Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say this: the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about the whole philosophy of government, and let me tell you what the people of Tuscaloosa County would really like. They would really like to not send their money to Washington. Federal taxes are at a peacetime high. They would like to keep that money and put it in local government, or they would like to keep it in their own pockets and make their own decisions. But over the last 40 years we have raised their taxes and the taxes of all our citizens so high that they now have to come to Washington and a lot of their needs have to be met here because we take so much of their money. They would rather not apply for community development block grants. They would rather their taxes be cut by that much, and just let them make the decisions at the city hall in Tuscaloosa or North Port, or the Tuscaloosa County Commission. But, unfortunately, all that money comes up here, so it is parceled back. Just to add insult to injury, not only do we take their money away from them; but then when we send it back, we tell them they cannot use it for what they wanted to use it for. Thus, this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to wrap up by simply hitting two points. The first thing I wanted to make very clear, Mr. Chairman, is that H.R. 247 creates no new Federal mandates on local governments or on private industry, nor does it authorize the expenditure of one dime of taxpayer money. It merely permits local communities entirely at their option to tap into available Federal funds to build storm-safe shelters for residents of manufactured housing. That is all it does. Those are existing funds. It gives them the right to use that for what they want it for. It is their money; they paid the taxes. I want to give them this option. I want to clarify something else, since I have been sponsoring this legislation. What have we done about tornadoes over the last 150 years? Interestingly enough, at one time we were an agrarian society; and 80 years ago, 100 years ago, most of us worked outside, many of us in the field. An old-timer recently told me after the Tuscaloosa tornado that his grandfather could predict these things. He could tell they were coming; he could read the sky, read the signs; and he could tell you when a tornado was coming 30 minutes before, and they would all go down in that shelter. Well, we do not have that luxury today. We are inside, we are not outside in the field, we do not know how to read the weather, we do not know the signs like our grandfathers and great grandfathers did, but we have got something that they never dreamed of having. We have the technology of turning on our TV screen and seeing a street map with our street on that map and the television station telling us that in 30 minutes a tornado will be hitting our community, and telling us within 2 minutes of when it will arrive. The next time, next year, not this year, it is too late for this year, but next year, when the citizens that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) and I represent turn on that radio or they turn on that TV and they hear that in 30 minutes a tornado will be in the New Bethel community, or the Rock Creek community, like the one that hit Rock Creek, that they will be able to go down in a shelter near their mobile home or near their manufactured home, and they will have a chance to survive this tornado. When they do that, when that money is spent by that county or that city, it will be the people's money, money they sent to Washington, and they ought to ultimately decide how it is spent.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman and by his colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). Among other things, the amendment modifies the bill's so-called netting provisions to conform them to important changes made to Federal law in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which was signed into law December 21, 2000. I might point out to my colleagues that the provisions in this amendment were passed by this House in a bipartisan overwhelming vote last year, but they never made it into law. What they do is promote an orderly unwinding of financial contracts in those instances in which one party to a derivative contract becomes insolvent and those contracts go into a bankruptcy proceeding. This avoids that possibility. We all found out from the long-term capital management situation, and that was 1998, a major hedge fund, what a situation that was. We want to avoid that in the future, tying these contracts up in a long bankruptcy proceeding. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act made a number of important changes to the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives. The law expressly excluded certain derivative contracts from the Commodities Exchange Act, and allowed for the formation of new clearing entities. The amendment before the House now would update the ``financial contracts'' definition and the netting provisions to reflect new market developments in the swaps industry and the changes made in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Let me again commend the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this important amendment to the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. If we do not do it, the next time we have a major financial player threatened with insolvency we will find ourselves needing to pass this, and we might as well get ahead of the game.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material concerning Senate Concurrent Resolution 154.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The resolution before us today, Mr. Speaker, recognizes one of the truly unsung contributions made in this country, that of thousands of coin collectors who buy commemorative coins issued by the United States Mint. Senator Lott introduced this resolution in the Senate, and it was passed on the Senate floor last week on October 23. This resolution acknowledges and salutes the ongoing generosity, loyalty, and significant role that coin collectors have played in supporting our Nation's charitable organizations, foundations, institutions, and programs. While coin collecting has been a hobby for many years, collecting commemorative coins is a little different. The coins are issued in a limited quantity, and they have surcharges that make the cost much more than the face value of the coins. The coin community has been very supportive and generous in buying commemorative coins during the last 20 years, a period of significant change for the commemorative coin program. Since 1982, when Congress resumed the commemorative coin program, which was after a 28-year break, 37 commemorative coins have been authorized. In addition to the honor given to the recipients and the educational value of these coins, they have also raised more than $400 million for a variety of charitable organizations and other worthy causes. That is $407 million to be exact. Our Nation's coin collectors and coin dealers have been essential to the success of these programs. They have purchased nearly 49 million commemorative coins, which has yielded $1.8 billion in revenue and, as I mentioned, $407 million in contributions to very deserving causes. This resolution recognizes the accomplishments and the contributions of the commemorative coin community and gives them the recognition that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 154) to acknowledge and salute the contributions of coin collectors.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 102) recognizing that the Birmingham Pledge has made a significant contribution in fostering racial harmony and reconciliation in the United States and around the world, and for other purposes.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 102.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), and I introduced the National Birmingham Pledge Resolution. The resolution has over 100 cosponsors, a bipartisan group, and it passed the House on quite an overwhelming vote on September 12. It went over to the Senate; the Senate made one small change in the wording and passed it last week. The resolution recognizes that personal efforts to address racism will contribute significantly in fostering racial harmony. Individuals can, by their actions, make a difference. Anyone who has seen the new movie, ``Pay It Forward,'' knows that one person, by their efforts, can make a difference in the world. The resolution additionally recognizes that the Birmingham Pledge is making a significant contribution in fostering racial harmony. It commends those involved in the creation of the Pledge, including Jim Rotch, who authored the Pledge, and those who have signed it. It expresses the sense of Congress that a National Birmingham Pledge week should be established. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In considering this resolution, we should all keep in mind one thing, and that is that we are not born with prejudice or bigotry. These are things that are learned. In fact, psychologists call it learned behavior. By word or by action we teach our children daily. We teach them to either be tolerant or to be intolerant; to have prejudices and biases against other people because of their race, their origin, or not to be. We teach them these things many times, even before they are old enough to choose for themselves. We can teach our children to love, or we can teach our children to hate. Intolerance is learned; therefore it can be unlearned. The Pledge can be a part of that process. This is the message we want to send Americans today about race relations. Each of us needs to take personal responsibility to conduct ourselves in a way that will achieve greater racial harmony in our own communities. It has been said that events in Birmingham during the early 1960s, and my colleague from Virginia referred to some of those, stirred the conscience of the Nation and influenced the course of civil rights in the world. I know of no other city that has worked harder to overcome its missteps and its mistakes than my native city, Birmingham. My colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), when this resolution came up before, said that there has been a real positive change in race relations in Birmingham other the past 40 years. He and I are both natives of Birmingham, and we are proud of the progress that our city has made. The Birmingham that has emerged is one built on a foundation of racial sensitivity and strength and diversity. Today's Birmingham is dedicated not only to preserving the history of its struggle but, more importantly, to ending racial intolerance, bigotry, and prejudice, not only in Birmingham but around the world. That is why this effort is being made by Birmingham civic groups and educational groups. Mr. Speaker, by passing House Resolution 102, the House will again be showing its support for their commendable effort. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his support and his kind remarks. He has been a sponsor of this bill since the very beginning. In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this worthy resolution.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3164) to protect seniors from fraud.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 3164.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is Senate bill 3164, titled ``Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act.'' It was introduced by Senators Evan Bayh and Rod Grams and passed the other body unanimously on October 25. The bill will provide funding to local programs that are a part of the National Association of TRIADs, a community policing program that partners law enforcement agencies with senior citizen volunteers to help reduce fraud and other crime especially against the elderly. There are 725 countries with TRIADs nationwide which help more than 16 million of our seniors. Mr. Speaker, American seniors are disproportionately victims of telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud. Even though Americans over the age of 50 account for only 27 percent of the United States population, they comprise 56 percent of the so-called ``mooch lists'' used by fraudulent telemarketers. Unfortunately, fraudulent telemarketers prey upon trusting seniors who by their nature are often trusting and compassionate individuals. As a result, seniors in our country lose approximately $14.8 billion, that is almost $15 billion, every year to fraudulent telemarketers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the crimes that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) spoke about, these crimes which cost our elderly citizens $15 billion a year, many of them can be prevented if seniors are educated about their consumer rights and if they are informed about methods available to them to confirm the legitimacy of an investment or product offered to them over the telephone. According to a national survey, 70 percent of older fraud victims say it is difficult for them to identify when fraud is happening. Forty percent of older Americans say that they have difficulty distinguishing between a legitimate and a fraudulent telemarketing sales call. There is definitely a need to educate seniors about the dangers of fraud and how to avoid becoming a victim of fraud, and that is what this legislation attempts to do. It addresses this problem by authorizing a million dollars each year for 5 years to ensure the continuation of programs which try to educate seniors. The bill also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to disseminate information to seniors on fraud prevention through the area agencies on aging and other existing senior-focused programs. The bill continues a provision which would require the statistics concerning crime committed against seniors be included in the Annual Crime Victims Survey performed by the Department of Justice and would also require the Attorney General to conduct a specific study of crimes committed against seniors. In conclusion, let me say that protecting seniors from fraud is of great importance to all of us. Our senior population continues to grow as our population ages and more seniors are saving money for their retirement, and anything this body can do to help them protect their retirement income and retirement money is important. Our seniors deserve to know about those who would defraud them, and this program will help inform them of various schemes and devices used to defraud them. It has the strong support of the law enforcement community, bipartisan support. I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Chairman Leach and Mr. Lazio, and my colleagues on the House Banking Committee for their tireless work on moving legislation that brings some much-needed reforms to the overall housing industry. S. 1452 will enhance home ownership throughout the country. Furthermore, I am pleased to see that many provisions of H.R. 1776, the Housing and Economic Opportunity Act, have been included in the S. 1452. As my colleagues may remember, H.R. 1776 passed our chamber earlier in the year by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 417 to 8. However, there is one particular omission that concerns me. Unfortunately, this omission may ultimately have an impact on the number of families who will realize the American Dream of homeownership. The provision that has been omitted from S. 1452 is Section 102 of H.R. 1776. Section 102 requires that the Federal government perform a housing impact analysis before it issues new regulations. The impact analysis would determine if a significant negative impact on affordable housing would result from those new regulations. ``Significant'' would be defined as increasing consumers' cost of housing by more than $100,000,000 per year. Further, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1776 stipulates that the private sector would have an opportunity to submit an alternative to the proposed regulation if it would have less of a negative impact on the cost of homeownership. As with the other provisions in Title I of H.R. 1776, the goal of the housing impact analysis is to alert federal agencies and the general public of the impact of regulation on housing affordability. Ultimately, the objective would be to help bring down the cost of a home by minimizing regulations that pose a barrier to homeownership. The housing impact analysis addresses this issue by requiring the Federal government to perform an ``internal check'' of sorts in a quest to see if the regulation might be constructed in a better way that would not lock some individuals out of homeownership. I see this internal check as a positive action, Mr. Speaker, and I am concerned that this worthy provision, a provision 417 of my colleagues supported, was left out of the legislation that comes before us today. I hope that this concept does not die with the closing of the 106th Congress, but is reviewed again next year, with the commencement of the 107th.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, Indiana is losing two great Representatives when this session ends: the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). I think I can speak for all Members when I say that this is not only a loss for Indiana, it is a loss for this body. Both of them are intelligent, hard working Members of Congress. Both of them have remained true to their principles, and both are dedicated to upholding the honor of this House and to the American people. I had the pleasure of serving with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He has the distinction, and I know of no other Member that can make this claim, of attending every single meeting of that committee. But when one looks at where the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) came from and what he accomplished before he came to Congress, that is not surprising. When one compares the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), there are a lot of comparisons. Both of them are down-to-earth people. They are common guys. They are nonpresumptuous. They are easy to meet, courteous. It may come as some surprise to the Members of this body that both of them, in their educational backgrounds, they excel. They do not try to impress one with their IQ or their intelligence. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) graduated with distinction from Indiana University and his J.D. degree, Cum Laude, from Indiana University. Now, I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) better. I knew Ruthie. My wife Linda and I knew their daughter Ellie, who was born in 1997. But it was not until sometime later that I discovered that he came from a small farming town, Kendallville, in Indiana, and that he worked in a foundry to save money for his college education. That university was Yale University. He is a Yale University graduate. He worked in the White House under Ronald Reagan. He was asked by this House to chair the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction. Now, on that subcommittee, I think one of his greatest accomplishments was spearheading efforts to strengthen laws that protect the environment and health and safety. At the same time, he did away with a lot of silly, unnecessary, down right stupid regulations. One required every paving crew to work in a heavy shirt and long pants on Indiana roads, even if it were over 100 degrees. He was able to work to eliminate laws like that. Whether it is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), former Eagle Scout, going back to work in Indiana or the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), hopefully the next Governor of Indiana, they are going to be missed in this body.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, we use a lot of figures; we talk about millions of people, we talk about a half million people dying. I want to talk about a city of 100,000 people. In a city of 100,000 people, 50 people this year will develop colorectal cancer. Now, of those people, most all of them, if not all of them, have precancerous growths or polyps, and those polyps are in their rectum or colon, what we used to call the large bowel, for some time. Many years. In fact, I was examined and they found a polyp and they removed the polyp. Now, there are screening tests available today where these precancerous growths can be found. They are very simple tests. One is an occult blood test, which finds microscopic blood, and they can easily be found. And if an individual is screened, and if these polyps are found, they can easily be removed and it reduces the chances of getting colorectal cancer by 90 percent. The national polyp study showed that. So our first defense against this disease that costs so many lives is simply that people over the age of 50, all our citizens, should go in and discuss with their doctors screening. Their chances will be reduced immediately by 90 percent of even developing a small tumor. But let us just suppose that these 50 out of 100,000 people that would have developed cancer do not go in. If they do not go in and they do develop a small tumor, still when they begin having symptoms, and let me stress that in the early stages, there are no symptoms that are detectable. So you cannot rely on waiting around for symptoms to develop. That is why we need screening, and that is why everyone over the age of 50 ought to have screening. But suppose that they are not screened. Suppose they develop a small tumor. Then there are two things that happen. They have a discharge of blood, and it can be something that can be seen but oftentimes it is microscopic. They also have a change in their bowel movements or their bowel habits, diarrhea, constipation, change in frequency, change in size. These are early warning signs. Unfortunately in this country even when people detect blood in their stool, even when they have a change of bowel habits, they often do not do anything. They are not screened. Now, let us suppose that they immediately respond; they go to their doctor, and there is a small growth there. They quickly go in. If they are fortunate to have caught it in that stage and responded immediately and it is still a small growth, their chances of surviving are still above 90 percent. But, sadly, all too often even when there are all sorts of signs, people do not do that. And in the second stage, their chances of survival are only 75 percent. And in the later stages only 5 percent. It is so important that we receive screening to prevent even the development of cancer as in my case, or the early treatment. Unfortunately, people that wait too long, even those that survive, often have a change in their bowel or their bladder functions or in their sexual functions by simply waiting too long, or by failing to have these simple tests that cost very little and can be performed in a doctor's office. I commend those who brought this resolution. I am glad to join as a cosponsor. I simply say to Americans out there over the age of 50, you are at risk for developing colorectal cancer; but it can be prevented, and it can be treated. It just depends on every person and every family's commitment to responding, to taking these tests which are available. And it was so important that this Congress made available to our citizens the right to protect their health and to protect their bodies and to preserve their health by providing this service.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, introduced by request of the Treasury Department, is a simple technical corrections bill, and does just three things. Most importantly, the Mint has sought language that would excuse it from law that requires it to make a silver ``proof'' version of the new golden one-dollar coin. It's obvious that it makes no sense at all to make a silver version of a coin that is golden in color, but language left over from the time when silver-colored Susan B. Anthony dollar coins were being made would require the all-silver ``proof'' version. Not having this clarification has held up the Mint's production of ``proof'' sets for collectors, and as it is illegal to produce coins in a year other than the one in which they are issued, failure to pass this bill would either result in a nonsensical ``proof'' set or no ``proof'' set for collectors at all this year. Also contained in the bill is a clarifying section inserting the work ``platinum,'' inadvertently dropped when Congress authorized the production of platinum and platinum bullion coins a few years ago, and a section calling for some increased reporting requirements on the Mint's costs of producing, distributing and marketing circulating coins. This is a small bill, but important to the Mint and important to coin collectors. it has no cost implications whatsoever. I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.