Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to correct, for the record, it is a $25 million reduction out of the increase. There is still a 2 percent increase.

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

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say for the record that I have supported efforts in the Small Business Administration to provide help for low-income economic development, I have supported the High Hope Scholarship as we move to higher ed, to make sure there are opportunities for those who are lower-income to get the education they need, to move dollars needed through our committees. I have supported the Community Services block grant, and Head Start. I have supported numerous programs targeted, including an amendment that I sponsored on individual development accounts for capital formation in low-income families.

Mr. SOUDER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, a GAO study concluded that there was no survey that in fact showed that, on net, EDA created additional jobs. One last point is, would the gentlewoman agree that even under my amendment, EDA would increase 2 percent? In other words, does the gentlewoman agree that even if my amendment passes, EDA will still increase 2 percent?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I said that the GAO said they found no specific study showing net in job creation.

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

Mr. SOUDER. So is it is an increase; it is just a question of how big an increase and what that means. Is the gentleman familiar with the GAO study that says, for example, the Rutgers study referred to earlier did not establish the direct connection? As the gentleman well knows, when one does economic development, which I did as a former staffer and worked with EDA, and I believe it does have meritorious projects, that net studies have not made the connection, including the Rutgers studies, that have proven the direct correlation.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on June 16 on Rollcall No. 233, I was in the chamber and voted, but my vote for some reason was not recorded. I would have voted ``yea'' on House Resolution 401, expressing the sense of the House concerning promotions in American schools.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), my friend who has been an active member of the Drug Task Force.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points. In the Committee on Small Business, the Democrats made 9 amendments. Seven were accepted and only two defeated. The bill was not opposed in committee. We spent 4 hours in markup trying to work through all of the different concerns that were addressed there. I believe we have an excellent bill. It requires that small businesses have a written plan that spells out consequences of any policy, and training sessions to review the policy. Employees, supervisers, managers, partners, and owners who actively manage the small business will all be subject to any drug-free workplace. We felt we needed to lead by example. Nonprofit groups with expertise in drug-free workplace policies that will administer the bill must have a long history, and the bill does not in any way change laws that protect workers. I think we have gone out of our way to meet all of the concerns that the minority was raising, in addition to some of the majority members, and made a very, very good bill even better. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the distinguished author of this bill, the leader in the House of many of the prevention and demand reduction efforts.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3853) to promote drug-free workplace programs, as amended.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, a warrior in the antidrug effort.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I again want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for not only his leadership on this bill but his leadership in focusing on prevention and on treatment as an important part, in addition to interdiction and the judicial approaches to the drug problem, because if we can reduce the usage at the front end, then we do not need to do as much, hopefully, long-term in law enforcement interdiction. I also want to thank our Speaker, who brought this drug issue to the front of what we are doing in Congress. It is not just this bill today. It has been bills on education. It will be amendments and funding in appropriations bills. If we have a comprehensive effort against drug abuse, illegal narcotics in this country, we, in fact, can make dramatic advances in reducing this scourge in our country. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) as well as the co-chairs, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) of the Drug Task Force, and all the members of the Drug Task Force, the chairman of the Committee on Small Business and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and also the staff, Al Felzenberg, Harry Katrichis, Tee Rowe, and Emily Murphy, who helped accelerate a bill like this through the committee in a rapid way. This is a dramatic example of what can happen when both parties work together to benefit the workers of America, the young people of America, the families of America. We are seeing children's lives destroyed by illegal drugs, families destroyed by illegal drugs, our productivity and competitiveness in America destroyed by illegal drugs. This bill is one small step, a part of a continuing effort by this Congress to say, ``Say no to drugs,'' take active action, and we can lick this problem.

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

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) as an original cosponsor of this important legislation. House Resolution 3853 focuses attention on the important problem of substance abuse in the workplace. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Empowerment, I heard testimony from small business owners from different parts of the country who shared with me the great difference that drug-free workplace policy has made in their businesses. Larry Guzman, from the district of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), told my subcommittee that a drug-free workplace policy not only reduced stolen inventory and increased productivity in his truss- building company, but did so to such an extent that the business reached three times the size he had originally planned. An owner of a printing company in Cincinnati in the district of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), shared his company's experience. Their drug-free workplace program and the employee assistance component led employees to thank management for helping to support their recovery from addiction. Larry Bennett, who helped lead Ohio's efforts to introduce the kind of financial incentives for drug-free workplace programs contemplated by this bill, shared the story of another small business where the owner worked with his union employees to develop a drug-free workplace policy to meet the requirements of a subcontractor for his clients. Working together, unions and management developed a comprehensive policy that helped the company retain clients and eventually grow. We know that 71 percent of substance abusers are employed. We also know that many more are employed by small businesses than larger businesses, for a very simple reason: Most large companies in this country have put together drug testing and drug treatment programs, where small businesses do not have the resources to do so. They are afraid they are going to get sued, they are afraid they are going to have different problems. We heard at an earlier subcommittee hearing from law enforcement that at a local crack house which police had shut down, they found a list of small businesses in the area that did not have drug testing programs because small businesses had become targets of those who abused drugs, because they know that they can get away with it there because small business owners are so inundated and intimidated, inundated with the problems that they have, with the cash flow problems, and intimidated from the potential legal consequences, that they have become victimized by a lot of drug abusers. The dealers had been helping these users find jobs in small businesses with which to support their habit. We also know that the drug-free workplace programs are cost-effective for businesses. That is what we found with the experience of the Fortune 200. Ninety-eight percent of the Fortune 200 have drug-free workplace programs. It has taught us that these are cost-effective. They have increased productivity, they have lowered their insurance costs because of accident reductions, they have decreased absenteeism. H.R. 3853 will help us spread this cost-effective lifesaving program to small businesses around the country by giving grants to nonprofit organizations that deal with drug testing training for small businesses. Our goal is to get the dollars not directly in another government program, but to nonprofit organizations with an experience in this training, so that they can work with small businesses in what have been legal, effective programs to eliminate the scourge of drug abuse, to help the individuals involved, to help the productivity in our economy, and to regain the strength of the small business community and their ability not to fall prey to the problems that are plaguing our society in drug abuse. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3853.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, the President ``continues to coddle China, despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reforms, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, and its irresponsible export of technology.'' That is not my opinion. Let me read that again. The President ``continues to coddle China, despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reforms, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, and its irresponsible export of technology.'' December 11, 1992, William Clinton when he was President-elect. Mr. Speaker, talk about a whopper. I mean, if my colleagues wonder why the American people distrust our leadership, it is when they say one thing to get elected and, when they get elected, they do exactly the opposite. We heard earlier in the debate that he is just yielding to the interests of that country, that they set the schedule. But when another President of the United States went to Bitburg, where Nazi butchers had killed Jews that were buried in that cemetery, there was a justified outcry in America, and from the other side of the aisle, that said that we do not think the President should go to Bitburg. Mr. Speaker, what is the double standard here? Thousands of students were butchered. Many are in prison today. And the last thing we need from the President of the United States is to break his word that he gave the American people about coddling the Chinese, about not standing up for human rights, because he ran on it. We would like him to keep his word and not do what would be a terrible signal to those who are trying to stand up for human rights and democratic reforms around the world.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his leadership in this important area of religious liberty and charitable contributions. There is nothing more important to our society than trying to strengthen the voluntary time and money commitments as an alternative, as a supplement to the efforts that government and other organizations make in their communities. As has been pointed out, I am sure, this legislation is particularly needed to protect religious freedom in this country because of the Crystal Evangelical Free Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which has had a prolonged legal fight for over 6 years in an effort to prevent the church from being forced to return money which had been regularly tithed by a parishioner who subsequently filed for bankruptcy. At the lower court, a Federal bankruptcy trustee recaptured $13,500 in past tithes from the Minnesota congregation. The church appealed the ruling and the Eighth Circuit Court vacated the decision, ruling that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, passed by this Congress, prevented bankruptcy trustees from voiding debtor's tithes to their church as fraudulent transfers. Unfortunately, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision on June 25, 1997, that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the States. The Eighth Circuit was required to vacate its earlier decision on behalf of the church and reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court. The tragic result is that churches and charities around this country are now vulnerable to aggressive bankruptcy lawyers and other creditors while, at the same time, we are allowing people to take cruises, gamble, even call psychic hotlines, but denying them the right to exercise their faith through contributing to charities and/or other, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) pointed out, other charities, not just religious based. I believe that this situation is intolerable. It violates the first amendment religious clauses of the Constitution, while encouraging an outbreak of bankruptcy litigation against churches and other charities. This bill provides an excellent resolution to a serious threat to religious freedom and charities across the board. The full text is also included in the community renewal legislation which I support along with members of the Renewal Alliance. I once again congratulate the chairman on his leadership.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we have 2 additional minutes, divided equally between the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and myself.