be provided with marijuana go away disappointed; the Compassion Flower is strictly BYOP. And, as required by California law, a doctor's note is also necessary. Tischler, who grew up in Chicago, and German-born Mallek-Tischler, a couple since 1979, have been pot- legalization activists since the 1980s in San Francisco. ``We had a lot of friends with AIDS,'' says Tischler. ``They were taking AZT, and marijuana seemed to bolster their appetite.'' Out in the sunshine-soaked ``toking area,'' a new arrival, Scott Byer, 53, of Clearlake, Calif., who smokes to ease spinal pain, has taken out a small porcelain pipe and is filling it. He doesn't even have his room key yet.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to Father Theodore Hesburgh, President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. I also want to thank my colleague from Indiana, Tim Roemer, for his leadership in the effort to bestow this honor on Fr. Hesburgh. As a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, I have long admired Father Hesburgh's commitment to excellence in higher education and his extraordinary leadership in the cause of civil rights. I was happy to cosponsor the legislation last fall to present him with this distinguished award. Under Father Hesburgh's stewardship as Notre Dame's president from 1952 to 1987, Notre Dame established itself as a top academic institution while maintaining its standing as a leading Catholic university. Fr. Hesburgh's greatest challenge was to demonstrate that it was possible to achieve prominence in both arenas and he succeeded, creating a model for other Catholic institutions of higher learning across the country. One of Father Hesburgh's most enduring contributions to the Nation as a whole is his commitment to the pursuit of civil rights for all Americans. As a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for 15 years, three of them as its chairman, Fr. Hesburgh was instrumental in the movement that culminated in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His legacy of leadership in the cause of civil rights and other issues of moral imperative has served as an example for America and, indeed, the world. Mr. Speaker, in light of these and all of Father Hesburgh's many contributions in service to our Nation, I wholeheartedly support this resolution.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this limitation of funds amendment is simple, direct and necessary. It prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to pay expenses for any United States delegation or special envoy at a United Nations-sponsored meeting at which the delegation or envoy votes for or otherwise advocates the adoption of any provision that legalizes, legitimizes, or decriminalizes prostitution in any form, or under any circumstance, or otherwise limits international efforts to combat sex trafficking, whether or not the individual being trafficked consents to engage in prostitution. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues would not think that such a resolution would be necessary. But here are the sad facts. At Beijing +5, there was a document released condemning the sexual exploitation of women around the world. It eloquently condemned domestic violence, sexual abuse, sexual slavery and sexual harassment. But on the issue of prostitution, it clarified, quote, ``forced prostitution.'' Why ``forced'' prostitution? All prostitution is the sexual exploitation of women. How, exactly, does one distinguish between women who are sometimes forcibly taken and sold into prostitution, those who are involuntarily forced to sign ``consent'' or voluntary participation forms, those whose families push them into such agreements, those in dire poverty where circumstances drive them into sexual exploitation, and those who knows what other societal pressures would pressure them into selling their bodies for sex to those who choose to exploit them? Apparently, our U.S. delegation at the two most recent conferences, one in Vienna and one in Beijing +5 Conference, felt it could do so. According to reports, the Philippine delegation moved to strike the word ``forced'' prostitution. According to numerous eyewitness reports, the U.S. State Department official assisting the U.S. delegation jumped up and moved to strike the entire reference. Mr. Chairman, what is going on here? Is it the Clinton administration's position that prostitution is okay? Feminist leaders apparently thought so. Equality Now had already sent a letter on behalf of a coalition of women's rights groups to the President after the conference in Vienna which states, among other things, ``To our chagrin, the United States strongly supports the use of the term `forced prostitution' rather than `prostitution' in the definition of `sexual exploitation.' We believe that the administration's current position on the definition of trafficking is extremely detrimental to women.'' It was even more difficult for these feminist leaders to condemn the administration's position since Mrs. Clinton is the Honorary Chair of the President's Interagency Council on Women, formed after the initial Beijing Women's Conference. Mrs. Clinton spoke to the conference and delivered several other messages of support. After the United States Government effort to protect some types of prostitution, that somehow it viewed as nonexploitative of women became public, clarifications and denials of sorts were made. Mrs. Clinton's Chief of Staff carefully qualified their position, taking the position that the document did not require the U.S. to change our laws, a somewhat accurate response to a completely different question. The document only condemned some types of prostitution. The United States representatives clearly wanted some types not to be condemned, and the First Lady's Chief of Staff did not deny that point. The President's response was somewhat more clear in a fuzzy sort of way. Agreeing with this resolution, my resolution, he clearly states his ``opposition to prostitution in all its forms.'' Then he subtly changes the point to, ``We would not become a party to any treaty that weaken laws against prostitution,'' and then further attempted to change away his Beijing +5 actions.

Mr. SOUDER. First off, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with the interpretation that I fear is coming. From our discussions, I understand that this is anticipating a future action, potentially, and therefore could be construed as legislating on an appropriations bill. However, since the last two conferences in a row, with our last funding process that we went through in this House, in fact the administration agents, through the State Department, took this position. I would argue that this is a limitation of funds because there is no reason to believe that they will not take the position a third time. I understand that this is now at the mercy of the Chair, and I hope he strongly considers that position.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), who has worked with this amendment and has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2778, as amended, and introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). This bill authorizes a study of the Taunton River for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Taunton River contains a variety of natural and cultural resources important to America's heritage. H.R. 2778 will assess these resources and determine whether the river meets the requirements for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The study authorized by H.R. 2778 has strong public support from State and local officials, residents, and river users. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2778, as amended. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2778.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my friend from Oregon on the Committee on Education and the Workforce for his moving statement and his support of this resolution, and my fellow Hoosier, the gentlewoman from Indianapolis, Indiana (Ms. Carson), for her personal statement and general statement in support of this resolution as well. It is kind of awkward for us in Congress. One of the things that I hear probably most frequently at the personal level from other Members is the struggle of those of us who still have kids at home and the relationship to those kids and trying to do this duty. It is very easy to feel guilty in this job, unless you are a very kind of hard-skinned person. Many of us tend to blame any problems we have with our kids on the fact that we are separated at times, when, in fact, we might still have those problems there. But it is very easy to worry about those, and each of us try to deal with it in different ways, whether it is bringing our families here; whether it is trying to travel with them, I use my frequent flier miles to try to bring my kids with me to different hearings and different events; trying to call home each night; trying to e-mail, when I can remember my quick-dot-name, my handle; whether is it is losing video games to your kids at home on a regular basis, I do not think I have ever won, unless I do not play fair. It is something that they need that time, and it is something we struggle with. But it is a balance of setting an example. But then when you set the example, or when you try to inspire your kids, you also have an extra responsibility, as many of us do in this House, to reach out to our children, because if we lose our family and gain the world, we have lost everything. It is very easy to do that here, and if we are going to pass resolutions like this, we have to get our own house in order first and be an example, because the people who watch us in our home towns and the people who watch us around the country say, ``Well, look at them. They will pass a resolution in Congress, but what are they doing with their own families?'' We have tried to address some of the policy questions that were raised too, whether it is in welfare reform and the accountability of child support, because at the very minimum, the kids deserve the financial support when a dad abandons. We also tried to address child abuse. It is so hard for me to understand any father who could physically or sexually or verbally abuse their children. You talk about an anathema, how could a dad who loves their kids beat their kids? I just do not understand that, and it is something we are wrestling with in our society. We praise all the moms who stood in for the dads that have abandoned their kids. We praise all the coaches, all the mentors, all the volunteers in this country who stepped up and stood in the gap when the dad abandons their families. But the purpose of this resolution is to say that the men of America, the dads in America, need to stand up. If you are not home, get home, and get involved in your kids' life. If you are there, as much as possible, do not just go off into your basketball leagues and your bowling leagues and out to golf and go out with your friends. Spend time with your kids. You will regret it the rest of your life if you do not, and the country has to pay the consequence.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 522) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of responsible fatherhood.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I said earlier that I was very excited to see this bill move forward, but there were a number of questions that I had as we first brought this up in the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and the Committee on Resources, which I believe have been very adequately addressed. Any American who follows Abraham Lincoln realizes that he is a legend not only to Illinois but to many other States, and he has historic sites around the country. I do not think there is a young boy in America or a young girl in America who has not heard the story of Abraham Lincoln reading by the firelight and being told by our parents that we should be very appreciative of our life-styles, and how hard he worked, and worked all day, and then read by the light of his fire. Presumably he had very thick glasses, if they had been there at the time, because he was so committed to that. It inspired many young people, including myself. I have been a Lincoln fan most of my life, have 15 to 20 books of Lincoln that I have read; and I think many Americans have taken that inspiration. When we walk through our capitol building or around the Nation's capital, we see many Lincoln sites. The Gettysburg address is arguably, along with the Declaration of Independence, is the most known and most moving document. This book by Gary Wills is a tremendous book, talking about, for example, the fact that it is amazing that an address this important, referring to the Gettysburg address, and one that most of us know and is so concise, at the same time the Gettysburg address does not mention Gettysburg, it does not mention slavery, it does not mention the union, and it does not mention the South. Yet he managed to communicate his points in a moving way that still moves Americans today. He was a tremendous writer, in addition to being a person who could unify and keep our country together. This capitol building would be rent apart if we had not had a mild mannered man from the Midwest who listened to the people, and spent much of his life listening, to try to somehow keep a very divided North together, let alone manage his way through the Civil War. I say all that because this site could have been in Kentucky, a national presidential library. That is where he was born. It could have been in Indiana. We have a national Lincoln boyhood site in southern Indiana. We in Indiana like to say that Indiana made Lincoln and Lincoln made Illinois. It also could be at Gettysburg, where he delivered this address and where we have just taken sites into Federal possession, in the Wills House, the cemetery where he gave the address. We have Ford Theater as a national site. But the fact is the first question is why Springfield. There are many more Lincoln sites in Springfield than anywhere else in the country, and I want to make sure the Record notes these. They have the Lincoln Home National Historic Site, where he and Mary Todd Lincoln lived. The Lincoln-Herndon Law Offices. They have the Lincoln tomb. The Lincoln Depot, where he left Springfield for Washington, D.C., which is still preserved. They have the Lincoln log cabin, where his father and stepmother lived. They have the Lincoln ledger, his financial records. The old State capitol where he served as a State legislator and delivered his famous house divided speech. They also have outside of Springfield and New Salem a recreation of a village of his time period. There is no question that Springfield has more historic sites related to Lincoln than anywhere else in the country. They also, through the Henry Horner Collection that was given to the Illinois State Historical Society, have 1,500 documents that were either handwritten by Lincoln or were signed by Lincoln, in addition to all sorts of broadsides, prints and photographs, including the earliest known photo of Lincoln, taken in 1846, and the only known photo lying in state. So, clearly, they have more documents, more photos, more actual buildings related to Lincoln than anywhere else in the country. They have Edward Everett's copy of his manuscript, handwritten out for him. They have the handwritten speech of the second inaugural address with the famous ``with malice toward none, with charity for all.'' I think there is a compelling case that, a, we need a national Lincoln museum and library, and that Springfield should be the center. One amendment that we had in committee, and I think is important as we work with the National Park Service on things like the Lewis and Clark trip to the West where we have many historic sites and where we have other underground railroad sites; as we work together it is important that a national museum, while it will focus on his Illinois years, because that is where most of the documents are, that it will also interrelate with the other Lincoln sites around the country. So as we see this boom in heritage tourism, as many young Americans and adult Americans try to learn more about their history, that they can go to one site and at that site be referred to other sites around the country that also bring out that heritage. I am excited about the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). I hope this also will continue to be funded through the appropriations process, and I am glad that we can move this bill forth. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House of Representatives, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit my testimony on an issue that is very important to me, and to the 18th District of Illinois--authorization of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. A panel of world-famous historians recently voted Abraham Lincoln as the greatest American President. This comes as no surprise to those of us from the Land of Lincoln. For decades, people from all over the world have come to Illinois to learn about our 16th President, and to be inspired by his life and words. Lincoln's story is the quintessential American success story. In Lincoln, we have a man born into the most humble of circumstances overcoming hardship and repeated failures, through his own hard work and dedication, to emerge as one of the three most written about individuals in human history. But even though Lincoln is considered by the world to be one of the nation's greatest leaders, there is no single location where the Lincoln story can be told. There are sites that interpret his pioneer days, has legal and political careers, his home life, and even his death. But there is not a facility dedicated to interpreting Abraham Lincoln's legacy and relevance to contemporary generations. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., one of the nation's most respected historians, recently termed it a ``tragedy'' that Abraham Lincoln does not have a Presidential Library. The State of Illinois has the world's largest Lincoln collection-- some 46,000 items so rare and valuable that the collection exceeds the combined Lincoln holdings of the National Park Service, the National Archives, and the Smithsonian Institution. Some of our nation's most significant artifacts are a part of that collection: five copies of The Gettysburg Address, which sets the stage for our nation's history after Civil War; the only signed copy of The Emancipation Proclamation, which echoed Lincoln's strong feelings against human bondage; and the only copy of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, which, while advocating malice toward none and charity for all, predicted benevolent policies for post war recovery. The Illinois collection also includes such diverse artifacts as Tad Lincoln's toy cannon, Mary Lincoln's wedding skirt, and the nameplate from the front door of Lincoln's Springfield house--treasures that belong to all Americans. But, few of you have ever seen these items, and there is a reason for that. The State of Illinois has no adequate facilities to appropriately display and interpret these items. They are kept locked in a vault beneath the old State Capitol in downtown Springfield, to be brought out only for important research or the occasional exhibit at another location. Abraham Lincoln's example of sacrifice for his ideals should not be kept locked behind a vault door. Lincoln's message of freedom and democracy should not be kept in obscurity in the basement of a building. The life of America's greatest President should not be hidden away from all but a select few. The proposed Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library will be a beacon of freedom for the entire world. Anyone enjoying the benefits of democracy, and those who yearn to enjoy those benefits, will want to come to this new facility. The world looks to Abraham Lincoln as the highest example of freedom in a nation founded on that concept, and the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library will give the world a place to learn about, and be inspired by, that example. Abraham Lincoln's message is especially relevant today, as the world's changing political situation has people searching for a champion of freedom and equality. We have that champion. He is an American who kept the United States united and demonstrated to the world that democratic ideals were not a mere abstraction, but a living reality. He is a human being who brought dignity to all human beings. He is a martyr who died for his beliefs. He makes us proud to be Americans. Now, it's time to return the favor. Abraham Lincoln's legacy belongs to all generations. His appeal transcends age, race, gender, class and partisan boundaries. He is one of our greatest Presidents and deserves this long overdue facility in his honor. It will be located in Springfield, Illinois, but it will be open to the world. Let's keep Lincoln's torch of freedom burning for all people. Let's help fund the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been a tireless leader in this effort; along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood); our speaker in the chair today, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert); and the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). And many of us from Kentucky are also happy to support the efforts of those from Illinois, but I thank this gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3084, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). This bill authorizes the Secretary of Interior to contribute up to $50 million in matching funds for the construction of an Abraham Lincoln Interpretative Center. H.R. 3084 assures that every dollar of Federal contribution must be matched by at least $2 from the non-Federal side. The center would consist of a museum and an archive library which would house the world's largest collection of Lincoln material. H.R. 3084 allows 18 months from the time of enactment for the entity selected by the Secretary of Interior to submit the design, method of acquisition, and estimated cost of the center. The selected entity is also responsible for describing the manner and role that non-Federal entities will participate for this center. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 3084, as amended. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.