Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for their work on this bill and also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her work. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are several people which should be recognized as a part of this effort, and I think the first one of those should be the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She and her staff have worked tirelessly on this issue, and I would like to particularly recognize Jon Bouker for his work, a member of her staff. I would also like to salute the delegates of the various territories. The gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) is here with us today. The gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) is making his way back from Guam. That is quite a chore. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) will speak, along with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). The House may recall that when he first proposed this quarter program, there was quite a bit of resistance. Some thought that it would be unsuccessful, that it would even be a disaster. That word was used. In fact, it has been a great success. Sometime ago, in fact, when that legislation was brought up, he made assurances to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that at some time the District of Columbia would be added. I look forward to hearing from these people who played quite a role in bringing this legislation before us today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today the House meets to consider a bill that builds on the immense popularity of the 50-State quarter program that has vast numbers of Americans looking in their pocket every day at their change. This is an addition which should be made to the legislation. It is overdue, and it recognizes the contributions of the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. There are many issues in this country that divide us, but there are issues that unite us; and I am happy to arise today in the spirit of unity in a bipartisan way to celebrate our diversity, to celebrate the territories that are a part of these United States and also the District of Columbia. It is appropriate and it is fitting that we should add six new quarters to the 50-State quarter program. Those will be American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Without further delay, I think it would be appropriate to hear from the representatives of the District of Columbia and the territories. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5010) to provide for a circulating quarter dollar coin program to commemorate the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 on H.R. 1715, the bill just considered.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4096) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to produce currency, postage stamps, and other security documents at the request of foreign governments, and security documents at the request of the individual States or any political subdivision thereof, on a reimbursable basis, and for other purposes.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this week Birmingham, Alabama, is hosting an MSNBC and Newsweek Magazine National Conference on Race Relations. One of the highlights of this conference is the Birmingham Pledge movement. The Birmingham Pledge is a personal commitment to work to eliminate racial division in America and around the world. Those who sign the Pledge make a personal promise to treat all individuals with dignity and respect. More than 70,000 people from every inhabited continent on the globe have signed the Birmingham Pledge. Every signed Pledge is returned to Birmingham and recorded at the Civil Rights Institute as a permanent testament to racial reconciliation, peace and harmony. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), both of us being natives of Birmingham, Alabama, we introduced this resolution on June 14, 2000. This resolution has the support of 107 cosponsors, a bipartisan group of Members of the House. The resolution recognizes that personal efforts, the efforts of individuals, do matter, and do make a difference in addressing racial intolerance and do contribute significantly in fostering racial harmony. As we speak, MSNBC is conducting a televised live town hall meeting on race relations from the historic 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Newsweek Magazine this week printed a special issue on diversity in America to coincide with the Birmingham Summit. The resolution before us recognizes that the Birmingham Pledge is making a significant contribution in fostering racial harmony. It commends those involved with 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 move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. In considering this resolution, we should all keep in mind one thing: 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 either to be tolerant or to be intolerant, to have prejudice or bias against people because of their race, or 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 will send to 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 referred to many of those, stirred the conscience of the Nation and influenced the course of civil rights around the world. I know of no city that has worked harder to overcome its missteps and its mistakes than my native city, Birmingham. The Birmingham that has emerged is one built upon 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. Mr. Speaker, by passing House Resolution 102, the House will show its support for this commendable effort. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 H.J. Res. 102.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Birmingham in inviting all Members not only to support this resolution, but to support this pledge and to live this pledge on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud this body because tonight we are talking about some issues that we ought to all address. We ought to address the issue, are we committed to the principles of liberty and justice? Do we stand against slavery? Do we stand against involuntary servitude? If we are against these things, if we are for justice, if we are for liberty, does our commitment stop at the shoreline, or does it extend beyond our country? In dealing with other countries, should we extend those principles to them? Or should we be against involuntary servitude only in our country, but it is fine for us to impose it on the rest of the world? That is a question we should ask. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said these countries are ruled by monsters, by hooligans. He had it half right. They were. It is those monsters and those hooligans that we loaned this money to. It actually was not money we loaned them. We financed the defense industry and allowed them to sell these monsters and these hooligans weapons. These monsters and these hooligans bombed their people. They napalmed their people as their people fought for democracy like we did 2 centuries ago. At the end of the Revolutionary War, what if Britain had required us to pay them the cost of the war? What would we have said to Britain? These people that we are not imposing this debt on and requiring them to repay, they are the very people that were beaten down by the dictators and the monsters with arms and weapons that we sold them as ``foreign aid.'' It is immoral to require them to repay this money. Let me close by saying this: debt relief is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. It is not a total solution to poverty, to hunger, to disease; but it is the first step. It is a necessary step. It is where the journey should begin to free these countries of the burden of debt, the chains of poverty, the shackles of despair, to enable them to minister to the economic and social needs of their people, of their children. It is the first step in raising the standard of living of those living in these impoverished nations, those in most need, those most vulnerable, the most helpless. Without debt relief, these nations and their citizens are overwhelmed by debt, far exceeding their ability to pay. These nations do not have the ability to pay, to repay the debt and, at the same time, to offer necessary social and economic support to their people. Here is the choice. We can continue to require the debt to be paid, and as long as we require the debt to be paid, children will not be fed. Require the debt to be paid and children will not be clothed. Continue to require the debt to be paid, and children will not go to school. It is our decision. Let us make the decision. Let us not withhold from these poor children clothes on their backs, food in their stomachs, the right to attend school. The decision is ours.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Well, I would like to approach it in a different way, and I think a consensus has been built on the floor of this House from everyone. I have heard no one stand up and say that this is something that should not be done. I have heard the gentleman from California, and the gentleman from California obviously has not read the legislation because he says that it will go to monsters in countries who abuse human rights. In the legislation it restricts money for those countries. So I would simply say to you, when you speak on this legislation, have some understanding of it. Do not claim that we need things in the legislation which are already there and have been since the beginning of this legislation. But despite that, let me simply say this. A consensus is building here tonight, and whether it is on the floor of this House tonight or it is 2 weeks from tonight, if everyone has spoken the truth on the floor of this House tonight, with some exception, some are not supporting debt relief, some do not believe that it is a good idea, and I applaud their honesty, I applaud their honesty to say $1.20 is too much to spend to save 40,000 people a day. If my colleagues believe that, say it and we will have a vote. But sometime before we go home this year, we should fund this, if we believe that we should do something about 40,000 people a day, that we could save a number of those people. No one that has looked at this issue believes that it will not help. There is no one that has looked at this issue that has said it is not the first step. If we are not concerned enough for children, half the children in these countries who never go to school, not attend one day in school; if we are not concerned that children in these countries are not vaccinated, a 50 cent shot, and as a result they are dying every day; if $1.20 a year is too much, then vote against debt relief. But I would say that the majority of this body recognizes that it is not only in their interest, it is in our interest, it is in our best interest. If my colleagues have looked at this, if they have looked at this issue, far more than anything else they are convinced that this is in our national interest. We have diseases that were thought to be extinct that are now spreading across the globe because of conditions in these countries. They are reaching our shores. They are killing our people. We cannot turn our backs on these conditions without them spilling over our shores. We spend $400 billion and $500 billion making the world safe through arms, yet we turn our back on $1 billion for food, for security and peace. Why can we not do as Eisenhower did with the Marshall Plan? Why can we not give peace a chance? Do we have to change the world only through shipping arms around the world? And if we do it and it is necessary, is it necessary to the tune of $400 billion, yet we cannot find a billion for this? Those are questions we will all have to answer.

Mr. BACHUS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me say this to the gentleman, the bill that reached this floor should have had this money in it.

Mr. BACHUS. It is not we that had chosen one or the other.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me quickly make two points. Twenty-two nations under this legislation are eligible for debt relief. Not one of them is a dictatorship. Let me repeat that. Twenty-two nations are eligible for relief under this legislation. Not a one of them is a dictatorship. Number two. Yes, we loaned much of this money, most of this money, to dictatorships. We never should have done it. We have loaned it to these monsters, and they did take it and they put it in Swiss bank accounts and that is where it went.

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

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

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

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, what are we talking about tonight? I want to quote from Charles Dickens. ``It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair. We had everything before us, we had nothing before us.'' In 1859, it was the Tale of Two Cities, today, sadly, it is the tale of two worlds, one very rich, one very poor. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about two worlds, and we are talking about what our world will do to help the other world. What is the cost of our world helping the other world? Doing what is right, whatever the material cost, should always be the imperative. Nevertheless, let us attempt to count the cost, the cost of acting and the cost of not acting. When we do, I cannot in good faith fail to embrace this unique opportunity to help so many at such a small cost to ourselves. What is the cost of debt relief? At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record what that cost would be for each citizen this year, and it is $1.20. I would like to submit that for the record: $1.20. It is a nominal amount, it is a minimal amount, but it is not an insignificant amount or an inconsequential amount when we realize what it can do for that other world. It is the cost of an ice cream cone. It is the cost of a gallon of gas. In fact, a half gallon of gas. It is the cost of a Sunday paper. Against this minuscule sacrifice for our world, what is the cost of not acting? Today, in dozens of poor countries all over the world, little boys and girls are born into poverty, disease and hunger. We in America are fond of saying, ``I had a bad day.'' We should realize that even on our worst days we are blessed with so much more; more food, more shelter, more clothes, more security, more than our poor brothers and sisters are on their best days. We truly cannot comprehend what their day is like. However, I am going to attempt to do so with one quote from Sister Rebecca Trujillo of the Sisters of Notre Dame in Nicaragua. Here is what she writes about the plight of the poor. ``Often in my life,'' she says, ``when I talk about the needs of the poor with whom I work, people say, how do they survive? How do they survive? Since being in Nicaragua, I have taken to answer in a matter of fact way, `Often they do not.' '' That is what we are here tonight to decide, whether they survive or whether they do not. Let me illustrate, in closing, the cost of not acting as it applies to 15 baby girls and baby boys born today into the poorest of countries. Of those 15, without debt relief, three will die before his or her fifth birthday. Of the remaining 12, four will suffer the scourge of malnutrition, with permanent consequences to their physical and mental development. Of the remaining eight, they are in no way fortunate. Their chances of graduating from high school, of drinking clean water, of suffering disease and deprivation, of being orphaned are great, sometimes as much as 50-50. Their burdens are day-to-day, they are painful, they are heavy. We in America have been blessed with a period of almost unparalleled economic prosperity. Never in our history has one country had so much progress, wealth and luxury. Now, with the start of a new millennium, we can do so much for a billion of the poorest citizens of the world. I believe they are our brothers and sisters. At such a small cost to each of us, what a shame if history should look back on us today and say that we passed up so great an opportunity. The responsibility is ours and ours alone. Our moral imperative is not qualified by the rest of the world failing to do what is right. We cannot use other countries' inaction as an excuse for our inaction. The decision is ours. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say the decision is three things: First, it is a decision that will follow us. For the people living in these poor countries, their suffering is temporal. It will end with their lives. For us, the decision will follow us. We will not only live with this in this life, but we will live with it in the next. Second, the decision will define us. It will define us as either a loving people, a people filled with grace and compassion, or it will define us as a people focused on the monetary, the temporal. And third, and I think this is most important, this is not a decision that the poor countries of the world will make, it is our decision. We have the responsibility, we have the obligation, and we have the direction as to what is the right thing to do. For this decision, whether we are a follower of the Islam religion, whether we are a Muslim, whether we are Christian, or whether we are Jewish, all those religions give us a moral imperative in such a case, and that imperative is to act. To me, there is really only one decision.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, the Cahaba River has 131 species of fish, fresh water fish. That may not mean a lot, we have heard that figure twice today, but let me put that in comparison. That is more species of fresh water fish than the entire State of California. It has more mussels, more species of mussels, than Europe. It has, as the gentleman has already said, more endangered species among those 131 of any river in the United States. But it goes beyond that. It has eight plants which had never been discovered. They were discovered on an expedition in 1992. It has more species of crayfish than any other river in the United States. So we are talking about a national treasure. We are talking about a national treasure that will not be here for our grandchildren unless we pass this bill. The reason for that is that this river has been preserved along its lower course in its natural state until the past 5 or 10 years, as metropolitan Birmingham began to encroach on its watershed, and there was a tremendous amount of development in the upper watershed. In fact, today during the dry season as much as 99 percent of the water flow is diverted from the Cahaba River. That has had a tremendous negative impact on the lower stretches of the river. Also, as this river becomes more and more known for its beauty, it has the largest stand of what is called aquatic lilies in the world. That has been advertised in the past 4 or 5 years. People have come down by the hundreds to view these lilies. Unfortunately, when they have come, they have actually gotten into the river and used crowbars and ripped some of these bulbs from the river, because this stand of lilies is in an area of the river that is owned by private landowners. This has disturbed the people of Bibb County, who have enjoyed this beautiful river for years. The Bibb County Commission, the cities along the lower stretches of the river, and the landowners themselves all uniformly agreed that something needed to be done. The Nature Conservancy, this is the national Nature Conservancy, they published a book in 1998, and in that they said, and I think this is something that all of us in Congress probably do not realize, and I know I did not, it said, ``Few of us realize that the diversity of life in fresh water systems in the United States is exceptional, even when compared to the tropics. However, two centuries of dam construction, water withdrawals, land use alterations, pollution, and introduction of non-native species have led to the acceleration and in many cases irreparable losses of fresh water species.'' They then went on to identify some watersheds that contain these endangered species. Unfortunately, this publication points out that Alabama leads the Nation in the number of species which are now extinct. Eight percent of the fresh water in the United States flows through Alabama. We have more passable rivers, more navigable rivers in miles, over 1,400, than any other State, but we have the dubious distinction of having the most extinct species. We also have 69 that are endangered. Fortunately, almost all of those reside in this river. Almost all of those reside within this 15-mile stretch, so this piece of legislation is the first step in preserving this river and these species not only of fish but also of mussels and crayfish and other animals in the river from extinction. I would urge a ``yes'' vote. Madam Speaker, in addition to my remarks, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to several people who have made this legislation a success. Wendy Allen and the Members of The Nature Conservancy of Alabama. Beth Stewart and the Members of the Cahaba River Society. U.S. Alliance--Coosa Pines and the other private landowners who have been extremely supportive and patient throughout this entire process. The Bibb County Commission and local Cahaba River Authority. Commissioner Riley B. Smith of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, as well as, Majority Leader Armey for scheduling the bill on the Suspension Calendar today and Chairman Don Young and Subcommittee Chair Mr. Saxton for their support of this bill.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from New Mexico for bringing forward what I think is an opportunity for this entire House to make a strong and unanimous statement that this surplus that we have, a lot of it, can be placed on Medicare. Achieving a balanced budget has long been a Republican economic objective, and it is a good one; and we can credit our current strong vibrant economy to our fiscal discipline. But damaging our health care system was never our intent in passing the Balanced Budget Act. It was the intent of Congress to slow the growth of Medicare to a manageable 5 percent. However, in 1999, it was actually a negative 1 percent. Hopefully, we can all agree that is not acceptable. The CBO now reports that Medicare reductions achieved through the Balanced Budget Act are $124 billion larger than Congress actually voted for, $124 billion; and part of that, a good bit of that, is because of HCFA's restrictive interpretations. Our hospitals are experiencing increasingly smaller profit margins, and we should all realize that this threatens to diminish the quality of care that they provide. Credible sources report that these margins are currently at their lowest point in years. And some valid responsible authorities are projecting that within 4 years half our Nation's hospitals will actually be losing money. In my home State of Alabama, studies are projecting that 70 percent of our hospitals are currently running in the red and several will close. We cannot stand by and let this happen and call it an unintended consequence. That is what this resolution is about. We owe our constituents more than that. Our challenge is to find a balance, responsibly controlling government spending on one hand and sufficiently funding our hospitals on the other. America can boast the finest health care system in the world. There have been incredible advances in medicine in recent years, with the real hope of miraculous achievement in defeating illness, pain and suffering. Just this week the magnificent accomplishment of mapping the human Genome was formally announced, bringing with it the promise of major breakthroughs in preventive medicine. But all of these new miraculous developments come with a hefty price tag. Our hospitals must have sound and reliable financial support to be able to offer these new miracles to all of us. Making sure that our financial support is available is a mandate we in Congress cannot sidestep. We should be true to our obligations. I close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that there is a bottom line in this discussion. When our loved one is seriously ill, only the very best medical care is good enough. We must not fail to provide sufficient funding to assure such care is reasonably available to all. American medical care is an honest and undeniable bargain by any measure. Its true cost is not measured in dollars and cents alone but also in the health and well-being of all our people. For that reason, I enthusiastically support this resolution and hope that people on both sides of the aisle will join with me.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we not only honor the three astronauts, we also honor those other heroes at NASA, for their achievement is a tribute to the thousands of engineers, scientists and others at NASA whose extraordinary efforts made the journey possible. It is fitting that we do so this year as we begin both a new century and a new millennium. America again faces new and bold challenges both in space and here on Earth. As we do so, the ingenuity, courage and determination shown by the astronauts can be our guide. Their love of freedom and pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of all mankind symbolizes the greatness of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), the sponsor of the bill.