Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to reluctantly, and I want to say very reluctantly, oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan. I hope if there are ever grades given in the art of compromise, that I do not pass with high and flying colors; that I get it kicking and screaming, just a bare passing grade. As Members may know, in committee, I worked with the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], and others that have concern about Governors moving the money between the different categories. I believe that when the Federal Government allocates the money, we can at least set minimum criteria, not in how to execute these grants but in basic guidelines of where, in general terms, the money should go and some overriding standards as to the results that should be achieved but not micromanage their decisions. Mr. Chairman, I believe in this bill we have made a number of compromises in order to move forward, to keep the four categories as opposed to a general block grant, to protect as many of the categories as possible. While this does allow a minimum number of moving between a couple of categories, which I personally only supported with great reluctance, at this point I do believe we have a bill that can hold together and make it through the House and into law, and so I reluctantly oppose the gentleman from Michigan, even though I very much respect his point.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], the subcommittee chairman, on the CAREERS bill. Mr. Chairman, the genesis of the CAREERS bill on the floor today dates to the 1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act [CETA]. CETA contained employment and training components. The employment segment, especially disliked by fiscal conservatives, provided public service jobs for the unemployed. CETA, at its peak, was funded at $10 billion. The public sector component was targeted for elimination when the Reagan administration took office in 1981. I represent the congressional district Dan Quayle once held, and am therefore familiar with the Job Training Partnership Act which Dan Quayle sponsored after he won his Senate seat in 1980. Senator Quayle won passage of the Quayle training for jobs bill, a $3.8 billion program for training and $1 billion for displaced workers. Under the Quayle bill, State governments had more responsibility for programs but services were provided by local private industry councils. The Quayle Job Training Partnership Act focused training on economically disadvantaged individuals with serious barriers to employment. JTPA was criticized for imposing numerous Federal restrictions which limited local flexibility, and burdensome planning, reporting and data collection requirements. Senator Quayle made a number of compromises to get his bill through, and today we are trying to improve those JTPA standards. Yet JTPA was flagged as Dan Quayle's most notable legislative accomplishment, when he was chosen as George Bush's running mate. Ironically today, many of Vice President Quayle's staunchest defenders have criticized CAREERS, which significantly improves, from a conservative perspective, Dan Quayle's greatest legacy. Legitimate concerns arose from a number of grassroots family organizations about careers, once it was approved by the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. To reduce those concerns, language changes were agreed to. And as a result, the bill has been approved. References to Goals 2000 were stricken. References to curriculum requirements by a State plan under the youth block grant were deleted and adult common core indicators were separated from youth indicators. Finally, parental involvement was encouraged in the design of State and local systems. I realize there are still some concerns about this bill and, more important, about the Federal Government's continuing role in education. The debate over education reform will continue, and it will be fought vigorously on other more relevant bills. I would only ask for the family groups to consider the historic perspective on Federal job training. The CAREERS job training bill is a step forward. CAREERS follows on the heels of JTPA, but with far more Federal dollars driven to the local level with greater State and local authority, with greater fiscal accountability and with an anticipated 25-percent cost savings through efficiency and a better plan at the State level. The enactment of CAREERS would result in a total savings of $6.5 billion over 5 years. We will never eliminate all the concerns that my fellow conservatives share, but the majority of Americans believe that is a role for job training at least at the State level. As the chairman has said, as long as we are held accountable for those tax dollars, we have an obligation to hold standards to the States. I know the Governors have had a number of concerns and we have addressed some of those concerns. I supported a number of amendments in the committee and continue to support this bill as the best we could pass.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I, reluctantly voted for the previous question in spite of my desire to support the Senate gift ban. I personally have implemented the Senate gift ban in my office. While the golf and tennis trips worth thousands of dollars to Members usually benefit charity as well as the Members, there is no question in my mind that these primarily recreational trips should be eliminated as a Member's perk. The American people are demanding that we reform this system of expensive dinners, gifts, and trips. The question is not whether or not people believe the other party. They don't trust them either. Citizens are fed up with both parties because they believe we work too closely with those who give us financial benefits--personal and political. Our large freshman Republican class was elected largely on Government reform. We are not likely to remain if we don't progress on real reform--of Congress itself, or PACS, of gifts, of term limits. I will continue to sponsor legislation on these issues, as well as voluntarily implement them in my office. While ultimately this is a question of integrity and character, I sincerely hope that our leadership will begin voting on these issues soon because previous Congresses have spent the public's full measure of trust.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, Medicare will be bankrupt in 7 years. No amount of accusations against each other about robbing banks or telling stories is going to solve the problem. We cannot stick our heads in the sand. Medicare will go broke in 7 years. We must work together to solve the problem rather than just spit out rhetoric. Many of you have a parent or grandparent who is 58 years of age and expecting Medicare benefits when they turn 65. They have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes, and saved for their retirement. When they reach 65, however, and are getting ready to retire, there will be no Medicare waiting for them. Mr. Speaker, for 30 years Medicare has enabled the seniors of this country to get the medical attention they need, and now the Democrats seem to want to stand by, yell a lot, but let the program die. We Republicans will not stand for it. We are working to strengthen and preserve Medicare. I hope my Democrat colleagues will stop the rhetoric and help us solve the Medicare crisis.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As one of the junior fathers on the floor of the House right now, I am still trying to recover from the gentlewoman from Colorado wrapping herself with Richard Nixon. I was not quite prepared for that in the debate here. We cannot lose track that the fact is that this is an amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and an amendment to modify his amendment that really relates to the abortion issue. It has been confused as we have gone through this. The principle is the same. Very few people, whether pro-life or pro-choice, want their tax dollars to be used to fund a procedure that is so objectionable and controversial. If anything, the American public has even less tolerance for U.S. taxpayer-funded abortions carried out in other countries. After all, Americans, particularly those in Indiana, do not care much for foreign aid spending, to begin with. When this foreign aid is used to pay for abortion, support falls through the floor. A commonsense position of not paying for abortions overseas was official U.S. policy throughout most of the last decade and a half, but it came to a screeching halt the third day of the Clinton presidency when he nullified the Mexico City policy with a stroke of pen. There has been debate on the floor whether or not, in fact, we do abortions. Listen to some folks we heard earlier, Tim Wirth, Undersecretary for Global Affairs, May 11, 1993, said, ``Our position is to support reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion.'' On March 16, 1994, the State Department action cable was sent to overseas diplomatic and consular posts. It called for ``senior-level diplomatic interventions,'' in support of U.S. population control priorities. ``The priority issues for the U.S. include assuring access to safe abortions. The United States believes access to safe, legal and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women.'' Since rescinding the Mexico City policy, the Clinton administration has committed $75 million to International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF], which performs and actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning around the world. During the time the Mexico City policy was in effect, International Planned Parenthood Federation was one of only two organizations that refused to sign an agreement stating they would not perform or actively support abortion as a method of family planning. The other organization was Planned Parenthood Federation of America, by far the largest abortion provider in the United States. Of course, there is the U.N. Population Fund, which, as a matter of course, supports and collaborates with countries that use abortions as birth control. Opponents of the Smith amendment would have you think the Mexico City policy hurts family planning efforts worldwide. This is not true. In 1990, over 350 foreign family planning organizations signed the agreement, unlike Planned Parenthood. So what we are talking about here is whether or not to fund three organizations that countenance abortions, out of the hundreds of others that carry out successful planning, family planning, without supporting abortion. Now, there is a question whether Planned Parenthood directly uses their funds for abortion. For those of you who do not understand basic accounting and the ability to move money around, all you need to do is look at the U.S. Government. For those who think one division of Planned Parenthood cannot fund abortion and another division can fund abortion, I want to show you the Social Security trust fund. We do that all the time here in Congress where we claim it is set aside and is not. Money that goes to a company merely can be shifted between divisions. It is a cost accounting question. I believe it is somewhat a little bit of a sleight of hand to claim Planned Parenthood does not fund abortions in those countries, because they are merely playing games with their funds. Now, as to the China question, I want to point out that the amendment offered by my friend from Kansas only addresses UNFPA funds, not the International Planned Parenthood funds which are addressed in the first and third clauses. While the first and third clauses alone in the Smith amendment would not solely address the China policy, for example, it would require ceasing abortion funding in all countries, not just China, it nevertheless guarantees that the money will not go to China, whereas the International Planned Parenthood funding for China is not affected by the Meyers amendment. At best, the Meyers amendment, substitute, assumes a very rosy scenario. International Planned Parenthood would not fund the reprehensible policies in China or China will change their policies. In other words, it is not inappropriate for us to raise the China policy, because it does matter, because the Meyers amendment, while it takes clause 2 from the Smith amendment, it does not cover International Planned Parenthood in clauses 1 and 3. I would like to make a point or two on China even though that is not the primary reason I oppose the Meyers amendment and support the Smith amendment, and what I would like to make sure gets in the record is not only have we heard about the forced abortions and a lot of what traditionally we conservatives have criticized about China, but the new development of what has concerned us, the unborn babies that are being sold for human consumption. According to United Press International, a Hong Kong magazine, and this is quoting UPI, recently revealed the latest health fad in the southern boom town of Shenzhen to be the consumption of human fetuses, which are believed to improve complexions and general health. Unlike the serving of endangered reptiles, a human embryo as food trade is not illegal or underground in China.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I favor tax cuts for the American families. I believe American families can do more for themselves than the Government. Mr. Speaker, the American people devote 5.4 billion hours and $232 billion every year to comply with the United States Tax Code. Furthermore, billions of dollars are then spent by the IRS to administer and enforce these tax laws. To reform this unwieldy system, our majority leader, Congressman Dick Armey has put forward a flat tax proposal that can simplify our system and provide a new contract with the American people. We have all heard the phrase ``you deserve a break today'' and now I want to help put those words into action. Today I will be introducing a modified flat tax proposal called McFlat. the ``m'' stands for mortgage and the ``c'' stands for charitable. McFlat incorporates the meat of Congressman Armey's flat tax along with deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. McFlat can provide the arches, so to speak, between those that want a simpler and fairer system and those of us who feel that it is essential to retain deductions for homes, churches, and charities. McFlat is the simple and fair way to revolutionize the American Tax Code.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for his leadership in the last Congress and over the years. I am particularly proud also of my freshman colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. He came here to Congress as a businessman and said this is not the way you run a government. You do not put the Social Security surplus in the budget. You do not try to talk just about how we are going to get to a balanced budget on an annual basis. We have to look at the long-term debt. He worked at it, rounded up others and was persistent in all of our meetings, through the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Appropriations, and in our class. I want to commend his leadership particularly because while I have my mother and father-in-law who are struggling in their health care and in Medicare, and I do not have any desire to hurt them, which is why we are not cutting it, we are increasing it at a slower rate, but I am also concerned for my three children. It is a balance that we have to achieve because if we do not achieve that balance, there will be no future Medicare for me when I get there or Social Security for my children.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the Cato Institute estimates that spending on welfare programs by all levels of government runs over $35,000 for every family of four below the poverty line. But it is painfully obvious that the average poor family does not even come close to receiving this much money. The bulk is spent on bureaucratic overhead, not on the people it is intended to help. Today, I will be introducing a bill to expand the tax incentive for charitable giving, thereby offering average citizens a chance to do more for those in need than the government ever could. My bill--the Giving Incentive and Volunteer Empowerment Act, or the GIVE Act--will encourage more charitable donations to private sector charities and other nonprofits, which get a much bigger bang for their bucks than do government-run programs. The GIVE Act will do four things: First, allow all individual filers to deduct from taxable income 120 percent of the value of their charitable donation. Second, once again allow non-itemizers to deduct for charitable deductions, as long as they give more than $1,000, or $2,000 filing jointly. Third, exclude charitable giving from the overall limitation on itemized deductions. Fourth, extend the deadline for making tax-deductible charitable donations until April 15, when taxpayers are past the end-of-the-year cash crunch and can better estimate their tax liability. I want to make it plain the GIVE Act is not meant to supplant all Government spending on social programs. But as we seek to reassert fiscal responsibility in government, increased private giving and volunteer involvement can fill a need the deficit spending cannot--and with more success, efficiency, and compassion.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a special couple from my district who will celebrate the milestone of their 60th wedding anniversary on Thursday, May 4, 1995. It is so wonderful in these turbulent times to be able to recognize Ray and Irene Sunday, a couple who have honored their vows to one another for over half a century. It is an honor to commend this couple for their life together and to offer my best wishes for the years to come.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today should be a glorious day for America. We hope to pass, in one day, a law that will cut taxes, releasing the engine of economic--dynamic economic growth and giving parents the freedom to make decisions for their own children. It will move Congress toward a balanced budget, and it will begin to transfer the power of the Federal Government back to the people. The defenders of the Washington welfare state charge we ``terrible'' Republicans favor the rich, we want to deprive our children of lunches, and other desperate charges. Whine, whine, whine; I fear they drank too much of their own wine. The truth is simple. America has spoken. Washington does not know best. Today can be the real beginning of the reversal of power where Americans can make their own decisions without consulting Congress. You might even say, ``A morning in America, part 2,'' only this time not only will the cuts again increase Government revenues but now we have a Republican Congress that is not going to spend it all. God has given us a second change. Today should be a glorious day.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I would hope they asked for written consent. My amendment would make sure they ask for written consent.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments for sections 2 and 4, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the gentlewoman from Illinois for not showing her directly my amendments which I have testified about in front of the Committee on Rules and which we have discussed with committee staff. I also want to make it clear as a member of the Government Reform Committee that I am an elected Member of Congress, that I am the person who went to the leadership, to the staff of the committee and requested additional changes in the language, much of which was accommodated. But we felt that going to markup, as we progressed through the markup that it was not appropriate for me to offer any amendment at that time. I am an elected Member of Congress. I do not appreciate that I have been hearing, in ``Dear Colleagues,'' in the Rules Committee and on the floor that it was a staff-directed request. I had a survey problem in my district as I will bring out, with my children, as I stated in the markup in committee. My staff worked hard on this. The majority staff worked hard on this. I am not taking anything away from the fact that staff members were involved. I myself was a Republican staff director in the Children and Family Committee for a while, but I am a Member elected to Congress and I am the one who initiated the process.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I also read, in response to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], some questions that were in a Federal HHS survey that asked ``Have you ever had sexual intercourse? How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time? During your life how many people have you had sexual intercourse with? During the past 3 months with how many people did you have sexual intercourse? Did you drink alcohol or use drugs before you had sexual intercourse the last time?'' This is an HHS Youth Risk Behavior Survey that was in middle schools.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the question that was in my district that was asked my children was not. It is unclear to me whether the one in San Antonio where I read some of the questions is. The HHS questionnaire, which I did not get into detail, had similar questions on how many people did you have sexual intercourse with? This is a middle school survey. During your life how many people have you had sexual intercourse with? At what age did you first have sexual intercourse? Did you drink alcohol or drugs? That was an HHS survey.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 1271, but I believe it must be strengthened to accomplish our objective of protecting family privacy. This amendment is in response to concerns of parents around the country about federally funded questionnaires and surveys, in general much of what is going on with our children. This will finally give parents and children the legal cover that has been theirs from the beginning. It will safeguard family privacy unless and until the government has legitimate reason to intrude upon it. Written consent is essential, not burdensome. The individual dignity of a child and the privacy of a family are paramount to saving an agency time or money. Opponents to this amendment in academia, the Clinton administration, and the Census Bureau find it troublesome that we are seeking prior written consent because data for their surveys might not be as accurate as possible. They are really saying science and data are now more important than the family. Is this what we call family values? This amendment will not protect parents who abuse their children or affect legitimate criminal investigations. This amendment will not interfere with academic tests that are truly academic. This amendment will not impose any additional requirements on schools. Schools already assist the U.S. Department of Education with obtaining written consent and administering surveys through the standards of the General Education Provisions Act which covers only Department of Education surveys. In other words, we already have this type of protection in the education bill. I have a particular concern in that I am on the Committee on Government Reform. I supported this bill. We worked together with the committee chairman and subcommittee chairman and ranking members in the report language, but I had some additional concerns because of some things I have seen going on around the country, not directly related to in some cases a Federal survey such as in my district, but some are directly related to Federal surveys. I would first like to read a survey that was given in my district that caught my attention and prompted me to go one step further for written consent. One problem we have in schools is that you get consent forms, and sometimes mass forms, which we separate, and often you do not know whether you have given consent or not given consent. To some degree this protects schools. This protects people, whether it be religious or political or other types of things such as sexual behavior. But the particular survey that upset me in my district was asked in a high school and had such questions as: Are you a virgin? What age were you when you lost your virginity? Do you use any form of contraceptives? Do your parents provide your contraceptives? Do you pay for your contraceptives? Do you get contraceptives from your friends? Have you had sex with more than one person? Have you had sex with more than five people? Do you have sex more than three times a week? Are you going to wait to have sex until you are married? Do you know what gonorrhea, genital warts, herpes or syphilis are? Do you know if your partner(s) have a sexually transmitted disease? Have you ever had an HIV test? Have you ever performed or received oral sex? Have you ever performed or received anal sex? Have you ever had an orgasm? Have you ever had a homosexual experience? Do your parents know that you have sex? This type of questionnaire is reprehensible. I find it particularly reprehensible because it was given to my two children, one of whom is a junior and one of whom is a freshman. I believe it is extremely inappropriate for this type of thing to be passed out in English classes, to be distributed by the Federal Government in other cases. I have a survey here that was distributed under the auspices of HHS, where they asked similar questions on religious activity and sexual behavior of children. There are others. I have one that was sent to me from San Antonio where they start to come into religious activity, asking whether the parents ever scream at each other, whether the parents take a prescription for stress, whether the parents have ever been drunk. Do either of your parents get drunk? Another question is, do you or your parents, they are asking whether they attend school functions. They want to know what the parents know about who they are dating. Have you done things in a relationship that you would not tell your parents about? Another, do your parents approve of your older friend, if you have a friend who is at least five years older than you? This type of questioning of young people about the parents' behavior, about the relationship with their parents is outrageous. We need protection for the children of America, for the parents of America so that you have to have written consent before you can probe into private matters. I am sorry for any impact it has on cost. I am sorry for any impact it has on future research, if some people do not get their response questionnaires back. We have gone past the point of protecting individuals, and we need to reinstate the protection for individuals so we do not go on witch-hunts for religious behavior, for deviant sexual behavior, for normal sexual behavior. Many things in these surveys imply that it is normal to have as a freshman in high school multiple sexual partners. I think we need to stand up, put this in this law. My amendment also lifts the $500 cap which, if we leave it at $500, means that in effect the parents are going to probably have to pay more in attorney costs to challenge a questionnaire than they could recover. I believe these amendments are essential. They are in our original contract. I hope my colleagues will support them.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, as Forrest Gump might say, the Democrats are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get. But unlike Forrest Gump, the American people are not gullible enough to believe that the Democrats are taking this amendment and proposal seriously. This is how the Democratic-sponsored proposal will affect House Democrats: 82 of them can just resign right now. Under this amendment, 82 of them would no longer be here. Thirty should have left 8 years ago at least. Even two of the proponents of this retroactive proposal have been in Congress longer than 12 years and thus will be ousted by their own proposals. One sponsor has served 40 years. He is like 3\1/2\ Congressmen. When you go out and talk to the average people, they understand the hypocrisy of this particular amendment since we have not had a first hearing on term limits in the House until November 1993. They have been opposed by the prior leadership. During the 40 years prior to that hearing there was never a single vote on term limits. The former speaker even sued his own constituents on the term limit law. I, like other of my freshman colleagues, have made a pledge. We will only serve 12 years, whether or not Congress passes an amendment. We are not just voting; we are actually acting. I challenge others who plan to vote for this amendment, as I plan to do, to act, not just talk. People are tired of politicians who just talk. Join with me in committing to resigning after 6 or 12 years, whatever you vote for, whether or not this passes. Actions speak louder than words.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, listening to this debate, I am struck by self-doubt. Maybe the Democrats are right. Maybe we are being too rash and too impulsive in trying to change the welfare system from the last three decades. John Lennon said give peace a chance. Maybe my friends are correct that we just need to give the welfare state a chance. After all, we have only been at it for about 30 years. Nearly two-thirds of the households at the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution are headed by persons who work. Today that has declined by one-third. But maybe we should just give it a little bit more time and spend just a little bit more money. In 1966 when the war on poverty began, the poverty rate was 14.7 percent. Today's poverty rate is even worse, 15.1 percent. But maybe we are being rash on this side and we should not really try to reform the system and just put a little bit more money in and that will help. Should we wait until illegitimacy rates reach 95, 100 percent in our public housing projects? Should we wait until 50 to 75 percent of white babies and over 90 to 100 percent of African-American babies are out of wedlock? At what point do we decide that the system is broken, that the way we are doing it does not require just a little bit more money or a little bit more Federal program, but rather that we need a radical overhaul, that we need to put it back to the States where people can look at the local level, see what is working, see what is not working, tinker with the edges rather than having it directed from here in Washington? As you go around and see young children and see that hope out of their eyes, they are not getting it from this welfare system. Maybe this system will not be that much better, but it can not be worse, and with economic opportunity and jobs we can at least try to put hope back in children's lives.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I imaging that there are a lot of people in a state of shock on hearing about this hearing, because I want to commend the gentleman because of the way this body works and the other body, and I was a legislative director for Senator Coats in 1982 through 1992, and in 1985 to 1993, the top three issues were drugs, drugs and drugs, and anything that looked like a drug bill we shoveled money toward that drug bill, and we tried to address the issue. But much of the way Congress works is once we pass a bill, then we assume that supposedly that the problem has disappeared. We end welfare as we know it, and we fix this, and because Congress focused on it 4 or 5 years ago, the problem was supposed to go away. It does not matter that statistics show that it has grown up. But now the political focus is off, people want to ignore it and put it under the table and focus on something a little more topical and get more attention, even though the problem is still existing and is increasing. In the first year in office President Clinton slashed the czar's office from 146 to 25. He put enforcement efforts on the back burner and shifted the emphasis from our borders he says to neighborhoods and streets, yet they have cut back on a lot of those types of efforts. This administration has spent, as we heard earlier, much too much time focusing on the problems in Somalia, or in Haiti, or on micromanaging the rest of the world and they have not paid adequate attention to our crisis here at home. In Fort Wayne, IN, in my hometown, instead of having 30 or 40 buildings that are used for crack, we now have 150 to 250 that are occasionally used for crack. Our gang problem has increased further. For murders, we see in Fort Wayne that most murders are drug-related, they are kids battling on the streets over control of the drug trade, often coming out of Detroit or out of Chicago. It has not gone down at all. I think as we look at that we need a clear message from our national leadership that we are going to do whatever we can. We need to use the moral authority of the bully pulpit, of the President. We need clear direction coming out of there. We already heard Joycelyn Elders and her position which was actually, ``Don't smoke, but if you have to smoke, don't smoke tobacco.'' It was a really very mixed message, and we have seen an increase in the T-shirts and in the rock music, and in every store with rock music that you go into you have that marijuana sign, the marijuana drug, an acceptance in the culture, and we need to focus on changing the moral authority and the director of this country. We are clearly seeing a rise in the use of marijuana, the major drug of preference in usage, as well as other types of drugs in this country. The plain truth is that leadership matters. We can put money into education and D.A.R.E., into the school problems which reaches a few people. We can try to put the balloons up in the air. We can try the INS, we can try the faster cigarette boats to try to track people down in the water. We can look through the banana shipment to see if drugs are coming in. We can use different aircraft and try all the different methods for interdiction and we need to, but that alone will not eliminate it. We need to have local task forces to do it. We need to have a focus there. We need to have treatment programs, many of which fail, but we still need to have treatment efforts and make the effort on all of those fronts. But a lot of this ultimately is going to come down to we just have to say no. That is why it is so important to have Mrs. Reagan coming to give that moral message again, that we have to have the moral authority to change the commitment in the individual lives and in society to say that that is wrong. We cannot tolerate this. We families to supplement that. Our responsibility as government leaders is to try to use the force of government, but much of this is in the hearts of people, and we have to use our bully pulpit, the President, the Congress, committee hearings like the gentleman is having to put the toughness back in it. I think the record of this administration is clear, and if they think that they have improved it, they need to exhale.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. Many have called our new freshman class the children of the Reagan revolution or the real Reagan revolution. Ideologically, this is true. We are committed to the principles upon which Ronald Reagan was the chief spokesman: reduce the size of Government, cut taxes, rebuild not undermine our Nation's strong moral and family base, and stand for a strong America. In my case, it goes beyond the generalization. In 1964, just after my 15th birthday, I heard Ronald Reagan's famous speech for Barry Goldwater for President. Like many others, I was moved to action. First, I took $5 of my hard-earned ``pop-bottle sorting'' money I earned at our family's general store and sent it to Goldwater. Second, I was activated and never looked back. After Goldwater's shocking defeat--he did pretty well in my hometown of Grabill--I organized a Young Americans for Freedom chapter at Leo High School, one of the Nation's first high school YAF chapters. At our 1968 Leo High School commencement, as senior class president, I was asked to speak. In my draft remarks was a quote from then Governor of California Ronald Reagan, with the comment, ``who will someday make a great President of the United States.'' Our faculty advisor, Mrs. Mumma, said to delete it or I couldn't speak. It was deleted off my cards, but I ad-libbed it anyway, being a somewhat independent person. At the 1971 YAF national convention, I was part of a group of conservatives pushing Reagan to run in 1972. In 1976, I helped in his surprise victory in the Indiana Presidential primary for President. President Gerald Ford was respected in Indiana, as our neighbor from Michigan, but our hearts were with Reagan. A friend of mine, who had also been a Reagan backer since 1968, won the 4th Congressional District Republican primary in that same election. That Reagan fan went on to upset an incumbent member of Congress in the fall. I now hold my friend, and fellow Reaganite, Dan Quayle's old congressional seat. In 1980, Dan Quayle went on to defeat an incumbent U.S. Senator and another friend of Reagan won the 4th District Congressional seat. After Quayle was elected Vice-President, our friend Dan Coats moved up to the U.S. Senate. This is the Indiana version of the Reagan revolution. To those who thought the Reagan revolution was over, prepare yourselves. Dan Quayle is obviously still an important player and Dan Coats is in the Senate, and I am joined in the Indiana House delegation by my distinguished freshman colleague Dave McIntosh, who worked in the Reagan administration. After a short break, we are back. The legacy of Ronald Reagan will live on, led by the first State for Reagan--Indiana.

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the gentleman tonight for pulling this together. I think there is a lot of confusion as to what is going on. To follow up on what the gentleman from Arizona said, as I campaigned in Indiana, and I was I think in over 40 different parades in the small towns and cities, nobody came out and said, ``Hey, Mark, will you see if you can expand the power of the government in Washington? Will you see if you can figure out how to spend more money ought there? And by the way, can you tax me a little bit more?'' That is not what the American people sent us here to do. They sent us here to reduce the size of government and to reduce the burden and to give them control over their lives. We are saying that in our unfunded mandates. We are saying it in the line item veto, and we are looking at it here in the balanced budget amendment with tax limitations. This is for your children's future. I have 3 children. I am concerned not so much about myself. A number of my colleagues here have and I have a little bit of gray hair, some a little less than that, and this is not really just about our future. It is about our kids' future and whether we are mortgaging it, and that is both on the tax side and the spending side. I believe myself that none of the amendments that are coming up are satisfactory. They are not tough enough. There should be a spending limitation that is written in there to protect the taxpayers and the citizens of America. There should be some sort of a penalty if you do not reach a balanced budget. I am concerned that some of these spending cuts can be illusory, that we will wind up with a deficit. There is no penalty for having that deficit, and it could accumulate. This does not start until the year 2002. That is putting a lot of faith that we can stand here and get it to that point. So I have a number of concerns with that. Yet, tomorrow and in the next few days the key thing is not whether we are going to pass a balanced budget amendment, because there is a majority in this body to pass a balanced budget amendment. This is a tax debate, and it is not even all taxes. We are down to income taxes and we are reduced to saying can we not at least have some protection, not a two-thirds protection. You know, if we polled Indiana, they would want 100 percent protection. At one point I answered a question to one of the newspapers in Indiana. They said, ``Would you support a tax increase?'' I said, ``If we were in war, and if the only way to pay for it was through a tax increase, I might consider a tax increase,'' because people want the spending reduced. They do not want their taxes raised. And we are down to one little clause, a 60 percent supermajority on the taxes, and we cannot get, it seems, to this point enough to get over the top. We need the people of America to call in, to let their Members know that we need their help, we need their vote or we may get an amendment that will merely lead to illusory budget cuts and certain taxes. We have been down this road before. It was miserable. We need to stop it. People have lost faith in us, and we need to give them a down payment on faith by passing the Barton amendment.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.