Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, if I am incorrect, and feel free to correct me, but I feel that is probably, at most, if any, 20 percent of the additional increase in funds, and we can address that through another amendment. Our attempt is not to get at the compliance and the working with businesses, but, rather, a lot of the horror stories and other things. I am on the subcommittee on oversight and on the Committee on Education and the Workforce where we have worked with these issues, and I do not believe that Mr. Deal has been able to correct all the problems.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on the colloquy of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, with Chairman Porter, chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I have a unique background probably in this Congress in the sense that my great-grandfather was actually Amish; that he left the Amish faith in the 1860's, but up until that point, the Souder family, of which there are many in Pennsylvania and Ohio, many of them have an Amish background. It is a question of religious liberty in this country as to whether people are going to have some flexibility within our laws, as long as they do not affect other people, to be able to practice professions and do things to earn a living, as we see the land values up, particularly in the areas they live, or whether they have to keep going and trying to find wilderness, of which there is less and less of in America, places where they do not bump into each other or where they can find land of a good price, which is why we see many of them going to South America. As I see many of these people, many relatives of mine, squeezed as the urban area expands, many of them go into woodworking professions. As we combine this with the flexibility we have given them in the school system, we have run into real problems with the Department of Labor. I have supported the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and other Members from Pennsylvania where the problem has been highlighted in these meetings with the Labor Department, but it has also spread into Ohio and Indiana, and certainly very easily can spread further into other regions in Illinois and Iowa, where there are many Amish. I want to make one other point with this, in addition to commending the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. That is, as we debate this bill, there have been a lot of discussions as to whether we are going to be obstructionists and offer lots of amendments. I had an amendment on this bill addressing this question. At the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and working with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], we felt that this colloquy would be a good first step to move this issue forward. What we are doing tonight and tomorrow and whatever time is necessary is to have an honest debate on the issues. I wish we would work out most things like what has happened with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] in his effort with the chairman. I want to commend them for their efforts, thank them on behalf of many people who are relatively defenseless, who do not have a lot of monetary power, who do not even generally vote. I want to thank them for their efforts, and I hope the Labor Department will hear their voices as they are crying out for how they can live with their religious freedom in our society.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce [Mr. Goodling] for his tireless efforts on behalf of the children with special needs in our school system. We worked and moved through this body unanimously a bill on IDEA that we had worked through the Senate. We had many differences as we worked through this process, and the gentleman deserves tremendous credit for that. One of our concerns, as a party that ran on and was committed to not having unfunded mandates, was we set goals that unless we put adequate funding in cannot be met. I think this is an important step. But one of the things that we will be debating as we go through this bill the next few days is, we believe that rather than creating new Federal programs, like there are several in this bill, one we have been debating tonight, that have not gone through the committee process, that have not gone through a hearing process, that the money, if we agree, as we did in the budget agreement to spend the money on education, it should be spent in programs that we have already passed by this Congress, that we already have agreement in this Congress on, that we agree on as an appropriate Federal role. There may be other pieces of legislation where we can work out a compromise, like we did on IDEA. How can we know, if we never have a hearing? How do we know, if we never move it through? We, as Republicans, were sent here by the American people to say, hey, we want some changes in Washington; and many of the people who voted for us want to see a change in education policy. As we go through this, I assume that they at least want to see when there are changes in education policies, that we go through a process of debate and we debate the proper role of the Federal Government and the State government and the local government; that we try to have parents involved in as many places as possible. Like on IDEA, many people throughout America felt people with disabilities were not being treated fairly at the local level. As this bill has a constituency nationwide and as we looked at the failure of the local school systems to meet those needs, there was a decision made by the U.S. Congress, after many hearings and a process, to have a bill passed. Then we moved to funding of that bill. Then we increased that. This time we fine-tuned it again, made some changes in the overlying bill, but now we are putting more funds into that. If we are going to spend more money on education, many of us feel it should be spent in areas where we have this consensus, where we have this agreement, where people know what we are doing, not some kind of last-minute attempt to put something into a bill to circumvent what the party has stood for, and quite frankly, which we do not really know, as the chairman of the subcommittee said, of which I also serve on that subcommittee, it is not particularly comforting to all of a sudden hear there is this brand new program that went clear around the process. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his willingness on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and I commend Chairman Goodling for his tremendous efforts on this.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say first off that I think the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] is well-conceived in the sense of if there is any group in America that has been neglected in the homeless population, it has been the veterans and people who have sacrificed for our country and put their lives at risk deserve that special attention, and I support that. We have a homeless shelter particularly targeted for veterans that a few Vietnam veterans have put together in Ft. Wayne, and I have been proud to help them and I know that it has been very difficult for them to get attention, because often they get ignored in the process. I want to address a broader question off of that. That is, in areas where the Federal Government has not been, there is this temptation to say that every time we see a needy group or every time we see a problem that we are going to plunge into that. As we debate tonight and tomorrow and probably into next week this bill, this bill is at the heart of the differences between the two parties and how we are going to govern, and differences in our own party as to what the role of the Federal Government should be in education, what the role of the Federal Government should be in abortion, what the role of the Federal Government should be in labor policy, what the role of the Federal Government should be in health policy. Many of us are concerned, and I say this as someone who supported the budget agreement. Understanding that at times you have to have compromises and at times you have to move forward because the President is of a different party, the Senate may not agree with the House, and in the House we have a very narrow majority, there are pragmatic things that enter into getting what you can, but many of us feel we went too far in this bill. We were willing to live with many of the funding dollars in that, begrudgingly, and many of us were very divided over that subject. But there is also the matter, if we are going to spend the money, how are we going to spend the money and in what areas? We made many pledges. Many of them probably were, needless to say, overdramatic or probably unrealistic; nevertheless, many millions of American people believed that when we said we were going to eliminate the Department of Education and we were going to eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we were going to eliminate this organization or that organization, that we were at least going to fight for that. Now we are faced with a bill that in many of these cases is not eliminating, it is increasing its funding, something that surely we did not run on and say we were going to do. It has caused a lot of grief. And this bill consolidates many of these things; and now not only are we looking at increasing the money in some of the things that many of us came here very concerned about. I myself can hardly believe that we have a real dollar increase in Title X which, while we have many abortion issues that we face in this Congress, is the most controversial because it has the most money going to the organizations that do most of the abortions. Yet, it increases. We see increases in other categories. We see whole new programs. We can have a debate and we certainly will have a debate on the Whole School program. You have got some of the discussion here and we will have that in the education section. As I have talked with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] today, and as I have visited schools around the country, first when I was a staff director on the Republican side with the children-families committee, then working with Senator Coats in the Senate, and now being on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have seen the merits of some of the ideas in this, school-based management, more flexibility in the schools to make determinations. But what I do not think is appropriate is to have something come in without having gone through the authorizing committee. The point is that it is authorized, but it was authorized dormant; in other words, it has no funds in it. This Republican-controlled Congress never passed this bill, never moved this bill. Furthermore, it was put in at the tail end in the appropriations subcommittee process and did not get fully aired because even if some of us and, for example, we will hear in this debate that the Heritage Foundation thinks that this is a good idea. The Heritage Foundation has no position on this. The Heritage Foundation has done reports that suggest that it is a good idea at the local level. They do not have a position on Federal initiative. And while we say we are not controlling local schools, the fact is that when we put the money out, particularly if you have a State law that says you cannot override local union contracts, if you have a State law that says you cannot do some of the things in the Little Red Schoolhouse reform and other types of things like that, and you have 50 to 100 districts that want to get into this pool of money, there will be tremendous pressure on the State legislatures to change their State law. It is a tad cute to say we are not doing these things from the Federal level when, in fact, we are dumping $200 million into a program that was not funded, that was dormant, has never passed a Republican Congress. And all of a sudden when we say we are reducing Goals 2000, this is much more sweeping than Goals 2000. In Indiana, it may indeed be a good program. Why not debate it and go through a regular process similar to the National Literacy Initiative? We will be debating a number of these. We feel there should be a whole debate on this process. We are not trying to be obstructionist.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Poinsatte Motors of Fort Wayne, IN, and the city of Fort Wayne itself for their outstanding local effort in the fight against breast cancer. On July 9, 1997, Poinsatte Motors served as the Fort Wayne host for the Drive for the Cure sponsored by BMW and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Nation's largest private funder of research focused solely on breast cancer. The citizens of Fort Wayne and the surrounding area were invited to test drive any 1997 BMW. In return, for each mile driven, BMW donated $1 to the Komen Foundation with the goal of raising $1 million nationwide to advance breast cancer research, education, screening, and treatment. The community's response was overwhelming. Local businesses donated $15,000 in TV and radio advertising, rentals, food and beverages, and other supplies. With 284 test drives totaling almost 4,000 miles, Poinsatte Motor's Fort Wayne event ranks as the largest single-day event for Drive for the Cure to date. In fact, more than 360 people registered for the event--more test drives than could be accommodated in one day. Since July 9, remaining registrants, who have until December 1 to complete their test drives, have driven over 200 miles that will count toward Drive for the Cure's $1 million goal. Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that over 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and more than 44,000 will die of the disease, this year. If this horrible disease were detected and treated in its earliest stage, the mortality rate would decrease by 30 percent. In addition to raising much-needed funds for breast cancer research, Poinsatte Motors has contributed immensely to increasing awareness of the disease and the benefits of early detection. The people of Fort Wayne are well known for their willingness to assist others in need and to lend their support to a worthy cause. I am honored to represent these fine citizens, and I applaud them for their extraordinary accomplishment.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, May 21, the Christian Action Network, a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to the protection of the American family, tried to display art funded by the National Endowment for the Arts on the steps of the U.S. Capitol as part of their touring exhibit, ``A Graphic Picture is Worth a Thousand votes.'' The purpose of this touring exhibit is to protest NEA funding of obscene and anti-Christian art. However, the U.S. Capitol Police would not let the Christian Action Network display the NEA funded art on the basis that the art was obscene. In addition, the Capitol Police confiscated 17 pieces of NEA- funded art and are seeking a warrant for the arrest of Christian Action Network president, Martin Mawyer. The simple fact that the U.S. Capitol Police would not let the Christian Action Network display this art proves Mr. Mawyer's point that the National Endowment for the Arts is using taxpayer money to pay for obscenity and to support people who produce illegal art. The NEA is an affront to religious beliefs, heritage, and sense of fairness and the agency needs to be eliminated. It has been proven over and over again that simple restrictions and reforms on the NEA don't work. Jane Alexander maintains that she has cleaned up the NEA but this is clearly in doubt. For instance, the NEA has given $112,700 over the past 3 years to Women Make Movies, Inc., a nonprofit organization that produces and distributes independent films by and about women. One such film was ``Watermelon Woman'' which portrays graphic sex images, is strewn with graphic and degrading sexual language, and portrays the use of illegal drugs as a normal recreational activity. There are at least 14 other controversial films distributed by Women Makes Movies, Inc. The Federal Government should not be in the business of determining what is art and what isn't art. Individual citizens and private groups should have the freedom to choose what art we wish to patronize and what we choose to ignore. Today, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record a copy of a brief article from the May 30th edition of Human Events which covered Christian Action Network's art exhibit on Capitol Hill. I urge my colleagues to read this article and to vote to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 1998. [From Human Events, May 30, 1997] Capitol Police Confiscate NEA `Art' as Obscene On May 21, the U.S. Capitol Police confiscated 17 pieces of taxpayer-funded ``art'' displayed on the Capitol steps as a part of an exhibit put on by the Christian Action Network (CAN). Congress' security force is now seeking an arrest warrant for CAN President Martin Mawyer for publicly displaying obscene images. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), long a target of conservatives for being wrong in principle, wasting taxpayer money and funding obscene and blasphemous art, granted federal funds to the artists who created the unfit-to-be-seen works. ``Finally,'' Mawyer told Human Events, ``someone in law enforcement authority has decided this is obscene. . . . Now, when we go around from [congressional] district to district to increase support for eliminating the NEA, we can show pictures of the Capitol Hill police confiscating this.'' NEA-funded photographs titled ``Bobby Masturbating'' and ``Woman Castrating a Man'' were among the confiscated material, as was a collection of stories called the ``Highways Brochure.'' One of them ``included a description of sex with [House Speaker] Newt Gingrich's mother,'' said Mawyer. U.S. Capitol Police spokesman Sgt. Dan Nichols said May 22, ``It is up to the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia to decide whether or not to issue a warrant. We will probably submit an affidavit today, perhaps tomorrow.'' He said they were definitely seeking Mawyer's arrest. Since taking over Congress, Republicans have cut the NEA's budget to $99.5 million a year. But conservatives vow to enforce a deal struck in 1995 with House GOP moderates which called for the complete elimination of the NEA's funding by Fiscal 1998.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield, I want to commend the gentleman for raising this. It is basically the same subject. Our goal here is to try to help people who are working hard be able to keep their money and advance without Washington standing as big brother and squishing them, either through spending in incredible ways and without their approval, or through regulations in EPA. Just like Ohio, in Indiana we make, in my district, pickup trucks, axles, tires. These are hard working Americans, multi-generational Americans, who want clean air, they want a healthy society, but they also want to work. And they are proud of what they do. And the idea that somebody in Washington, for not even any proven scientific gain, by the time we get done with this, in fact, I have heard that, for example, by changing the plastic covers on some of the gas tanks we could change some of this, but what gas stations are not in compliance now? Often they are the ones in the inner cities or in the rural areas where they are marginal. So are we going to close all those gas stations so the people living in the inner cities and out in the rural areas have to drive farther? And that actually pollutes more air. It is not even clear scientifically the solutions solve the problem, except to put a lot of hard working Americans out of work because some bureaucrat decided, an unelected bureaucrat decided that the Midwest should be punished and that we should send these jobs overseas, and that is, bottom line, what happens.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, we are about to head into another debate. There have been ads around the country. We have had quite a bit of turmoil in the Committee on Education and the and Workforce, and it is about to hit the floor too, that supposedly the Republicans are vying to circumvent the minimum wage as it relates to people on welfare. The issue, in case my colleagues have not heard about it, is this: People on welfare currently can get a package of benefits, depending on their mix of kids, about $15,000. When they take a job, under the new welfare bill, should the benefits that they are continuing to receive, because we have decided that we are not going to completely cut off the benefits, should those benefits count towards their wages? This is being portrayed as the work cutting the minimum wage, when in fact what we are saying is people who are working for the minimum wage currently and have never been on welfare should not receive up to $7,000 a year less than those people on welfare. Yet somehow we are portrayed as the mean party. Somehow we are portrayed as being unfair and being mean-spirited when in fact what we have been trying to do is stand up for the working people of America to try to give tax benefits to try to help those people who have been trapped in the welfare system start to move into the private sector but not have these terrible inequities between those people who have been working and those people who are on welfare. We are going to fight this battle on the tax credits, we are going to fight the battle in the way we count benefits as we go into welfare, and the thrust of our program, by having a balanced budget and by reducing taxes, to try to make people who are working hard that have been bearing the brunt of the economic growth and the job growth in America, to give them some breaks and let them keep some of their own money.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think his point about the home office deduction, as well as the point of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] about the general attitude of many in the other party is very perplexing. One time one parent had their son tell me what he had been taught was the difference between Republicans and Democrats; and that is that Republicans believe in big people and little government, and Democrats believe in big government and little people. I think President Clinton and some have moved beyond that, but there are many in this body who are still criticizing that. They do not seem to understand how jobs in America are created, how people can have choices. So many millions of American people through Amway, through Discovery Toys, through the many different things that have branched out, as well as new computer-based businesses at home, give not only mothers now the choice to stay home with their kids or women to be able to start a business, but now many men are working at home in different types of businesses. If we do not recognize these changes, we kill the engine of economic growth of how jobs are created. They are created not by government but by people looking for creative ways to combine the needs of their life- styles and the needs of capital and the shortage thereof. With the Internet nowadays and with the ability to use phones and all the different ways, we need to make sure that the home office deduction and things like this reflect the ways of economic growth.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Well, I wanted to put into the Record a number of the things the Speaker said last night, because many of these overlap with what we are talking about here on taxes and providing economic opportunity. He raised some questions that go beyond this: making sure civil rights are enforced, an importance on welfare reform, in reducing crime, as we work on the drug issue. But listen to a number of these categories, and then I will relate it to our package and why this is not a tax break for the rich and the type of tired rhetoric we will hear but, in actuality, an opportunity for all Americans. He talked about learning, creating better opportunities for all children to learn by breaking the stranglehold of the teachers' unions and giving urban parents a financial opportunity to choose public, private or parochial schools, as millions of black Americans are reaching out to the private Christian schools and building their communities and wanting the choices that other Americans have. That is part of the point of the $500 personal credit, so people can choose the school that is best for their children. He says on small business that we should have the goal of tripling the number of minority-owned small businesses by eliminating the barriers and providing the tax opportunities. He talks about 100 renewal communities, and low income scholarships, savings accounts, brownfields cleanup. He talks about economic growth and expanding economic opportunities. Well, listen to some of the different things in this package. In addition to the tax credit for children, we have a deduction for undergraduate tuition, scholarship tax credits, credit up to 50 percent of $3,000 out-of-pocket tuition expenses phased out at $40,000 to $50,000 singles, $80,000 to $100,000 joint; expanded IRAs that people can not only take out for education but for first time home buying. We have education investment savings opportunities. And then the businesses that most need the capital gains changes are businesses that are just starting. Many of these minority businesses that start up in an inner city actually increase the property values all around them. Then, when they go to move to the next block, they get punished because they have raised the value of their lands and the area around them. That is the point of capital gains, not to benefit the most wealthy but to get those starting out to move to the next size, to the next size, to the next size. The inheritance tax reform that will eventually, over a number of years, get up to $1 million. When we have minority businesses and people just starting, many Americans have made it, but millions of Americans have not made it. They want their kids to have the opportunities that my great grandpa worked to get to my grandpa, that gave to my dad and his brother so that I could have the opportunity. That is not done by taking away the family farm, by taking away the small businesses; it is by giving enough exemption that we can pass it through and build it into a little bit. A person starts with a dry cleaner, builds it a little bit bigger, a little bit bigger. A retail operation may move to another business. My great grandfather set up my grandfather as a harness maker. He moved and bought the building next to him and the building next to him, and we now have a building we lease out to 60 different antique dealers. It is something that came bit by bit. That is what the capital gains means. That is how economic growth occurs, that and inheritance tax. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak on the same tune, but with slightly different words. I think that we have been talking a lot about the importance of this to middle class families. We have been talking about the importance of this to what would be seen as kind of main line American families. But I have been very impressed that our Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Newt Gingrich], has joined with President Clinton to talk some about the problems of race in America and extending opportunity to all American citizens.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I wanted to respond to two of my good friends, first my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. He is one of the most consistent Members I have ever met in Congress. As a Libertarian he does not believe in Federal job training or most Federal anything, and in that he has been consistent and logical. I appreciate that, and I support him and vote with him most of the time. But I am not a Libertarian and so sometimes we are going to disagree. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has been one of my personal heroes. He has been a champion of human values and of conservative principles. On this I believe he is wrong. One question that he had asked is, are we smart enough at the Federal level? The answer is, we are not; that is why we are doing this bill and trying to change it. I want to point out to my conservative friends and people listening across the country that a critical part of helping Americans when we do welfare reform is making sure that when we cut them off the welfare rolls, there are some options out there in helping, particularly targeting to, the most needy. We do not need job training programs that pick the people who are going to get a job anyway. Most of them move in or out of welfare within 2 years. That is why we need some general direction down to the States where we expect, because we are going to be held accountable by the taxpayers of this country for the money that we take from them and then spend, we are held accountable, not Governor, not the State legislature, not the local mayor. We are held accountable to give them direction as to who we want served and what results we expect. What we should not be doing is micromanaging their lives. This bill is not perfect, but it is a dramatic improvement on the current law. I did not hear any objections that are not true now; in other words, that is not a reason to defeat this bill. We are giving more power to States and local communities, more likely to result in people being trained for work through greater involvement of the business community. Do I believe all these programs work? No. Do I believe some work a little bit? Yes. And some work dramatically. But they are doing more than nothing and we are about to be crushed. We are going to wind up spending more on homeless spending, more on welfare spending, more on health care, if we do not actually follow through on our welfare programs. This bill includes private sector providers; that is an innovation. We are involving employers in the design and implementation of job training programs. We are transferring responsibility for design and implementation. We are eliminating many Federal programs to focus funding on things that people at local communities and States and people who work with people and training them to employ can make those decisions. We are making the program more trainee friendly so they can figure out where to go. A lot of the problems are that we do not even know where to go to try to get the job training. We are preserving local boards. I believe having local boards is an important thing. I know that has been an internal battle as well, but I want to have people in Fort Wayne and around the country in their communities having an impact. We set out some guidelines. I participated in setting some of those guidelines and saying how to target some responsibilities, not micromanaging but setting guidelines. We have worked with conservative groups now for nearly two years to try to address some of their concerns. We have made many internal amendments, many improvements. Some, for example, a number of the things that were in the Graham amendment today were not needed. In fact, most of the things were not needed, but we put extra protections in to make sure that we said voluntary, to make sure that we double and triple made sure that home schoolers were not included, that things were only considerations, that there was not doubling, that we did not get into areas that we were not supposed to be in. The question is, what else are we supposed to do other than eliminate job training? It gets frustrating after awhile when we have tried to do that. Two major things I heard for two years was we were going to take little elementary school kids who are from middle and upper class families, not just at risk kids, and make everybody at risk. And we were going to take over the education system. The truth is, now we have separated vocational education. That eliminated the biggest thing last year that was supposedly bad with the bill. We are going to deal with vocational education. It was never our intent anyway. We are only going to deal with at risk kids and, there is not enough money to draw everybody in even if we wanted to, which we do not. The second thing was my distinguished colleague from Colorado offered an amendment to make sure that State legislators were not cut out of the process so those who want to fight this can raise at the State level. Now it does not have to even come through and be accepted by a State. They can look at that. I think those are two huge changes. I really do not understand much of the opposition. I clearly understand the opposition of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. He stated it clearly and succinctly. The opposition of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] though well intended, I believe, is incorrect. Everything he said is also true of current law. And lastly let me say this: Not every conservative believes, in fact, I would say most conservatives do not believe that we do not have any role for somebody who cannot read and write. As I worked and have worked over time with people who have been out of work and they cannot read or write, it is devastating. We do have to get into literacy programs in a lot of these things.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I realize the election is over, but just because an election ended our drug war should not end. The battles against illegal drugs should go on. I am very concerned that the President of the United States, who had backed away and we put a lot of pressure on in the last year and a half and he responded, he appointed Barry McCaffrey drug czar. General McCaffrey has done an excellent job in speaking out and bringing to the attention of America, and through the election, that both parties were united against the drug war. What happens when the election ends? Now apparently we are going to nominate for an ambassador a man who blasted our drug czar for saying he was going to enforce the drug laws of the United States over this so-called medicinal use of marijuana. There is no medicinal use of marijuana. There is a THC component that is available in other drugs. It is a backdoor way to legalize drugs in America. Why would we send an ambassador to Mexico? Mr. Weld, the Governor of Massachusetts, why would we send him to the country that we have been trying to send the message that they need to work to crack down on drugs coming into America? Then the House, where we said we would take the lead against illegal drugs, is apparently going to take back the right to certify or decertify countries for their drug behavior. How can we as a House point our finger at others if we do not lead ourselves? I hope we can change this bill before tomorrow.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that it is helpful for us as a body to periodically turn our attention from our business here in Washington to our constituents back home. It is important that we remember what individual citizens encounter during day-to-day life, and most importantly, learn from them how they meet these challenges. We are familiar with Habitat For Humanity and the wonderful work it has done in fulfilling housing needs internationally. I submit for the Record a list of some of the students and faculty from Bishop Dwenger, Northrop, Canterbury, North Side, South Side, Carroll, Paul Harding, Bishop Luers, and Snider High Schools in Fort Wayne, IN, who devoted 14 days to building homes in the Fort Wayne area during these students' spring break. For 12 hours a day, this group worked with professional contractors on this labor of love. Since 1987, the Fort Wayne Habitat for Humanity chapter has built 32 homes. These individuals didn't assume a government program was going to address the problem, they recognized a need and worked for a solution. I am proud to represent these Hoosiers and share them with the Members of this body as an example of what the future generation looks like in Indiana. Bishop Dwenger High School students Dan Adams, Erica Aguirre, Ryan Aldin, Amanda Ballard, Stephanie Bianco, Gina Blum, Michelle Boicey, Joe Brownfield, Amanda Brudi, Josh Butler, Liz Christman, Audi Coonan, Angie Cutigni, Colleen Delaney, Aaron Dailey, Mary DeArmond, Erica Dray, Sarah Dumas, Natalie Florea, Jenny Furniss. Chris Grashoff, Nikki Halley, Becky Harmon, Jill Hayden, Tom Hobler, Heather Hull, Christie Lott, Jenni Johnson, Cindy Jordan, Katherine Kuhne, Kelly Keating, Katie Kearney, Kourtney Kindt, Melissa Koors, Darren Kraft, Koe Krouse, Kerri Kumfer, Amanda Kumfer, Russell Lauer, Steve Ludwiski. Matt Lung, Matt Manes, Laura Mangan, Laurie Marqueling, Katie McCarthy, Krissi McGarry, Hector Mercedes, Jenny Moeller, Andrea Moll, Joe Michaels, Tracey Neuman, B.C. O'Rourke, Jim Porter, Stece Preston, Carrie Przbycin, Nick Radford, Whitney Reeves, Jessica Reith, John Resig, Matt Robinson. Michelle Rorick, Audrey Rosswurm, Stacy Sandor, Pete Schultz, James Schwartz, April Simon, Tom Smith, Robert Stazewski, Danielle Stewart, Matt Stier, Amanda Stier, Hanne Tenggren, Jared Thompson, Nate Till, Emilt Tippman, Julie Todoran, Devon Ullman, Zak Vrba, Julie Waikel, Kim Wheeler. Eric Wilkins, Aimee Wyatt, Dan Zach, Andy Baltes, Chris Bouza, Beth Brown, Dave Brown, Jeff Cramer, Rene Espinosa, Matt Flaherty, Amber Franze, Andrea Freiburger, Marie Gonya, Kellie Hamrick, Sara Harmon, Nathan Hartman, Laura Helmkamp, Katie Hoffman, Vanessa Hogan, Stave Howell. Meghan Johns, Tra Kennedy, Don Kimes, Cyndi Ley, David Luetzelschwab, Maria McGuire, Amanda Meyers, Matt Miller, Andra Monnig, Ebony Nichols, Amy O'Neil, Reid Pfleuger, Nika Porter, Casey Ryan, Julie Sanger, Tim Schenkel, Jessica Sikora, Marie Sordelet, Ben Sproat, Anton Talamantes. Alex Tone, Greg Veerkamp, Rick Walz, Zack Ziembo, Betsy Blum, Bill Burich, Marcie Burke, LaKesha Carter, Nicole Chamberlin, Adam Christman, Leslie Colone, Ryan Cox, Mary Etter, Renee Geist, Emily Gill. Amber Halley, Ben Henry, Allison Higi, Stephanie Irvin, Corey Johnson, Margaret Kearney, Andria Kowal, Suzie Loeffler, Janelle Lynch, Katie Mavis, Michelle McCarthy, Molly McCarthy, Missy Mountz, Ann Nguyen, Kyle Panther, Beth Quinn, Sabra Snyder, Becky Stewart, Emily Stucky, Gina Tippmann, Sara Todoran, Victoria Truesdell, Rob Waikel, Heidi Winebrenner, Sean Luetzelschwab, Brian Veerkamp, Patrick Walz. Northrop High School Faculty Mr. Timon Kendall, Mr. David Murphy, Mrs. Lee Murphy, Mr. Rob Mikol, Ms. Darlene Butler, Mrs. Mary Lou Eddy, Mr. Greg Pressley, Mrs. Carol Freck, Mrs. Lisa Helmuth, Mr. John McCory, Mr. Bob Trammel, Mr. Steve Mock, Mr. Val Harker, Mrs. Nancy Pressley, Mr. Bernie Booker, Mrs. Shari Miller, Mrs. Cheryl Strader. Mrs. Shirley Johnson, Mrs. Jane Kimmel, Mrs. Mary Blaettner, Mrs. Jeanne Sheridan, Mr. Sam Diprimio, Mrs. Terri Springer, Mrs. Mary Collinsworth, Mrs. B.J. Harper, Mr. Al Jacquay, Mr. Bob Roebuck, Mrs. Marjorie Keever, Mr. Bernie Booker, Mrs. Lee Murphy, Mrs. Lilly Mikol, Mrs. Mary Lou Eddy, Ann Roth, Rebecca Smith. Students Jack Murphy, Michelle Ping, Carrie Dixon, Heidi Freudenstein, Samay Jain, Ann Roth, Jena Banasiak, Ycwubdar Manmektot, Angie Wareing, Bob Chu, Jane Terfler, Rachel Lesser, Michelle O'Brien, Jeanie Mora, Miles Stucky, Gina Love, Jill Koenig, Violet Vandever, Aaron Smits, Bryan Redmon. Rebecca Smith, Sarah Jarosh, Jenn Boggs, Devina Mistry, Sara Nider, Amy Melchi, Tony Tuesca, Nicole Fisher, Lani Aker, Leak Seitz, Saray Raynor, Jody Orendorff, Kelly Rolf, Shannon Kelly, Jenny Moore, Twila Jones, Tiffany Huffine, Sam Derheimer, Lindsay Fetro, Sarak Bricker. George McCue, Ryan McNeil, Bianca Mata, Sarah Shepler, Jon Hayhurst, Nate Wong, Brandon Blacctner, Megan Bowton, John Byerly, Amy Callison, Dustin Carboni, Ryan Dickey, Carrie Dixon, Jamie Durmford, Mindy Graf, Scott Eldridge, Jill Freck, Heidi Freudenstein, Heather Hansa, Candy Hilver. Mandy Holifield, Sheena Jackson, Twila Jones, Shannon Kelley, Danielle Kiplinger, Jill Koenig, Lashonda Lapsley, Scott Lankcnau, Rachel Lesser, Tiffany Huffine, Zehra Mecuk, Sarah Milestone, Sarah Jarosh, Mary Legler, Jena Banasiak, David Weeks, Bianca Mata, Nate Wong, Chris Farr, Andy Howard. B.J. McKinley, Liz Niemic, Michelle Ping, Josh Richardson, Ben Ridgley, Kelly Rolf, Anita Robertson, Ann Roth, Nathan Schaffer, Major Shear, Rachel Shepler, Rebecca Smith, Aaron Smits, Michelle Stenger, Amy Sturgis, Suzi Simerman, Violet Vanderver, Tony Weber, Angie White, Ryan Wigmore, Jane Terfler, Patrick Murphy, Brooke Ulrich, Laurel Longardner, Jodi Orendorff, Zack McKissik, Anthony Farr. Cantebury High School Faculty Ramona Fisher, Ted King, Nancy Vacanti, Rita Hayes, Bob Schantz. Students Ben Downie, Becca Downie, Kiya Bajpai, Lee Crawford, Dan Barrett, Seth Fischer, Avinash Mantravadi, Tracy Hayes, Ian Sambur, Dan Limburg, Abbie Vacanti, McLean Karr. Emilie Powell, Charity Fesler, Anne Johnson, Kathryn Johnson, Sam Kaplan, Jessie Wickham, Make Najdeski, Kyle Michel, Maria Cipolone, Cecilia Taylor, Tina Zurcher, Neha Sharma, Katie Nichols, Lili Fuhr, Xenia Olajosova. South Side High School Faculty Ronald Holmes, Joann Piatt. students Mindy Rorick, Nicole Hoffman, Nichole Pallard, Dan Hagen, Megan Pahmier, Metti Shank, David Miller, Josh Deyer, India Simmons, Leah Ahrensen, Steve Hill, Khalid Jaboori, Amarin Sengthongsava, Allyson Shadnagle. Carroll High School faculty Mike Cheviron, Judy Quinn, Sherrie Shade, Susan Terfler, Judy Schaubschlager, Steve Burner, Jo Bergstedt, Becky Reece, Susan Thompson, Cindy Vanvleet, Bill Mallers, Alison Hoff, Bonnie Wyss, Marti Weihe. students Mary Slater, Amanda Repine, Amanda McClurg, Sara Zeiger, Matt Landin, Martha Boggs, Anna Hudson, Sherene Bucher, Rob Wermuth, Van Gardner, Kristie Stenger, Trey Begin, Faith Begin, Abi Iczkovitz, Dan Douglas. Rula Mourad, Stephanie Simmerman, Andrew Krouse, Jeff Welch, Julie Baker, Erin Miller, Carrie Lane, Sarah Dick, Emily Richardson, Jennifer Burns, Jill Gilbert, Chad Freeland, Stacy Gephart, Amber Bond, Jennifer Osborne, Sarah Stephenson, Breanna Schaubschlager, Cathy Slater. Paul Harding High School Faculty Pam Butts, Mike Weidemeier, Mary Lou Renier, Craig Hissong, Alice Sheak, Neal Brown, Peggy Ruzzo, Mary Overmeyer. students Kara Pettey, Adriana Lopez, Aundrea Sanders, Matt Bolden, Shakeira Drake, Kevin Neal, Augusta Harshman, Stephanie Barkley, Clara McCarley, Josh Summers, Meliss Krueger, Miracle Campbell, Tisha Hill, Sabrina Kitsos. Chris LaPan, Doug Becker, Teresa Rittmeyer, Suraya Zaman, Stephany Jonas, Terence Johnson, Zach Evans, Daniel Rittmeyer, Josh Zaman, Nathan Yoder, Crystal Chatman, Paul Curl, She Kilso, Jason Griffin, Lamar Harvey, Cary Land, Joe Sauer, Noakem Zayyacheck, Glynnis Vann. Bishop Luers High School Faculty Terry Winkeljohn, Amber Booker, Dominic Freiburger, Wendy Breuggman, Cory Roffelsen. Students Vince Serrani, Mike Henz, Pete Hall, Betsy Quinn, Greg Witt, Angie Helmsing, Amanda Bratmiller, Steve Turner, Emily Lomont, Andy Blauvelt, Christopher Becker, Justin Rhoades, Theresa Wall, Rachel Heath, Matt Rurnschlag, T.J. Dickerson, Dacid Clough, Matt Freiburger, Nora Presswood, Ryann Harrington. Andy Blauvelt, Katie Shank, Gretchen Augsburger, Nick Klingler, David Bugert, Allie Wyss, Joshua Booker, Marie Magers, Katie Rorick, Lindsey Giant, Scott Hartman, Laura Cost, Mandy Sroufe, Carmen Butler, Katie Colone, Jeni Lebrato, Pam Smith. Becky Kelty, Beth Newell, Jennifer Wynt, Matt Dowling, Marcus Lummier, Courtney Furrow, Monica Guerra, Erin Spireth, Rachel Sorg, Melissa Castleman, Kendra Shuler, Beverly Wedler, Kathy Blankman, Sarah Thomas, Amy Creager, Elizabeth Wright.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue. In addition to commenting on this, there is another related matter I want to raise tonight. I appreciate the gentleman yielding some time. I met earlier today with Michael Larrance from Hamilton High School in my district who is out here for the conference. He has formed a group at his high school of students who are committed not only to trying to combat alcohol abuse but also drug abuse, teen pregnancy and other issues and the need to stress abstinence in these areas. I worked recently to put together a play that he has taken to other schools, too, to try to address this. I think it is very important that we encourage efforts among the students themselves to combat this. Having a son 17 who is a junior in high school and a daughter who is 19, I am very concerned when they have hit prom season and a lot of the spring seasons and the various trips that they go on, about what they and their friends, and you always worry about who they are riding with, not only their behavior. I also know that my friend, Senator Tom Wyss, in Indiana has been battling hard with open container laws and various things in Indiana that have been huge fights because there is a lot of money that goes into trying to keep us from putting difficult standards on. But the zero tolerance type of policies a lot of schools are putting in, efforts of police forces to crack down on this, is not only good for our kids but for the rest of us. It is frightening to think of somebody who is alcohol drenched or drug crazed driving down the highway, and you are minding your own business and all of a sudden your life is taken out of your hands because of someone else's behavior. One of the things I visited over 20 years in the last 6 months, talking about particularly narcotics abuse but including alcohol and tobacco abuse, and one of the things that I have become concerned with is a bill that we are dealing with later this week regarding narcotics. I am afraid and I am sorry to announce this, but apparently our war against drugs is over. That is the good news. Unfortunately, if this bill we are working on later this week on international issues survives the legislative process, the drug producers and the drug shippers will have won instead of our Nation, because we are now going to give up the current drug certification process. Many Americans will wonder what I am talking about. Section 490 of H.R. 1486 ends, repeat, kills off provisions in current law which require the President to certify to Congress if a country produces illegal drugs or ships them to kill U.S. children. In place of the current law, the bill the House is considering replaces drug certification with a pile of loopholes and exceptions that are virtually certain to mean no country, including Mexico, will ever been decertified for U.S. foreign aid. Here is what section 490 does. It allows the President to, and I quote, ``to the extent considered necessary by the President,'' end quote, to hold back foreign aid or instruct the U.S. representative at the World Bank to vote against loans to countries if a series of conditions suggested in the legislation are violated. Just to be sure that the law is absolutely weak, the legislation allows the President to ignore even the new and timid standards if acting against a pro-drug country, including Mexico, will, and I quote again, ``affect other United States national interests.'' When I read this provision in the bill, I thought to myself, what a nice gift this will be for President Clinton's weak-on-drugs choice to be U.S. Ambassador to Mexico to take with him. We are looking at appointing an ambassador to Mexico who believes in so-called medicinal use of marijuana. There is no medicinal use of marijuana. There is a medicinal use of THC, which is found in other drugs. It is a back-door effort to legalize drugs. If the policy of the Congress is not to stand up when we send an ambassador to Mexico who is supporting back-door legalization and we take out the drug certification process, what message is this to the kids? We are telling them on one hand, do not drink, do not do drugs. On the other hand, what we are saying is, if trade is more important and all of us, and I know in Florida it is important, in Indiana it is increasingly important. Nobody is saying that trade is not important, nobody is saying we do not have huge immigration questions to deal with. At the same time, we cannot be so concerned about risking some trade or irritation as we work through this that we back off our focus on the drug war. So I hope to have more to say on this later this week. But I wanted to take this opportunity to come down and say that sometimes we only talk about marijuana and cocaine, and we forget that alcohol is the No. 1 problem among teens. But we also need to understand as a Nation that these things are closely interrelated, and abusers of one are abusers of another. We need to send a clear, concise, consistent message across the board that we stand against this abuse. It is critical for our country, for the future of our young people. It is important in our international policy. We cannot send our children the message that money is more important to us than our lives and safety and their own character development which gets impaired when you use any kind of narcotics, whether it is alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin. I know in Florida we have had an outburst of the heroin problem, too. We need to look at all these things. I commend the gentleman again tonight for his efforts on drunk driving and all those teens and parents who have been involved in SADD and MADD and those who have been particularly affected by this. Nothing is more tragic than to talk with somebody, as we have had in all of our districts and all over the country, somebody who has lost a life--lost a mother, a father, or lost one of their cherished children because somebody could not handle the alcohol and somebody was not responsible and because of that, somebody else is dead. I thank the gentleman for his efforts and thank him for yielding me time tonight.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for his leadership. I enjoy working with him in our committee. It is the type of thing we need to do more often working in bipartisanship and common interests because, while we may have disagreements from time to time about the best way to achieve solutions, we are legitimately concerned and share the common concerns about what is going on in our country. While we may disagree, sometimes, and more often than not, we are going to agree on what the problems are and even on what many of the solutions are, and this is one of the examples. I also want to address some of the concerns raised by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, as well as from Texas concerning the Blue Dog budget and put this into kind of a summary of what we have heard here on the floor in debate. It is not likely that any Member is going to walk down to the floor and say, oh, I believe it ought to be calculated for political purposes. There is a small group of people who are definitely committed to balancing the budget who believe that the CPI is incorrectly calculated. They have expressed their concerns, but that is not the way Congress works. Every time we change the CPI, we do not cut the deficit, we spend more money, and that is in fact what would happen. Many Members who did not come down to the floor who have been doing their work in the back rooms, they have been anxiously trying to divide up what they were going to spend had we adjusted the CPI. They were not going to do that in front of the television cameras, they are going to do it in the back rooms. I share some concerns that have been expressed that there has been some smoke and mirrors in the budget; we will see that as it unfolds in this agreement. But many of us believe that this should be a scientific process, not a political process, and it was coming to be a political process of how we could get more dollars away from senior citizens, away from families, away from veterans, so we could spend more for groups that were politically important to some Members or concerns about a TV ad here or a TV ad there. That is not the way we should adjust the CPI. To summarize, this is a sense of Congress regarding the Consumer Price Index to take politics out of the process. The CPI is intended to provide as accurate as possible measurement of inflation and enables the Government to limit the impact of inflation for those most vulnerable to its bite. The determination of the CPI also has significant long-term consequences on determining tax liabilities, as we heard from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] today. Our purpose today is to recognize that because of the tremendous importance of the CPI for average Americans, any modification of the CPI should be made by those most capable of doing so in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It should not be a political football, it should not be something to try to take from one group to give to another. Its determination should be left in the hands of those most qualified to accurately measure inflation. Senior citizens and taxpayers across this Nation owe thanks to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox, and his cosponsors, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Maloney, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This decision should be based on the best policy, not on politics.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 93) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Bureau of Labor Statistics alone should make any adjustments, if any are needed, to the methodology used to determine the Consumer Price Index.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman also from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], my distinguished colleague and class member.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 93 which expresses the sense of the House that any adjustments to the methodology to be used to determine the Consumer Price Index should be made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This resolution is consistent with the agreement for a balanced budget that was recently entered into between administration and congressional leaders and reaffirms our commitment that the Consumer Price Index should be based on sound and nonpartisan deliberation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], my friend, and the creator of this bill, and distinguished battler on behalf of senior citizens and somebody who is tireless in his pursuits of defending his constituents and those around the country from this potential raid on their dollars.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a tax and economic policy leader. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 93.