Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3546, a bill to authorize funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels--$1.095 billion-- through 2012. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I know the critical importance of Byrne-JAG funding to law enforcement, and especially drug task forces, throughout the United States. Many of us remain deeply disappointed that the program's FY 2008 appropriation was cut so drastically at the end of last year. Byrne JAG provides needed funding to drug task forces throughout my district. For example, the Allen County Drug Task Force relies on this program's funding to continue its work with the FBI, DEA and ATF targeting drug traffickers. As does the Indiana Multi-Agency Group Enforcement (IMAGE), a drug-enforcement team combining select law enforcement from DeKalb, Noble, Steuben, and LaGrange counties. In 2006 alone, IMAGE worked on 101 drug and prostitution cases, and seized illegal drugs valued at nearly $3 million. These results speak for themselves, and they demonstrate how critical it is to the safety of Hoosiers in northeast Indiana, as well as Americans nationwide, that the Byrne JAG program is fully-funded. I was very upset when Congress cut Byrne-JAG funding by 67 percent last December in the FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. If the House doesn't act quickly to restore this key funding source, law enforcement programs throughout the Nation will certainly be reduced--or eliminated--likely reversing hard-won gains that have been made over the years at the local level. We have an opportunity with the FY 2008 Supplemental Appropriations bill to correct that mistake, and I strongly urge the House to accept the Senate language restoring Byrne-JAG funding for the current fiscal year. This measure is necessary in order for local law enforcement agencies to continue their constant pursuit of criminals, especially drug dealers. We will be taking a major step backward if we don't accept the Senate's proposal. The long-term effects of such a move are dangerous. As we enter the general appropriations season for next fiscal year, I also urge the Appropriations Committee, and the House in general, to fully fund this program in FY 2009. The Byrne JAG program is a proven success that strongly deserves reauthorization, and I urge passage today of H.R. 3546.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentlelady. I rise in support of H. Res. 1010. As a cosponsor of my neighbor and colleague Mr. Donnelly's resolution, I appreciate his leadership. I very much appreciate Chairman Frank's backing this and Congressman Capito, and others, because this is an important resolution to recognize the importance of manufactured housing, particularly in the third week of June as the Manufactured Housing Week. As you've already heard, manufactured housing is a largely underappreciated segment of our Nation's housing industry, even though it uniquely provides both high-quality and affordable housing for millions of Americans. Companies in my district are numerous across northern--and particularly north central--Indiana--the center of the recreational vehicles industry, as well as manufactured housing. Fairmont in Nappanee, Four Seasons in Middlebury, Patriot in Elkhart, as well as Liberty in Goshen. Forest River has the Hart Homes. We have Coachman. Fleetwood has a huge facility just south of Fort Wayne in Decatur, Schulte Homes. And I could go on with a list. Up to 4,000 jobs in the Third Congressional District in Indiana are related to manufactured housing directly. Most Americans do not understand how far this housing industry has developed, and the industry suffers from many unfair stereotypes. No longer is manufactured housing the domain of so-called trailer parks on the outskirts of town. In fact, many Americans, even in the typical leafy subdivisions, share a fence with a manufactured home and they don't even know it. For example, this one from Liberty Homes shows the island kitchen. You see them with vaulted ceilings, four- and five-bedroom homes only for 20, 30, $40,000 less than a site-built home. For example, a beautiful two-story deluxe 2,000-square-foot multisectional home in my district can sell for just over $100,000, as I said, 10 to 35 percent less than a site-built home. They also gain in energy efficiency. The quality of manufactured homes was shown by the fact that on the gulf coast, among those that best withstood the high winds of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were manufactured homes. Indeed, in some neighborhoods, manufactured homes were the only ones left standing after the storms blew through. Given manufactured housing's dual strength in both superior price and quality, we need to recognize and salute this industry. It is a frustrating time in housing as we look at the those who took advantage in the financing end of people's ability to repay or overvalued the homes. But we need to make sure that low- and middle-income people who are striving for better housing can still have access to affordable housing, and manufactured housing is a critical part of that. We have also seen much alarm in nonscientific facts relating to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is in the wood. It is not in any particular kind of housing. It's on this House floor. It's in these seats. It's in the Speaker's podium. The question is the size and scale of the unit because formaldehyde is a repellant and an adhesive. And we need to have scientific facts. The fact is that all homes contain wood. It has nothing to do with any particular category. And many thousands of people can have their jobs endangered because of nonscientific political bashing of particular categories. Manufactured housing, in fact, has the same characteristics in this regard as traditional site- built housing. We also need to make sure that as we look at down payment requirements, and how we deal with very difficult subjects as we go into the housing market, that we understand that manufactured homes, in fact, have the same appreciation as site-built homes. It is just often because they are more affordable, the individuals may not have the same income mix. And we need to figure out a way to make sure that people have access to good quality housing, and that is the American Dream. I thank the thousands of workers in my district, Mr. Donnelly's district and across this entire Nation who are providing affordable housing so people can live the American Dream.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit into the Congressional Record the text of the U.S. State Department announcement this month regarding the strategic partnership between the United States and the Republic of Macedonia. I urge my colleagues to review this document closely, and to remember the geostrategic importance of the United States' continued support for the Republic of Macedonia's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). We in Congress should also fully appreciate the great distance this young country has traveled--reforming itself politically, economically, and militarily--since the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Declaration of Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Between the United States of America and the Republic of Macedonia, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2008 The United States of America and the Republic of Macedonia are determined to expand and deepen the close partnership between the two countries based upon common goals, interests, and values. The two countries wish to enhance their strategic relationship through intensified consultation and cooperation in the areas of security, people-to-people ties, and commerce. The United States and Macedonia reaffirm their support for the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, the purposes and principles of the U.N. charter, and a unitary, multiethnic Macedonia within its existing borders. Macedonia and the United States note that a democratic, secure and prosperous Macedonia, with friendly and constructive relations with its neighbors and as an active participant in regional and international economic, political and security fora, is vital to peace and stability in Southeast Europe. In this regard, the United States continues to support Macedonia's security, stability and economic development. In the interest of an intensified partnership, the United States intends to immediately provide additional assistance to Macedonia to help build prosperity, strengthen security, and foster deeper ties between our two countries. Macedonia expresses deep appreciation to the U.S. for its assistance to date in helping the Macedonian people as they work to institutionalize and make permanent a democratic process that realizes our shared values of peace, freedom, the rule of law, and a free market economy. Macedonia also recognizes and reaffirms the support from the U.S. in reforming and strengthening its armed forces. Building on our existing strong partnership in the fight against global terrorism and promoting international stability, demonstrated by our troops serving together in Iraq and Afghanistan, our civilian and military officials plan to intensify their bilateral high-level contacts and seek increased joint training and exercise opportunities to enhance the interoperability of our forces, and strengthen our partnership in promoting international security and non- proliferation. Sharing a desire to expand trade and investment, the United States and Macedonia will seek to enhance their economic ties and undertake additional measures to strengthen the competitiveness of Macedonia's economy and expand opportunities for United States and Macedonian businesses. The United States supports Macedonia's ongoing efforts to build a business-friendly environment attractive to United States and other foreign investment. Macedonia expresses its appreciation for the opportunity to utilize GSP to strengthen bilateral trade. Both countries encourage the further expansion of their trade relations. Macedonia expresses satisfaction with the successful implementation of the USAID technical assistance programs in the areas of democracy, economic growth and education and reaffirms its desire for cooperation in these areas to continue. The two countries also seek to build closer and more robust bonds between their citizens and will undertake practical measures to promote educational and cultural exchange. The NATO Summit Declaration in Bucharest made clear that the Republic of Macedonia has met NATO's democratic, economic, and defense standards through its rigorous participation in the Membership Action Plan. The United States continues to work with our NATO Allies to maintain Macedonia's robust cooperation with NATO under existing mechanisms, while it awaits a membership invitation. Both countries look forward to Macedonia joining NATO as soon as possible. Our intensified cooperation at this time will further strengthen Macedonia's readiness to take on Alliance obligations and responsibilities in the near future.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments to clarify the fruit and vegetable provisions that were in the conference report. In this and previous Congresses, Madam Speaker, I have cosponsored legislation to allow farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for processing to opt out of farm programs on an acre-for-acre basis without limitation, changes that would reduce farm program costs and improve the environment by allowing more extensive crop rotations. I am very pleased that the farm bill conference report takes a step in this direction by establishing a pilot project to allocate 75,000 acres of new authority for the production of fruit and vegetables for processing in specified Midwestern states. To administrate this pilot project, the conference agreement gives the USDA broad discretion. It does not specify a procedure for allocation of the pilot project acreage or other administrative matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage allocations among states. However, the agreement does clearly state that USDA is required to establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable production authority will not be abused. For example, only fruit and vegetables under contract for processing are to be produced under this authority, and the USDA is to assure that all of the crop produced is delivered to a processor and that the quantity of crop delivered under the original contract (the contract in existence upon Farm Service Agency certification) does not exceed the quantity that is produced on the contracted acreage. Furthermore, the effects of the pilot project and fruit and vegetable restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both fresh and processed, are to be evaluated. These restrictions are intended to protect the objectives of the pilot project, not to compel food waste or excessively burden Farmers with added regulation. Finally, the conference report includes an important statement of policy indicating that in the next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable production will not cause a reduction in a farmer's base acreage. While this is a small step in reducing restrictions on the production of fruits and vegetables, it is a step in the right direction, and I commend the conference committee for including it.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, the following are my explanations of each earmark in this bill. I have always released my requests. I believe all requests and detailed explanations should be part of this process. Transparency is the best protection against abuse. Bill: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Airforce, Milcon, Air National Guard. PE No.: N/A. Line No.: N/A. Project Name: IN Air National Guard-Fort Wayne Aircraft Shelter/Fuel Fill Project. Entity: Indiana Air National Guard, 122 Fighter Wing. Address: 3005 Ferguson Road, Fort Wayne IAP, IN 46809. Amount: $5,600,000. Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: Construct a two aircraft bay parking shelter addition to the existing two aircraft bay parking shelter providing a total of four parking spots under shelter as required for a base A/C Readiness Shelter. The base requires adequately sized, appropriately configured, and functional aircraft readiness shelters with supporting taxiway system to support four-ship F-16 aircraft mission requirements. Due to previous funding restraints the current shelter facility was constructed with two parking spots with a plan to add two more at a later date. Readiness shelters are necessary for mission support, operations safety, and protection of aircraft and flightline personnel from inclement weather. The project will also provide a refueler vehicle fill stand on the operational side of the railroad tracks to support the flying mission. The 122nd is one of the premier Air National Guard units in the United States. They have a proven history with deployments during the Berlin Crisis, Desert Storm, Hurricane Katrina, Guantanamo Bay, Operation Jump Start and the current global war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 122nd has received four AF Outstanding Unit awards for these efforts. In addition to the 60 years of fighter expertise, the Guard Unit also has a history of safety. Currently, they have over 16,000 hours of accident free F-16 flying operations. The construction of this readiness shelter and fill stand will help the 122nd carry out their current mission and train for future endeavors. Finance Plan: Project consists of the following: Construct reinforced concrete foundation and painted floor slab with grounding points; masonry and metal siding walls; steel frame; and standing seam metal roof; include a high expansion fire suppression system and overhead infrared heating; provide hangar style doors for drive through capability; remove existing asphalt and provide new concrete taxiway entry and exit; provide asphalt transition to the south apron area; construct stainless steel underground piping, reinforced concrete for curbed access pavement, and refueler fill stands. Bill: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Procurement, Defense-wide. PE No.: 0. Line No.: 83. Project Name: Multi-Band Multi-Mission Radio (MBMMR). Entity: Raytheon Network Centric Systems. Address: 1010 Production Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46808. Amount: $9,500,000. Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: The AN/PSC-5D MBMMR is the U.S. Special Operations standard man-portable tactical Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) Satellite communications (SATCOM) terminal. MBMMR is the primary mission radio for Special Operations Forces (SOF) units, providing tactical and worldwide connectivity playing a key role in the GWOT. It enables SOF to communicate on a user-selected frequency 30 to 512 megahertz (MHz) utilizing a single man-pack radio with embedded communications lifeline to SOF teams operating under hazardous circumstances such as isolation from possible reinforcement by U.S. ground forces. MBMMR reduces the need for multiple man-pack radios, reducing the weight and size of communications equipment which must be carried out by SOF. U.S. Special Operations Forces have a requirement for approximately 400 additional MBMMR radios and ancillary equipment to satisfy requirements of the Global War on Terror. The Raytheon facility in Fort Wayne is a technology leader specializing in innovative technology to make U.S. warfighters more effective and secure. With a history of innovation spanning more than 80 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration, and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a broad range of mission support services. There are over 1,100 engineers in the Fort Wayne facility working everyday to make our soldiers the best equipped in the world. This funding will allow them to create the high-tech radios needed by Special Operations Forces. Finance Plan: The funding would be used for procurement of 400 radios for U.S. Special Operations Forces. Bill: H.R. 5658 The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Army, RDT&E. PE No.: 0602787A. Line No.: 28. Project Name: Orthopedic Implant Design and Manufacturing for Traumatic Injuries. Entity: University of Notre Dame. Address: 416 Main Building, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556. Amount: $2,000,000. Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: Approximately 40- 50 percent of Army, Navy, and Marine Corps injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan require orthopedic procedures. This unusually high percentage is primarily due to improvements in body and head armor that inhibit severe trauma to internal organs--injuries which in the past would have been fatal. Limbs and joints, however, are more exposed. At the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, over 20,000 orthopedic procedures are performed annually on active duty and retired military personnel. The National Naval Medical Center performs approximately 10,000 orthopedic procedures annually. These procedures include total hip, knee, and shoulder replacement, ligament repairs, foot surgery, spine surgery, bone fixation, amputations, and prosthetic limb fixation. Notre Dame will partner in their research with three leading orthopedic manufacturers in Warsaw, Indiana (Zimmer, Depuy and Biomet.) It is imperative the new orthopedic industry is nurtured and allowed to continually invent and develop new products not only for our soldiers but also for all Americans. As the global market continues to grow companies such as these are being pulled offshore to other nations because of the lure of cheap labor, subsidized materials and energy. Providing companies with the opportunity to further their research and development with local universities will help foster the economic environment that will keep burgeoning industries, like orthopedic manufacturing, in the U.S. Finance Plan: Research will address soldier recovery, readiness, and quality of life in orthopedics and tissue engineering. The project addresses unmet needs in several areas, including: (1) smart orthopedic implants--such as hip, knee, and shoulder joints; (2) 3-D woven material to provide a new surface to localized damaged areas and cartilage, such as occurs in younger patients; and (3) test and evaluation of new implant designs. Bill: H.R. 5658 The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Army, Other Procurement Army. PE No.: 0. Line No.: 118. Project Name: Select Availability Anti Spoofing Module (SAASM) Precise Positioning System (PPS) GPS Upgrade. Entity: ITT. Address: 1919 West Cook Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46801. Amount: $2,000,000. Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: The program will implement software upgrades to current SAASM based GPS receivers to expedite the replacement of less secure systems in the near term. This upgrade will provide a more robust and militarized survey solution and eliminate parts obsolescence issues facing the legacy GPS-S; as well as provide the warfighter protection against today's threats from jamming and spoofing. Improving our high-tech defense capabilities is paramount for continuing our superior military strength throughout the world. The ITT facility in Fort Wayne is one of the leading suppliers of this type of technology in the United States. Along with the SAASM System, this facility has the potential to produces 10,000 SINCGAR radios a month for our warfighters throughout the world. These dollars allow ITT to update and integrate new technology that makes our warfighters more capable and also provides them with a higher level of safety. Finance Plan: The $4,000,000 will support the integration and test of SAASM-based GPS survey equipment for the US Army. Specifically, $1,950,000 to update and integrate real-time kinematic algorithms, and modify and test SAASM software, $550,000 to modify, integrate and test data collection software and hand-held controller, $250,000 to select and test suitable, high-precision survey antennas, and $1,250, to complete prototype systems and system test including data communications. This is all the funding needed to perform and complete the work as outlined. Bill: H.R. 5658 The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Other Procurement, Navy. PE No.: N/A. Line No.: 90. Project name: Sonobuoys--All Types. Entity: USSI. Address: 4578 East Park 30 Drive, Columbia City, IN 46725. Amount: $112.6M. I am pleased the House Armed Services Committee has granted my request to support the President's budget and included $112.6 million for the procurement of sonobuoys. I am glad the committee has recognized the serious deficiency in sonobuoy inventories and has provided an authorization level that begins to correct the shortfall. The Navy's Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement (NNOR) currently identifies annual peacetime requirements at approximately 120,000 sonobuoys of all types. Due to other priorities, the Navy has understated its sonobuoy budget requirement for several years. This has resulted in a steady decline in inventories, as well as a serious degradation in combat readiness in the airborne anti-submarine warfare (ASW) area. ASW continues to be a core mission area of the United States Navy. Largely ignored in the aftermath of the Cold War, the ASW mission has recently re-emerged as a priority for the Navy. This change is caused by a clear recognition of the dangers inherent in the proliferation of modem, highly capable submarines to Third World countries operating in littoral waters. To ensure its ability to effectively participate in regional conflicts and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) by projecting power from the sea, the Navy must remain capable of defeating the submarine threat in the acoustically demanding coastal regions. The sonobuoy remains the Navy's primary sensor for detection and localization of submarines by air ASW platforms. Launched from fixed wing and rotary wing ASW aircraft, sonobuoys provide the only means to rapidly sanitize large areas of water prior to fleet units arriving in the area. The improved technology of the modem diesel/electric submarine, operating near the coastline, makes for a significantly more difficult target than previously faced by the Navy during the Cold War. Operational planning indicates significantly higher sonobuoy usage rates over historical levels when confronted with this threat. With fleet sonobuoy inventories continuing to decline to historic lows, ASW aviation units are necessarily limited in the number of sonobuoys available for training. This has caused a rapid decline in aircrew preparedness in the ASW mission area. This authorization level for sonobuoys addresses this issue and provides funding in line with fleet requirements and usage rates.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, as the representative in Congress of Fort Wayne, Indiana--home to an estimated 3,000 to 3,500 people from Burma, the greatest population of Burmese in the United States--I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 317. Over the last year, Indiana's Third Congressional District has seen a marked increase in the number of refugees from Burma, although Burmese have lived in northeast Indiana for some time. To help them immerse as quickly as possible into our community, my office has been working with Federal and State agencies, as well as local resettlement organizations. Over the years, I've had an opportunity to learn about this Southeast Asian country and its diverse, proud, and resilient people. More than anything, the refugees tell me about the brutal oppression they endured under the military junta in Burma, known as the State Peace and Development Council. Many of these refugees still have loved ones living in destitute, overseas refugee camps, or relatives who have been unable to escape Burma, and they worry greatly about their plight. They also tell me about Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate and democratically elected leader of Burma, who has been under house arrest for years, barred from assuming the Prime Ministerial post to which she was rightly elected. Her consistent advocacy of nonviolent resistance against the military junta is inspiring, and it was for her strong leadership that the Nobel Committee awarded her its Peace Prize. The United States must unequivocally support Aung San Suu Kyi as the legitimate leader of Burma. Despite international recognition of its gross human rights violations, Burma's regime continues to use violence and murder to terrorize its own people, most recently during last September's demonstrations. I have spoken in opposition to Burma's military junta for a number of years, and today I am once again condemning it for forcing a referendum that seeks to lend false credibility to an undemocratic constitution. As a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 317, I am deeply concerned by what the regime will do to retain its tight grip on power. Today, as the House considers this concurrent resolution, I also join my colleagues in being mindful of the terrible devastation caused by a cyclone that ripped through Burma over the weekend. I offer my condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones in this staggering disaster, and I earnestly hope that the regime in Burma will accept international assistance to help Burma's people recover from this tragedy.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting H. Con. Res. 1091 and honoring the life and contributions of the late Charlton Heston. A larger than life figure, Charlton Heston was a World War II veteran, president of the Screen Actors Guild, and chairman of the American Film Institute. He was celebrated--as an Academy Award-winning actor and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Throughout his life, when he saw injustice, Charlton Heston did not hesitate to take action. It did not matter to him whether his position was popular. He protested segregation, marching alongside the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King during his campaign for civil rights, and described Dr. King as a ``20th century Moses for his people.'' Never shy to take a stand, Charlton Heston picketed a segregated movie theater premiering one of his own movies. All of us should commend his principled commitment to civil rights. His support for our Nation's Bill of Rights extended to the second amendment. Indeed, for many of us, Charlton Heston's most memorable contribution may have been his fierce advocacy for our right to keep and bear arms. As president of the National Rifle Association, NRA, Mr. Heston famously rallied millions of Americans by holding a rifle over his head and declaring that the Government would take it only ``from my cold, dead hands.'' When our rights were threatened by the Federal Government, Charlton Heston--the face of the NRA--inspired millions of us. This legacy is lasting. And it never mattered to him that his stance wasn't fashionable with Hollywood elites. Not until the onset of Alzheimer's disease did Charlton Heston begin to withdraw from public life. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Heston family, especially Lydia, his wife of 64 years. They must be proud of Charlton Heston's life, legacy, and contributions. We all are here.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Had I been present on rollcall 239, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5715, and voted for it when it was first considered on the House floor. Although I have some reservations, I believe it is a reasonable compromise that will provide the student loan market added flexibility and stability going forward. Had I been present, however, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1201.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. While I associate myself positively with the remarks on energy, I rise for a different reason in opposition to this rule. We have been battling with the Coast Guard and their budget submissions from OMB as to why narcotics are not considered part of their terrorism mission. We have made some progress with that, but I had an amendment submitted to reflect that drug interdiction is a homeland security mission as required under the Homeland Security Act. I do not understand why jurisdictional disputes would have stopped this. Both committees, Transportation and Homeland Security, should agree that it's part of terrorism, and both committees need to work on narcotics and make sure, because smugglers are smugglers, whether they're smuggling people or whether they're smuggling contraband. And if we get this mission separated, since every single person in the Coast Guard says their first concern is homeland security, what we wind up is neglecting the narcotics mission. My friend from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I have worked on the narcotics issue for a long time. And I would hope that petty jurisdictions in the House wouldn't stop us from moving ahead in a bipartisan way to make sure that narcotics are part of the terrorism mission. I hope this is fixed in any conference report.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the ranking member, and I just wanted to share a few thoughts. Many of us on the Republican side have been involved with education for many years. It was my first choice when I was elected in 1994 to go on the Education Committee, much to the shock of everybody on our side. And it has been a challenge because I believe education is the responsibility of the States and local; and yet I passionately believe in the importance of education. I don't know how we are going to compete in the international marketplace if we don't compete on math and science, and if we don't have everybody at basic reading levels where they have an opportunity to blossom. If they don't know how to read, they will not be able to learn how to compete in a worldwide marketplace. And frankly we are not going to do it with cheap labor. We have to do it with value-added labor. We have to have education at the core of any system that we have. The challenge we have in the Federal Government is that the State and local seem to not want to raise their taxes. They don't want to do the funding. They want to come to the Federal Government for the money, and then they don't want any strings with the money. If you ask the Federal Government for money, you are going to get strings. Many of us want to minimize those strings where the thousands flowers bloom, but we are still going to have measurement. I was one who didn't like the national testing idea because I am afraid that a national curriculum is going to be abused by either side to try to drive their ideological agendas. Nevertheless, there has to be some kind of measurement. We need some measurement. If we keep increasing Federal aid to education, then we need to increase accountability. In the parts of No Child Left Behind that are difficult, I know the administration likes to ask, Well, which child would you leave behind? But the problem is if your goal is just to focus on those who are going to be at the lower echelons, we have diverted money to minimal gains in some cases at that level, and backed off in our math and science and in our upper and middle end to the net result that we haven't really moved the system. Nobody argues that No Child Left Behind hasn't made tremendous progress at the lower echelons. Part of the question that schools are legitimately asking right now with the special needs kids, with English as a second language kids, how can they meet continually higher standards? At some point we are more likely to get slower progress or hit a wall, and we are trying to work that through with any new bill. But there are going to be measurements, and measurements are never completely fair. But he who pays the piper picks the tune. To this degree, you want more money from the Federal Government, you are going to get more regulation. We need to be responsible. I hear people say, My daughter is a teacher. She gets frustrated with this because they have to teach to the test. That is partly why I have a concern about the test. I went to an amazing school in New Orleans that got hit by Hurricane Katrina. It is a 100 percent school lunch program, and nobody is failing to pass the test. I asked, Do you teach to the test? She said, No, these are principles that we should have been teaching anyway. So if we teach the principles, they will pass the test. What we are really commenting on, is the test measuring what we want to have, and is that the skill. And if the test is in fact measuring that, then you aren't teaching to the test. But it needs to be fair. Schools with high ESL, schools with high special needs kids are going to need accountability. I thank you for your time and your leadership.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 930, and especially in support of Indiana Business College in Fort Wayne. In my district, Mr. Speaker, there is a huge need for high-skilled workers, and Indiana Business College plays a critical role in helping our region meet this demand. Each year they provide thousands of students opportunities to ``skill up,'' so that they can better contribute to local employers and better provide for their families. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the top 20 fastest-growing occupations in our country are supplied by career and technical education. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that nearly three- quarters of employers struggle to hire qualified workers. Clearly the need for career and technical education is severe, and we in Congress must do what we can to encourage its growth. In Northeast Indiana--as in the rest of the country--a high quality education is critical to obtaining a good, well-paying job. While Northeast Indiana is still a manufacturing center of the country, these jobs are becoming increasingly more high-tech and require higher levels of skills and training. Schools like Indiana Business College are helping prepare students for these changes. Mr. Speaker, as competition in our global economy continues to grow more fierce, career and technical education is essential to preparing a well-educated, skilled workforce. I ask that my colleagues join with me in expressing support for Indiana Business College and schools like it. They are critical to the future of Northeast Indiana, and they are critical to the future of our country.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 930 and especially in support of Brown Mackie College in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In my district, Mr. Speaker, there is a huge need for highly skilled workers, and Brown Mackie College plays a critical role in helping our region meet this demand. Each year they provide thousands of students opportunities to ``skill up,'' so that they can better contribute to local employers and better provide for their families. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the top 20 fastest growing occupations in our country are supplied by career and technical education. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that nearly three- quarters of employers struggle to hire qualified workers. Clearly the need for career and technical education is severe, and we in Congress must do what we can to encourage its growth. In northeast Indiana--as in the rest of the country--a high quality education is critical to obtaining a good, well-paying job. While northeast Indiana is still a manufacturing center of the country, these jobs are becoming increasingly more high-tech and require higher levels of skills and training. Schools like Brown Mackie College are helping prepare students for these changes. Mr. Speaker, as competition in our global economy continues to grow more fierce, career and technical education is essential to preparing a well-educated, skilled workforce. I ask that my colleagues join with me in expressing support for Brown Mackie College and schools like it. They are critical to the future of northeast Indiana, and they are critical to the future of our country.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 930, and especially in support of Indiana Tech in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In my district, Mr. Speaker, there is a huge need for high-skilled workers, and Indiana Tech plays a critical role in helping our region meet this demand. Each year Indiana Tech provides thousands of students opportunities to ``skill up,'' so that they can better contribute to local employers and better provide for their families. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the top 20 fastest-growing occupations in our country are supplied by career and technical education. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that nearly three- quarters of employers struggle to hire qualified workers. Clearly the need for career and technical education is severe, and we in Congress must do what we can to encourage its growth. In northeast Indiana--as in the rest of the country--a high quality education is critical to obtaining a good, well-paying job. While northeast Indiana is still a manufacturing center of the country, these jobs are becoming increasingly more high-tech and require higher levels of skills and training. Schools like Indiana Tech are helping prepare students for these changes. Mr. Speaker, as competition in our global economy continues to grow more fierce, career and technical education is essential to preparing a well-educated, skilled workforce. I ask that my colleagues join with me in expressing support for Indiana Tech and schools like it. They are critical to the future of northeast Indiana, and they are critical to the future of our country.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank my distinguished friend from Washington State. A little bit of irony here. I had an amendment that we fully debated in committee on students' free speech, and I wanted to offer it today. But isn't it ironic that while I was trying to argue for a student bill of rights and free speech, that we're not allowed to have free speech and a bill of rights in the United States Congress. How in the world, when we're having 27 amendments, and this amendment was overwhelmingly supported by our party, we only have, out of 27, four from Republicans, and two of those are Republican opposed. If we have time for 27 amendments, why can't we have an amendment for free speech? I just don't understand. I never understood the opposition to the amendment, but what an insult to the American people that when we want to debate whether there should be a student bill of rights on campuses, which is being adopted and introduced in many places around the country, that the United States Congress can't even debate on the House floor a free speech amendment and protection for speech in colleges. This is an outrage, an embarrassment, and a humiliation to the Rules Committee. Why 27 amendments, but not one on a student bill of rights? Could it be that it's a difficult vote? David Horowitz, and I will insert into the Record an article, ``In Defense of Intellectual Diversity,'' has been a champion of this problem. Now, we had a very interesting debate in committee. The chairman of the committee said that some of these students who have been complaining should grow up, and cited a case of where he struggled. And certainly when I was a college student in the late sixties and early seventies and wore a button ``I'm proud to be a square'' when most of America wasn't proud to be a square, I certainly had my share of debates, my share of harassment, my share of being yelled down, trying to offer a differing view than the view that was popular in the late sixties. And some of that goes with being on a college campus, but there are examples all over this country where intellectual diversity, intellectual alternatives are being stymied in academia. This amendment would try to protect those rights. Some of it's from the far left; a lot of it is on the conservative side right now. In fact, next Tuesday Ben Stein has a movie coming out, ``Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,'' that will debut about one of those debates in science. Where there is an effort to stamp it out, particularly when you get into government, economics, sociology, philosophy, and so on, increasingly there is a rigidity; and if you disagree you are harassed, your grades can be altered, your papers can be given back to you, speeches and alternative speakers are shouted down. And, yes, there are nominal processes to do it, but if there are nominal processes to do it, what is wrong? This amendment says, for example, ``Individual colleges and universities have different missions and each institution should design its academic program in accordance. Within the context of institutional mission, the college should promote intellectual pluralism and facilitate free and open exchange of ideas.'' Well, that's not very controversial. ``D, Students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged from speaking out, discriminated against, or subject to official sanctions because of their personal, political, ideological or religious beliefs.'' Isn't that a terrible, risky, difficult vote? ``Students should be treated equally and fairly, including evaluation and grading, without regard to or consideration of their personal political views or ideological beliefs.'' That's just awful. How could we vote on that in the United States Congress to say there would be no persecution? There is no ``whereas'' clauses here. There's nothing in here that says campuses are liberal, campuses are conservative. We don't have any ``whereas'' clauses that are insulting in here. There is nothing in here that's partisan; I just read you the guts of the bill. Why can't we vote on this? Why is this opposed? Why is it opposed so much that we're not even allowed to debate it on the floor of Congress? How can we say, in a higher education bill, that we believe in inquiry, that we believe in searching for knowledge, but when we had an amendment to protect students who might have a difference of opinion that we wouldn't even allow a vote? [From the Chronicle Review, Feb. 13, 2004] In Defense of Intellectual Diversity (By David Horowitz) I am the author of the Academic Bill of Rights, which many student governments, colleges and universities, education commissions, and legislatures are considering adopting. Already, the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a version as legislation, and the Senate should soon follow suit. State governments are also starting to rally around efforts to protect student rights and intellectual diversity on campuses: In Colorado, the State Senate president, John K. Andrews Jr., has been very concerned about the issue, and State Rep. Shawn Mitchell has just introduced legislation requiring public institutions to create and publicize processes for protecting students against political bias. Lawmakers in four other states have also expressed a strong interest in legislation of their own, based on some version of the Academic Bill of Rights. Students for Academic Freedom is working to secure the measure's adoption by student governments and university administrations on 105 member campuses across the country (http:// www.studentsforacademicfreedom .org). The Academic Bill of Rights is based squarely on the almost 100-year-old tradition of academic freedom that the American Association of University Professors has established. The bill's purposes are to codify that tradition; to emphasize the value of ``intellectual diversity,'' already implicit in the concept of academic freedom; and, most important, to enumerate the rights of students to not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in the classroom or any educational setting. Although the AAUP has recognized student rights since its inception, however, most campuses have rarely given them the attention or support they deserve. In fact, it is safe to say that no college or university now adequately defends them. Especially recently, with the growing partisan activities of some faculty members and the consequent politicization of some aspects of the curriculum, that lack of support has become one of the most pressing issues in the academy. Moreover, because I am a well-known conservative and have published studies of political bias in the hiring of college and university professors, critics have suggested that the Academic Bill of Rights is really a ``right-wing plot'' to stack faculties with political conservatives by imposing hiring quotas. Indeed, opponents of legislation in Colorado have exploited that fear, writing numerous op-ed pieces about alleged right-wing plans to create affirmative-action programs for conservative professors. Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to remove partisan politics from the classroom. The bill that I'm proposing explicitly forbids political hiring or firing: ``No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.'' The bill thus protects all faculty members--left-leaning critics of the war in Iraq as well as right-leaning proponents of it, for example--from being penalized for their political beliefs. Academic liberals should be as eager to support that principle as conservatives. Some liberal faculty members have expressed concern about a phrase in the bill of rights that singles out the social sciences and humanities and says hiring in those areas should be based on competence and expertise and with a view toward ``fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives.'' In fact, the view that there should be a diversity of methodologies is already accepted practice. Considering that truth is unsettled in these discipline areas, why should there not be an attempt to nurture a diversity of perspectives as well? Perhaps the concern is that ``fostering'' would be equivalent to ``mandating.'' The Academic Bill of Rights contains no intention, implicit or otherwise, to mandate or produce an artificial ``balance'' of intellectual perspectives. That would be impossible to achieve and would create more mischief than it would remedy. On the other hand. a lack of diversity is not all that difficult to detect or correct. By adopting the Academic Bill of Rights, an institution would recognize scholarship rather than ideology as an appropriate academic enterprise. It would strengthen educational values that have been eroded by the unwarranted intrusion of faculty members' political views into the classroom. That corrosive trend has caused some academics to focus merely on their own partisan agendas and to abandon their responsibilities as professional educators with obligations to students of all political persuasions. Such professors have lost sight of the vital distinction between education and indoctrination, which--as the AAUP recognized in its first report on academic freedom, in 1915--is not a legitimate educational function. Because the intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to restore academic values, I deliberately submitted it in draft form to potential critics who did not share my political views. They included Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Michael Berube, a professor of English at Pennsylvania State University at University Park; Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University; and Philip Klinkner, a professor of government at Hamilton College. While their responses differed, I tried to accommodate the criticisms I got, for example deleting a clause in the original that would have required the deliberations of all committees in charge of hiring and promotion to be recorded and made available to a ``duly constituted authority.'' I even lifted wholesale one of the bill's chief tenets-- that colleges and professional academic associations should remain institutionally neutral on controversial political issues--from an article that Dean Fish wrote for The Chronicle (``Save the World on Your Own Time,'' January 23, 2003). He has also written an admirable book, Professional Correctness (Clarendon Press, 1995), which explores the inherent conflict between ideological thinking and scholarship. Since the Academic Bill of Rights is designed to clarify and extend existing principles of academic freedom, its opponents have generally been unable to identify specific provisions that they find objectionable. Instead, they have tried to distort the plain meaning of the text. The AAUP itself has been part of that effort, suggesting in a formal statement that the bill's intent is to introduce political criteria for judging intellectual diversity and, thus, to subvert scholarly standards. It contends that the bill of rights ``proclaims that all opinions are equally valid,'' which ``negates an essential function of university education.'' The AAUP singles out for attack a phrase that refers to ``the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge'' as the rationale for respecting diverse viewpoints in curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences. The AAUP claims that ``this premise . . . is anti-thetical to the basic scholarly enterprise of the university, which is to establish and transmit knowledge.'' The association's statements are incomprehensible. After all, major schools of thought in the contemporary academy-- pragmatism, postmodernism, and deconstructionism, to name three--operate on the premise that knowledge is uncertain and, at times, relative. Even the hard sciences, which do not share such relativistic assumptions, are inspired to continue their research efforts by the incomplete state of received knowledge. The university's mission is not only to transmit knowledge but to pursue it--and from all vantage points. What could be controversial about acknowledging that? Further, the AAUP's contention that the Academic Bill of Rights threatens true academic standards by suggesting that all opinions are equally valid is a red herring, as the bill's statement on intellectual diversity makes clear: ``Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty.'' (Emphasis added.) As the Academic Bill of Rights states, ``Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.'' That is common sense. Why not make it university policy? The only serious opposition to the Academic Bill of Rights is raised by those who claim that, although its principles are valid, it duplicates academic-freedom guidelines that already exist. Elizabeth Hoffman, president of the University of Colorado System, for example, has personally told me that she takes that position. But with all due respect, such critics are also mistaken. Most universities' academic-freedom policies generally fail to make explicit, let alone codify, the institutions' commitment to intellectual diversity or the academic rights of students. The institutions also do not make their policies readily available to students--who, therefore, are generally not even aware that such policies exist. For example, when I met with Elizabeth Hoffman, she directed me to the University of Colorado's Web site, where its academic-freedom guidelines are posted. Even if those guidelines were adequate, posting them on an Internet site does not provide sufficient protection for students, who are unlikely to visit it. Contrast the way that institutions aggressively promote other types of diversity guidelines-- often establishing special offices to organize and enforce all sorts of special diversity-related programs--to such a passive approach to intellectual diversity. At Colorado's Web site, for example, one can read the following: ``Sections of the AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure have been adopted as a statement of policy by the Board of Regents.'' Few people reading that article or visiting the site would suspect that the following protection for students is contained in the AAUP's 1940 statement: ``Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.'' Is there a college or university in America--including the University of Colorado--where at least one professor has not introduced controversial matter on the war in Iraq or the Bush White House in a class whose subject matter is not the war in Iraq, or international relations, or presidential administrations? Yet intrusion of such subject matter, in which the professor has no academic expertise, is a breach of professional responsibility and a violation of a student's academic rights. We do not go to our doctors' offices and expect to see partisan propaganda posted on the doors, or go to hospital operating rooms and expect to hear political lectures from our surgeons. The same should be true of our classrooms and professors, yet it is not. When I visited the political- science department at the University of Colorado at Denver this year, the office doors and bulletin boards were plastered with cartoons and statements ridiculing Republicans, and only Republicans. When I asked President Hoffman about that, she assured me that she would request that such partisan materials be removed and an appropriate educational environment restored. To the best of my knowledge, that has yet to happen. Not everyone would agree about the need for such restraint, and it should be said that the Academic Bill of Rights makes no mention of postings and cartoons--although that does not mean that they are appropriate. I refer to them only to illustrate the problem that exists in the academic culture when it comes to fulfilling professional obligations that professors owe to all students. I would ask liberal professors who are comfortable with such partisan expressions how they would have felt as students seeking guidance from their own professors if they had to walk a gantlet of cartoons portraying Bill Clinton as a lecher, or attacking antiwar protesters as traitors. The politicized culture of the university is the heart of the problem. At Duke University this year, a history professor welcomed his class with the warning that he had strong ``liberal'' opinions, and that Republican students should probably drop his course. One student did. Aided by Duke Students for Academic Freedom, the young man then complained. To his credit, the professor apologized. Although some people on the campus said the professor had been joking, the student clearly felt he faced a hostile environment. Why should the professor have thought that partisanship in the classroom was professionally acceptable in the first place? At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a required summer-reading program for entering freshmen stirred a controversy in the state legislature last fall. The required text was Barbara Ehrenreich's socialist tract on poverty in America, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (Metropolitan Books, 2001). Other universities have required the identical text in similar programs, and several have invited Ehrenreich to campus to present her views under the imprimatur of the institution and without rebuttal. That reflects an academic culture unhinged. When a university requires a single partisan text of all its students, it is a form of indoctrination, entirely inappropriate for an academic institution. If many universities had required Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (Vintage Books, 1992) or Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003) as their lone freshman-reading text, there would have been a collective howl from liberal faculties, who would have immediately recognized the inappropriateness of such institutional endorsement of controversial views. Why not require two texts, or four? (My stepson, who is a high-school senior, was required to read seven texts during his summer vacation.) The remedy is so simple. Requiring readings on more than one side of a political controversy would be appropriate educational policy and would strengthen, not weaken, the democracy that supports our educational system. Why is that not obvious to the administrators at Chapel Hill and the other universities that have instituted such required-reading programs? It's the academic culture, stupid.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Often our differences in this body can be fairly sharp and our disagreements can be fairly significant over which direction our country should actually head, and such debate is very healthy in a democracy and vital to getting good policy. But there are other times when, in fact, we can work together, and this bill is an example where we can work together. There are multiple examples in this bill where we fundamentally agreed, and there were other things we worked through in the amendment process. One important component of this originally Chaka Fattah and I sponsored; it was originally called High Hopes. President Clinton adopted that as GEAR UP as one of his major programs. Obviously, this is a little difficult on the Republican side, but we managed to pass it through in a Republican Congress with a Democrat President. We held it as a Republican Congress with a Republican President. And now with a Democrat Congress and Republican President, GEAR UP continues to expand and be a very effective way for low-income students to have the hope, if they keep good grades and stay out of trouble, to be assured that they can be eligible for student loans, Pell Grants, and other things to provide a promise of a future education. We also worked as we tried to tackle things like long-distance learning and online learning, which is a growth category. I appreciate the majority's willingness to work on how colleges and these new experimental universities can work towards distance learning and expanding without having the heavy hand of government make determinations of when they can and when they can't. There have to be substantive objections, not arbitrary guidelines. And they worked on the language to make sure that was the case. We had another technical issue on cohort measurements on student loans that some private universities, particularly those that are more trade-oriented, as well as minority-based organizations in the original draft of this bill, could have seen them go into default. And many low- income, minority, and trade colleges and so on would have been in deep trouble. But the majority took an adjustment in that cohort. Yes, if a college is underperforming and not providing education that is so necessary to students, it should be disqualified from the student loan program; but we have to make sure that colleges, and trade areas in particular, don't get arbitrarily knocked out because often they're reaching the very people we're trying to attract into higher education. I appreciate the majority. There has also been a provision that I had in the higher ed bill years ago that caused some consternation. I want to make sure that the record shows that we were able to work on the student loan provision that says if you get convicted of a drug crime, you are suspended from your student loan; that we have provisions in this bill, working with the majority, to make sure how the drug tests are done so that if you test clean twice, you can get your loan back. We have provisions here that make it clear that each institution of higher education shall provide each student, upon enrollment, a separate, clear, conspicuous written notice that addresses this question. This was very important because this provision was meant as a deterrence, not as a punishment. If a student is at a party and somebody says, hey, do you want to try this, you ought to try this pot. This will work really well; this will get you high. This meth may keep you so you can stay awake to study, you can say, look, I could lose my loan here and lose everything I have. It's one more arsenal in your ability to fight illegal narcotics and stay in school. Furthermore, if you're on narcotics, your performance inevitably will drop over time. This provision has received bipartisan support. We have continued to clarify it. And I want to make sure that, unlike previous times when this was interpreted to apply to everybody, or if you had committed a crime before, you could lose your loan, a student is a student is a student. It says, if you have your loan, you can lose your loan. It has nothing to do with people who rehab; it has nothing to do with people who maybe were in college for 2 years, went out, had problems, and then come back. We want those people in school. And I hope the administration this time will interpret this, regardless of which party it is, correctly. And I want to make sure that the Congressional Record shows what the intent of Congress was.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished former chairman from North Carolina who's been a leader in the anti-narcotics efforts in the Judiciary Committee and elsewhere and a tireless combatant against illegal drugs. I also want to thank Chairman Oberstar who clearly knows the importance of the Coast Guard in the Great Lakes, and Ranking Member John Mica who headed the Drug Subcommittee, who I succeeded as chairman of that subcommittee a number of years ago; Subcommittee Chairman Cummings, who was the ranking member of the Drug Subcommittee over the last 6 years; and my friend Steve LaTourette as well. This resolution has a particular personal importance to me, too, beyond the larger question. The big bust of 42,845 pounds of cocaine was primarily done by the Coast Guard Cutter Sherman. Captain Charlie Diaz served as a detailee to our subcommittee for a number of years, and then was detailed to the Speaker's office, and I want to congratulate Charlie in particular and his crew on the Sherman. It would be nice to claim that we taught him how to do this, but in fact, we're just really glad that while he was here on the Hill learning how we work that he didn't lose the skills necessary to track down the huge loads of cocaine and other things the Coast Guard does. It's also important that in this big bust where they got the freighter Gatun and 14 people just off the coast of Panama, it's critical to have the intelligence. We, earlier, heard about the joint agency effort, particularly JATF, the Joint Agency Task Force, based out of south Florida that is run by the Coast Guard and provides such valuable intelligence. You're just not going to pick up a boat and find 42,000 pounds of cocaine, nearly 20 tons of cocaine. You have to have decent intelligence because when you look at the Bahamas and all those boats out there, we have to have these kind of coordinated efforts, and JATF is a key part of it, and drug intelligence is a key part of it. I want to thank Commandant Allen, Admiral Allen, in particular, for understanding that narcotics are part of the terrorism effort. There's tremendous pressure on the Coast Guard, and in the Great Lakes and Alaska and many places, its fisheries, search and rescue is still the day-to-day what they do. They have all sorts of migrant interventions way out even coming in towards Hawaii, coming off of Haiti, coming off of Cuba, huge challenges in migrant interdiction. They're trying to patrol and have increasing narcotics coming off from the Andean region into the eastern Pacific off of Mexico. We have routes that are going into Guatemala and Panama, like this big interception, biggest bust in the history of the Coast Guard. There are constant challenges. Last year, we had zero deaths from what we just were talking about, 9/11-type terrorism, and 20,000 from drug overdose. Since 9/11, we've lost roughly 120,000 Americans to drug and alcohol abuse and all the violence that associates with that, and we lost 3,300 at 9/11. It's important to understand we're dealing with all sorts of terrorism here, and the Coast Guard has been an important element. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Port Security and Global Anti-Terrorism, I'm one who understands how conflicted they are in their missions: Do they stay at port and protect the port? Are they supposed to be out getting a sailboat that tipped over? Are they supposed to be helping the fisheries? Are they supposed to be trying to get people in the eastern Pacific, as they go out past the Galapagos Islands? What about the Caribbean? They are so multitasked that this Congress has to understand that if we're going to ask the Coast Guard to tackle all these missions, there has to be adequate funding. We have to make sure that not only do the Deepwater ships float, but we also need to make sure they have them. The controversies over the construction doesn't change the need. As the drug traffickers move further out into the ocean, they have to have the ability to stay at sea longer. They can't keep running back into port because that's when the drug dealers, and if you can smuggle this much drugs, you can smuggle anthrax, you can smuggle nuclear parts, you can smuggle anything. Contraband is contraband. If we aren't out there with a physical presence, if we don't have boats that are fast enough, if we don't have helicopters that can come off, if we can't surround or disable, we're not going to be able to intercept narcotics or other terrorists. I want to commend Commandant Allen, who also basically bailed us out in Katrina, because the Coast Guard has served such an important function in so many areas there is not enough we can do to thank the men and women of the Coast Guard for their bravery, for their ability to do multitasking. And it's very important for this Congress to honor them and to make sure they have adequate funding.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SOUDER. I am.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 8, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, in our discussion about how to achieve safety in our Nation's mines, there's one issue that, until today, has been conspicuously absent: drug testing. Our late colleague from Georgia, Charlie Norwood, had the courage to introduce mine safety legislation with a drug testing requirement, only to be criticized for ``blaming the victim.'' I would argue that drug testing prevents victims. Now, claims have been made that the Federal Government is not moving fast enough to implement safety changes, that the States are more nimble. In this instance, the other side may have a point. On the issue of drug testing, I believe the Federal Government ought to be following the States' lead. The Commonwealth of Virginia initiated a drug testing requirement in April 2006. Since then, there have been no mining fatalities in Virginia last year, and just in southwest Virginia they had 278 the previous year, more than they've had homicides, not in coal mining but in drug overdoses. The State of Kentucky passed a drug testing law last year, and coal mining deaths in that State are now at an all-time low. Some 433 miners were suspended for positive drug test results. It's just been possible that a disaster has been averted because of the new drug testing law. Yet inexplicably, the same Democrats who champion this misguided legislation because they want to move more quickly on some reforms are proposing that we stall action on drug testing until we can do a study. We don't need a study. The evidence is right here, a front page article in The Washington Post detailing what has happened in Virginia and the problems in mining. The devastating impact of drug abuse was brought into sharp focus in that story. Some may also claim in the response here that this would kill the bill. This obviously would not kill the bill. It would go back to committee. The committee would then pass an amendment, and it could be back on the floor later this week. It's not like we're busy. We're adjourning again in mid-afternoon. This could easily go back to committee and come back later this week. Drug and alcohol testing is a commonsense safety measure that protects both abusers of these substances and those around them. It has the noted benefits of reducing accidents, cutting sick leave, improving attendance, and increasing productivity. The testing program in this motion to recommit is based on the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, which I helped draft when I was a staffer in the Senate, which requires drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive transportation employees in aviation, trucking, railroads, mass transit, pipelines, and other transportation industries. Our Nation's laws do not allow the people driving the trucks filled with coal away from the mine to abuse drugs or alcohol. Why would we not ensure that the men driving heavy machinery in the mine are not impaired? If this body has spent valuable time investigating Major League Baseball and its drug testing policy, and I serve on that committee and I support Congressman Waxman's efforts to requiring testing of Major League Baseball players, why wouldn't we do that in mining? I helped draft the first legislation for drug testing in high school athletes. It's been upheld by the courts, and we've passed that numerous times in this House and the Senate. Why wouldn't we do it for mine safety if we do it for high school athletes? I worked on the Small Business Committee with then-Chairman Jim Talent, where we passed the Drug Workplace Act and heard testimony over and over from unions and management about how this can help people who have drug abuse to get addiction treatment. And I voted for the amendment that put more money in for addiction treatment, which is very important, but you have to have drug testing. It's part of getting people treated and to do prevention. This will be a very clear vote. We have plenty of studies. We have mountains of studies. We have evidence that when we do this in schools it keeps people from falling victim to drug abuse and from having accidents. When we do it in the workplace, when we do it in transportation, drug testing works. This is a clean vote. There aren't any excuses. We can bring this back to the floor yet this week. We can pass this, and this will be as clean a vote as you can get on this motion to recommit. I urge you to support drug testing, to support safety, to get people into treatment, to keep mine disasters from occurring, and I urge my colleagues to vote with me ``yes'' on the motion to recommit to ensure strong safety protections and mandatory drug testing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I wish to submit into the Record a letter from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels expressing his concerns regarding H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which would legalize Internet gambling and undermine the ability of states to make and enforce their own gambling laws. I share Governor Daniel's opposition to this bill, and will fight to make sure H.R. 2046 does not pass the House. State of Indiana, Office of the Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana, November 9, 2007. Re Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046) Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi and Representative Boehner: As Governor of the State of Indiana, I wish to express my concerns about a bill currently in the U.S. Congress known as the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (``H.R. 2046''), which would legalize Internet gambling and undermine the ability of states to make and enforce their own gambling laws. In contrast with limited, state-regulated forms of gambling such as horse tracks and riverboat casinos, gambling via the Internet is available from virtually any location (e.g., homes, offices, schools) twenty-four hours per day in an anonymous environment. Research and studies have indicated that Internet gambling is more accessible to minors, more attractive to college-age individuals, more susceptible to fraud and other criminal activity, and harder to regulate. These are some of the reasons why Indiana recently updated its gambling laws to specifically prohibit Internet gambling. Using the Internet to engage in gambling in Indiana, or with a person located in Indiana, is a felony under Indiana law. Last year, in response to the growth of the Internet gambling problem, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, UIGEA, which has effectively driven many illicit gambling operators from the U.S. marketplace. But now, less than a year later, H.R. 2046 proposes to do the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a federal licensing program that would permit Internet gambling operators to engage in business with U.S. customers. The Department of Treasury would alone decide who would receive federal licenses and whether the holders of those licenses were complying with their terms. This would represent the first time in history that the federal government would be responsible for issuing gambling licenses. Furthermore, a federal license under H.R. 2046 would supersede any state enforcement action because, as written, this bill grants a ``safe harbor'' defense against any prosecution or enforcement under any state or federal law to any person who possesses a valid license and complies with the requirements of H.R. 2046. In other words, any gambling operator who obtains a license from the Treasury Department and follows the requirements of H.R. 2046 would be excused from criminal charges. Essentially, the bill would legalize Internet gambling in each state, unless the governor of a state clearly specifies the existence of a current state restriction e.g., an existing state law) barring Internet gambling. On that basis, a state may ``opt out'' of the legalization of Internet gambling or certain types of gambling. However, this opt-out provision is problematic because it does not clearly preserve the right of states to place conditions on legal types of gambling. H.R. 2046 also does not grant Indiana any right to challenge a licensing decision by the Treasury Department or bring an enforcement action against a gambling operator who circumvents Indiana's prohibition on Internet gambling. In addition, even if Indiana exercises this opt-out and Indiana's ban on Internet gambling remains in effect, the opt-out provision of H.R. 2046 will likely be challenged before the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') as a violation of U.S. trade agreements. In recent years, the WTO has ruled against the U.S. in disputes pertaining to free trade in gambling services. Accordingly, if the WTO strikes down the state opt-out provision as unduly restrictive of trade, then it is likely that we will see a significant expansion of legalized gambling in the U.S. and the preemption of state laws prohibiting or restricting Internet gambling. I ask that you reject H.R. 2046 and any other proposals that would undermine Indiana's ban on Internet gambling. Sincerely, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Governor, State of Indiana.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for H.R. 4220-- The Federal Food Donation Act of 2007. During this holiday season, millions of Americans reach into their pockets and pantries to help those less fortunate in their communities. Many times these donations go to non-for-profits like the Community Harvest Food Bank in northeast Indiana or In-As-Much Ministries in Fort Wayne, Indiana. These organizations then hand-out the food to those in need. While the supply of donations is high this time of year, demand is even higher. This legislation will allow the Federal Government to help increase the supply of wholesome food to organizations by removing red tape and allowing excess food that would otherwise be wasted go to those who need it. In northeast Indiana demand has increased this year and the community has stepped up its efforts. Millers Poultry in Orland, Indiana has donated thousands of eggs and over 10,000 lbs of chicken to the Community Harvest Food Bank. The local Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry group in northeast Indiana has also donated 15,000 lbs of venison. With help from processors like New Haven's Custom Meats and Lengacher Meats in Grabill, this venison is easily distributed to hungry families in the community. While 25,000 lbs of meat seems like a lot, local pantries in Fort Wayne are giving out 10,000 lbs of food per day. I would like to thank those who have helped fill local food banks and urge those who have not yet donated to contact their local food bank or charity and give all you can to help those going hungry this Christmas Season.