Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

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

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, as well as Chairman Lantos, for his leadership on this issue. Fort Wayne, Indiana, my hometown, is estimated to have 2,000 or 3,000 people from Burma, the greatest number of refugees from Burma in the United States. Many are coming in directly. Many are coming through Washington and Los Angeles and heading to Indiana because of our job situation. It is important to note because as Americans become more internationally aware, just like in Iraq there are different groups, and in Afghanistan there are different groups, it is important to say ``people of Burma'' because the Mon and other subgroups were persecuted by the Burmese inside Burma. What they all agree on is the current situation in Burma is intolerable. The violent suppression of Buddhist monks and the peaceful demonstrators in Burma, they want the immediate, unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is their elected leader. They all know she is the elected leader. Regardless of the differences they have in their country, they elected a leadership and worked together, like what we are trying to do in Iraq and like what we are trying to do with the different tribes in Afghanistan. They chose a leader, and then the leader was locked up. In 1990, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was rightfully elected, and the junta placed her under arrest. This has been going on for 18 years. She has been locked up for 12 of the 18 years since the election. In Fort Wayne, I hear many stories as I talk to individuals who have talked to their relatives who have lived in concentration camps, in effect, more refugee camps; but at times they felt both abused by the Thai Government that wants to move them back to Burma, by the Burmese Government that is trying to chase them out. They have been abused in the camps. They have been raped in the camps, and they have had their money stolen in the camps. We have a huge challenge in America, and it is speaking to broader questions than just Burma, which is how to handle situations, because our area has also become in the top three of refugees from Darfur. One of the challenges we are having is Catholic Social Services has come to me and said we don't have the support system to handle, and the State Department has come back and said what do you want to do, leave the people in the refugee camps? They aren't doing well in the refugee camps. We have to understand that we no longer live in an isolated world. What happens in Burma and the demonstrations you are seeing in Burma and the persecution of the people in Burma, the terrible tragedies in Darfur, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan impacts all of us. It impacts us in our hometowns. If we are going to be the Nation that welcomes immigrants, there is only so much we can handle, and we need to put international pressure on some of these countries to handle their own regional problems. This resolution helps us move in that direction. They have to have changes in Burma. It is not only unfair to the people who come to the United States; it is unfair to the people trapped in the camps. It is unfair to the monasteries being emptied out in Burma, and it is unfair to the people being persecuted throughout Burma. If we don't stand up and force some changes for human liberties in Burma, we are going to face another type of catastrophe like is happening in Darfur while the world watches.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, the issue of stability in southeastern Europe is once again high on the world's agenda. In December, issues concerning the status of Kosovo will again come to the fore. Regional stability is tied closely, but not inextricably, to these issues. As we approach the winter months, it is important that our southeastern European friends be strong internally so that they can be producers of stability and not consumers of it. Our friend, the Republic of Macedonia, is one such producer of stability. Time and again, it has proved itself a great friend and ally of the United States of America. Time and again, it has proven itself a friend to neighboring states. Time and again, it has stepped up to the plate and provided support to the United States in the War on Terrorism by providing soldiers to serve alongside our own troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Time and again, it has worked with and voted with the United States on important resolutions in the United Nations. Unfortunately, our friend Greece has not been so supportive of the Republic of Macedonia. In 1993 and again in 1995, Greece imposed economic sanctions on Macedonia because Greece claims, entirely and exclusively, the word ``Macedonia.'' Despite the fact that Macedonia changed its flag and constitution to allay Greece's fears, today the Hellenic Republic continues to object to countries and international institutions recognizing the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name. Without going into great detail on this subject, it is important to note that the Macedonians do not claim exclusivity over the word ``Macedonia'' and do not in fact object to Greece using it in any way it sees fit. There are now 118 countries around the world recognizing the Republic of Macedonia by its rightful and constitutional name, including Russia, China and, I am proud to say, the United States of America. Just last month, Canada became the latest country to recognize the Republic of Macedonia. We did the right thing when we recognized the Republic of Macedonia in November 2004, and I am grateful for the President's leadership in righting a historic wrong. This past summer, the now former Greek Ambassador to Macedonia was sacked by her own government for admitting that Greece should agree to a double-name formula, something the Macedonians have been arguing for since Greece first raised objections. The relationship between Macedonian and Greek citizens could not be stronger. Greek businessmen conduct a large amount of business in Macedonia and have no problem with the name. In September, the Republic of Macedonia waived the requirement for Greeks to bring their passports when they come to visit Macedonia. Today, Greeks simply need an identity card. Macedonians in turn spend much of their vacation time in Greece during the summer months. The two countries cooperate on many other issues and enjoy good relations. It is time for our Greek friends to allow the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia to enjoy their sovereign right to determine the name of their own country. It is time for Greece to drop its objections in the political arena, and to leave to the historians debates about Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians. We live in the here and the now, and it is time to move forward. Our Greek friends enjoy pointing out their contributions to modern-day democracy and for that we thank them. Let them now contribute in their longstanding tradition of supporting democratic values by allowing the people of the Republic of Macedonia to call themselves by what they have always called themselves and by dropping their objections to a country that only desires friendship and has proven itself as a great friend and ally.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I stand up in opposition to this bill, not because I don't want to control tuition costs. This bill doesn't control tuition costs. This is a fundamental disagreement about the direction of our government. Do we believe in markets or do we believe in the Federal Government? This is a remnant of the battle where we moved from direct lending over to free-market lending, that this bill, in fact, does nothing to control costs. Inevitably it will lead to the government taking over in direct lending and government having to try to fix costs of lending and then to fix the tuition costs, because there's nothing in here that balances tuition costs. Previously, students and parents, if they had to factor in rising tuition costs and they couldn't get affordable loans, the pressure of the market would come on universities and colleges and alternative forums, and the market would respond, but this bill releases the market pressure. Furthermore, in this bill there are other things that, instead of putting the money for those students who are highest risk and have the least income in Pell Grants, we've expanded into the middle class where the only hopeful pressure for tuition costs would come from. Students who could achieve academic scholarship in most universities can get into the highest universities if they can achieve the scholarship level. Let's look at this debate where it really is. It's in the middle class. It's about does the private sector manage loans better than the public sector and how does that triangle work with the universities. For example, under private sector lending, bad debts have gone down. Why? Because you get financial counseling. There's a private sector incentive to make a profit that results in counseling of saying, will your degree match up your ability to repay or we won't give you the loan. They also put the pressure on the institutions, even with a small portion of the student loan being actual private sector. But there's a provision in this bill, and I don't use this in a pejorative term, I use it in actual dictionary term, is the most socialist provision that I have seen in a bill, and it's the income- based repayment plan. It says that you only take 15 percent of your discretionary income to repay the interest, which then gets capitalized into the capital. Let me use my own personal example. My father, we came from a nice middle-class family but middle class at best, in retailing. My dad told me he would either pay my way through grad school or undergrad. If I wanted to go to grad school, the college of my choice, he had saved a certain amount of money. I would have to live at home and go undergraduate. I got a great education at Indiana Purdue University in Fort Wayne, and then went to the University of Notre Dame. My father would have had no incentive under this bill to do so because in furniture retailing, followed by being a congressional staffer, I did not make enough money that I could have repaid my loan to Notre Dame or my undergraduate loan, and I would have had that loan excused at 25 years. I would have never paid, probably based on my salary, based on inflation adjustment, not a dime on the principal. There would have been no market management on my dad to save the money or on me. This bill, by undermining both the lending premise of the private sector and the personal responsibility of parents and students to balance this, is a purist government takeover of a project that will not reduce the cost of student loans but will expand the power of government and the inefficiencies of government and ultimately damage students of America. No matter how good and tempting it sounds, no matter what the campaign commercials sound like, it is a terrible, terrible bill.

Mr. SOUDER

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

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

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

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield to the chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman. It's something that I believe can be worked with, in a bipartisan manner, worked out in the long term in detail. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. This is a very simple amendment, one that we have debated the basic principle in the Education and Labor Committee. This is a funding limitation amendment that would say, under the National Labor Relations Act, the board can only recognize a union if there has been a private ballot vote. The current law basically says this, although they have an option for card check. This amendment would say that they cannot expend funds to recognize a union that has not been certified through a secret ballot election. It would basically say the board cannot recognize a card checked union as bargaining agent for employees, with the practical effect of requiring that a union be chosen by secret ballot election if it wishes to actually avail itself of any protections under the act. I believe that the right to have a private vote is very important. I believe that it's very easy to do a shakedown in committee but not on the floor during the debates. We had various amendments regarding penalties. We had various amendments, whether illegals could go on the card check, how intimidation could occur on illegals who signed the card check, from both sides, from management and labor. I think the only way to have a fair election that we know that people want to form a union is to have a private ballot, and that's the intent of this amendment, to restrict the enforcement of anything not allowing a private ballot. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. First, let me read the amendment. ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the National Labor Relations Board to recognize as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees any labor organization that has not been certified as such by the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act.'' Basically, to have this be ruled in order, I would have liked to have made it more precisely targeted towards just the card check. In effect what this says is that in order to be recognized as an exclusive bargaining representative, you have to have a free election. That is my intent. That is the intent of this. Now, why do I feel that we need to do this bill at this time? One is we have a separate bill moving through that would in effect deprive workers of America of the right to a private ballot. But secondly, earlier today or yesterday I should say, with my support, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, I believe in the right to association. I supported the police and firemen's right to organize, and it came under suspension, and I voted for. But here is another card check potential where police and fire would be put in a position where in some cases in towns in my district that oppose this bill, there are five people. With a card check, those people are going to be subject to everybody in town watching who they are, and there's no guarantee if three are pressured into signing that there will be a private ballot. This amendment, and I understand that there are flaws with this amendment and hopefully we could work this out, but this amendment is basically a card check amendment given the fact that not only do we have one bill moving through, but we also had a bill move through last night on suspension that would in effect potentially have police and firemen unionize across the United States in areas where they previously hadn't been and a bill that I supported and believe in the right to association but I also believe there should be a private ballot associated with that right to association. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this is a truly historic debate on the difference of philosophy of government. We agree on much of what's in this bill. In fact, my friend from Texas, Congressman Ron Paul, is a purist, capitalist, libertarian, but in fact, we've always had a blended government. And the question is, whether it's through tax incentives, direct spending or loans, we've had a blended economy from the days of building canals and from our beginning; the question is, which way are we going to tilt? Is it going to be a capitalist tilt, or is the tilt going to be government running this? I believe, and I understand that likely today I'm going to lose, I'm going to be on the losing side, but I want to go on record pointing out how in fact extreme this bill is. There is a section, a provision of this bill, however well- intentioned, that reverses the normal role of trying to balance what you purchase with your ability to repay. It's an income-based section 133 open-ended entitlement benefit, regardless of profession, that allows them to cap the maximum loan payment each year at 150 percent of discretionary income and have the remainder of the loan forgiven after 20 years. Under the bill, this means a typical entry-level Hill staffer earning $25,000 a year would never be forced to pay more than $120 a month on their student loans. This would no doubt be popular to our staff, but the American taxpayer I don't believe would approve of this. An income-based repayment program would eliminate once and for all any need for students to weigh their choice of college or university against which type of career they plan to enter after the degree. It's a disconnect with capitalism because you don't have to say, if I get this number of degrees and go this far, how is my job going to repay this? Should I go to a local campus? Should I go to a lower priced college? It's disconnected now based from your choice of employment. While the government surely has a role in increasing access to education, this program would totally strip any incoming college student from making a responsible choice. It's kind-hearted but reckless. One final example to strengthen the point. Say someone leaves school with an advanced degree and $120,000 of loan debt and takes a job making a steady $65,000 a year. He or she, if they selected to become part of this program, making $65,000 a year and made only minimum monthly payments, using the current 6.8 percent interest rate, the required monthly payment under the program would not even cover the interest on the loan, so that, 20 years later, they would have their $150,000 forgiven, even though they had been making $65,000 a year. That's because the median income in the United States is only $46,000. I believe that we should work with low-income students through Pell Grants, and I support many parts of this bill in targeting, but when you disconnect the economic decisions that you make on your graduate degrees, on what profession and what college, it is State-controlled, economic controlled, not capitalism.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. First off, we have quoted study after study on this House floor, indirect studies contracted out by different people at different times have, in fact, proven different things depending on what you want to try to prove. The net impact of it is it hasn't reduced HIV, and it has not reduced but, in fact, we have seen heroin addiction go up. Medical associations are on both sides of the record on this issue, because on the early days of this issue it showed great promise, and there was great hope that, in fact, it might work, but that it has not. What we really need is drug treatment, not drug enable willing. What you can see when you go into these difference centers and visit them is, as a matter of fact, some people come in, they see it as a way to get clean needles. But when you analyze the studies, it's not even that those who were using dirty needles used dirty needles less, they use heroin more. During the periods of time where they could get the needles at the distribution points, they get the needles at the distribution points. At other times, when they want to get caught up, they go get the dirty needles. It doesn't even reduce. In a case-by-case basis, there's not proven sustained evidence that it even reduces the dirty needles of those who go to the centers. Unless you have round-the-clock constant track usage in a controlled setting, it simply doesn't have the impact that it claims to have. I believe that this is good Federal policy that we have maintained since 1999, and we should keep this policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, as my friend from Wisconsin knows my issue on this commitment goes far beyond the District of Columbia. This doesn't have anything to do with the goal of being a city council member in the District of Columbia. I believe any type of funding of heroin needles is counterproductive, and there are plenty of medical experts on both sides who will make that argument either direction. But evidence is increasingly proving that the one group of doctors, the one group of researchers and the 7 years of legislation here are being proven correct, and time will prove them even more correct. But I do want to address the underlying fundamental question on whether we have a right to legislate in the District of Columbia. Obviously, the Constitution from the founding of this country has treated the District of Columbia differently. It's our national capital. We have increasingly given them more flexibility. I think that that is, generally speaking, a good thing. But we don't have a Fort Wayne, Indiana, appropriations bill that comes to the floor. We get some funding, but there are not special bills that come from taxpayer dollars all over America. Nor is there a northern Wisconsin funding bill that comes to the House floor. When we take large sums of money from our districts that then gets used in policies, in our national capital, that was set up to be different than the other States, with different guidelines and difference regulations, then we do have some obligation to the taxpayers in our district and to our Nation that chose us as the national capital and an appropriations process that set us up where we are taking funds from other States because this is our national capital, and which none of us resents putting funds in because it's our national capital. We use much of the space here, we have put certain restrictions in the city. I believe we are justified then in trying to do wise policies to the degree possible when necessary in the city. But my opposition to heroin needles is not just restricted to District of Columbia. This is bad policy that does not help the HIV problem and does expand the heroin problem.

Mr. SOUDER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER. The point is, we have debated this in multiple ways, we had faith-based debates. We had the debate the other day on international family planning. Money is fungible, and it's very difficult to sort out which is which when it's this big amount of funds we put into the city.

Mr. SOUDER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER. I want to make just two brief points. One is Vancouver, when they were first looking at it because of their at that time rising AIDS rates, which were not nearly as high at D.C., had a similar plan, or met with similar people from the medical community, and they've been proven wrong. Just because you have a plan and it came from the medical community does not mean it will work, and the program hasn't worked. But I do want to make, if I could, one personal clarification. I am more than willing and have worked to put this restriction on every city in America. I don't distinguish Washington, D.C., from others, and I don't appreciate the implication that I would treat it like a plantation. I believe this restriction ought to apply to every city.

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. This amendment would continue the existing ban on public funding for needle exchange programs in Washington, D.C. We have prohibited this since 1999, so we've done this for 7 years. We generally speaking have had votes in the House and Senate and voted overwhelmingly not to have the taxpayers be heroin dealers. Intravenous drug use is associated with two epidemics, the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C and illicit drug abuse and the physical, economic and social damages it does. Needle exchange programs do not increase drug abuse. They maintain it, they sustain it, they support the intravenous drug use. Also, over the years, we can argue about the studies and we've argued on this on the House floor over and over about this study and that study. The best that you can say is studies are inconclusive. In fact, recent studies are moving to prove what I have alleged in these debates over the years, that there's no significant impact on HIV infection, in fact, we merely subsidize heroin use. Responsible public health policy and compassion requires us to meet the primary illness, not just the outward symptoms of the disease. Addiction is what fuels HIV risk. Providing needles to addicts isn't going to help end their addiction. It is not compassionate to enable addicts to continue their addiction. What we need to do is get them off. For example, D.C. has actually reduced the funding for drug abuse and addiction treatment. They need to be focusing on addiction treatment, not providing free heroin needles. I want to speak briefly about Vancouver, Canada, which was the model in the western hemisphere. When they first implemented this program, I visited Vancouver and watched the distribution of needles. They assured me that this was going to get the problem under control, even though they saw rising drug abuse in the center city of Vancouver. By the next time I went up to Vancouver, they had multiple needle sites, that in fact some of the needle sites in downtown Vancouver were competing with each other and arguing over who got to provide the needles. We saw in many of these urban center areas, which has been repeated in New York and in other places where they've had these experimental programs that in fact it has increased codependency because in many of these areas where you see people who are being treated for a variety of different illnesses, you have homeless shelters, and we've seen a rise in codependency because the needle exchange programs and the heroin dealers are down where the needle exchange programs are and we've seen an increase and a rise in this. Recent studies out of Vancouver are continuing to prove on a steady, systematic way that it has been one colossal failure that had been touted on this House floor as a solution to HIV. I believe that it is not only practically wrong for us to provide the funds through taxpayer funds to a program that is not only practically not effective in stopping HIV, it is, I believe, morally and ethically wrong to ask the taxpayers to in effect provide the very needles that keep people addicted to heroin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was hoping that we could deal with this issue in a broader amendment and I misspoke. We have a battle on the House floor over direct funding. This is in particular a limitation and I understood that under parliamentary rules my earlier amendment might be tossed out on grounds of trying to legislate on an appropriations bill. In the past, just for the record, the Rules Committee has always protected this amendment because we felt it was absolutely critical not to have the distribution of needles to heroin addicts in our capital city of America. But since the Rules Committee did not protect the general, this particular amendment in front of us doesn't really have a broad, sweeping effect on the District of Columbia but in fact targets two programs that have in fact in the past ineffectively distributed needles and syringes. The general question is, and this is a proxy vote, is do you believe that needles should be distributed to heroin addicts by public enemies, and particularly in our Nation's Capital. Should we repeat in the streets of Washington, DC, what has failed in so many cities in the United States and around the world, in a, I believe, heartfelt honest attempt to reduce HIV virus, instead hasn't reduced HIV virus or at least at best--there is dispute as to that--but has in fact increased and sustained heroin addiction in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. First, I want to make it absolutely career that I have spent much of my career work on antinarcotics effort, and it is not a cavalier, cheap shot-type amendment here. I have visited the Vancouver multiple times. I have visited the heroin centers in Switzerland. I have been on the streets of New York and other areas where this has purported to do what the gentleman claims it does. It doesn't. The gentleman didn't cite any study, to the degree there are studies. I have already acknowledged they are mixed. But the net impact is it hasn't seen a reduction in HIV use, and it has seen an increase in heroin use. Secondly, as far as Washington DC, they have 80 beds, capacity for 80 beds for detoxification. That is not a serious effort to reduce heroin. Thirdly, we fund the District of Columbia. It is our national capital. You can criticize or say that we micromanage, but, in fact, we provide much of the funding that goes in the District of Columbia, and it is, if not directly, at least indirectly taxpayer funds. Because it is a national capital, that is why it is set up as the District of Columbia. Now, I understand there is frustration with that, but we have also tried to limit any direct or indirect funds to heroin needle exchanges anywhere in the country. This isn't targeted at Washington DC. You can look at my record. I am willing to target anybody on this program, because I don't believe it reduces HIV. I do believe it increases heroin addiction. I do believe that, in fact, it has been a well- intended, as I said, program, that has worked out to be counterproductive. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.