Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Well, as I went through this I found I have gone through seven parallels, and I found 21 minimum. Number 8: Take advantage of the public's belief the Presidents act logically. November 1, 1972, Nixon and Erlichman. Erlichman: We do not mind being called crooks, but not stupid crooks. Nixon: We know we will never convince them on our morality, but do they think we are that dumb? 9: What is is. It is incredible, history repeating itself. December 11, 1972--

Mr. SOUDER. What the verb is.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I am saying that there appears to be historical parallels. Erlichman says the Watergate thing, I do not think there is anything to add what we have already said. Haldeman said you might re-say it. Erlichman: That nobody in the government did this thing. Haldeman: The White House. Nixon: What do you mean Watergate White House? Nobody currently in the government. Haldeman: Currently employed in the government, say currently employed. Nixon: Ever involved in the government. Erlichman: Now you have Liddy and Hunt who were at one time employed. Nixon: But while they were doing it even, while they were doing it? Erlichman: That is right. Then employed I can say. Nixon: No one who is an employee of the White House, who is an employee of the White House. Then he goes on. Erlichman says either at the time of the incidence or since. Nixon: Or since, that is what I mean, yes. Because in fact they were still employed but not at the White House. They were another branch of government. That is the precision of the is, that they had it down, that they were at the White House earlier, they are now in another branch of government, but if they said is in a certain way, it implied they weren't employed by the government. Parallel Number 10: Everybody does a defense. January 2, 1973, Nixon and Colson. Nixon: Our democratic friends did a lot of things too and never got caught. Number 11: This is just partisan politics. February 6, 1973, Haldeman says something we heard almost weekly. Haldeman: As we start into the Senate thing, which is that there is a dire threat to the two party system, because for the first time in our history we have one of the political parties using the machinery of government to investigate the other political party. He is trying to get them all stirred up. It is not going to make any difference, and he does not have any illusions that it will. He is just trying to make a case that this is a totally partisan thing. 12: Coordinate the witnesses. March 6, 1973, John Dean said, well, I think the most important thing for our handling the hearings are, one, any witnesses that go up are well prepared. You know, re-reading your speech on the Hiss case again showed how effective investigators can be if one witness does not know what the other witness or there is a dichotomy between the witnesses. I want to make a direct point here. I sat in on the deposition of Jane Sherborne, and she told us how they coordinated the White House witnesses both before and after. Number 13: Conspiracy to commit perjury, Nixon and Haldeman. Haldeman: I said that that is a conspiracy to commit perjury even if Magruder did in fact later commit perjury or even at the time he was answering Dean's questions commit perjury. He said not if Dean advised him to tell the truth, and I said what if Dean did not advise him of anything. He said, okay, I take that back, but I will simply say to you that there was a conspiracy to commit perjury and there was a conspiracy to commit justice. 14:----

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and all of the others on the conference committee. It is unfortunate that it is this late at night that we have one of the most important pieces of legislation that could possibly be before us. It addresses the most vulnerable Americans in our society, our children, the working poor and the elderly, and it is an innovative compromise that we have been able to work between the parties and between the bodies. It is of special meaning to me in 3 different ways, and I want to briefly talk about those. One is my relationship to my former employer, Senator Dan Coats. Second is these issues are many of the things that motivated me to particularly run for Congress, and they are issues that as a staff member for 10 years I worked with, and now, to see some of them come to fruition as part of law is indeed a special honor and a privilege. So let me touch on a couple of these issues together. Senator Dan Coats is retiring this year after many years in the House and Senate, and as a friend of his who worked in his first primary and general election campaign, we worked together with many goals. Part of those goals are very tied to our personal and deep religious commitments and how we as Christians would address issues facing the most vulnerable in our society. He has tried to be one of the more creative leaders on our side in looking at the balance of how do we work through the private sector, how do we work in joint cooperation in public and private, and what is the role of government in helping develop opportunities. When I served as Republican staff director on the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, we looked at the Head Start program and saw that it was a Federal program that was very effective in at least some areas. And what we have done in this bill is to try to make it even more effective by putting better educational standards in, through targeting better pay for Head Start teachers, and I think that is an example of a Federal program that has worked. But there are several other things in this bill. Back when I was in the House and when I worked for Senator Coats in the Senate, we were trying to look for creative ways of how to empower private sector organizations, and one of those things is a charitable tax credit. For the first time, working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on the minority in our committee, we were able to pass in the 10 percent of the State's community service block grants they can use that money to help offset an expansion of the State charitable tax credit. We have not been able to pass other pieces of legislation at this point with it, but it is an important first step. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) have been leaders in the individual development accounts, the Assets for Independence that Dan Coats has supported for a long time as I have. And this is another innovative way to help those who are less fortunate to develop the assets they need, whether they use them for their own personal expenses or whether it is for homes or housing or to develop a business. It is an important breakthrough. It is something that we worked out when I was a house staffer for Congressman Coats and as a Senate staffer, and it is a tremendous victory for my fellow and former staffers, Stephanie Monroe and Sharon Soderstrom and Mike Gerson to see many of these dreams actually become part of law. Dan Coats has been a personal model for me. It is so fitting and appropriate that this bill is named after him, because he is a beacon of light and a personal moral example. An example of leadership, of how someone in government can be in both their personal and public life a model for young people around the country; a model for legislators as to how to be creative in their legislation, of how to be a conservative and yet have a heart for the poor, a heart for the underprivileged. It has been a great honor to both work for him and now with him in this United States Congress, and he is going to be deeply missed by me and many others.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and in particular would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen), and the rest of the committee for their leadership for including our National Historic Preservation Act for lighthouses. Senator Murkowski and I began working on this bill last year. He held hearings on the bill last year in the Senate. We worked closely with the nonprofit lighthouse preservation groups and the Coast Guard and the National Park Service and the GSA. Let me make it clear, I have no lighthouses in my district. So do not try to and come to northeast Indiana to see lighthouses. This bill is for lighthouse lovers across America. Many of these historic lighthouses have been developed by nonprofit groups and then go up for bidding. There are about 400 that are going to be excess property and we need a procedure so that individual Members of Congress do not have to come down here to try to preserve these things, and so that the nonprofit groups do not have to bid against the very things that they helped set the equity for. I commend the chairman for moving this. I believe this sets an orderly procedure. And I know that many Members of this body have lighthouses in their district and groups that this would be very important to.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, later this week we are planning to vote on almost $4 billion in emergency aid for America's farmers. This package is a combination of relief from the natural disasters much of the country has experienced this year, and market loss assistance. In particular, the market loss provision addresses the collapse of foreign markets which account for almost 40% of what we produce. In 1996, we began a much needed revision of our nation's farm policy. We passed the Freedom to Farm Act to phase out farmer's dependency on government subsidy and give them the flexibility to choose which crops to plant, and how to plant them. In addition we encouraged farmers to seek out new markets for their products, and they have. A great example of a developing market is biodiesel: an alternative fuel which is derived from crops such as soybeans, rapeseed, canola and more. H.R. 4017, the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act, also provides an important means to help farmers move into markets for biodiesel. This bill is not a subsidy, as Washington has tried in the past, but amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) to allow biodiesel to be considered as an alternative fuel. EPACT requires that federal, state, and limited private fleets acquire alternatively fueled vehicles. For the first time under EPACT, H.R. 4017 would provide strong incentives to provide for fleet managers to actually use the alternative fuel rather than simply acquire additional alternative fueled vehicles that may never run on the alternative fuels for which they were designed. H.R. 4017 enables fleet managers to use blends of at least 20% biodiesel to comply with EPACT requirements. Fleets may count the biodiesel portion of that blend toward a portion of their annual EPACT vehicle purchase requirement. A minimum of 450 gallons of biodiesel must be purchased and actually used by a covered fleet to qualify the use of fuel as a substitute for a vehicle acquisition. The provision does not create any new mandates or impose any new requirements on covered fleets. Instead it rewards the use of alternative fuel to achieve the goals of EPACT, to displace imported petroleum. In addition to providing an alternative to foreign oil, biodiesel helps reduce emissions. Biodiesel runs cleaner than regular diesel fuel which means less particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide is released into the atmosphere. This alternative fuel would be used primarily by heavy-duty fleet vehicles, such as city buses, boats and trucks. What we are attempting to do with this provision is broaden the field of options in complying with the mandates of EPACT, not subsidize a particular fuel. This provision does not require new spending. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will save the federal government $40 million over the next 5 years. I fully support H.R. 4017, because I appreciate the way it encourages innovation and development as a way of addressing environmental issues. This bill helps to create a significant new market for Hoosier soybean farmers. According to USDA, H.R. 4017 may add as much as 7 cents to the value of a bushel of soybeans. When we help increase real demand for soybeans, not simply subsidize them, we increase the price and put more dollars in the hands of working family farmers. I am pleased that in addition to immediate relief, this Congress is taking concrete steps to ensure the survival and prosperity of Hoosier farmers.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). As we have gone through our meetings with the Department of Labor, it has been a frustrating experience, and I certainly hope we will not only overwhelmingly pass this bill today, but be able to move it through the Senate and get it signed into law. I have a slightly different perspective than many here because my family once was Amish. My great-great-grandfather, great grandfather was one of the first Amish settlers in Northeastern Indiana. My family left the Amish faith around the turn of the century, but I still have many friends and many family members who are in the Amish faith around the small town that I grew up in and where our family business is located. They are not a people who are looking for trouble. They are looking for a place where they can be left alone, and they will go to the jungles of Brazil, if that is necessary. The question is, in the United States of America anymore, are we going to allow people to practice their religious freedom and to practice their faith the way they choose? We are not asking that we put safety at risk. The bill explicitly says that the individual cannot operate or assist in the operation of power-driven woodworking machines. As far as opening up a loophole that might broaden so that others might try to get this exemption, as long as they are willing to give up their TVs, their radios, their telephones, ride around in Amish buggies, perhaps they can change and get into this loophole. But this is a very narrow category for a group of people who have already been cleared by this government several decades ago to have a different form of school, where they can leave at junior high level and go into apprenticeships. They cannot make enough money in many areas anymore to do this with just farming. Most have gone into some form of woodworking, whether it is carpentry, pallets, home building, cabinets or whatever. If we in fact shut them down and shut their young people's opportunities down, they will be forced to move and to go somewhere else. That is the fundamental question here: Can we accommodate just slightly with the safety, and, by the way, what a joke. We are seeing kids dying in automobile wrecks, dying of drug abuse, and we are worried whether one, even with this blockage, might somehow have an accident while they are working? The amount of deaths and accidents in the Amish community compared to that in the English community, as they call the others around them, is minuscule. That is not what this is about. It is not about safety. It is a question of whether the humble powerless people like the Amish can be free to practice their worship yet here in America, or whether we are going to be so uniform and so inflexible in this government that we will drive them out.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, I too want to congratulate the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for the progress that we have made and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his support of this legislation. I understand the difficulty here. I hope indeed, if in some kind of conference report or end-of-the-year deal there is a bump-up in IMF spending, that we also can look at some of these other amendments that Members were deeply concerned about and the other matters that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) raised.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this rule, even though two of my preprinted amendments are not going to be allowed. There are many of us who would have liked to have some cracks at the IMF. We understand that with the struggles in the agricultural community, that we really probably do not have any choice at this point but to fund an organization that has been highly secretive, that refuses to cooperate with Congress, that it is not clear it is not wasting money throughout the world. But they have us over a barrel. The question is, how much money are they going to extort out of us? And while we might be able to live with the amount in this bill, it needs to be a minimal amount until they start to cooperate. So it is not only my amendments, but other amendments on this side of the aisle that we wanted to have in order, and are disappointed that we are not able to do that. I particularly want to speak briefly on the amendments that I wanted to offer. I have a bill in, cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, that would say as part of us giving money to the International Monetary Fund, if we are going to use American taxpayer dollars, that the countries that get the money from the International Monetary Fund should cooperate with American investigations in the campaign finance violations, much like American banks have to do. As I have discussed in special order speeches this week, it is critical for my colleagues and for the American public to understand that the investigation of illegal contributions from foreign nationals to American campaigns, with the likely intent to influence American foreign policy, have been stonewalled by the lack of cooperation of witnesses who have critical testimony and documentation. Many of these persons are foreign nationals associated with persons who have already been indicted or convicted by Federal authorities in connection with these illegal schemes. Seventy-nine witnesses have taken the fifth amendment, and more significantly to this particular bill, 18 have fled the country or are avoiding investigators by hiding in foreign countries. Mr. James Riady is the deputy chairman of Lippo Group in Indonesia, and investigators from the other body have suggested that he has a, quote, ``long-term relationship with the Chinese intelligence agency. Riady is also reported to have called DNC fund-raiser, John Huang, our man in the American government,'' end quote. He is now living in Indonesia and refuses to cooperate with investigators. Ng Lap Seng, a Chinese Communist Party official, wired more than $900,000 in money to Charlie Trie for conduit contributions. He lives in Macao and has refused to be interviewed. Ted Sioeng and his network of business associates gave $400,000 to the Democratic Party and 150,000 to Republicans. All these witnesses have refused to cooperate. My amendment would have expressed our intent that no country should receive American taxpayer assistance to the IMF unless it is cooperating fully with American investigations, both with Congress and the Justice Department, so we can find out whether our elections have been influenced by foreign governments; whether there has been a compromise in our government and in our leadership of our country of decisions, because of foreign money. And the best way to find out these things is often by tracking the money. And when we track the money in the New York banks and when we track the money through those international countries that are cooperating, and then run into stonewalling in other countries, why should our taxpayer dollars go to these countries to help bail out their economies if they are not going to cooperate with us when we are trying find out whether our government has been put up for sale? It is a slap in the face to the American taxpayer for these countries to demand our financial assistance and then slam the closed door on our investigations into critical matters affecting our own national security.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we do not have a current system. This is just an amendment to the new bill that we have in. In that bill, in our first draft we had the Department of Education doing it, and we felt, consistent with everything else we have been doing, it would be better to encourage the States to do it. It is not just saying hey, come up with a word. It is saying, here are the criteria. The criteria did not change. We merely moved the agency where the public dissemination will occur and where the awards will be given to the governors as opposed to the Secretary of Education.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which I believe will take an important first step toward ensuring that Americans have more meaningful and effective access to substance abuse treatment through their private insurance plans. I am a cosponsor of the gentleman from Minnesota's bill because I believe that substance abuse treatment is an essential component of our overall drug strategy. As I said in this morning's debate on the drug interdiction bill, I have traveled to several of the major drug source countries and had the opportunity to have extensive discussions with the leaders of those countries whose citizens are fighting and dying to keep drugs out of the United States. And a major theme that keeps coming up in these discussions is the concern of those leaders that America also has to do its part to stop the demand for drugs that is creating the international drug trade. Effective treatment is one of our most critical tools to help people who have become addicted to drugs stop the cycle of abuse. I recently visited the Northeastern Center in Kendallville, Indiana in my district. The patients told me without exception how the treatment had made a powerful difference in their lives and enabled them through fellowship and therapy to understand their addictions and learn how to resist the temptations to go back to drug abuse that come back hour after hour, day after day. For them, the struggle to stay away from substance abuse was constant, and that only the help they had received in treatment programs gave them the tools to stay away from drugs. Many of the people who enter treatment have had their lives so destroyed by drugs that they are almost literally at the end of the line. Many patients face jail or losing their jobs if they could not successfully complete the program. Others have had their families and family life completely destroyed by their drug abuse. Some work in positions of critical public safety, like airplane pilots. I believe that this amendment is an important first step toward improving the availability of substance abuse treatment. I want to make clear that neither this amendment or the gentleman's bill on which it is based would force any company or insurer to provide coverage or benefits for substance abuse treatment. Instead, it only says that those health plans that do include substance abuse benefits cannot place discriminatory caps, limits, or other conditions on treatment that they do not place on the other benefits in their insurance package. And the amendment before us today would not even go that far, because for parliamentary reasons it would only apply to between 20% and 35% of the insured population--those who are not covered by federal regulation under ERISA. This amendment is necessary because many patients who seek treatment cannot receive a full and effective treatment program because of policy limits even though their insurance covers drug treatment and would not put the same limits on a hospital stay. Because of this, the dedicated patients who are devoted to treatment will go as far as selling their cars and other assets in order to be able to afford it. The less dedicated patients will give up on the treatment altogether and continue to abuse drugs. This amendment will be an important first step--a demonstration of the benefits of facilitating access to substance abuse treatment. Some have raised legitimate issues for discussion on the question of whether we yet have effective means to make sure that we fully track the effectiveness of drug treatment outcomes, as well as questions about the most effective methods of treatment and problems with recidivism. All of these are important matters that we should continue to review and discuss as we go forward. But there can be little doubt that helping at least a few people have better access to ways of saving them from drug abuse is far better than doing it for none.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a perfecting amendment to this bill. Let me be perfectly clear. I support the bill as it is currently drafted, and I am one of 14 original cosponsors. I believe, however, that the bill could be perfected with the minor adjustment my amendment offers. As the bill stands now, the subtitle that amends Safe and Drug Free Schools would allow the Secretary of Education to develop a rating system to determine whether a public school has a quality drug program. My perfecting amendment would change this provision to require that States, rather than the bureaucrats inside Washington, establish their own standard of quality for drug prevention programs within their borders. My rationale in offering this change is simple. It would ensure that authority over education programs be maintained where it should be: at the State level. It is important to keep in mind that while this amendment would require States to establish their own standards, my amendment would still require modest criteria to be considered by States in their determination of quality. At a minimum, the criteria required would be the following: The rate of illegal use of alcohol, tobacco or drugs by the students enrolled in the school; the rate of suspensions or expulsions of students enrolled in the school for drug or alcohol-related offenses; the effectiveness of the program as proven by research; the involvement of parents and community members in the design of the drug prevention program; and the extent of review of existing community prevention programs before the implementation of a public school program. While not being overly prescriptive for States, I believe these criteria will encourage schools to rely on necessary tools that will help them craft effective programs, such as: parental and community input into their drug prevention programs; an accurate assessment of the scope and the frequency of the problem in their school districts; and reliance on reliable research. Additionally, my amendment continues the bill's current emphasis on the importance of publicly disclosing and highlighting effective programs. The amendment would require State authorities to open up for public inspection at least once per year the names of all schools that have been designated as having formulated quality drug programs. As we all work in our home districts and our home States, we see that one of the things we need to encourage is the development and widespread dissemination of those programs that have been effective at tackling the problems. In requiring public notification, I believe we close that loop of what we are trying to accomplish. Public notification is a vital part of the process. Additionally, open information will facilitate the dissemination of the message to students that the use of illicit drugs and illegal alcohol and tobacco use will not be tolerated, either in schools or outside of them. I believe my perfecting amendment, which I worked on with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and much of this was developed at his suggestion and his leadership, is in the process of formulating a highly effective piece of legislation. The students of America deserve nothing less.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I think it is also consistent with how we do the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act and this brings it all together. It is not that the other was bad, that is why I was an original cosponsor of this. It just clarifies it further.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership, as well as the Speaker, who by putting this at the top of his agenda and our Republican agenda, has forced us and enabled us to work in multiple different ways. I also want to pay tribute to former Congressman and chairman of the Committee on National Security, Mr. Bill Zeliff, who when the Republicans took over Congress, began these hearings 4 years ago, of which we have had over 30 in that subcommittee and have worked to follow up many years of effort of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), when he was with the Narcotics Select Committee. This is not something that just popped up in an election year. Many of us have been working for years and years. I want to illustrate, too, it is not just in this bill. Earlier we had the impression that, well, this is a few last-minute things thrown together. But, in fact, I have been working over in the higher education bill where we have a major breakthrough in student loans, where we are going to hold students accountable. If they are found guilty of using drugs, they can lose their loan for 1 year. They can get back by testing free during two drug tests. But then if they have a second drug offense, they lose it for 2 years. The third time and they are out. This is a major breakthrough. We also have in that bill awards, where we have worked with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Joe Kennedy), to establish some awards for colleges that have drug and alcohol abuse programs that are national models. We have had several bills in the Committee on Education and the Workforce where we have included anti-drug education as one of the things that we need to do with parents. As the Speaker said, this needs to be a full court press everywhere, and we are trying to do that in prevention and treatment efforts. In juvenile justice, as we heard in yesterday's debate, where we had accountability and prevention programs, the appropriations subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), included additional money for drug courts, a very creative effort to work with these different youth. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) had one of the most creative initiatives, which we just this past week have had the first grants for community-wide drug efforts, and we worked that through different committees. There was a reference earlier today, that we had not had hearings. There is a section in this bill, drug-free workplace, which is one of the largest sections. I know the subcommittee I chair is a small committee, it is called empowerment, it is dealing with people who do not have much power and how we can address these things. It is part of the Committee on Small Business that tends to get run over by some of the bigger committees, but the fact is we had a hearing, and we passed it through. The committee came in front of the House, but it is deadlocked in the Senate. And the only way to move that bill is to put it inside this bill. But just because we are not the Energy and Commerce Committee does not mean we did not have hearings. We also have a provision in here for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, an award that deals with schools. Now, that authorization is not up. We have the money in the Labor-HHS. I have one perfecting amendment later in this that we have worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), but it is an interim step. Clearly, we are in the process of revising and need to work with the major reauthorization. The point here is that we are working for a comprehensive effort. I commend the gentleman's leadership. This bill also deals with the media, which is an important thing, which we have heard from the impact of Hollywood and the impact of the music industry, and I am proud to be associated with this. This is only part of a much larger effort but a part that if we did not put it here, it was not going to move.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I too want to say that I am very much in sympathy with this and, generally speaking, since the time I was a staff member in the other House and worked with Senator Coats in drafting the first drug testing in schools, allowable use of it for safe and drug-free schools, it is working in the drug testing clause in the higher ed bill that we are moving through right now and through my subcommittee we moved the workplace bill. Among the things we heard in the hearings, however, is that unless the chief executives were being tested along with their employees, there was sort of a double standard. This obviously raises another question in the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) about drug testing Members of Congress. What I have learned as I have had myself drug tested, that in putting these things in, we cannot even use our staff allowances to do the drug testing. It is not clear in this bill, and I understand why the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) does not have it, that we do not have it for the heads of the agencies rather than just the people coming in. In addition to the concerns that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) read, I have to sort through what I am going to do on the bill, but I am concerned that we might wind up in a situation where we actually set back drug testing, when I ultimately agree with the gentleman's point that what we want to do is advance how we effectively do this. When we drug test, it is the best prevention program. It is the way to have people be clean. Because the larger companies in this country are, in fact, doing drug testing, abusers have moved to the smaller companies. If we are not careful, they are going to move into Federal employment. Like the gentleman has mentioned in his statement, that is one of the reasons the military has become clean. I am very empathetic to the gentleman's point, but I wish we could work together in trying to figure out how to do this in the most effective way. I remain uncertain how I am going to vote, but I am very sympathetic with the goals, and I want to make sure we can do it in the most effective way and make sure we actually have drug testing programs that work.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the discussion we had as part of this process in not going through the full Committee on Education and the Workforce, I talked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee, as did the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and we tried to work this out yesterday and did not get to the Committee on Rules in time, because there is a strong feeling that this decision should be at the State level and we should encourage each State to develop the standards with these guidelines. It is a pattern that we have done in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, is to set national guidelines of what we expect, but leave the final decision-making to the States rather than the Department of Education.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for his leadership, and also the Speaker, who forced this on to the national agenda, because we actually are making some progress. I first want to make the point, because we are constantly hearing what else does Congress do; all they do down there is talk about sex. We have had over 30 hearings and sex never came up once. We have been in Hollywood talking about the drug problem. We have talked to the record industry. We have been all across this country, in the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), in Dallas; down in Orlando with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), where the heroin has devastated our children. And among the things we have learned is it will take a concerted effort on both the interdiction and the demand reduction sides to do this. This bill in front of us deals with interdiction. A lot of people say this is a lot of money to spend on that. The fact is, when this President took over the government, he cut that budget. We saw an immediate increase in supply, reducing the price on the street and increasing the purity and potency of those drugs. It is no wonder we are seeing the problems we have right now in our country. If we cut drug use 50 percent among our young people right now, we will only be back to where it was when the President took office. We have to take these efforts. And we know where the drugs come from, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) pointed out. In this bill is one provision that we have been battling for 3 years. There is a war going on in Colombia. I have the hat they gave me of Colonel Gallego, who was a Colombian patriot, who leads Dante, the antidrug division of the Colombian National Police. They are dying fighting the drug war to keep those drugs out of here. In Colombia, we not only have the number one source of cocaine and heroin that is pouring into our Nation, but they have seen the narco- traffickers spill into the Darien Peninsula of Panama, putting potentially the canal at risk as we transfer power. They are near the Venezuelan border, our now number one source for oil. It is not the middle, it is Venezuela. We are looking at national security risks in Colombia and we have people dying to fight them, and we for 3 years have been trying to get Black Hawk helicopters so they can get into the high elevations to fight and we have been blocked by this administration. This bill will give six Black Hawk helicopters to the Colombian national police. It upgrades 50 Hueys. They have helicopters going up. They have had a base blown apart in the last month or two. They are constantly fighting with helicopters that do not work. We need to get upgrades. If we do not help the Colombian National Police, we will have our young men and women down there fighting the drug war, fighting to protect the canal, fighting to protect our oil interests. We should be helping the people who are willing to fight. It is not like Vietnam, where we did not see enough people. Look, here we have people fighting and dying. We need to get them the help. This has been silly. It has been downright silly. We also have aid going to Peru for crop substitution and eradication where they have a shoot-down policy, all of a sudden the cocaine growers cannot get their crops to market. And they are saying now, they did not want to before, but they are saying, hey, maybe we will plant something else. We need to encourage that. Same thing in Bolivia, where they have been aggressive. We have help. And in Mexico we have some assistance for them. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and I have been to Colombia three times; we have been in Peru and Bolivia multiple times; Chile; Mexico; met with President Zedillo. We have also been over in Thailand. They have a problem over there with heroin spreading around the world from Afghanistan to Vietnam. The base of this bill has a training center for that. We, today, will also be dealing with the treatment programs, the prevention programs, and all the local crime enforcement. But in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and across this country, they cannot solve the problem if the cocaine and heroin is pouring in in great quantities, and with the purity, if it can be found anywhere. Number one, we have to get control of our borders, get control of what is coming in, help the governments that are willing to fight. And in South America and Central America and in Asia they are seeing what it is doing to their economies as well. It is our obligation to get it and support those while we can before it is too late.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First off I know the gentlewoman shares a deep concern about the heroin and cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles and in Fort Wayne in my hometown, but she maligned the name of the National Police. This hat belongs to Colonel Gallego who personally took down Pablo Escobar. He did not take him down because he was in on some kind of drug deal. They were trying to take out the Medellin cartel and then the Cali cartel. It has been difficult. You cannot make just random allegations about individuals. There are problems in Colombia. We know there are problems in Colombia. None of us are going to stand here and defend Mexico. She mentioned it. But she is failing to distinguish between the Colombian National Police and their defense units. General Wilhelm, the head of SouthCom, said that in Colombia, it is the number one priority in his command. I outlined earlier this afternoon the importance not only directly in Colombia but to the oil from Venezuela and the Panama Canal. DEA Administrator Tom Constantine said after his visit that General Serrano and the Colombian National Police are the first line of defense in the war on drugs. He called these policemen heroes. I know that while I may have a general reputation as a conservative among many people, I am still viewed in many places as kind of a liberal, open-minded guy. For example, Ambassador Frechette when I was in Colombia in particular asked me if I would go over and meet with the Human Rights Watch people and the people who had the concerns about the Colombian National Police and the Defense Department. In going through the particulars, they had no complaints on record, this was not this year but last year, with the Colombian National Police narcotics unit in particular but they do have them with the military. That is why this bill specifies specifically that the Black Hawks go to the Colombian National Police and the 50 Hueys go to the National Police. The incident that she referred to earlier, there is a difference between the Danti, the Colombian antinarcotics group, and the National Police as a whole. It is on this hat. It says antinarcotics. You are accusing Colonel Gallego of not participating in the takedown of a paramilitary organization when he only has jurisdiction over antidrug issues and was in an antidrug raid at the time. You cannot mix apples and oranges and that is an incorrect statement on the House floor.

Mr. SOUDER. I will let you get additional time when I am done with my points.

Mr. SOUDER. You have documentation that he did not participate, not that he participated and took somebody down. I want to illustrate what is at stake here. We have Huey helicopters that we would not allow Americans to ride in. Our only line of defense now in Colombia to keep the cocaine and heroin from our streets are these helicopters that are grounded. I personally visited in the hospital in Colombia some of the people in some of these Huey helicopters that have crashed. It is a tragedy that we are putting these old junkers out right now that will not work and we are trying to say that this is the only way we are going to protect our kids and families in America? If we do not make sure that the National Police have these helicopters and the ability to get up to the higher elevations with the Black Hawks and the Black Hawks can carry larger loads of people to protect the people who are trying to eradicate the drugs, let me assure you, if we do not do this, my son and daughter and your sons and daughters are going to be down there in Colombia trying to fight this war directly. We have people out there, Colonel Gallego has a multimillion-dollar price on his head and his family is in hiding. General Serrano has even more millions of dollars' price on his head. If they are with the drug dealers, why are they trying to kill them? Why have they killed the equivalent of 30,000 American police officers in the last few years trying to fight this? These people are dying. These people deserve our praise and credit. I understand and am concerned about the corruption, too, and that is specifically why we are not allowing these funds to go into places where we are concerned they are going to be misused. But if we do not stand with those people who are fighting this war, we are going to have to fight it because our national security is at stake and our kids' lives are at stake.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the point here is that the gentlewoman alludes to allegations. There is one specific point, it is well known publicly, that is, that the National Police antinarcotics unit did not participate in stopping a paramilitary group. That is different than alleging human rights abuses.