Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my friend and colleague and the author of this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS. 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 to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 122.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 122) recognizing the United States Border Patrol's 75 years of service since its founding.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would depoliticize the selection process, it would address problems of patronage in the present system, and, most importantly, it would allow us to appoint more experienced U.S. Marshals, marshals not only experienced in law enforcement but, more importantly, experienced in the complexities of the U.S. Marshals' job. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to once again manage this bill on behalf of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who is the chief architect of this bill and legislation in previous Congresses, which was actually the same legislation. I want to recognize his important leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, the United States Marshals Service is the Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency. It is an agency of the Department of Justice. It is charged with many important and varied, and I stress that word varied, law enforcement responsibilities, including operating the witness security program, which is a very complex program, protecting the Federal judiciary, apprehending Federal fugitives, managing seized and forfeited assets in the Federal Court system, and transporting Federal prisoners between Federal prisons. Today, there are 94 U.S. marshals, one for each Federal judicial district. Each of these persons is presently appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. But, unfortunately, there is no criteria for the selection of marshals. In fact, no managerial or law enforcement experience is even required, and it is that managerial experience that has given us problems. It is an unfamiliarity with the witness security program that has given us problems. It is not being familiar with the Federal court system and the special procedures there that has given us problems. Unlike all other Marshals Service employees, each U.S. Marshal is exempt from the control or discipline of the director of the Marshals Service, cannot be reassigned, and can only be removed by the President or upon appointment of a successor. This lack of accountability has resulted in numerous problems, including budgetary irresponsibility among some marshals. A lack of law enforcement experience, and even more so the lack of experience in carrying out the specialized duties of the Marshals office and unfamiliarity among some appointed marshals with the mission of the Marshals Service, has led to a glut of middle managers who must assist the U.S. Marshal rather than actively pursue the work that the Deputy U.S. Marshals are supposed to do. Mr. Speaker, this bill will address those problems. It is the United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1999. It will professionalize the Marshals Service by amending the selection process for U.S. Marshals. Under this bill, all marshals would be selected by the Attorney General from persons who work in the Federal Civil Service System. The bill will help to ensure that only career Federal employees with law enforcement and, as I said, more importantly with managerial experience, will be appointed as U.S. Marshals. In fact, I expect that most, if not all, future marshals will come from the ranks of career marshal employees, people that have experience dealing with the day-to- day intricacies of the Marshals Service. The changes put forth by this bill will go into effect January 1, 2002. In the interim, all U.S. Marshals currently serving will continue to perform their duties until their terms expire, unless they resign or are removed by the President. And all marshal vacancies that must be filled between the date of the enactment of this legislation and December 31, 2001, will be filled as currently done, by presidential appointment, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a 4-year term. The text of H.R. 2336 is identical to a bill introduced in the 105th Congress by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), H.R. 927, the United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1997. That bill passed the House on the suspension calendar by a voice vote on March 18, 1997. Unfortunately, the other body did not act on that bill, and so the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) reintroduced the legislation in this Congress, and that legislation is H.R. 2336. This legislation continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. 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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 2336, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, law enforcement agencies have said that this bill is necessary for them to protect the citizens who are their charge to protect. The National Center for Victims of Crime has given a strong endorsement to this bill. Sometimes here we become cynical, but I can honestly say that this legislation that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) has brought before us will make America a safer place and will protect many Americans from unnecessarily being stalked. I simply would like to again give my thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who drafted the underlying legislation.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who we learned today had three brothers that fought in World War II.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in my opening statement on this bill, I mentioned that California passed the first law, the first anti-stalking statute of all the United States. I also mentioned the Federal statute that this body passed. I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the author of both of those bills, the California statute and the first Federal statute.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the fine work the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) did on this bill, and express our appreciation on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) for the gentleman's fine work on this bill. I think this is a great example of a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who is the architect of this bill, and as I said, it represents the culmination of 4 years of labor on her part.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I do rise at this time in support of H.R. 1869, the Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999. The bill was introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and this bill has been the result of 4 years of hard labor on behalf of the gentlewoman from New York. She recognized that presently we have over 1 million women in this country that are being stalked, we have about 400,000 men, and we have hundreds of thousands of children that are now being stalked because of the Internet. The full Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported the bill as amended by voice vote. The goals of the bill are to expand the reach of the Federal stalking statute to prosecute cyberstalkers who are currently beyond the reach of Federal law enforcement but are deserving of Federal prosecution, and to better protect stalking victims by authorizing pretrial detention for alleged stalkers, and mandating the issuing of a civil protection order against convicted stalkers. These goals are worthwhile, and these goals will give Federal prosecutors the tools they need to prosecute stalkers who might otherwise not be prosecuted at the State and local level. That said, let me emphasize that the vast majority of stalking cases are, and even after this legislation passes, will be prosecuted at the State and local level. This legislation does not in any way seek to federalize stalking crimes. What it does do is that it will help Federal prosecutors respond to predatory stalking behavior that under current law is beyond the reach of State and local officials because of cyberstalking. The bill would make several significant changes or additions to current law. I would like to go over those at this time. First, it would reach stalkers who use the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce to stalk their victims. A lot of times, that is the Internet. Under current law, Federal jurisdiction over stalking crimes is triggered only when a stalker actually crosses State lines physically with the intent to injure or harass a person, and his conduct places that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. So Members can see from that definition, it would not include someone stalking by use of the mail or the Internet, because they would not physically cross a State line. This bill actually just brings us into the electronic age, and is long overdue. The physical travel requirements preclude the Federal prosecution of stalkers who use other means of interstate communication, such as mail or the Internet, to threaten or harass their victims. With the explosive growth of the Internet and other telecommunication technologies, there is evidence of cyberstalking. Stalking using advanced communication technologies is becoming a serious problem. I am sure the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) will speak further to that. The second thing this bill does, Mr. Chairman, it will require that a Federal court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of stalking, that it issue a protective order to protect the victim from further stalking prior to the trial. Unfortunately, some stalkers remain interested in their targets for years, even after they have been prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for stalking. A civil protection order would permit a Federal court to maintain jurisdiction over the convicted stalker after the completion of the sentence imposed by the crime, both to reduce the threat of future stalking by the defendant, and to provide an enforcement mechanism should the order be violated. That is the probation order, in most cases, or the protective order. The suspension document presently before the House contains a modification to the protection order language, specifically to paragraph C of what will be the new 18 U.S. Code Section 2261(a). Concern was expressed with the reported version of the bill that protective orders might continue in force in perpetuity, long after any need for them. The suspension document addresses that problem by assuring that a Federal court will have the discretion to craft a protective order to fit the circumstances of each case. The new language reads that such an order ``shall remain in effect for such time as the court deems necessary, and may be modified, extended, or terminated at any time after notice to the victim and an opportunity for a hearing.'' Third, the bill would permit a Federal court to order the detention of an alleged stalking defendant pending trial in order to assure the safety of the victim and the community, as well as the defendant's appearance at trial. This is because of one simple fact. This is that fact, that stalking victims run a higher risk of being assaulted or even killed by a stalker immediately after the criminal justice system intervenes; that is, just after the stalker is arrested and then released on bond, prior to trial. Mr. Speaker, it was only 9 years ago that the first anti-stalking statute was passed in California. Since that time, all 50 States have enacted stalking statutes in one form or another. Congress passed the first Federal stalking statute in 1996. This bill would be the first amendment to that statute since it was enacted. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will give Federal prosecutors better tools to more effectively prosecute interstate stalking in cyberstalking cases and to better protect the victims of those crimes and the community. I urge all my colleagues to support the bill as amended. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to manage this bill on behalf of my friend and my colleague from Florida, Mr. McCollum, and want to recognize his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1869, the ``Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999.'' The bill was introduced by Representative Sue Kelly and has bipartisan support. The Full Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill, as amended, by a voice vote. The goals of the bill are to expand the reach of the Federal stalking statute to prosecute cyber stalkers who are currently beyond the reach of federal law enforcement but are deserving of federal prosecution, and to better protect stalking victims by authorizing pretrial detention for alleged stalkers and mandating the issuance of civil protection orders against convicted stalkers. I believe these goals are worthwhile. I believe we should give federal prosecutors the tools they need to prosecute stalkers who might otherwise not be prosecuted at the state and local level. That said, let me emphasize that the vast majority of stalking cases are, and if this legislation passes, will continue to be, prosecuted at the state and local level. This legislation does not seek to federalize stalking crimes. But H.R. 1869, as amended, will help federal prosecutors respond to predatory stalking behavior that, under current law, is beyond their reach--like cyberstalking. The bill would make several significant changes or additions to current law. First, it would reach stalkers who use the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce to stalk their victims. Under current law, Federal jurisdiction over a stalking crime is triggered only when a stalker travels across a state line with the intent to injury or harass a person and his conduct places that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. The physical travel requirement precludes the federal prosecution of stalkers who use other means of interstate communication--such as the mail or the Internet--to threaten or harass their victims. With the explosive growth of the Internet and other telecommunications technologies, there is evidence that cyberstalking--stalking using advanced communications technologies--is becoming a serious problem. Second, H.R. 1869 would require that a Federal court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of stalking, issue a protection order to protect the victim from further stalking. Unfortunately, some stalkers remain interested in their targets for years, even after they have been prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for stalking. A civil protection order would permit a Federal court to maintain jurisdiction over a convicted stalker after the completion of the sentence imposed for the crime, both to reduce the threat of future stalking by the defendant and to provide an enforcement mechanism should the order be violated. The suspension document presently before the House contains a modification to the protection order language--specifically, to paragraph (c) of what would be the new 18 U.S.C. section 2261A. Concern was expressed with the reported version of the bill that protection orders might continue in force in perpetuity, long after any need for them. The suspension document addresses that problem by assuring that a Federal court will have the discretion to craft a protection order to fit the circumstances of the case. The new language reads that such an order ``shall remain in effect for such time as the court deems necessary, and may be modified, extended or terminated at any time after notice to the victim and an opportunity for a hearing.'' Third, H.R. 1869 would permit a Federal court to order the detention of an alleged stalking defendant pending trial in order to assure the safety of the victim and the community as well as the defendant's appearance at trial. Stalking victims run a higher risk of being assaulted or even killed by the stalker immediately after the criminal justice system intervenes--that is, just after the stalker is arrested and then released on bail. Mr. Speaker, it was only nine years ago that the first anti-stalking statute was passed in California. Since then, all 50 States have enacted stalking statutes of one form or another. Congress passed the first federal stalking law in 1996. H.R. 1869 would be the first amendment to that statute since it was enacted. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will give Federal prosecutors better tools to more effectively prosecute interstate stalking and cyberstalking cases and to better protect the victims of these crimes. I urge all my colleagues to support the bill as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am managing this bill on behalf of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), my friend and colleague, and at this time I would like to recognize his leadership on this bill and also the leadership of the chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill now under consideration.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1869) to amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the prohibition on stalking, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, if Members do not know where Rocky Ridge is, it is at the end of Rocky Ridge Road. We used to tell people, if you could find it, you can have it. Not many people took us up on the challenge. In 1933, Glass-Steagall. In 1933, if we wanted to travel across the United States, we had to do so on gravel U.S. roads, U.S. highways, or dirt top U.S. highways, dirt roads. If we wanted to travel on an airplane, there were three-engine Ford tri-motor airplanes, biplanes. They are in the Smithsonian today. Our railroads, we had steam engines on our railroads. If we want to see a steam engine today, we have to go to China. They are mothballing their last few steam engines. Today we still have Glass-Steagall. Now, imagine traveling across the Nation on gravel U.S. highways. Imagine how time-consuming that would be. Imagine how inefficient steam engines would be if they pulled our freight trains. Imagine flying home on the weekends in a biplane. That is what our banks and financial institutions are attempting to do every day with a law that was passed in 1933. 1933 was the year that Albert Einstein emigrated to America. He became famous and now he has died, but we still have Glass-Steagall, until we pass this bill. Glass-Steagall will mean $15 billion worth of savings to the American people each year. Not only will they save money through convenience and competition, they will save time. Time is money. It will be much more convenient. It is time that we turned American ingenuity loose. Madam Speaker, this legislation, in addition to making historic reforms to the structure of our financial services industry creates new protections for consumers, including a prohibition on a financial institution disclosing non-public personal information inappropriately. In creating this new regime, I thought it important that we understand that the realities of day-to-day business for certain financial institutions necessarily involves the disclosure of such information and to make clear that we did not intend to interfere with such legitimate actions. Companies chartered by Congress to operate in the secondary mortgage market are one such example. Because these companies do not engage in mortgage transactions directly with the consumer, they are not in a position to provide the notices and disclosures that we call for in Title V. Sweeping them within Title V's purview would have created burdens and uncertainty without furthering the Title's consumer protection objectives. Therefore, the Conference Report contains language I authored that exempts these institutions from Title V's definition as long as they do not sell or transfer non-public personal information to non-affiliated third parties. The Conferees intend to provide the FTC with regulatory and enforcement authority over secondary market institutions only to the extent that such institutions engage in activities outside the provisions of Section 502. Let me make clear that the types of ``transfers'' that would pull these institutions back within Title V's scope are transfers other than those contemplated by Sections 502(b)(2) or 502(e). For institutions covered by Title V, we recognize that the uses of non-public, personal information that Sections 502(b)(2) or 502(e) contemplate are legitimate. This same standard applies to the secondary market institutions covered by Section 509(3)(D). To the extent that these companies go beyond these parameters, I expect that they will be generally subject to Title V. Finally, I am offended at the seemingly intentional misrepresentation by certain mortgage insurance and mortgage lending groups of my amendment's effect. My objective in offering this amendment and securing its inclusion in the Conference Report was to exempt those operating in the secondary mortgage market from Title V to the extent that they engage in uses of information that Title V accepts as appropriate and as creating no additional obligation on the part of those institutions. In this manner, I wanted to ensure that these companies remain able to fulfill the important purposes that Congress chartered them to serve. Consumers in communities throughout the country benefit from the liquidity and the access to affordable housing finance that these institutions provide; indiscriminately subjecting secondary mortgage market entities would have made consumers no better off--and perhaps worse off.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is the relationship between a doctor and a patient. Most of these patients are dying patients, at least that is what we assume. These people are at their weakest, they are at their most vulnerable, their complete trust, in fact, their life is in the hands of their doctor. They have every right to expect that their doctor is going to be a healer and not a killer; that their doctor is not going to seek a quick fix. Doctors have the right to prescribe very useful, very strong, very powerful drugs to alleviate pain. But to alleviate pain, not to eliminate patients. It is to eliminate pain. We, in this country, believe in the sanctity of human life. I can remember my grandmother, very ill in the hospital. I can remember the doctor telling us she would not live through the night. She did live through the night. She came home and she spent 3 more years with my grandfather, and they were productive years. She was not confined to a wheelchair, she was not confined to a bed. Now, this bill has been misrepresented. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I want commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for bringing this bill. Once again let me repeat what this bill does allow doctors to do. And let me say this, doctors support this bill. The American Medical Association has endorsed this bill. The organization that cares for these dying patients and knows more about them, the American Hospice Organization, has endorsed this bill. Americans support this bill by more than two to one. This bill allows physicians to do their job effectively and compassionately. Those with terminal illnesses often find themselves in terrible pain, and under current laws many doctors do not have the ability to help those sickest patients. Under this legislation, and it clearly states this, that alleviating pain or discomfort is a legitimate medical purpose consistent with public health and safety, even if the use of such substance may increase the risk of death.'' This bill allows doctors to effectively prescribe medication to control pain of patients and to improve their last few days of life, but at the same time ensures to all of us that they will be healers and that they will conform to their ethical code never to kill, only to cure.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at the very time that we need to increase competition in the delivery of Internet services, I am afraid that the unregulated nature of the Internet is in danger of being compromised. We talk about a new digital revolution. We talk about all the fruits that the Internet is bringing to us. But I am afraid that we are on a collision course between reregulation and this unregulated revolution that is doing so much good for so many people. The Internet is growing at a staggering pace, one that we could not have imagined when we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This astonishing growth creates an urgent need for high-speed Internet capacity at both the regional and the local level so that all Americans can participate in this new digital economy. With each announcement of yet another telecommunications merger, or as we say telecom merger, I become increasingly concerned about the concentration in the Internet backbone market, a monopoly, a cartel. Today, the four largest backbone network providers control more than 85 percent of the Internet data traffic in this country, 85 percent. Mr. Speaker, probably as a result of this, we are already hearing calls for regulating the Internet. If we do not act now, an Internet cartel may emerge that can dictate price and availability to consumers. Mr. Speaker, this is a much more attractive and desirable alternative to reregulation. The rules should be changed to allow all telecommunications companies to compete in the market. It makes no sense to keep the five of the most capable competitors, the regional bell operating companies, from building regional backbone networks to deliver the fruits of the digital economy to many more Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, all of my fellow Members to support competition in the Internet backbone market, and I encourage this body to act with the utmost speed. If we fail to act promptly, if we fail to assure competition, the alternative may sadly be the Internet regulation act of 2000.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the gentleman from Texas. I do not want to have to wait till my district attorney calls me. Recently in Arkansas, Andrew Golden, a little 11-year-old boy, shot 10 of his classmates. He had a history of animal cruelty. Luke Woodham in Mississippi, a little boy who opened fire on his fellow students, he had a history of animal cruelty. The sponsor of this bill mentioned Ted Bundy, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly). He mentioned the Unabomber. Let us add to that list. How about ``Son of Sam'' David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer? What do all these people have in common? They have a history of abusing animals, of animal cruelty. What does that matter to what we are discussing here today? Psychologists tell us that when we view these activities, they desensitize our young people to a behavior which appears to be a gateway to violent acts of indiscriminate, cold-blooded murder. Now, we might not have much of a compelling state interest in bugs and beetles and hamsters but we do in our children, and we do not want any activity which desensitizes our children, which might be a gateway to more violent acts. Yes, these people are mentally ill but people are not always mentally ill. There are things that cause them to be mentally ill, and it is clear to some of us that these videos can push people, they can desensitize people. Why are we so upset? Not because it is disgusting as disgusting as it is, but because it is dangerous. What are we trying to protect? We are trying to protect the first amendment, but we are also trying to protect our children. The Supreme Court has already ruled on several occasions that animal cruelty is not protected, and this statute is necessary to stop the interstate sale of videos which show this animal cruelty and which get in the hands of our children. Why do we need such a law? Somebody said we have got all the laws on the books. Let me address that last argument. In these videos, all we see is the feet and the hands of these people crushing these small animals. Our law enforcement officers cannot identify these people. In every State it is against the law for them to do it, but we cannot identify these people. But we can identify who is selling them. They are selling them for $100 and $50 and $30 and there are over 2,000 of them. It is time to close this loophole and protect our children. This is about children, not about beetles.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record a rollcall of the 230 Catholic institutions of higher education in our country. Among these colleges is Georgetown University, our oldest Catholic university, which celebrated its 250th birthday. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the sponsor of this bill, I told him that I once heard a debate between two of my friends as to which was the premier Catholic university, and it was between Holy Cross and Georgetown. I asked them which one of those universities was the premier Catholic university. He told me both of them were wrong, that it was Notre Dame. Of course, the gentleman is from Indiana. Among these colleges and universities is Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. Spring Hill College was the oldest Catholic college in the Southeast, the fifth oldest in the United States. Among the original cosponsors of this bill today is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). Spring Hill was praised by Martin Luther King, Jr., as one of the first colleges in the South to integrate racially. As an Alabaman, I am proud of that distinction. Mr. Speaker, let me mention some of the universities and colleges throughout the Nation which contribute so mightily to the life of this Nation and to the world. I mentioned Georgetown and Holy Cross; Fordham University in New York; St. Louis University; Boston College; Catholic University here in Washington; University of Detroit; the three Loyolas in New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Chicago; DePaul University in Chicago; Marquette University, Creighton University in Omaha; the University of Santa Clara; Villanova, of Saint John's University in New York. A college that one of my friends went to, and I saw it listed, I take sort of personal privilege in saying Manhattan College, a college that gave many youth on limited income a chance to get ahead with the scholarship. Many fine women colleges, Catholic colleges for women: St. Mary's College, Notre Dame's sister institution; Trinity College here in Washington, D.C.; and a college that a good friend of mine attended, that being Manhattan in New York. There are many, many others, but I will simply introduce into the Record all 230.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, he had told me that. The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) has requested that Notre Dame also be first on the list with St. Francis College in Brooklyn to be added second. So I will consent to that request. So I offer the list referred to into the Record, moving Notre Dame to the front of the list. [From the association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC] u.s. catholic colleges and universities Albertus Magnus College, Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, Alvernia College, Alverno College, Ancilla College, Anna Maria College, Aquinas College, Aquinas College, Inc., Assumption College, Assumption College for Sisters, Avila College, Barat College, Barry University, Bellarmine College, Belmont Abbey College, Benedictine College, Benedictine University, Boston College, Brescia University, Briar Cliff College, Cabrini College, Caldwell College. Calumet College of Saint Joseph, Canisius College, Cardinal Stritch University, Carlow College, Carroll College, Castle College, Chaminade University of Honolulu, Chatfield College, Chestnut Hill College, Christendom College, Christian Brothers University, Clarke College, College Misericordia, College of Mount Saint Joseph, College of Mount Saint Vincent, College of New Rochelle, College of Notre Dame, College of Notre Dame of Maryland, College of Our Lady of the Elms, College of Saint Benedict, College of Saint Elizabeth, College of Saint Francis, College of Saint Mary, College of Saint Rose, College of Saint Thomas More, The College of Santa Fe, College of St. Catherine. College of St. Joseph, College of St. Scholastica, College of the Holy Cross, Creighton University, D'Youville College, DePaul University, Divine Word College, Dominican College of Blauvelt, Dominican College of San Rafael, Dominican University, Donnelly College, Duquesne University, Edgewood College, Emmanuel College, Fairfield University, Felician College, Fontbonne College, Fordham University, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Gannon University, Georgetown University, Georgian Court College, Gonzaga University, Gwynedd-Mercy College, Heritage College, Hilbert College. Holy Cross College, Holy Family College, Holy Name College, Immaculata College, Iona College, John Carroll University, King's College, La Roche College, La Salle University, Laboure College, Le Moyne College, Lewis University, Loras College, Lourdes College, Loyola College in Maryland, Loyola Marymount University, Loyola University New Orleans, Loyola University of Chicago, Madonna University, Manhattan College, Manor Junior College, Maria College, Marian College, Marian College of Fond du Lac, Marian Court College, Marist College, Marquette University. Marygrove College, Marylhurst University, Marymount College, Marymount Manhattan College, Marymount University, Marywood University, Mater Dei College, Mercy College of Northwest Ohio, Mercyhurst College, Merrimack College, Molloy College, Mount Aloysius College, Mount Carmel College of Nursing, Mount Marty College, Mount Mary College, Mount Mercy College, Mount Saint Clare College, Mount Saint Mary College, Mount Saint Mary's College, Nazareth College of Rochester, Neumann College, Newman University, Niagara University, Notre Dame College, Notre Dame College of Ohio. Ohio Dominican College, Our Lady of Holy Cross College, Our Lady of the Lake College, Our Lady of the Lake University, Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, Presentation College, Providence College, Queen of the Holy Rosary College, Quincy University, Regis College, Regis University, Rivier College, Rockhurst College, Rosemont College, Sacred Heart University, Saint Anselm College, Saint Gregory's University, Saint John's University, Saint John's University, Saint Joseph College, Saint Joseph's College, Saint Joseph's University, Saint Leo College, Saint Louis University, Saint Mary College. Saint Mary's College, Saint Mary's College of CA, Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College, Saint Michael's College, Saint Norbert College, Saint Peter's College, Saint Vincent College, Saint Xavier University, Salve Regina University, Santa Clara University, Seattle University, Seton Hall University, Seton Hill College, Siena College, Siena Heights University, Silver Lake College, Spalding University, Spring Hill College, Springfield College, St. Ambrose University, St. Bonaventure University, St. Catharine College, St. Edward's University, St. Elizabeth College of Nursing, St. Francis College. St. Francis College, St. John Fisher College, St. Martin's College, St. Mary's University, St. Thomas Aquinas College, St. Thomas University, St. Vincent's College, Stonehill College, The Catholic University of America, Thomas Aquinas College, Thomas More College, Trinity College, Trinity College of Vermont, Trocaire College, Universidad Central De Bayamon, University of Dallas, University of Dayton, University of Detroit Mercy, University of Great Falls, University of Mary, University of Notre Dame, University of Portland, University of Saint Francis, University of San Diego, University of San Francisco, University of Scranton, University of St. Thomas, University of St. Thomas, University of the Incarnate Word, University of the Sacred Heart, Ursuline College, Villa Julie College, Villa Maria College of Buffalo, Villanova University, Viterbo College, Walsh University, Wheeling Jesuit University, Xavier University, Xavier University of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on one other thing about Father Hesburgh, something I did not know about him until I studied about this coin bill, but something that I think is very striking to any of us that were on college campuses in 1969. In fact, not only was I attending the University of Alabama at that time, but I was also a member of the Army Reserves. So this really comes home to me. Father Hesburgh has received numerous awards from educational groups and from others. We have heard about some of those. Among those was the prestigious John Nickel award given to him in 1970 by the American Association of University Professors. This award, which honors those who uphold academic freedom, recognizes Father Hesburgh's crucial role in blunting the attempt of the Nixon administration in 1969 to use Federal troops to quell campus disturbances. Now, as someone who was both a university student and also a member of the Army Reserve, I want to commend Father Hesburgh personally. I know that there are a lot of other Americans that applaud his stand on this who know, looking back at this time in history, how great a contribution that was. But we know that it obviously could have avoided some tragic times in our country. This is one of many, many contributions that he made. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), Chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

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. 1932.