Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I think that is actually predictable and let me tell my colleague why. Some States, but not all of them, but some of them already have hate crimes statutes, and they can already prosecute these cases; but all States, all of them, prosecute murder cases. They all prosecute assault cases. They all prosecute assault with intent to murder cases. They all today prosecute a battery case as a battery, assault as assault, rape as rape, murder as murder. What this would do is it would expand the jurisdiction. In every one of those cases, a person could go to Federal court or State court, every one of them, and, yes, the States are strapped for money. The counties are strapped for money. Sure, they would like for us to come in and pass a law that suddenly says that every crime out there, even armed robbery with a pistol or robbery, all of those, but particularly rape, murder, assault, battery cases, assault with intent to murder, suddenly these are all Federal cases, yes. I mean, from a money standpoint, how many Federal courts are we going to build? We would have to double the size of the Federal court, and sure, there are States that would just as soon take all these responsibilities away from them. There are other States, other law enforcement agencies, that think that their States are doing a good job. As I said, all of these acts defined by this thing are today prosecuted by the States and prosecuted in State court. The only difference is we are going to let all of them go to Federal court now, and I do not think that is a good idea. Maybe this is an indictment saying the State courts are doing a horrible job. I do not know which States are doing a horrible job. Final point. Murderers who face the death penalty under State law, now listen to this, murderers who face the death penalty under State law are not going to be deterred by an additional Federal hate crime law, especially a proposed Federal law that does not have the death penalty. We are going to pass this, and we are going to end up with somebody being prosecuted in Federal Court that could have gotten the death penalty in State court and we will not be able to give the death penalty in Federal Court. Now, a lot of Members think that is just fine because it does away with the death penalty in a number of cases. It does in this. And last, it is no less horrible for someone to be molested or murdered because the murderer liked him or her or than because the murderer hated him or her. If somebody kills me and they liked me, or at one time they were a friend of mine, I am just as dead. And I do not think that part of every case ought to be a day or two where we determine how much hate there was involved in the case. Let us prosecute and convict them and get them off the streets and quit this tremendous shift to Federal jurisdiction.

Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time, and let me start by saying that we all are opposed to hate crimes. They are a terrible thing, and any legislation that had a positive effect on stopping hate crimes I would be here supporting. I sincerely believe by looking at this legislation that this legislation could not only interfere with our ability to, as a practical matter and in an effective manner, prosecute hate crimes; it also would have some serious consequences for our enforcement of other laws which now exist. I say also say that, first of all, there is already Federal hate crime legislation on the book, and I think it is well and narrowly drafted and takes care of the situation. So saying that, let me give my colleagues reasons why I feel that this legislation is a step back, not a step forward. Look at this legislation. Hate crime, the language is so overbroad that hate is not even required. Nowhere in the legislation does it talk about hate. What that would do is that hate or any other type of animus is not even an element of this so-called hate crime legislation. It is not even in here. So if someone commits some certain broadly defined acts, and it says because if someone commits an act because of someone's race, sex, disability or sexual orientation, it violates this vague law. If someone commits a crime because of someone's race because of someone's sex, is not all rape committed because of someone's sex? Could not that argument be made? So are we suddenly saying that all rape cases, almost all rape cases will be federalized? I mean, only a few rapists at the very most are indifferent to the sex of their victims. So we would be federalizing all rape cases. Even assume that there is a need for a Federal hate crimes law. This is a poorly drafted bill. It should be debated. It should be amended significantly in committee before it is considered by the full House and the Senate because of this one thing, because we are fixing to federalize all rape cases. Second, I believe that this actually could have a negative effect on our national security. Let me tell my colleagues why I believe that. This proposed legislation would swamp Federal law enforcement responsibilities; and in doing so, it would certainly distract them from some of our national goals. Now, more than ever, Federal law enforcement officers and prosecutors must concentrate their scarce resources on combating national threats or uniquely Federal crimes, and hate crime, there is not anything uniquely Federal about that. Those that commit them are doing it because of hate, not because of some Federal jurisdiction. Terrorism, we have got our hands full of terrorism. On the Federal level with kidnapping cases, with auto theft, with espionage cases, to divert all our resources over to hate crimes and take them away from our State and local prosecutors and our State prosecutors is a tremendous redeployment of our resources. I also fear that Federal officials might selectively enforce the law. The only other option for Federal officials other than seriously abandoning their other vital responsibilities is to enforce hate crime laws in a highly selective way. That increases the risk of politicizing prosecutions. If we federalize all these vague types of crimes, like all rape cases, they are going to have to pick and choose which ones they prosecute. Using the criminal enforcement agencies for political or ideological purposes, picking and choosing which cases to prosecute, by its very definition that is tyrannical. A very important point, I think this legislation is going to undermine State and local criminal enforcement. Because of the broad expanse of Federal hate crime laws in this definition, I think it undermines State and local efforts to fight crime in several ways. It would undermine the morale of our frontline State and local law enforcement officials because it tells them they cannot handle this traditional role that they have been handling, prosecuting rape cases, prosecuting murder cases, prosecuting assault cases. All of the sudden we are telling them this is such a serious problem, they are doing such a lousy job, we are going to take jurisdiction away from the State, and only the Federal Government has the ability to prosecute these cases. As I said, there is already a narrowly and well- constructed Federal hate law, and I have looked at this. Every one of these acts, and maybe the gentleman could respond to this, defined in this already constitutes hate crimes and are prosecuted by State courts today. Not a one of these things is a new crime.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I too want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). As the gentleman knows, I have been a member of this Congress since 1992; and it seems like ever since I have been a member of this Congress, we have been hearing about Sudan. We first heard about Sudan when the Secretary of State declared Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism and determined that they had been since 1993. We may recall that Osama bin Laden, who many of us were unaware of who he was and what he was until 9/11, but he in fact had his base of operations in Sudan. He was sponsored by the government of Khartoum. It is the same Sudan that we are here today talking about. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), Senator Brownback, many have traveled to Sudan. We have talked to refugees. We have talked to survivors from Southern Sudan, people who have witnessed their families being killed. At that time we suspected that religion may be the root cause because many of those in Southern Sudan were Christians. The Khartoum government was a Muslim government. All was a factor. But whatever the factors, we spoke out and as this House sponsored a sanction, a similar sanction to what the U.N. is considering now against the oil. The Sudanese government duly pulled back at that time, and we passed with only two dissenting votes. It was a strong sanction. It went over to the Senate, and it died there. Since that time, the one difference in the sanctions that are being considered now and the sanctions that were being considered then is that 2 million Sudanese have died. Action is too late for them. Their bones have long since been buried in Sudan where there are too many graves. This latest action by Sudan, and all this time they were members of a select group, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a country where we have witnessed the worst human rights violations and the worst humanitarian violations known to the world, has sat this entire time on the U.N. body that is designed to take action against. What a travesty. What an embarrassment. What a blight on our international community and on the U.N. This resolution is a start; but, I would say, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I had thought maybe he might do it today, he introduced back on September 9 ``Documenting Atrocities in Darfur.'' And what we are now witnessing in Western Sudan, for a while in Southern Sudan it was hidden, and there were explanations given by the Sudanese government. There is no explanation. There is no justification. There is no, there are simply no grounds for what is happening in Western Sudan today. It follows a pattern. And the Sudanese government says we cannot control these Arab militia, Janjaweed. We cannot control them. They say this is a historic thing between nomadic Arab tribesmen and black farmers, and it is just something that has gone on for hundreds of years. What has gone on for hundreds of years is they have lived peacefully together for hundreds of years. What is going on today is not an Arab militia out of control. It is, in fact, the government of Khartoum. Thirteen hundred survivors were interviewed, and 25 percent of them said it was not Arab militia. It was government bombers and aircraft and helicopters who flew over our villages, strafed our villages, killed our people. It was not Arab militia because the Arab militia did not have aircraft. They did not have helicopters. This was the government of Khartoum. Of those interviewed, half of the survivors say that government troops participated in these raids and in these attacks. Read, if you will, what some of these refugees said. Here is what one said. He said, ``Slaves run. Leave the country. You don't belong here. Why are you not leaving this area? This area is for Arab cattle to go graze, not yours.'' A Sudanese tribesman was told by a man in a brown uniform and a hundred of his followers, ``This place belongs to Arab tribes. Blacks must leave.'' Look, if you will. I would ask every Member to read ``Documenting Atrocities in Darfur.'' It is only five pages long. First, the government aircraft comes in and strafes the village, and then the Janjaweed or government soldiers come in. They burn the village. They kill the livestock, they drop them down the wells to poison the wells, but then they began shouting racial epithets at the survivors. They rape women in front of their husbands and children. They kill any young man that is of military age between the ages of 18 and 25 and then they drive the rest off. Today, as a result of all this, what do we find? We find that 1.25 million Sudanese are living in refugee camps. Those are the fortunate ones that have survived, but they are not fortunate by any other terms because they are at this time permanently displaced. Let me say this. This is what we should always be mindful of. We need a permanent solution. What the Sudanese Government has done is, they have allowed humanitarian aid to come in on occasion to feed these people in these refugee camps. They have talked to some of the leaders of the opposition. They have engaged in talks, and they have allowed government troops from other areas to come in and protect the refugee camps. But all of this time, they have not gone after the Arab militia. They have not controlled them. They are continuing to arm them, and they go out in the villages and destroy villages, this month, last month. And their design is to never let these people return home, never to let them go home, to allow them to stay in these refugee camps, a permanently displaced population of millions of people, and let international forces feed those people. That simply will not do. Those people need to return to their villages. They need to be protected. These Arab militia and their leaders need to be brought to justice, and we can at least start this process. The last time we voted sanctions on Sudan, 3 years ago and a million deaths ago, two Members of this body voted against it. Today, I hope, as God is our witness, that this is a unanimous vote and that it is not the end of things, it is only the beginning of things. I second everything that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said about the United Nations. This is genocide in every sense of the word. It is ethnic cleansing in every sense of the word. And for it to be permitted, sanctioned by the United Nations is a travesty and an atrocity in and of itself. Analysis of the refugee interviews points to a pattern of abuse against members of Darfur's non-Arab communities, including murder, rape, beatings, ethnic humiliation, and destruction of property and basic necessities. Many of the reports detailing attacks on villages refer to government and militia forces, preceded by aerial bombardment, acting together to commit atrocities. Respondents said government and militia forces wore khaki or brown military uniforms. Roughly one-half of the respondents noted GOS forces had joined Jingaweit irregulars in attacking their villages. Approximately one-quarter of the respondents said GOS forces had acted alone; another 14 percent said the Jingaweit has acted alone. Two-thirds of the respondents reported aerial bombings against their villages; four-fifths said they had witnessed the complete destruction of their villages. Sixty- one percent reported witnessing the killing of a family member. About one-third of the respondents reported hearing racial epithets while under attack; one-quarter witnessed beatings. Large numbers reported the looting of personal property (47 percent) and the theft of livestock (80 percent). Most reports followed a similar pattern: 1. GOS aircraft or helicopters bomb villages. 2. GOS soldiers arrive in trucks, followed closely by Jingaweit militia riding horses or camels. 3. GOS soldiers and militia surround and then enter villages, under cover of gunfire. 4. Fleeing villagers are targets in aerial bombing. 5. The Jingaweit and GOS soldiers loot the village after most citizens have fled, often using trucks to remove belongings. 6. Villages often experience multiple attacks over a prolonged period before they are destroyed by burning or bombing.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from New Jersey, who certainly disagree, but they both have one thing in common: They are both wrong. This is about 326, which is a terrorist financing bill. That is what it is about. And to try to unscramble this egg, I do not think I have ever seen this body so confused, but let us say we took the gentleman's amendment off and we took 326 off because that is what will happen either way tonight, and then what we will have is we will go back to the present system where 350 banks today are accepting these cards. So if the gentleman's amendment passes, we will have no regulations, no monitoring, and they will continue to accept the cards. If the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment passes, then the banks can accept the cards. The 350 will probably go ahead and accept them. The others will not, and as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said, nothing in the regulations say that a bank has to accept these cards. Some of them are doing it now, and they can continue to do it. And the Members need to know that. They are accepting them today, and these regulations are not in force.

Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, that is right, they are in favor of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment, and I include for the Record this letter to that effect. Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Washington, DC, September 14, 2004. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Justice fully supports the Administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and other financial institutions to establish reasonable procedures for the identification and verification of new account holders, which is set forth in regulations of the Department of the Treasury. Therefore the Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment to H.R. 5025 that preserves these regulations. One concern addressed by the regulations is the danger associated with driving sectors of the population into unregulated, underground financial service providers, such as unregulated hawalas, where persons may be more exposed to elements involved in money laundering and terrorist financing. In order to counter this concern, the Justice Department supports the Administration's determination to permit--but not encourage--the acceptance of Matricula Consular cards by financial institutions, under circumstances where financial institutions reasonably believe they can properly identify the new customer. Of course, the Administration will continue to evaluate the security and reliability of identification documents, including Matricula Consular cards, that potentially are subject to misuse. The Department of Justice, including the FBI, continue to work closely with the Treasury Department on this and other issues related to halting all financing of terrorists. If we can be of further assistance regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think if the Members back in their offices were listening to this debate, they would be sufficiently confused. I think the reason they would be confused is because something said by both the opponents and the proponents of this amendment is true. I think there is a great deal of frustration over the use of these cards, and I think that is the reason that the gentleman from Texas and others are supporting this amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment does not accomplish what they want to accomplish, and that is to make our Nation more secure. I do not question the sincerity of the gentleman and the frustration of he and the supporters of this amendment, but I simply ask us all to take a deep breath and to actually look at what this amendment does. Now, the underlying section is section 326, and it has been called the cornerstone of our money laundering efforts. We have letters from the Department of Justice and from the Treasury Department saying it is absolutely essential for an effective anti-money laundering program. Section 326, it is there. Now, because of frustration with these cards, the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment which stops the Treasury Department and FinCEN from issuing regulations or carrying out regulations or enforcing the provisions of 326. Now, just 2 weeks ago, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission came to this Congress and testified before our committee and commended our committee for the passage of 326. Unfortunately, what we are all caught in here tonight is that section 326 is not self-executing. It requires regulations to be issued. So the gentleman from Texas has offered, and successfully in the subcommittee, an amendment which really prevents Treasury from administering or enforcing regulations pursuant to section 326. Now that is what the gentleman's amendment does. I hope we can all agree to that. It basically shuts down 326. For that reason, I have to oppose it. Several of the things the gentleman said tonight, I think, are true. I think there are problems with this card. I think some of the things that the proponents have said are also true about the policy of excluding a certain nationality. That is also very troublesome. In conclusion, I cite a letter from the Department of Justice which also says, ``including the FBI''; this letter is signed by the deputy attorney general. And I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) was probably caught off guard because when he first rose in this body, he said Treasury was on one side, and law enforcement and Justice was on the other side. That is really not true. I think, had the gentleman gotten an effective remedy, that is true, but the Department of Justice, including the FBI, asked that we defeat this and says, if we do not, there will be many dangers associated.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I first want to agree with what the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Virginia said on the other side. They said we are talking about fundamental rights here. They said what we are talking about, this decision today, defines us as Americans, that this is about who we are as Americans. I want to agree with that. This is an important decision, one that defines us as a country. Who should make that decision? The gentleman from Maryland said an individual, every individual, ought to make that decision about marriage. Is that so? A man and a woman? Or two men? Or two women? What about a man and two women? What about a man and three women? What about a man and his first cousin? What if a man chooses to marry his daughter? Is that not an individual decision? Of course not. What if a man decides to marry a 12-year-old young lady? We said, no, that is not an individual decision. It is a decision of law. That is who makes it. The people make it the law. The gentleman from Maryland said we are a Nation of laws, not people; and that is why it is up to the people to make the decision through their elected Members, their elected representatives, not the courts. What about letting the courts be the final arbiter of the Constitution? Thomas Jefferson said on August 18, 1821 that it was a very dangerous doctrine for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the law is. He said in 1820, it would be an act of suicide for the Supreme Court or a judge to make the law. An act of suicide. He said letting the Supreme Court fix the law would be for the people to give up their own ability to rule themselves. Mr. Speaker, as I close, I submit for printing in the Record quotes from Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson all saying that it is the legislature who makes the law as representatives of the people. America's greatest leaders have long been concerned about limiting federal judges' abuse of their authority. Deep concern that federal judges might abuse their power has long been noted by America's most gifted observers, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Thomas Jefferson lamented that ``the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped . . .'' In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individuals' rights to federal judges employed for life was a serious error. Responding to the argument that federal judges are the final interpreters of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote: ``You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps . . . [T]heir power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots.'' Jefferson strongly denounced the notion that the judiciary should always have the final say on constitutional issues: ``If [such] opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation . . . The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.'' Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861, ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.''

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a sponsor of H.R. 2768, the John Marshall Commemorative Coin Bill. The Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee has recommended that a coin commemorating the 250th anniversary of Chief Justice John Marshall be minted in 2005. John Marshall's service to United States--not only as Chief Justice, but also as a soldier in the Revolutionary War, as a Member of Congress, and as Secretary of State--truly makes him one of the most unique and important figures in our Nation's history. A commemorative coin in his honor would be a fitting way to mark the 250th anniversary of his birth. One occasionally hears the expression that an institution is the lengthened shadow of a individual. One would be remiss in suggesting that an institution such as the Supreme Court, an institution that has endured for over 200 years, could be the lengthened shadow of any one individual; but surely if there is one individual who could possibly qualify for such a distinction, it would be John Marshall. John Marshall served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, much of that time spent in this very building, holding the longest tenure of any Chief Justice in the Nation's history. He authored more than 500 opinions, including virtually all of the most important cases that the Court decided during his tenure. Under his leadership, the Supreme Court gave shape to the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Neither Marshall nor the Court has previously been honored with a commemorative coin. One in his honor would be a fitting way to mark the 250th anniversary of his birth. Furthermore, to those concerned with the expense incurred from the creation of this coin, surcharges received by the Secretary from the sale of the coins will be paid by the Secretary of Treasury to the Supreme Court Historical Society to support historical research and educational programs about the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States; to support fellowship programs, internships, and docents at the Supreme Court; and to collect and preserve antiques, artifacts, and other historical items related to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First I want to start by agreeing with something that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has said today, something that was published in the newspaper The American Banker this morning. He was talking about the amendment which he now brings to the floor. What he says about it is, ``This is a crazy way to do it.'' I would agree with that. It is, as he said, ``This is a crazy way to do it.'' The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has said this is an important issue. I agree with him; it is an important issue. It is one that ought to be debated. It is one that ought to be addressed. And, in fact, the Committee on Financial Services has had two hearings on this matter. Numerous Members, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), to name two, have introduced legislation to address this OCC issue. The committee is working on it. This particular amendment actually goes to the heart of the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction. This is something that ought to be before the Committee on the Judiciary, because what it is, and I go back to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) says, and I agree with him, he says, what we are trying to do here is effectively pull the teeth out of the regulations. In other words, the OCC passed some regulations, he does not agree with those regulations, so he wants to effectively pull the teeth out of those regulations. Well, there are certain ways to do that. What he is doing is saying, so, I am going to prohibit the Justice Department from representing the OCC in court. But that is not the way to do it. If you disagree with the regulations, you have, one thing you have is the Congressional Review Act, and our colleague on this amendment actually filed legislation under that act to review this regulation, and that is the proper way to do this. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) said, this is a crazy way to do it. This is a crazy amendment. It is a crazy way to do it. We have rules in this House. I have rules at my house. There are rules. We all have rules, and we need to go by those rules. We either need to change those rules, or we need to go by those rules. The place to address these issues, if we want to talk about whether the Justice Department ought to have the right to be a legal advocate for the OCC, and I sure hope that our governmental agencies, when they go into court as a representative of the people of the United States, I hope that they are going to have the right to legal counsel. If this amendment is passed, the OCC will be denied legal counsel. They will be denied Justice Department legal counsel. As the gentleman says, this is a crazy way to do it. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) talked about something earlier that concerns all of us. We have State regulations, we have Federal regulations. They are both important. We ought to watch what we do in this regard. What ought to watch what we do when we preempt State regulations. He is concerned about the number of national charters as opposed to State charters, that the national charter appears to be getting more valuable. That is something that ought to be addressed, but you do not address that in an appropriations bill. You let the committees that have jurisdiction over these matters, which are the Committee on Financial Services, and they are having hearings on these matters; there is numerous pieces of legislation introduced, that is where we address it. I do not think any appropriators will vote for this particular legislation. If they do, I would say to them, this is authorizing legislation. Why would we support something like that in appropriations? Appropriators, and I say to all Members who are appropriators, you would not want the authorizing committee, you would not want the Committee on the Judiciary passing legislation appropriating funds for the Justice Department or the Commerce Department. Neither would you want the Committee on Financial Services to start making appropriations, and neither should the appropriating committee start doing authorizations. Members of the Committee on Ways and Means out there, they are charged with certain jurisdictions. The Committee on Commerce, the Committee on International Relations, all of these committees, that is where we authorize legislation. That is the rule. This amendment, although it is crafted in a way which simply says the OCC will be denied legal representation in court, which is a crazy thing, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the maker of this amendment, says, that is the only way that he could sort of bring this up to the body. And I will say this to my colleague: The fact he brought this out, he mentions it, he has said that it ought to be addressed, I commend the gentleman for that. But this is not the mechanism. I would say to any Member that votes for this, if you vote for this, you are voting really to disregard the rules and the structure of this whole body. If you serve on authorizing committees, you are basically saying it is okay for appropriators to authorize. If you vote for this legislation, you will say it is okay for the Committee on Appropriations to start doing the work of the Committee on the Judiciary. If you vote for this amendment, you will be saying I do not care if this is the Committee on Financial Service's matter, it is within their clear jurisdiction, but I do not care, I am going to vote for it on an appropriations bill. What that will result in, if amendments like this continue to be brought up as they are, and that is why we are here for several days instead of addressing things that ought to be addressed in this bill, then this body will gravitate into mayhem. I urge my colleagues for the right reasons to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on what the gentleman from California said about this very simple amendment, and it is a very simple amendment. It simply says that if Mohamad Atta, you remember him, the leader of the 19 hijackers, if Mohamad Atta had been caught in this country prior to 9/11, this act would prohibit him from being classified as an enemy combatant. It would prohibit the funds to hold him for more than 30 days; it would prohibit the Justice Department from using any money to designate him as an enemy combatant. If a terrorist in Iraq blows up a car bomb and it kills 50 people, he can be held an unlimited amount of time. If he is in the United States, this says if he is in the United States, whether he is a citizen or not, he cannot be held for over 30 days, and this says no funds may be used to classify any person as an enemy combatant. Mr. Chairman, we are in a war; and there are people in this country who are against us, and they need to be designated as such. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 70th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Credit Union Act on June 26, 1934. Since the passage of this momentous legislation, federal credit unions have consistently proven themselves to offer high quality financial services at low costs to over 85 million Americans. As members of this body, many of us are well aware through first-hand knowledge of the importance of federal credit unions. Owned by their members, federal credit unions are financial institutions that embrace the true spirit of volunteerism. Federal credit unions are run by volunteer boards of directors that are elected by their members, and encourage the value of saving regularly to build economic security for the future. The entire premise of the credit union movement is the commitment to values that we can all embrace. Folks with modest means who oftentimes are overlooked by other types of financial institutions are assured of access to financial services thanks to America's credit unions. Driven by a deeply held commitment to member service rather than financial profits, credit unions offer not only low-cost financial services but also much-needed financial education to some of the most neglected sectors of our society. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud the passage of the Federal Credit Union Act seventy years ago. In conjunction with all the fine work of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), the trade association that exclusively represents the interests of federal credit unions, there is no doubt in my mind of the benefits Americans across the nation will continue to gain because of the good work of our nation's federal credit unions for many more years to come.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a valued employee of this House of Representatives, during this time of his recovery. Lou Costantino, Sr. was born in a house on New Jersey Avenue just a couple of blocks from the Capitol. His parents ran a grocery store at that time, the same grocery that Lou would begin running shortly after graduation from high school, along with a carry out, barbershop, and cleaners that his parents opened. He operated these businesses until coming to work for the House of Representatives in 1980. During these early years, Mr. Costantino met his wife Doris while going to Eastern High School on Capitol Hill. They were married in 1965 at St. Peter's Church and have two children, Eydie and Lou. ``There's been a Costantino at St. Peter's for 100 years,'' he will often remark. His devotion to family is indicative of the similar commitment he has for this House of Representatives. He first began his career with the House of Representatives in 1980 with the Office of the Doorkeeper and he currently works for the Sergeant at Arms. He truly loves his job, the people around him, and has the utmost respect for the institution that is the U.S. Capitol. In accordance with his post, and owing to the high regard in which he is held, Mr. Costantino has the honor of escorting the first lady to her seat for the State of the Union Address, a task he has accomplished annually for every first lady since Nancy Reagan. Born just a few blocks away, and having worked in the building for over twenty years, Lou Costantino, Sr. has spent the majority of his life in close proximity to the Capitol building. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we keep him just as close in our hearts and prayers for his speedy recovery. We wish him well, and look forward to his prompt return to the House Floor.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the recently celebrated Memorial Day Holiday was a reminder for all Americans to unite behind our Commander-in-Chief and support our soldiers. The men and women who valiantly and selflessly fought to rid the world of the evil Iraqi regime and today continue in the fight against terrorism deserve our support and even more, our gratitude and admiration. Alabama has a strong representation in the war on terror through the activation of the Alabama Army and Air National Guard as well as our citizens who serve in the Armed Forces full time. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are noble pursuits that will protect the United States from the threat of terrorism and will bring democracy to a region of the world that so desperately needs assistance. As the father of a Marine, I can sympathize with the concerns and fears faced by families of those who have loved ones fighting the global war on terrorism. In the unfortunate case where a member of our military sacrifices his or her life to preserve our values of liberty and freedom, it is our duty to offer sympathy and support for the family and friends of our fallen heroes. Nineteen Alabamians have made the ultimate sacrifice and will never be forgotten: Aubrey Bell, Tuskegee. John E. Brown, Troy. Paul J. Bueche, Daphne. Armed Cason, McCalla. William Channell, Tuscaloosa. Timothy M. Conneway, Enterprise. Jeremy D. Foshee, Pisgah. Charles G. Haight, Jacksonville. Brian Hazelgrove, Fort Rucker. Stephen D. Hiller, Opelika. Howard Johnson, II, Mobile. Phillip Johnson, Alabama. Jason D. Jordan, Elba. Cedric Lennon, West Blocton, Mark O'Steen, Alabama. Kelley Prewitt, Birmingham. John T. Sims, Alexander City. Christopher M. Taylor, Daphne. Christopher R. Willoughby, Phoenix City. As we remember the veterans of World War II who were known as the ``Greatest Generation'', those who have fallen in the war on terror remind us that our military and those who serve in it have not lost their greatness. I have the utmost respect for these servicemen and women and their families. God bless our troops.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember and pay tribute to one of Alabama's most esteemed citizens on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his passing. Today a flag flies over the Capitol building to honor the man who contributed to the state of Alabama as an educator, lawyer, and as a businessman. The Honorable Ward McFarland taught at the University of Alabama in the Economics Department for two years prior to practicing law in Tuscaloosa. He served as both State Highway Director and Docks Director for the state, and participated in International Commerce on behalf of the State of Alabama in order to recruit industry. His efforts were recognized in 1979, at the time of his death, as the Alabama State Senate commended him as one of the state's most outstanding and contributing citizens. Mr. McFarland founded a multi-million dollar real estate empire that included the construction of malls, apartment complexes, medical buildings, restaurants, hotels, and neighborhoods throughout Alabama and the South. His works were again recognized this past year as Alabama Governor Bob Riley proclaimed June 20, 2003 to be James Elisha Folsom, Sr.-Ward Wharton McFarland Day, placing him alongside the governor with whom he had worked during two administrations. Concomitant to that proclamation came the naming of a highway in Alabama the ``Folsom-McFarland Highway''. His legacy reaches well beyond the borders of Alabama as well. Mr. McFarland served in the Navy during WWII, during which his vessel was bombed. Accepting Medical Discharges along with all other survivors of the incident, he came home to enlist in the U.S. Army Air Corps. His resolute patriotism during this time served as a foreshadowing of the resolve he maintained in all other enterprises in his life. Mr. McFarland has a lasting legacy in the state of Alabama, one that will continue to be echoed in the structures that he helped build, and the minds and determinations that he helped to mold in the next generations of Alabama's citizens. Mr. Speaker, I know that the citizens of Alabama are aware of and appreciate all that Mr. McFarland has done for his state. I am now honored to recognize his accomplishments to this House of Representatives in our nation's Capitol.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor a good friend of mine, and an outstanding citizen, the newly named president of the Rotary International Club, Mr. Glenn E. Estess Sr. Following is a resolution provided by the Rotary Club of Shades Valley, Alabama, of which Mr. Estess is a member. Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr., a native of the state of Mississippi, United States of America, has devoted a significant portion of his adult life to service with Rotary clubs; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. became a Rotarian first in 1960 as a member of the Rotary Club of Jacksonville, Florida; and Whereas, upon moving to Wayne, New Jersey, he affiliated with the Rotary Club of that city, becoming as he had been in Florida, a member of the club's board of directors; and Whereas, when his business brought him to Birmingham, Alabama in 1970, he promptly affiliated with the Rotary Club of Shades Valley, Alabama; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. held many offices of trust and responsibility as a valuable member of the Rotary Club of Shades Valley, Alabama, including that of president of the club in 1975-1976; and Whereas, in the year 1979-1980 Glenn E. Estess Sr. was called upon to serve in the demanding position of district governor of Rotary District 686 (later 6860); and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. was PolioPlus National Coordinator in 1987-1988, giving leadership to a program, conducted in cooperation with various national and international health organizations, designed to eradicate polio and other scourges throughout the world by the year 2005 by initially raising more than $240 million; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. was a member of the Rotary International Assembly Committee for six years, served as chairman of the Rotary International Assembly, and became International Assembly moderator in 1999; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. has three times been a member of the influential Rotary International Council on Legislation and has also attended two additional sessions of the Council on Legislation as an official observer; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. served as vice president of Rotary International during 1991-1992; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. was a trustee of The Rotary Foundation during the years 1993-1996; and Whereas, in 1996-1997 Glenn E. Estess Sr. and his charming wife, Mary, served as official aides to the Rotary International president and his wife; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. is a Rotary Foundation Major Donor, a Paul Harris Fellow, and a Benefactor of the Foundation; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. is the deserving recipient of The Rotary Foundation's Citation for Meritorious Service and the Foundation's Distinguished Service Award; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. has recently served as a member of Rotary International's vital Audit and Operations Review Committee, Rotary International's only committee with a six-year term as mandated by the 1998 Council on Legislation; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. is the recipient of Rotary International's coveted Service Above Self Award; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. is married to Mary Grantham, and they are the parents of three adult children, all of whom; along with ten additional family members, are Paul Harris Fellows; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. has further demonstrated his unflagging spirit of service to the community by accepting roles of importance with such prominent civic organizations as the Birmingham Baptist Health System, then an eleven- hospital system with approximately 10,000 employees, of which he was chairman of the Board of Trustees; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. displayed his civic consciousness while living in Florida by serving as chairman of the YMCA, the American Chemical Society, and the Arthritis Foundation; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. has given service as a member of the Board of Regents of the National Association of Personnel Consultants in the United States; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. has been a director of the Better Business Bureau of Central Alabama and a trustee for the Workman's Compensation Trust of the Business Council of Alabama; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. has been a faithful and involved member of Brookwood Baptist Church of Mountain Brook, a suburb of Birmingham, Alabama; and Whereas, Glenn E. Estess Sr. will be formally installed as president of Rotary International on May 26, 2004, at the annual convention held in Osaka, Japan, to serve during the year 2004-2005; and Whereas, the citizens of the great state of Alabama are extremely honored and proud that Glenn E. Estess Sr. has been chosen to lead Rotary International during its centennial celebration year of 2005: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the one hundred fifty six members of the Rotary Club of Shades Valley, Alabama, individually and collectively, unanimously and enthusiastically congratulate its esteemed fellow member, Glenn E. Estess Sr., upon his election to the prestigious position as president of Rotary International for the year 2004-2005; and be it Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be suitably engrossed and framed and presented to Glenn and Mary Estess. Done this 3rd day of May 2004 by members of the Rotary Club of Shades Valley, Alabama, in meeting assembled.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, an enormous unrevealed financial penalty will result from same-sex marriage recognition, but there has been little discussion. Why is the media looking the other way? Do seniors not have the right to know it will affect their Social Security benefits? Do taxpayers not have the right to know that it will affect their taxes, both State and Federal? Does the public not have the right to know that it means less money for roads, schools, medical research, veterans benefits? In fact, it was the Social Security issue that side- lined a similar proposal in the Canadian Parliament. What is the cost? I include in the Record a GAO report outlining 1,138 Federal programs impacted if same-sex marriages are recognized in this country, an enormous price tag, hundreds of billions of dollars. The American people have the right to know. We need to discuss this issue. We are going to give benefits to same-sex couples we do not give to Americans caring for disabled and elderly relatives. We are going to give it to same-sex couples who have no children and give them the same benefits we give married couple with several children. We need to discuss this issue. It is going to cost billions of dollars. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, January 23, 2004. Subject: Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report Hon. Bill Frist, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. Dear Senator Frist: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' that are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor. In 1997, we issued a report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked us to update our 1997 compilation. We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. To prepare the updated list, we used the same research methods and legal databases that we employed in 1997. Accordingly, the same caveats concerning the completeness of our collection of laws apply to this updated compilation, as explained more fully in our prior report. For example, because of the inherent limitations of any global electronic search and the many ways in which the laws of the United States Code may deal with marital status, we cannot guarantee that we have captured every individual law in the United States Code in which marital status figures. However, we believe that the probability is high that the updated list identified federal programs in the United States Code in which marital status is a factor. We have organized our research using the same 13 subject categories as the 1997 report. As agreed with your staff, in addition to providing you with a primary table of new statutory provisions involving marital status, we have prepared a second table identifying those provisions in our prior report that subsequently have been repealed or amended in a manner that eliminates marital status as a factor. Finally, in a third table, we have listed those provisions identified in our 1997 report that have since been relocated to a different section of the United States Code. We have also attached a brief summary of the 13 research categories; a full description of each category is set forth in the 1997 report. We plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this letter to interested congressional committees. The letter will also be available on GAO's home page at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 8208 or by E-mail at shahd@gao.gov. Behn Miller Kelly and Richard Burkard made key contributions to this project. Sincerely yours, Dayna K. Shah, Associate General Counsel. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.013 Appendix 4--Categories of Statutory Provisions category 1--social security and related programs, housing, and food stamps This category includes the major federal health and welfare programs, particularly those considered entitlements, such as Social Security retirement and disability benefits, food stamps, welfare, and Medicare and Medicaid. Most of these provisions are found in Title 42 of the United States Code, Public Health and Welfare; food stamp legislation is in Title 7, Agriculture. category 2--veterans' benefits Veterans' benefits, which are codified in Title 38 of the United States Code, include pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing. Husbands or wives of veterans have many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital relationship. category 3--taxation While the distinction between married and unmarried status is pervasive in federal tax law, terms such as ``husband,'' ``wife,'' or ``married'' are not defined. However, marital status figures in federal tax law in provisions as basic as those giving married taxpayers the option to file joint or separate income tax returns. It is also seen in the related provisions prescribing different tax consequences, depending on whether a taxpayer is married filing jointly, married filing separately, unmarried but the head of a household, or unmarried and not the head of a household. category 4--federal civilian and military service benefits This category includes statutory provisions dealing with current and retired federal officers and employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges, in which marital status is a factor. Typically these provisions address the various health, leave, retirement, survivor, and insurance benefits provided by the United States to those in federal service and their families. category 5--employment benefits and related provisions Marital status comes into play in many different ways in federal laws relating to employment in the private sector. Most provisions appear in Title 29 of the United States Code, Labor. However, others are in Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining; Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; and Title 45, Railroads. This category includes laws that address the rights of employees under employer-sponsored employee benefit plans; that provide for continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits after events like the death or divorce of the employee; and that give employees the right to unpaid leave in order to care for a seriously ill spouse. In addition, Congress has extended special benefits in connection with certain occupations, like mining and public safety. category 6--immigration, naturalization, and aliens This category includes federal statutory provisions governing the conditions under which noncitizens may enter and remain in the United States, be deported, or become citizens. Most are found in Title 8, Aliens and Nationality. The law gives special consideration to spouses of immigrant and nonimmigrant aliens in a wide variety of circumstances. Under immigration law, aliens may receive special status by virtue of their employment, and that treatment may extend to their spouses. Also, spouses of aliens granted asylum can be given the same status if they accompany or join their spouses. category 7--indians The indigenous peoples of the United States have long had a special legal relationship with the federal government through treaties and laws that are classified to Title 25, Indians. Various laws set out the rights to tribal property of ``white'' men marrying ``Indian'' women, or of ``Indian'' women marrying ``white'' men. The law also outlines the descent and distribution rights for Indians' property. In addition, there are laws pertaining to health care eligibility for Indians and spouses and reimbursement of travel expenses of spouses and candidates seeking positions in the Indian Health Service. category 8--trade, commerce, and intellectual property This category includes provisions concerning foreign or domestic business and commerce, in the following titles of the United States Code: Bankruptcy, Title 11; Banks and Banking Title 12; Commerce and Trade, Title 15; Copyrights, Title 17; and Customs Duties, Title 19. This category also includes the National Housing Act (rights of mortgage borrowers); the Consumer Credit Protection Act (governs wage garnishment); and the Copyright Act (spousal copyright renewal and termination rights). category 9--financial disclosure and conflict of interest Federal law imposes obligations on members of Congress, employees or officers of the federal government, and members of the boards of directors of some government-related or government chartered entities, to prevent actual or apparent conflicts of interest. These individuals are required to disclose publicly certain gifts, interests, and transactions. Many of these requirements, which are found in 16 different titles of the United States Code, apply also to the individual's spouse. category 10--crimes and family violence This category includes laws that implicate marriage in connection with criminal justice or family violence. The nature of these provisions varies greatly. Some deal with spouses as victims of crimes, others with spouses as perpetrators. These laws are found primarily in Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, but some statutory provisions, dealing with crime prevention and family violence, are in Title 42, Public Health and Welfare. category 11--loans, guarantees, and payments in agriculture Under many federal loan programs, a spouse's income, business interests, or assets are taken into account for purposes of determining a person's eligibility to participate in the program. In other instances, marital status is a factor in determining the amount of federal assistance to which a person is entitled or the repayment schedule. This category includes education loan programs, housing loan programs for veterans, and provisions governing agricultural price supports and loan programs that are affected by the spousal relationship. category 12--federal natural resources and related provisions Federal law gives special rights to spouses in connection with a variety of transactions involving federal lands and other federal property. These transactions include purchase and sale of land by the federal government and lease by the government of water and mineral rights. category 13--miscellaneous provisions This category comprises federal statutory provisions that do not fit readily in any of the other 12 categories. Federal provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status are included in this category. This category also includes various patriotic societies chartered in federal law, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the Gold Star Wives of America.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 403. As one of the architects of the Sudan Peace Act signed by President Bush in October 2002, I am completely dismayed at the continuation and the possible repeat of another civil war in Sudan. Previously, countless Christians have been killed or starved to death simply because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs. Now in Dafur in the West, an area roughly the size of France, unlike the situation in the South, this is not Christian versus Muslims. It is genocide of black Africans by the Arabic government and Jangaweed (nomadic Arab tribesmen). Today, the current humanitarian crisis in Sudan is considered one of the worst in decades. According to the World Food Program (WFP), the Sudanese, ``are facing serious food and water shortages due to the combined disruptions of civil war and drought.'' In the West, hundreds of thousands of malnourished villagers, having been burned out of their homes in a systematic campaign of terror, are starving to death. Foreign correspondents from major newspapers have reported at least 700,000 Dafur residents are living in camps or have fled to villages to stay with families or friends. Women, girls, students, and teachers are systematically beaten and gang-raped. One villager, as quoted this week in a London newspaper, gave this simple explanation, ``We got harassed on a daily basis by people in uniform.'' Furthermore he said, ``they (Jangaweed) used to be herders, we know who they are, but the government had guns and uniforms and told them to hurt the blacks.'' Despite millions of dollars of humanitarian aid from the United States, the Sudanese, particularly the black Africans in Dafur, continue to suffer. The conflict between the government of Khartoum/Jangaweed and the black Africans in Dafur must be stopped. While I am pleased with the announcement that the State Department will be sending American aid experts to inspect the humanitarian needs, what we really need to be done is for the Administration to stop this genocide and begin negotiations as soon as possible to end this long-standing humanitarian crisis.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, this amendment was first proposed last October and we have tried to work in committee. We tried to work on this issue. What we are talking about is we have restricted it to 200 miles: 100 miles in the morning, 100 miles at night. To me it is almost a joke to say that that would fatigue these drivers. The very drivers that are driving, they have been operating under these rules for years and years and years and have an exemplary safety record.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record a letter from the Teamsters in support of this amendment, and these are the very drivers that are driving these trucks. And as the gentleman from Florida said, these drivers drive and our amendment limits them to 100 miles. They drive out in the morning. They drive back at night, and that is their responsibility, and they do have 9 hours of rest. This does not include overnight. They go with the film crews. They go with the actresses. They go with the actors. They go with the camera people. And they are all out there from sunup to sundown. And the Teamsters, if the Members look at the letter that I am introducing, they will tell them that they are afraid they will either lose their job because they will continue to go out of country or they will turn these jobs into 2- or 3-hour part-time jobs and hire two crews. And instead of having a good-paying job, they will have no job. Studio Transportation Drivers, Teamsters Local Union No. 399, North Hollywood, CA, July 16, 2003. Re: support for exemption from new hours of service regulations. Hon. Ernest Istook, Jr., Chairman, Hon. John W. Olver, Ranking Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies, Washington, DC. Gentlemen: I understand that your committee is considering amendments that would provide relief to certain industries from aspects of the new hours of service (``HOS'') regulations published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. On behalf of the Studio Transportation Drivers of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 399, I wish to express our support for a proposal to permit commercial drivers to continue to comply with current HOS regulations concerning daily, on-duty time when operating to and from a motion picture or television production site located within a 100 air-mile radius of their work reporting location. Existing HOS duty time regulations are better suited to the unique schedules of studio transportation drivers than th new regulations that will take effect January 4, 2004. Drivers assigned to productions drive only a few hours each day; these are short haul assignments. These drivers have had an excellent safety record, and their schedules meet the current HOS limitation. To comply with the new regulations, the industry will not be able to use the same drivers for an entire production day. Thus, each driver will receive significantly less compensation than under the current system. Given our excellent safety record, and that new HOS regulations largely were designed to address the fatigue of long-haul drivers, application of new duty-time limits to our drivers will increase operating costs without a corresponding safety benefit. I hope that you will support retaining current hours of service regulations for studio transportation drivers. Sincerely, Leo T. Reed, Secretary-Treasurer/Principal Officer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who is one of 38 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure members who have signed a letter in support of this amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) in support of this amendment.