Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when we think of Notre Dame, many of us think of Knute Rockne. They think of the 1913 game when an obscure team from an obscure college at that time, at least obscure to most Americans, played Army and upset them 35 to 13. They think of Knute Rockne and the fighting Irish. They think of that great coach. But that is what we think about on Saturday. But there is another man we honor today, and that is a man that left his mark on the institution from Monday through Friday, which built Notre Dame into a great academic university. His contributions deserve to be discussed today. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress fittingly honors this man, Father Hesburgh. I would just close by again thanking the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer); his companion, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) in the Indiana Congressional delegation; the gentleman from New York (Mr. King); the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder); the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis); and also the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 230 Catholic institutions of higher education in our country. There are 600,000 students enrolled in those institutions; and, as I said, there is extraordinary variety in these institutions. They literally are spread across the map of the United States. If one goes to Maine, one will find Saint Joseph's College. If one goes to Honolulu, one will find Chaminade University; if one goes to Florida, one will find Barry University; St. Thomas in Miami. If one goes to Washington State, one will find Gonzaga in Spokane; Seattle University in Seattle, a tremendous number of these institutions making a tremendous contribution. One of the premier institutions is Notre Dame and it is the president of that institution that we honor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, there are 24 Catholic colleges and universities in the State of New York and among them is Saint Francis College in Brooklyn. One of the original cosponsors of this bill is a graduate not only of Saint Francis but also of Notre Dame. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have several other speakers that wish to be heard. I also want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). As I read this statement, I attribute this to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and his hard work, and that statement is that H.R. 1932 complies with all rules of the Committee on Banking for coin and medal bills and exceeds the requirement that two-thirds of the Members of the House sponsor the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), former president of Long Beach State University, who worked with Father Hesburgh.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1932) to authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Father Theodore M. Hesburgh, in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions to civil rights, higher education, the Catholic Church, the Nation, and the global community.

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, we are not only here to honor a great American, a great university president, but in doing that, this Congress is also saluting and paying tribute to the Catholic higher education in America and its significant contribution. Catholic universities and colleges constitute an extraordinary variety of institutions. The high quality of the education they provide is well known to most Americans, and the contribution they make to the life of this Nation and the world is tremendously positive. So we not only salute a great American, but the gentleman from Indiana, the chief sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from California and I and the entire Committee on Banking and Financial Services in doing so wish to salute Catholic higher education in America. Mr. Speaker, I will be talking about some of those great institutions as we consider this coin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for bringing this legislation. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) mentioned the word ``nightmare.'' He said it is time to put an end to this nightmare. That is exactly what this legislation is about. Every parent's worst nightmare is to receive that call in the middle of the night telling us that one of our children has been harmed. Now, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has worked very hard on this bill, mentioned those six young people that were killed at College Station, Texas. I think all of us who had young daughters and sons on campuses, we identified with that. In Birmingham, there has been a different kind of call in the night, a different nightmare. It is a call that our daughters have been given this drug GHB. It is clear. It is tasteless. They were at a party. They were at a club, and someone slipped it into their drink. The unfortunate ones lapsed into unconsciousness, then into a coma, and they never recovered. The more fortunate ones do recover, but they are scarred. Their parents and they live through this nightmare. In Birmingham, Alabama this year alone there have been almost a dozen cases of people suffering from overdoses of GHB--the active ingredient in date rape drugs. In the past year, Birmingham's South Precinct drug task force has made 20 GHB-related arrests. It is time to put a stop to it. It is the only responsible thing for us to do. That is what this legislation will move to do. It will empower law enforcement officers to get these sexual predators that would prey on our daughters and our sisters and our neighbors to get them off the street and get them behind bars. We have had people that have come before the Committee on the Judiciary, young ladies who were victims of GHB. They have described to us in horrible detail the abuse they suffered from a date using GHB. It has been sobering for all of us. We have a responsibility to those young ladies and to all young women and their parents to address this problem. By passing this legislation today, we will take a major step in giving our law enforcement officers the tools they need. I would like to commend, not only the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I would like to also commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the Subcommittee on Crime chair, for his excellent work on this. I would like to commend the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their work on this. I commend the staff of the Committee on the Judiciary, and especially Dan Bryant, for their dedicated service in highlighting this dangerous drug and its consequences. Hopefully, as a result of this legislation, a few less parents will receive that dreaded phone call in the middle of the night, and this Congress will have done something positive in a bipartisan way. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for the opportunity to speaking in support of this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and opposed to the amendment. We have heard some very interesting statements out here on the floor today. One of the opponents of this act said we ought to vote against this act because, and let me quote, ``because the criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose a child, and an abortion, it is too easy to confuse the two.'' In other words, a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose her unborn child, she said the only difference in that and an abortion is, she says, the result is the same except for the criminal intent, and we cannot always determine the difference. Now, do my colleagues buy that? Do my colleagues buy that this Congress or the American people cannot distinguish between a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose her unborn child and an abortion? I do not think so. I think that is ludicrous. Another reason we were told to vote against this act, we were told that the Federal court or the Federal jurisdiction may have jurisdiction over the mother, but they might not have jurisdiction over the unborn child. In other words, an FBI agent who is pregnant, we can try someone for assaulting her or murdering her, but not her unborn child, because that would not be a Federal act. Well, what do we do in those cases? Do we always try those? Would we try them, as that person who opposes it said, we ought to try that case in the State court? Of course not. That is ludicrous. The final thing, which is probably the worst, is this statement, and I say this with respect to all Members: that this is the first occasion that this Congress or this Supreme Court has ever recognized the legal status of an unborn child. If we pass this act, we will be recognizing the legal status of an unborn child. Well I ask you, is it an illegal status? Are unborn children illegal? How about an unborn child whose mother has made a decision to keep that child? She wants to keep that child. She wants to have that child. She wants to raise that child. Is there anything wrong with recognizing the legal status of that child? Should that child have no status, no rights? Of course not.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for offering this amendment. Let me tell you what it means to one hospital of the 59. Children's Hospital of Alabama is the only freestanding pediatric hospital in the State of Alabama. It not only receives patients from Alabama, it receives patients from Mississippi and from as far away as Chattanooga, Tennessee. Children's Hospital presently spends $4 million to $6 million annually for Graduate Medical Education. Unlike hospitals which treat Medicare patients, Children's Hospital receives no Medicare funds, and, therefore, no Medicare graduate medical expense reimbursement. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut has said, Medicaid reimbursements are less, commercial insurers are not offering reimbursement for these expenses, and, with the recent changes in Medicaid and Medicare, all our hospitals are operating under cost controls, but our children's hospitals are operating on the severest of restraints. Children's hospitals, we have heard various figures on how many of the pediatricians these hospitals train. Children's hospitals train 75 percent of the pediatricians in Alabama; and, nationwide, although children's hospitals train 25 percent or one-fourth of pediatricians, they train almost all pediatric sub-specialists. These are the people that treat our little boys and girls with cancer, with epileptic seizures, those children who are injured in accidents. Our sickest children come to our children's hospitals. They need the best of care, and they need medical doctors who are trained and trained well. It is for this reason that I support enthusiastically the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), for, as we are fond of saying in this body, our children deserve the best, and that includes the best health care, and that includes the best trained health care pediatricians. This amendment will assure that. To the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), I thank you for your hard work; and I commend the body for its consideration of this measure.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for his fine work on this bill, and I want to introduce for the Record a letter that he wrote to the Members of this Congress on June 16 where he talked about the cost of not acting on this legislation. It is 108,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, I read an interesting article in a paper. I pulled it off the internet, and it is called the Hindustan Times. It is one of the leading papers in India. They said that imports from Japan, Korea, Brazil, and the Communist block were ruining the Indian steel industry. They said they were importing steel into India at less than what India could produce it. The average steelworker in India makes 20 cents an hour. India said they are moving to block this. In that article, it said there are only two countries in the world that are allowing its steel industries to be destroyed, us and the United States, and they are acting to stop this. The European nations and Japan have a reciprocal agreement which says they will not dump on each other. We will not do that. These things are not coming into Europe. Europe will not stand for it. We will. I heard the gentleman from Iowa say the crisis is almost over. Let me state the latest statistics from the Census Bureau. Shipments of U.S. steel down 10 percent; utilization down 10 percent from a month before. Total imports up 30 percent in May over April. That does not sound like it is almost over. U.S. steel prices down 27 percent. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letter I referred to earlier. Washington, DC, June 16, 1999. Re loan guarantees. Dear Colleague: During conference consideration of H.R. 1141, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, loan guarantee provisions for steel, oil, and gas companies were removed in order to facilitate consideration of the Supplemental bill. Recognizing the strong support for assisting steel, oil, and gas companies, leadership offered to let the Senate Appropriations Committee amend H.R. 1664 to make it a loan bill (H.R. 1664 was the original House funding bill for Kosovo operations; the final version of H.R. 1141 essentially combined the Senate Kosovo funding bill and the House Emergency bill, thus making H.R. 1664 no longer necessary to the funding of Kosovo operations). We are hopeful that the full Senate will soon pass this amended version and refer it to the House, at which point conferees will be appointed. There has been some debate about the possible costs of providing these loan guarantees. Not as often considered as the costs of doing nothing to help these companies. With regard to steel, if the ten companies most likely to apply for loan guarantee were to close, here is what we would lose: Number of jobs: 107,167 Dollar amount of income: $4,879,443,110 Dollar amount of production: $9,227,000,000 These companies affect many others within their states. For one company alone, the impact on that would be a loss of $206,348,230 in statewide projected earnings. Independent oil and natural gas producers around the country have also been hit hard by the extended depressed oil and gas prices. Beginning in November 1997, the oil exploration and production industry began experiencing a price crisis that included the lowest inflation-adjusted oil prices in history. These prices have had far-reaching effects on the lives of thousands in the industry. In the past 18 months, the industry has lost 56,400 jobs, and an additional 20,000 jobs are at risk. This is a natural result of the shut down of 136,000 oil wells (25 percent of total U.S.) and 57,000 natural gas wells during the same period--a substantial number which will never operate again. As a result, the U.S. oil and natural gas production is nearly at its fifty year low. As devastating as this crisis has been on individuals in the industry, the impact on our Nation has been equally severe--estimated at $25 billion in lost economic impact. When the House votes again on this bill, I hope you will support it. These U.S. industries are competitive and the loan guarantees will help them remain competitive. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Dawson (Rep. Aderholt, 225-4876) or Dawson Oslund (Rep. Watts, 225-6165). Sincerely, J.C. Watts, Robert B. Aderhold, Members of Congress.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say, as chairman of the Subcommittee Domestic and International Monetary Policy, I would join the chairman in his assessment on the profit it makes. Now, we have heard that OPIC helps American workers, and we have heard that it hurts American workers. I want to focus on that one claim. Let us look at one of these transactions. In 1997, OPIC financed the building for Levi Strauss of a garment-making factory in Turkey, a $29- million guarantee, because they did not want to finance it themselves and private insurers would not do it. Well, what happened when Levi Strauss built that factory? They laid off 6,400 workers at U.S. garment-making factories in 11 locations in the United States. Now, do my colleagues think that those 6,400 employees, if any of them are listening today, that they will buy this argument that we are creating jobs? We lost those jobs. And not only did we lose those jobs, but the Labor Department had to go in, and let me tell my colleagues what they had to do. They had to provide unemployment assistance, and they also had to provide trade adjustment assistance because of the Levi Strauss factory which had been built in Turkey, financed by OPIC. I strongly urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 46th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. So I think it is a fitting time to remember and pay tribute to all Americans who fought and died in that war. Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking at a Korean War Memorial Service in Fultondale, Alabama. There, the names of 672 Alabamans, who died or are missing in action in that war, names were called. It was a very emotional service. We had a 21-gun salute. Relatives placed flowers at the memorial. I gave a speech, and the veterans at that memorial asked me to again give that speech tonight in tribute to their fallen comrades and to all of those who served in Korea, those who died, and the 8,000 who are still missing in action as a result of that war. I will place in the Record the names of those 672 Alabamans who paid it all in Korea. Mr. Speaker, throughout the Bible, God calls on his people, on his children to remember, to remember the wonderful works that he has done, to remember his miracles, to remember all that he has done for them. When we read the Bible, we are sometimes frustrated that the children of Israel continually forgot the good things that God had done for them. We sometimes say why were they so unappreciative? Why did they forget? Why did they fail to remember? But are we so different? Is not our treatment and our ignorance of the Korean War not a parallel? We forgot a whole war and the sacrifices made there. Why did we forget? Why were we so unappreciative for the 37,000 Americans who died there? Why do we not know a lot about that or the fact there are 8,000 missing to this day? The Korean War was concluded, not with the enemy's surrender, but with a negotiated armistice that reestablished the existing borders between North and South Korea. It left an uneasy peace that exists even today. With tens of thousands of young Americans brutally killed and a war occurring in such a remote and inhospitable land so far away with no victory to celebrate, the Korean War gave most Americans little to remember and much to forget. For that reason, the Korean War is today called the ``Forgotten War,'' and it is often spoken of as the Forgotten War. However, there is much to remember about this war, much to remember about those who left farms and factories, high school classrooms and college campuses to defend our freedom. From Alabama, there were four brothers, the Goodwin brothers. They all survived Korea. They came home with eight purple hearts. Mr. Goodwin, Bob Goodwin from Birmingham, was there yesterday to lay flowers at the memorial. Today, we recall, and we remember. We are not here to cheer or to celebrate, but to reflect on the sacrifices that were made so long ago, to remember the living, those who survived and are not here today, and those who died and lie buried about us and those, as I said, 8,000 whose bodies were never recovered, who were never buried here in the United States. World War II had followed World War I, the war to end all wars. The long struggle against Nazism and imperialism was over, and America, although victorious, was so weary of war. America and her people knew well the cost, the horror, and the sacrifice of war. But that did not prevent 1\1/2\ million of America's finest patriots from leaving their homes or friends to serve. Halfway around the world they went or, as so aptly described in the Korean War Memorial, to ``a place they had never been and a people they had never met.'' As William Sessions, the father of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), said, ``They went not for conquest and not for gain, but only to protect the anguished and the innocent. They suffered greatly and by their heroism in a thousand forgotten battles they added a luster to the codes we hold most dear: duty, honor, country, fidelity, bravery, and integrity.'' These were citizen soldiers. But for the most part, they were not skilled in war. They were ordinary young men and women like our sons and daughters. We should remember, too, the hardships our Korean War veterans endured: the deadly cold, the weeks and months spent crammed in foxholes and bunkers dug into rugged, harsh terrain. They faced an enemy of overwhelming numbers ready to torture and brutalize. They were locked in hand-to-hand combat at ``Heartbreak Ridge'' and ``Pork Chop Hill,'' confronted with the fastest fighter jets at ``Mig Alley.'' Today's military history records that our Korean veterans set a standard of courage that may be matched, but which will never be surpassed. In summary, chiseled in silver on the Korean War Memorial are the words ``Freedom is not free.'' The men and women who served in Korea and the family and friends of those 37,000 who never returned and those thousands still missing have paid it all. They demonstrate the high and precious cost of freedom. We should never forget that these patriots paid a price one by one when they were swept away by the treacherous tides of Inchon or died defending the perimeter of Pusan or froze to death by the hundreds at Chosan reservoir or in the long march back. Their families will never forget their sacrifice and neither should we. Now on this hot sunny, summer day, Mr. Speaker, let me simply sum up by saying, today we know that those, that first resolute action by these veterans stemmed the expansion of communism and, in so doing, helped change the course of history. Now, we know it took four more decades to win the battle against communism. But having witnessed the collapse of the Berlin Wall and its aftermath, we know now that those who served in Korea laid the foundation for one of the greatest victories in the history of mankind, the free world triumph over communism. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the names of the Alabamians who died in the Korean War as follows:

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Religious Liberty Protection Act. First let me commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady. As chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Canady has established himself as a stalwart in defending the Constitution and our precious right to the free exercise of the religious freedoms. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget, let us always be mindful, that the very first freedom guaranteed by our forefathers in the Bill of Rights was the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs. When we study history, we quickly recognize that this is neither coincidence nor accident that our forefathers enumerated this as the first constitutional right, for they came to this country seeking the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Since our first forefathers arrived on our shores until very recently this freedom has been unquestioned. Today, Americans are united on few things but we almost uniformly agree that our religious liberties should be cherished and protected. However, sadly, in 1990 the Supreme Court, created by the very Constitution which guarantees our right to religious freedom, began, hopefully unwittingly, what constitutes as no less than an assault on this freedom. Is it not inconceivable that, of all things, of all institutions, our Supreme Court has been at the forefront of denying Americans this cherished right? They did so, in a 5-4 decision, by repealing a long-established legal principle which required the government to prove a compelling state interest before restricting religious liberty. Within a year following this unfortunate decision, Catholic prisoners were denied access to priests or their confessionals were monitored, Jewish prisoners were denied the right to wear yarmulkes, and a Christian church right here in Washington, DC, was ordered to stop feeding the homeless. Congress quickly responded to this breach of protection created by the Supreme Court, and with only three dissenting votes, passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which restored the historic compelling state interest test. It was quickly signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rules this act unconstitutional. I respect the Supreme Court, both the institution and its members. Sadly, their decision, in my opinion, neither respected the jurisdiction that the Constitution conveys to the Congress nor preserved the checks and balances of the Constitution. In a display of legalism which escapes this Member's understanding and to this Member defies common sense, they stated that Congress had the power to enforce the constitutional rights protected by the 14th Amendment, the amendment on which the 1993 act was based, but not the right to ``expand them.'' It is hard to imagine that Congress' pronouncement stating that the first freedom in the Constitution, the free exercise of our religious beliefs which was the catalyst for the very founding of our country should not be swept away without a compelling state interest was somehow an ``expansion'' of our religious liberties. If a constitutional right can be taken away without compelling reason, on a whim, or with a minimum of justification, it is not in any way a well protected right. Additionally, it is difficult to imagine that Congress' attempt to protect the first right delineated in the Constitution is somehow prohibited by the Constitution. Not only is it unimaginable, ti is unacceptable. For that reason, this Congress, this day, representing the people of this country, must again act to protect the precious religious freedoms and liberties of those we represent. To do otherwise would allow the Supreme Court, in what this Member perceives to be an arbitrary decision, to set itself up as the sole arbitrator, determinator and protector of our constitutional rights. The basis of our constitutional rights is not the Supreme Court; it is the Constitution. I, for one, firmly believe that the Constitution also gave this body, as the elected representatives of the people, a right, and further an obligation, to protect our constitutional freedoms. Certainly, is not the right and the obligation to protect our first freedom the right and obligation of all three branches of government? I will never accept the premise, nor should this Congress, that only the Supreme Court is vested with this right and this power. To do so would basically give the Supreme Court alone the power to restrict the very precious rights encompassed in our Constitution without any check or balance. To do so would also surrender our obligation to defend the Constitution, an obligation we swear to uphold upon our election. To defend the Constitution should be our first obligation, not someone else's obligation. Our forefathers in their wisdom did not give to the Supreme Court alone the power to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms. They, in fact, gave this obligation and responsibility to all three branches of government. It is not a duty that we should constitutionally avoid. Let us not dodge or shirk this solemn responsibility today. Let us instead, not with three dissenting votes, but unanimously pass the Religious Liberty Protection Act.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, all I would like to say to the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from New Jersey, who have commented this is in the dark of the night, that it gets dark up here at night and we are going to work at night. We are not going to lay out at 6 o'clock; we are going to keep working. So I would like a unanimous consent that we all agree it is dark now, it is night, and so let us get started. Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses several things that we should not put up with in this country. The first: when a brides goes down the aisle to meet her groom, the preacher is down there, the groom is down there, and the tax man is down there. We should not penalize marriages. This bill puts an end to the marriage penalty. Another thing we should not penalize. We are killing hometown businesses. The death tax is death tax not only to family businesses but to hometown businesses. In my district, we have lost hometown drugstores, hometown car dealers, hometown funeral homes. The only funeral home in my hometown is owned by a Texas company because they could not pay the death taxes. I am for hometown businesses, so I am for ending these death taxes. We talked about them killing family businesses. It does that. It kills hometown businesses. How often have my colleagues said, I am tired of every business in town being owned by some company in another country, if not another State? This puts an end to it. The third thing, 30 million American families will benefit from this plan because it makes college more affordable for their children. How many times do we hear people say to the people we represent, how will I ever afford to send my children to college? This bill, according to the Center for Data Analysis, says 30 million American children will be able to go to college, it will be more affordable. Let us send them to college. Let us give them a chance. Let us invest in their future with an education.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would say that I was undecided on this issue before a few minutes ago. I have tried to listen to the debate on both sides. Over the past few weeks, I have had conversations with friends of mine, and I will tell my colleagues what their advice was. They said, ``Don't vote for a pay raise.'' They said that this is not a popular thing to do. We have discussed certain things and they have actually said, ``This is how I feel. My gosh, don't get out on the floor of the House and say that,'' because it is not a popular thing. Let us just sit back for a minute and imagine that we did not know how much the President of the United States made. Let us start from that reference point. We would consider certain things. We would look at what our forefathers paid the first President. That would be one calculation. I am sure major league baseball players would come into it. I am sure there would be other people that would say they ought to take the job for free. Most people that now run for President, they are independently wealthy and they could afford to do that. There are some that are not. If we wanted to approach it is to take the job for free and we would rule out anyone who was not a multimillionaire, that is the way some people might like it. But again, go back. We do not know what the President makes. What do you think we would guess he makes? I have asked some people that and the figure a million dollars is the most often response. ``I think the President ought to make a million dollars.'' Now, we will discuss an amendment in a few minutes that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is offering as to whether or not we have oversight when we pay out a billion dollars. We deal in those type figures. It is important that we focus on this figure and what the President makes. I will agree with the gentleman from Virginia that there are certain people that come here in all honesty and argue that $200,000 is fine. But when you talk to executives, when you talk to professionals, I think that they would probably tell you that the President ought to make a million dollars. I will not be doing the popular thing. I will be opposing this amendment. But in doing so, I will be doing the right thing, because I think the President of our country, the leader of the free world, ought to make at least what is proposed in this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I speak in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment simply says is this: no multi-billion dollar loans of taxpayer money to foreign countries without congressional approval. Let me repeat that: no multi-billion dollar loans of taxpayer monies to foreign countries without congressional approval. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) spoke first. We are talking about billion dollar loans. Now hear me, we are not talking about million dollar loans, we are talking about billion dollar loans, a thousand million dollars. Is it not reasonable, is it not rational, that before the President or the Secretary of the Treasury writes a check or makes a loan to a foreign country for $1 billion, for a thousand million dollars, Congress ought to approve that, if it is for a loan? We are talking about for a loan. People have said the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which was started in 1934, has grown to $34 billion today. They have said that that money is necessary to stabilize currencies. There is absolutely nothing in this bill, and let me repeat, our amendment will not in any way restrict the Treasury Department's use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to stabilize currencies, which is what the fund is designed to do, and what it was used for until 1995. That is what the fund was established for. It is what it is supposed to do. It is not this type of transfers that we are trying to ask for congressional approval of. It is only loans to foreign governments. One reason that we ought to review these is when we have made these $5 billion loans and $3 billion loans and $5 billion loans we have said to these foreign governments that they will start an austerity program where the recipient countries will increase their exports to the United States and decrease their imports from the United States. When they have done those, they have cost jobs in the United States. That is not free trade when we send billions of dollars to foreign countries to prop up competition, companies that compete with us. That is not free trade. It has cost us thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country. But we are not saying they cannot make these loans; we are saying come to Congress and get approval. We just spent 2 hours debating a $200,000 expenditure a year for the next few years. We are not talking about $200,000 here. We are talking about a $34 billion fund. Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion, we passed this measure in 1995. In 1995, this Congress, most of the Members that will be voting tonight said it is prudent for us to approve these loans. And it is still prudent today. We have had a loan of $5 billion from this fund to Korea. We have had a loan of $5 billion or commitment from this fund to Brazil. We have had a commitment of $3 billion from this fund to Indonesia. There is an honest disagreement here.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly sum up two things. First of all, the Sanders-Bachus amendment was passed in 1995 and was in effect from 1996 and 1997 in the midst of this global crisis. The idea that if this were passed by the Congress it would be a recipe for disaster, it was in effect for 2 years and it was not. It does not restrict transfers of funds in any amount to stabilize currencies, which is the statutory use of the fund. What it does limit is loans to foreign countries of a billion dollars plus.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, when we talk about drug trafficking, I think some of us think of it as a one-way street. We think of the drugs coming in. Drug trafficking is a two-way street. The drugs come in and the money goes out. We seize, by some estimates, as much as 30 percent of the drugs entering our country. We seize less than one-fourth of 1 percent of the money that leaves the country. Now, we can continue to put young men in jail, catching them pushing drugs on the street; and we can continue to fill up our prisons, but we have to start doing some new things. The legislation that the gentlewoman from New York steered through this House and through the Senate was considered ground breaking at the time, and that is what the New York Police Department described it as. Mr. Speaker, we authorize $3 million, and I would say that we cannot afford not to spend this money. Where we get it, that is a decision of the appropriators. But I can tell my colleagues that we had numerous hearings on this legislation. It is good legislation. I think it is foolhardy for us to take so much time, so much consideration, have law enforcement agents from all over this Nation testify in five different hearings, carefully construct legislation that this Congress felt very good about and which passed I think without a dissenting vote, and then not to fund it. It makes absolutely no sense. We are talking about a threat to every one of our communities, and we are talking about addressing the flip side of this threat, the money laundering side, which has not been seriously looked at or combatted. And we now have an opportunity, through the expenditure of just a small amount of money, to move in that direction. I want to say that I do not think we have a choice here. I do not think this is a situation where we do not have the money. I will leave my colleagues with this: a drug dealer last year was convicted of pushing drugs and the testimony revealed that he made $3 million in less than a month pushing drugs in one of our large cities. One drug dealer in one city made $3 million pushing drugs and we are talking about $3 million.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for his excellent work in defending our Constitution and the first freedom enumerated there. In fact, we all know from our history that our forefathers came to this country for religious liberty. And it was not a coincidence that when they drafted our Constitution the very first right that they enumerated was the right to religious liberty. And this right has been unquestioned in our country until 1990. Of all things, in 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, questioned the right of every citizen to our right to full expression of our religious freedoms and beliefs. There was a long-standing principle that the State had to have a compelling reason to interfere with that right, and they did away with that. I am happy to say that this Congress, in 1993, with only three dissenting votes, passed legislation again saying that the Government has to have a compelling reason to interfere with our religious liberties. President Clinton signed that legislation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court came back and basically said, we cannot do that; it is unconstitutional for the Congress to try to protect our freedom of religion. Thank goodness they had not done that with some of our other freedoms. So we are here today again. And I will say to my colleagues that, as a Congress, all three branches of government have an obligation and a duty to protect our constitutional rights and our freedom. It is not the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court, particularly in this case where the Supreme Court has shirked that responsibility and has actually taken away a freedom guaranteed in our Constitution. I would hope that every Member of this body, with not three dissenting votes but unanimously, would say to this country and the people we represent, their religious freedoms will not be violated. If they are a prisoner and they want to confess to their priest, we will not monitor that confessional; we will not prohibit them from talking to their priest; we will not prohibit a church here in Washington, D.C., to feed the homeless; we will not prohibit Jewish prisoners from wearing a yarmulke. It is time to end this abuse. It is time to pass this bill.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, we have five agencies that regulate the banks, including the OTS, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the SEC. They all got together said we have overlapping jurisdiction. That is causing concerns. Some warned we need to coordinate our efforts. The SEC simply does not, has not done that. They have questioned the other organizations, their interpretations on what are the loan loss reserve requirements. They do not have the experience these other regulators have with the banks. Someone has to take the lead. The bottom line, the SEC cannot come in here like a bull in a China shop and overrule these other banks on their auditing practices and on their reserve practices. This is a great amendment. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for all of her hard work on this legislation and her efforts on this amendment. I would also like to discuss a related accounting matter. I have been informed by a constituent that the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) may propose a rule eliminating an accounting practice known as ``pooling''. Pooling is an accounting method used when two companies merge to become one. In a pooling, the acquiring and acquired companies simply combine their financial statements. I believe it is important that this issue be discussed publicly before any final rule is implemented. In addition, it is my understanding that in the past the Federal Accounting Standards Board has not always sought adequate input from the accounting or banking communities on proposed changes in regulations. I appreciate the Chairwoman's efforts on the pending amendment. I would appreciate it if she would keep this in mind when the conference committee meets so that we include language either in this bill or future legislation to ensure that this process is an open and fair one. I thank the gentlewoman for her time and attention to this matter.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, I like to quote from the President of the Organization of Police Chiefs of the United States. He says this amendment will have a significant detrimental impact on the ability of law enforcement agencies nationwide to effectively investigate and prosecute cases involving money laundering, fraud, and other financial crimes. If this amendment had been in effect in 1997, it would have stopped 2,536 Federal investigations resulting in convictions for financial institution fraud matters. And finally, what does the FBI say about this? A vote for this amendment will send a signal to criminal organizations worldwide that the U.S. is a money laundering haven. Clearly this is a no vote. Madam Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter: International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA, July 1, 1999. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to express our profound concern over the Barr/Paul/Campbell Amendment to H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act. This amendment will have a significant detrimental impact on the ability of law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate and prosecute cases involving money laundering, fraud and other financial crimes. I urge you to oppose this amendment. The Barr/Paul/Campbell amendment, by eliminating the requirement that financial institutions file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), will deprive law enforcement of an invaluable investigative tool which, according to the FBI, was used in 98% of the cases filed by its Fraud Investigation Squad in 1998. These 1998 investigations resulted in the convictions of more than 2600 individuals and the restoration of more than $490 million to the victims of fraud. In addition, by elevating the threshold limit of the Currency Transaction Report (CTR) from $10,000 to $25,000, the Barr/Paul/Campbell amendment would severely undermine the anti-drug efforts of law enforcement agencies. Since there are few legitimate cash transactions exceeding the $10,000 limit, the CTR often provides law enforcement with valuable information on the money laundering operations of drug dealers. Raising the CTR threshold to $25,000 will only assist criminals in their efforts to hide their illegal profits. Once again, I urge you to protect the ability of law enforcement to combat fraud, money laundering and financial crimes by opposing the Barr/Paul/Campbell amendment to H.R. 10. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Ronald S. Neubauer, President.