Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, when someone stands in the well and questions the constitutionality of an amendment, then I think the Members ought to listen. I think they ought to take note, because that is a serious charge. It would be a convincing argument if one was not familiar with the history of legislation in this body. If one was, they would know one of our first Congresses, which contained many men who signed the original constitution, that drafted it, imposed sanctions of a financial and capital nature against foreign fur trading companies. So the folks that drafted that and enumerated those powers then stood in this Congress and imposed such sanctions, and these sanctions have been imposed during several war periods. It is particularly ironic that we would defend four foreign oil companies when we have in this body passed legislation, including fines and terms of imprisonment, if our oil companies go over there and drill. So it is quite ironic that we would impose these restrictions on our own oil companies for going overseas, and do that with a clear conscience, which I have, and yet allow their competition to go over there, kill innocent men, women and children, strafe hospitals, engage in all sorts of atrocities, and then not only look the other way when that happens, but we will allow them to raise the money to finance their operations in our capital markets, those same markets which restrict Americans from participating in and would not restrict the very bad actors who avoid the sanctions that we have now imposed. Truly an argument that I will never accept.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, there was an article on the front page of the Washington Post on Monday, and it says, ``Oil money is fueling Sudan's war''. It goes on to say that Arab is killing non-Arab or African and Muslims are killing Christians. But one thing is in common, and that is that, and it says, Nile Blend crude is fueling this entire war. It talks about the four oil companies that are in Sudan drilling for oil, turning the proceeds of that development over to the government. The government is hiring guns and arms and airplanes and helicopter gunships, and they are bombing the people of Sudan. The quote in that article is the fighting follows the oil. If you can stop the oil revenue, you have a chance at stopping the fighting. That is exactly what this amendment does. In fact, I offered this amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, this amendment and a disclosure amendment, which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) offered; and he got the disclosure amendment included in this bill. I will introduce at this time a report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan commission. They recommended that this Congress do two things. One is require disclosure, and that is in the bill; and, number two, that we stop these five oil companies from raising funds in the United States to develop these oil fields. They said that both would be necessary. So with this amendment, we will add the other half of what is a necessary action. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record pages 131 and 132 of that report, as follows: Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom The U.S. government should strengthen economic sanctions against Sudan and should urge other countries to adopt similar policies. The United States should prohibit any foreign company from raising capital or listing its securities in U.S. markets as long as it is engaged in the development of oil and gas fields in Sudan. The U.S. government should not issue licenses permitting the import of gum arabic from Sudan to the United States. U.S. economic sanctions against Sudan should be strengthened and not reduced. They should be strengthened by (a) prohibiting access to U.S. capital markets for those non- U.S. companies engaged in the development of the Sudanese oil and gas fields, and (b) not issuing further licenses for the import of gum arabic to the United States. The Commission is aware of the current debate both internationally and in the United States on the effectiveness of economic sanctions generally. Unilateral economic sanctions by the United States have not prevented foreign investment in Sudan's oil business, which has, in turn, provided the Sudanese government with significant financial support for its egregious human rights and humanitarian abuses. However, it has not been established that U.S. sanctions have been completely ineffective. They can continue, for example, to slow the rate of increase of foreign investment in Sudan and oil revenues to the Sudanese government. One way to increase the potential effectiveness of the sanctions is to convince other economic powers to adopt similar policies. In this regard, the Commission urges the U.S. government to encourage economic pressure on the Sudanese government in its bilateral relations at all levels with countries that engage in substantial trade with or provide significant foreign investment in Sudan. Current sanctions prohibit investment by U.S. companies in Sudan. They also prohibit transactions between U.S. companies and the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (Sudan's oil consortium) or Sudapet (Sudan's petroleum company). In the absence of multilateral economic sanctions, however, preventing access to U.S. capital markets by foreign companies engaged in the oil-development business in Sudan targets a specific weakness in the current U.S. sanctions regime. The Commission recommends that foreign corporations doing business with Sudan's petroleum industry be prohibited from issuing or listing its securities on U.S. capital markets. The Commission does not lightly recommend these significant restrictions on U.S. capital markets access, but believes that the specific conditions in Sudan warrant them. The government of Sudan is committing genocidal humanitarian and human rights abuses. There is a direct connection between oil production and those abuses. Foreign investment is critical to the development of Sudan's oil fields and maintaining oil revenues. Expanding U.S. sanctions in the area of capital markets access specifically targets what is likely the most significant resource that the Sudanese government has to prosecute the war. Moreover, the issue of continuing economic sanctions against Sudan is one of principle as well as effectiveness. Reducing sanctions against Sudan at this time--after the Sudanese government has made no concessions but rather has increased its civilian bombings and other atrocities--would be to reward it for worsening behavior. This will send the wrong message to the government of Sudan and the international community. With respect to licenses granted in 1999 and 2000 to permit U.S. imports of gum Arabic, the purpose of granting those licenses was to allow U.S. importers time to identify alternative sources of supply. Because a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, no further licenses should be granted, and efforts should be continued to identify alternate suppliers of this product. If the government of Sudan demonstrates substantial, sustained, and comprehensive improvement in the human rights conditions for people throughout the country, the U.S. government should seriously re-evaluate its sanctions regime. Companies that are doing business in Sudan should be required to disclose the nature and extent of that business in connection with their access to U.S. capital markets. There is a significant, undesirable gap in U.S. law regarding Sudan and other CPC countries: In many cases, foreign companies that are doing business in Sudan can sell securities on U.S. markets without having to disclose fully (1) the details of the particular business activities in Sudan, including plans for expansion or diversification; (2) the identity of all agencies of the Sudanese government with which the companies are doing business; (3) the relationship of the business activities to violations of religious freedom and other human rights in Sudan; or (4) the contribution that the proceeds raised in the U.S. debt and equity markets will make to these business activities and hence, potentially to those violations. Across-the-board full disclosure of these details would prompt corporate managers to work to prevent their companies from supporting or facilitating these violations. It also would aid (1) U.S. investors in deciding whether to purchase the securities; (2) shareholders in exercising their ownership rights (including proposing shareholder resolutions for annual meetings and proxy statements); (3) the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control in enforcing existing sanctions; and (4) U.S. policymakers in formulating sound policy with resect to Sudan and U.S. capital markets. The Commission recommends that the United States require such disclosure. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, the question was asked, should we get involved? I would like to remind my colleagues of a story in the book of Esther where Esther is asked by Mordecai, ``Do you think if you hold your peace at a time like this that you shall escape judgment?'' Let me tell, my colleagues, it is a time such as this. It is a time when millions of people are being slain, where genocide is going on. Mordecai also reminded Esther that she had been placed in a position of leadership and just to make such decisions as this. I believe that. I believe that those who serve here have been placed in a position of trust and leadership, and I think that, if we do not act, and we do not act decisively, I do not think that we can expect to escape. We have been placed here for a reason. We ought to undertake that obligation. That trust has been placed in us. People have said to me, well, what will this interfere with? What will this do? We deny U.S. oil companies the right, and we should, to go over to Sudan and drill. We say, if you go over there, we will put you in jail. If you go over there, we will fine you. You should not be engaged in that activity. But the paradox is that a foreign oil company can go over there. They can develop these oil fields. What they do with helicopter gunships and jet planes, they clear the land of people. They burn down the houses on the oil concessions and kill the people that live there and develop the oil. We need to say to those five oil companies, if they are going to do that, they are not going to raise money in the United States capital markets. This will be a meaningful, positive step. I commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce). I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Let me say that by putting this amendment in the bill, it will be another decisive case in drying up the flow of oil revenue, which is blood money, which is resulting in the death of millions of people.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hope for Children Act. As a member of the Hope Coalition, I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for their energy on this bill this year, for guiding it through the Committee on Ways and Means. I would like to thank the members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the other member of the Hope for Children Coalition, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Mr. Bliley, as others have said, first introduced this legislation in the 106th Congress. I was the lead sponsor the next year. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has always been a real driver and a real enthusiastic supporter of this legislation. All of us, no matter what party we belong to or what political philosophy we subscribe to, we want children to have a loving and a permanent home. No children should ever be denied the chance to live with a family that will love and cherish them. This tax credit will make it possible for more families to open their homes and their hearts to a child through adoption. The high cost of adoption is an insurmountable obstruction to many families who want to adopt a child. With this tax credit, we can help ease that financial burden, sometimes enormous, and ensure more children find a permanent, loving home. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, many people do not realize just how expensive adoptions are: medical bills, legal fees, travel costs. We owe it to those wanting children to ease these burdens. Passage of this bill will unquestionably make a meaningful difference in the lives of thousands of children. One of those children is the son of my chief of staff, who Members can imagine has been very enthusiastic since he adopted Wyatt Emerson about a year and a half ago. I can tell the Members that Wyatt has made a difference in the Emerson family, and the Emerson family has made a difference in him.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, back in September of 1999, when this bill came before us, one of the opponents of the bill said this, because the criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose a child and an abortion are too easy to confuse, we need to vote against this bill. Now we are again hearing today that it is hard to distinguish between a criminal attack on a woman which kills her baby and an abortion. But I say, I think the American people can distinguish between the two of those, and I think Members of this body can. We also heard today, and we heard in that earlier argument, that this bill would do a dangerous thing. It would recognize the legal status of an unborn child. Now that is pretty dangerous, is it not, recognizing the legal status of an unborn child? Is an unborn child illegal? Are they born into the world illegal? When do they pass from illegal to legal? I think if a mother wants to have a child, wants to have that child born, wants to raise that child, that child is legal. I want to talk about something else, something else that the opponents I do not think would want to talk about, and I think this is particularly telling, it is an article in the March 2001 Journal of American Medicine, and it simply says one thing, the disturbing finding that a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than due to any other cause. In other words, a pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than die of any other cause. It compared that to nonpregnant women in the same age group, and that was the fifth leading cause of death. As that article asks the question, we ought to ask the same question. Only by having a clear understanding of the magnitude of pregnancy- associated mortality can there be comprehensive prevention. In other words, pregnant women are victims of homicide in a far greater percentage than nonpregnant women. We need to understand that if we are to prevent it. How do we prevent it? Why does one think pregnant women are five times more likely to die of a homicide in this study and in an earlier study in the Journal of Public Health and in two studies in obstetrics and gynecology? I would submit that the fact they are pregnant is making them a target. These studies certainly say that they are a target. This bill, and I praise the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for offering it, it is a needed step to help what has become an attack on pregnant women. Remarks Upon Passage of Bill in 106th Congress Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and opposed to the amendment. We have heard some very interesting statements out here on the floor today. One of the opponents of this act said we ought to vote against this act because, and let me quote, ``because the criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose a child, and an abortion, it is too easy to confuse the two.'' In other words, a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose her unborn child, she said the only difference in that and an abortion is, she says, the result is the same except for the criminal intent, and we cannot always determine the difference. Now, do my colleagues buy that? Do my colleagues buy that this Congress or the American people cannot distinguish between a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose her unborn child and an abortion? I do not think so. I think that is ludicrous. Another reason we were told to vote against this act, we were told that the Federal court or the Federal jurisdiction may have jurisdiction over the mother, but they might not have jurisdiction over the unborn child. In other words, an FBI agent who is pregnant, we can try someone for assaulting her or murdering her, but not her unborn child, because that would not be a Federal act. Well, what do we do in those cases? Do we always try those? Would we try them, as that person who opposes it said, we ought to try that case in the State court? Of course not. That is ludicrous. The final thing, which is probably the worst, is this statement, and I say this with respect to all Members: that this is the first occasion that this Congress or this Supreme Court has ever recognized the legal status of an unborn child. If we pass this act, we will be recognizing the legal status of an unborn child. Well I ask you, is it an illegal status? Are unborn children illegal? How about an unborn child whose mother has made a decision to keep that child? She wants to keep that child. She wants to have that child. She wants to raise that child. Is there anything wrong with recognizing the legal status of that child? Should that child have no status, no rights? Of course not.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this legislation. I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services for bringing this common sense measure to the floor today, for doing it promptly. What does this legislation mean? What will it do? I have a letter here from the National Association of Federal Credit Unions which says that it will mean two things. It will mean that their customers, small businesses and their members of the credit unions will receive interest on their accounts, and it also means that their loan rates will be lower. So I think anything we can do to lower the cost of loans for consumers is good. I think anything we can do to allow small businesses, whether they bank at a bank or a thrift or they are members of a credit union to be able to draw interest on those. It really is legislation that is going to benefit small businesses, whether they are the small banks, the thrifts or the credit unions or the small businesses that put deposits in those institutions. Large corporations already get implicit interest because large financial institutions have complex programs such as sweeps which allow the payment of something very akin to interest. But it is the small businesses today that have been denied the right to draw interest. That is why the NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce totally supports this legislation and has endorsed it. It will also allow small banks, thrifts and credit unions in our hometowns to compete against large international financial conglomerates and large financial banks because it will make them more competitive and will allow them to keep more of their deposits. That is why the associations representing our small banks and our thrifts have endorsed this legislation. Finally, I want to praise the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from New York who authored this legislation. We will hear from the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) in a minute. I also want to praise a freshman member, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), for her active work on this bill. Finally, I would like to address what the gentleman from New York said about paying interest on regulation D reserves at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury both came before us; and the Federal Reserve said if we are to maintain a solid monetary policy, a sound dollar, we need this legislation. That is reason enough to pass this. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter from the National Association of Federal Credit Unions that I referred to in my remarks: National Association of Federal Credit Unions, Washington, DC, April 2, 2001. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing on behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), the only national trade association that exclusively represents the interests of our nation's federal credit unions, to express our support for H.R. 974 as approved by the Financial Services Committee. NAFCU supports this effort to allow payment of interest on Regulation D reserve requirements of depository institutions, to increase the number of allowed transfers of non-interest-bearing accounts into those paying interest, and to include credit unions in a regular bank fee study by the Federal Reserve. NAFCU thanks you for your leadership on this issue and urges passage of H.R. 974. Regulation D imposes costly burdens on regulated financial institutions such as federal credit unions. As member-owned cooperatives, credit unions have no choice but to pass the opportunity cost resulting from the posting of sterile reserves along to their members either in the form of lower dividend rates on savings, higher rates on loans, or some combination of the two. Under Regulation D Federal credit unions are required to structure accounts to meet regulatory definitions, limit transactions to required types and numbers, and must forego interest on sterile reserves. The cost of Regulation D contributes to the continuing exodus of savings from regulated financial institutions to the stock market, mutual funds, and other products of largely unregulated financial service providers. The current Regulation D reserve ratios are 3% for transaction balances between $0 and $42.8 million with an exemption for balances below $5.5 million. For institutions with reservable balances in excess of $42.8 million, the reserve requirement is $1,329,000 plus 10% of the deposits above $42.8 million. Based on NAFCU year-end 2000 data and utilizing the current Regulation D tranches and ratios, 866 federally-chartered credit unions are currently required to post $1,276,386,000 in required reserves. If legislation were enacted into law today and the Federal Reserve were to pay interest at the current Federal Funds rate of 5.5%, then these credit unions and their member owners would collectively receive $70,201,230 in interest. As of December 2000, 121 credit unions had $12.95 billion in reservable balances in excess of $42.8 million and required reserves of $938.7 million. Another 745 credit unions, with $11.12 billion in reservable balances, had to hold $337.6 million in required reserves. With its non-payment of interest on sterile reserves, Regulation D gives an unfair advantage to non-regulated financial institutions that offer checking accounts but do not have to maintain sterile reserves with the Fed. Furthermore, NAFCU supports the language sought by Representative John LaFalce (D-NY) and included by the Financial Services Committee to make permanent the bank fee study by the Federal Reserve Board and to include credit union fees as part of that study. NAFCU appreciates your leadership on this issue and thanks you for pursuing this legislation. We urge the House to pass this important legislation. If I or my staff may be of assistance to you or if you have any questions or desire further information please do not hesitate to contact me or NAFCU's Director of Legislative and Political Affairs, Charlie Frohman, at (703) 522-4770. Sincerely, William J. Donovan, Senior Vice President/General Counsel.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). As the gentleman noted, there are many individuals that would have been here to speak, as many individuals have signed on as cosponsor of this particular legislation. I think it is important for all of us to recognize the importance of why we are doing this. We are doing it for an individual who has given so much of his life for this country, for this area; his leadership, his vision, his struggle to help many of the poor and disadvantaged, his inspiration, and what it means to all of us. For some of us, unless we worked out in the fields, we really do not understand what it is like. I happened to have picked peaches and tomatoes out in the field, and let me tell my colleagues, it is not the best job. And when you see a lot of the people out there that are suffering, and you see the working conditions of individuals, and you see the children, you can see the emotion and the feeling of many of the children that are out there that are being affected. What Cesar Chavez wanted to do was to make sure that the children also had a better quality of life, of education. He said the children need a better education. He went through 36, 38 different schools, and so he said, I want the children to enjoy the same life that other children have. I want to make sure they have the opportunity. When he looked in their eyes, when he looked at their clothes, and realized their opportunities, he could see the feeling of what was expressed in the dignity and the respect that he wanted for all children, for all individuals. When he looked at the campesinos and the working conditions, he wanted to make sure that they had a better opportunity not only for themselves, but for their families. He wanted to make sure they could put food on the table and they could take care of their clothes and their housing, have better conditions, so they would not have to worry about not having their health, not having to get up with pain to go back to work the next day because there was no service. He wanted a better life, and he gave a lot of himself. He gave of himself for many individuals. Our Nation should be grateful for a great hero and a great American, a veteran, a leader, a visionary, an inspiration, a man that we all look to. It is hard to be a leader, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to really be involved. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and say it is nice if someone does lead, but he was willing to pick up the banner. And now Arturo Rodriguez has carried that struggle and banner, carried it forth to make sure equality is there. Another person along with him was Delores Huerta, who led in the struggle and the fight. She is ill today. Who knows why she is ill today and in the hospital. It could be because of all of the involvement she had, the struggles and the sacrifices she made; and many other individuals. Mr. Speaker, we need to support this resolution encouraging a Federal holiday for March 31 in honor of Cesar Chavez's birthday, to encourage States to make March 31 a holiday, to encourage schools to incorporate a lesson on Cesar Chavez, because if they do not know his contributions, what he has done, then we are lost, because it is by learning each others' customs and traditions and our heritage that we know the struggle of individuals and we accept history. We need to work that into our curriculum.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, all parents want their children to succeed. In today's America, success often requires a college education. It is a way out of poverty for many. Yet, for many families, particularly middle-class families, a college education is out of their reach. With rising tuition costs, rising room and board, the dream of a college education is simply that for too many people, a dream; a dream deferred for too many children of middle-class parents. However, if we pass the budget resolution offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), we can help make the dream of college education a reality for more of America's children. This budget provides significant educational help for families. Not only does it accommodate a significant increase in Pell grant programs, not only does it allow a 10-fold increase in annual contributions families can make to their educational IRAs, but, and this is why I rise, it provides for a full tax exemption for prepaid tuition savings plans. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Alabama State Board of Education, I was there when in 1989 we established our prepaid college tuition plan. Today, virtually all States have a prepaid tuition plan, or college savings plan. Those plans are working. Millions of middle-class American families are paying into those plans. They offer the only affordable option for many families to send their children to college. Yet our current tax law punishes those families for doing what is right. It punishes them for planning ahead and saving for their children's college education. The IRS taxes them when the student enrolls in college and begins to draw on that investment. Surely, all of us can agree that no tax makes less sense than one that hurts middle-class students trying to earn a college degree. No tax makes less sense than this tax on families that save for their children's college education. I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the budget resolution that he has offered for it goes a long way. It makes these plans tax exempt. It makes college more affordable. That helps more American children succeed. So I rise in strong support and offer one more reason to support the resolution offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, it was asked, who is this bill for? This bill was described as ``filler.'' Well, let me again go back to who this bill is for. This is, as I said, Whitney, and her little brother, Wesley, Crowder. It is too late for Wesley. He is dead. But it is not too late for Whitney. I will tell you, I do not think the people that live in my district that live in mobile homes consider this legislation as filler. In fact, I think they would take offense to the characterization of this legislation as filler. To them, it is a matter of life or death. Now, there are questions raised about the bill. The bill was published in the Congressional Record on Monday. Several speakers have said they have not had a chance to read the bill. Well, here is the bill. It is one page long. They could read it in about 40 seconds.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I withdraw my point of order to the amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. As with the previous amendment, it is my understanding that only low- income and moderate-income families would qualify under the existing law, but to clarify it further and to clarify with this amendment the additional wording, I welcome that as the intent of the bill.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I get to the merits of this legislation, I want to commend the Members who have spoken on the other side and who said we are not addressing the merits of this legislation. We are addressing the bill. But they have unknowingly let two rabbits out, and I am going to chase those rabbits for a minute. The first rabbit is this rabbit of immaculate conception; that this bill was just beamed down to us from outer space, or that there was an immaculate conception, and sometime last week this bill took a form. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation was introduced in January and referred to the Committee on Financial Services and referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. I requested a hearing on it. But that subcommittee has got important work on some complex issues and is having hearings. I do not set the agenda for the hearings before that committee. I know that one is not scheduled. I really had no objection to the bill coming up now or, as I told the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), 2 weeks from today would have suited me fine. I told him that. I will say this, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the full committee, said, even if we get this bill out today, it will be September before the Senate takes the bill up. If that is the case, although I did tell the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) I have no objection to it being 2 weeks from today, and I appreciate his kindness, we have always worked well together, but I will tell my colleagues this, if it gets over to the Senate in September, the local communities are not even going to have a shot at building some of these shelters for the next tornado season. I do not, quite frankly, want to get this bill over to the Senate late. I hope they take it up before September. Now, another rabbit that has been loosed on this body is that there has been a cut in Community Development Block Grant funding. The overall funding, and only in Washington a $300 million increase is considered a cut. It went from $4.8 billion to $5.1 billion. Now that, hopefully, we have chased those rabbits out, I would like to turn to the merits of the bill. People have said why? Why this bill? Is this bill an attempt to divert money from other needed programs that communities spend the money on? No. I am going to change mikes, and I am going to tell my colleagues what this bill is about. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about this little girl. She was a mobile home resident in my district. She was 6 years old when a tornado struck Tuscaloosa, Alabama. She survived. She was found some time later, in fact so much later that an Associated Press photographer was able to get his camera out and take this picture, so she laid on the ground for several hours. Her 16-month-old baby brother was not so fortunate. He died. Her mother survived and she will raise Whitney and her little sister, both of whom stayed in the hospital several days, but they will not have the help of Whitney's father who was also killed in this tornado. This is what remains of their house. Today and until this legislation passes, this little girl and her mother or those in the small mobile home park, and I will call it a park, there are five mobile homes there, they will not have any access to community development block grant funds. Now if she lived in a rental unit, if she lived in public housing, if she lived in a site-built home, she would qualify. But she has been discriminated against because she lives in a manufactured home. But as we sadly found out when this tornado struck Tuscaloosa, Alabama and seriously injured 75 of the citizens that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) and I represent, and the gentleman from Alabama is a cosponsor of this legislation, a Democrat, it has bipartisan support, Tuscaloosa County wanted to look at the option of using Community Development Block Grant money to build shelters. They were told that they didn't qualify. Subsequent to that, we have been told that on three occasions by the HUD project manager that recommends this and I will read what he says. He says that we need clarifying language, it is not clear, and they have not allowed this to be eligible. One reason is these mobile home parks are built on private land. Someone said that, look, they are going to be able to build these things on private land. Well, this little girl lived on private land. She cannot help that. The county is not going to go out there and purchase a 25-by-25 square foot piece of property and locate a shelter. It is total madness that we as a government will allow someone in a permanent site-built home with a basement and an interior hall, that we will allow them money to build a safe room in that home yet, we will not allow this family to take advantage of that same fund to hide underground when these powerful tornadoes come. Let me tell my colleagues, a lot of our citizens, they choose mobile homes. They choose manufactured homes. A lot of our senior citizens choose them. When we talk about mobile home parks or manufactured homes, we are talking about young families, with children, struggling to get along. In many cases we are talking about senior citizens and handicapped and disabled people, but they are good citizens and they deserve better. I hope that they will not have to wait past this year for some equality out of this body. Now, I do not know why the regulations are the way that they are. I do not know why the bureaucrats, whether they have made a tangle of that. I do not know why, but I know that it is something that we need to address and it is something that we need to address today, and we need to do it overwhelmingly. Mr. Chairman, I have lost too many people in my district, 32 on April 8, 1998; and then December 16, 2000, I lost 11. I had over 300 that received injuries bad enough to be hospitalized. Let me just say that those are bad injuries. I was hit by a tractor-trailer truck and broke my collarbone and have five fractured ribs and a fractured sternum as I stand up here before my colleagues, and I went to the hospital, but I did not stay overnight. I had 300 citizens that were hurt worse than that, and let me tell you, I have hurt the last month. So it is not just those who were killed, it is this little girl. She will live without a father, and she will live without a little brother. I do not know whether my colleagues' communities will choose to use these monies for this worthy cause or another. There are no mandates in this bill, there is just fairness for mobile home residents. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to recognize the cosponsors of this bill, and then I want to yield some time. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who has already spoken on the bill, he was a cosponsor. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), I want to commend him for pushing this bill and the letters he has written supporting it. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who lost two residents of manufactured housing in the last few weeks. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), by the way, told me that the highest recorded wind ever in the United States was recorded during a tornado in Oklahoma in the past year or 2. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), who submitted a statement for the Record, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley). And, finally, the colleague who has been with me since the start on this legislation, who has been as strong a supporter as anyone, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer). Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

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

Mr. BACHUS. I appreciate the question. This fund has got $5.1 billion in it, and that money, a large amount of that money, goes to the States and to the local governments; to the communities. Cities and counties is what most people would identify with. And those cities and counties make the decision over how to spend those funds. I do not mandate that they spend a dime on this program. I simply make the available funding available for this category. It is already available for site-built homes, it is already available for rental property, it is already available for public housing. I simply expand it to manufactured housing.

Mr. BACHUS. It is funds that we appropriate every year for the communities to spend as they see fit. We actually restrict them to certain categories. I want this to be a category that they can spend money on. They may choose not to. FEMA suggested that I put a restriction in here that it apply only in areas where an F-5 or F-4 tornado had hit. I felt like if it had not been an F-5 or F-4 tornado and the community was concerned about it and they wanted to spend it here as opposed to another program, they should be able to. The gentlewoman from Florida says we have got a lot of worthy programs there, but I submit to her that this is one of them. I submit to her that hurricane victims would qualify. These are storm shelters for high wind.

Mr. BACHUS. Adding upon that, we can use this money to prevent beach erosion in New York State. I think we ought to be able to use it to stop deaths from tornadoes wherever they may strike.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to read something that the Birmingham News said about this bill. I want to emphasize this. The gentleman from Alabama had asked me about this. This is what their editorial endorsing the bill says: All Bachus wants to do is give local governments the option of applying for Federal community block grants to build shelters in mobile home parks. There is no mandate and there is no cost for mobile home buyers. Indeed, the measure could make manufactured homes more attractive to those who wondered about safety during storms. The fact is, when deadly storms strike Alabama, people in mobile homes are likely to be victims. A 1999 Birmingham News analysis showed that more than 60 percent of the fatalities connected to the most recently occurring tornadoes were mobile home residents. Maybe in the next 10 years that will not be the case. But they simply deserve the same protection we afford our other citizens. It is simply a matter of fairness. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe that was an endorsement of this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I think we have been asked a fair question here. Is this an attempt to snooker? Is this an attempt to deceive? No, it is an attempt to do neither. It is an attempt to save lives. It is an attempt to quit treating people who live in mobile home parks as second-class citizens under the HUD regulations. The program director at HUD for shelter programs, for storm mitigation, is the one that suggested this language to us. My county, which was hit by a tornado, 12 people, 10 of them in a mobile home, and during the main debate on the floor I will show you a picture of one of the young victims. She was alive being carried from her manufactured home. Her father and her 16-month-old baby were not as fortunate. They died. Mr. Speaker, when the county approached the government and asked for Community Development Block Grant funds, they were told that mobile home sites do not qualify. Clearly that is what this legislation does. Mr. Speaker, never consulted we are told. In fact, the committee had extensive talks with committee staff on the other side. I talked to one Democratic staffer myself. He asked, Do we need this. I told him what our answer had been. He called the program director. He got the same answer. He called me back and said, You are right. Currently manufactured housing communities, mobile homes, are excluded from these grants. Low-income site-built homes qualify. Apartment buildings qualify. And not only that, but a $500,000 site- built home, permanent home, qualifies for a grant from FEMA to build a safe room, but a mobile home does not qualify for a safe room because it does not have an interior hall, it does not have a room that does not have a window facing the outside. These shelters are, in certain cases, as the gentlewoman from Florida has said, going to be sited on mobile home parks; and the owners of those parks are going to be making money. It is a for-profit mobile home park. But I can tell my colleague that though it is going to turn a profit for the mobile home park operator, it is going to be a safe shelter in a storm for the people that live in those mobile homes, and this arcane argument is not going to sell with them. Let me tell my colleagues something. This is an idea whose time has come. I have talked to at least 100 mobile home residents since this bill has received the endorsement of every major paper in Alabama, and they tell me about getting a warning that in 25 or 30 minutes a tornado is going to bear down on their home and they plot it there and they watch the TV as it bears down on them, as people say get in the basement, get inside, get in an interior hallway if you do not have a basement, and yet they have to sit there and listen to the warning and not heed that warning. This is not my idea. This is the idea of a county that lost 12 people. It was their idea. They came to me. They went to the Federal Government. So did a community in Missouri. Both those communities were told they did not qualify. Now, it will not be my decision and it will not be the decision of the gentlewoman from Florida as to whether this money will be spent. It will be the local community. There are no mandates; there are no restrictions. The local community, a city, a county, can go to a mobile home park and they can build a shelter, which may be beside or between two or three. In fact, both the gentlewoman from Florida and I would agree when we say mobile home park operators, sometimes we are talking about a widow who has seven trailers on an acre lot and who wants to build a shelter for 15 people there. Now, the fatality that I will show my colleagues, the so-called mobile home park this little girl was, was a half acre lot with four trailers on it owned by a relative. We believe that the little girl, and her brother and father, the two which are dead right now, we believe they ought to have the same right as someone living in a $400,000 house to go to the government and get assistance for shelter. Anyone today can qualify for a safe room in their house. They can get $2,000 to reinforce a room. But mobile home residents cannot. Tornadoes do not make distinctions between site-built homes and manufactured homes. Neither should we. And this is of the essence. It is of the essence because I lost 41 citizens to a tornado 3 years ago and I lost 12 this past fall and it is past time.