Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the record an op-ed piece which I published in the Birmingham News and the Tuscaloosa paper. Mr. Speaker, in this article the first thing I said is that this crisis is not a crisis brought on by our steelworkers or our steel communities. This is a crisis brought on by their government. It is not of their own doing. Tragically, their government has failed to do two things. First of all, it has subsidized and spent billions of their money and our taxpayer dollars, much of that paid in by steelworkers, into the IMF. The IMF has sent billions of those dollars to prop up the foreign competition, which is now dumping steel on our steel industry. Secondly, our government has contributed to this crisis and caused it, by not taking action under our own trade laws to stop these illegal, unlawful dumping of foreign steel. It is against the law. Can that not sink in? It is against the law. How do we ask our steelworkers, our law-abiding steelworkers in steel communities who are law-abiding, how do we ask them to follow the law when we turned a blind eye to that law and allowed their jobs to be taken from them? Second of all, it is a matter of sovereignty. We must send a message to the world, and that message is, we will not allow our trade laws to be broken, to be trampled. What is happening is illegal. It cannot be tolerated. Mr. Speaker, this is not about fair trade; many people have said that. It is not about fair trade; it is about fairness. Our steelworkers are the latest victims, but they will not be our last. Finally, it is a matter of national security. We cannot rely on foreign countries for the materials to build our ships, our aircrafts and our tanks. If the President will not take action, we must. President Clinton's State of the Union address focused heavily on ways to spend every penny of the current budget surplus and all anticipated surpluses for the next 15 years. In 77 minutes, he proposed 79 spending programs totaling hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. But he said only three sentences about one account where we have a deficit--the U.S. trade account--and the threat it poses to all of us, and specifically our steelworkers. Last year, the U.S. trade deficit reached $300 billion. A large portion of the trade deficit results from the flood of illegally dumped foreign steel into our country. Steel imports have reached record levels, surging by 480 percent in the last year. The President's own economic advisors say this deluge of artificially-priced imports is responsible for 10,000 layoffs and bankruptcies at some domestic steel companies. Thousands of our steelworkers have seen their work hours and their paychecks cut--including those in Alabama. With the steel crisis deepening every day, it is only a matter of time before steel mills across the nation begin closing their doors, perhaps forever. This crisis did not come about because American steelworkers are not productive. American steelworkers produce the highest quality steel in the world at the lowest cost per ton. This crisis did not come about because the U.S. steel industry has failed to seek foreign market opportunities. Our steel companies work hard to penetrate foreign markets. What success they have achieved has come despite the best efforts of some countries to erect unfair trade barriers to American- made steel. Clearly, the crisis facing our steelworkers, our domestic steel industry and our steel communities is not of their doing. Tragically, much of this crisis is their own government's doing--the same government they support with their tax dollars. How? First, by providing the International Monetary Fund billions of new dollars to bail out foreign nations and second, by not taking decisive action available under our trade laws to stop the dumping of foreign steel. First, a little history. In 1984, foreign steel producers began dumping heavily into the U.S. and grabbed more than 26 percent of the U.S. steel market. President Reagan was not willing to see the U.S. steel industry die. He immediately imposed restraints that rolled steel imports back to 18 percent. This gave the U.S. steel industry the opportunity and the time to upgrade its operations. U.S. steel producers invested $50 billion to modernize their plants to make them more competitive. Steel management and steel union members worked together, and the U.S. steel industry came roaring back to recapture more than 80 percent of the U.S. market. Then, the Asian financial crisis came, a crisis perpetuated by misguided IMF policies supported by the present administration. To bail out Japanese, Korean and Indonesian investors, the IMF sent billions of U.S. tax dollars into Asia and imposed austerity measures. Nations in austerity cannot buy their own steel, and countries in debt to the IMF need money to pay that debt off. The IMF solution? These nations must ``export their way out'' of debt by dumping products--at prices lower than it costs to make them--into the huge U.S. market. That way, these nations can quickly raise the money needed to pay back the IMF. The IMF also urged these nations to devalue their currencies. By devaluing a currency, a nation actually cuts the price of its products in American dollars. For example, if a nation devalues its currency by 40 percent, the price of its products sold here will be reduced 40 percent. While such a price war is welcome news to consumers, it is devastating to domestic producers and can literally drive them out of business overnight. Congress recently approved the Clinton administration's request for $18 billion for the IMF. I was one of only about a dozen Republican and Democratic members who voiced strong opposition. We sincerely believe it is a horrible injustice to send the tax dollars from these steelworkers to the IMF, which in turn prompts nations to break both U.S. and international trade laws and dump their steel here. In his State of the Union address, President Clinton proclaimed he had ``informed the government of Japan that if that nation's sudden surge of steel imports into our country is not reversed, America will respond.'' Japan has not been impressed by this threat, and even if carried out it will likely bring little relief to our steelworkers, and the President knows it. That's because most of the steel imports are coming from South Korea, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia, all of which are the beneficiaries of an IMF bailout provided by U.S. taxpayers. The Clinton administration's strategy of bailouts via the IMF has failed on a massive scale, and the biggest losers of this strategy are American steelworkers. To bipartisan applause, the President also said in the State of the Union, ``We must enforce our trade laws when imports unlawfully flood our nation.'' Yet, the White House has decided against taking firm and immediate action to do so despite pleas from the steel industry and Congress. Last year, the House and Senate passed resolutions calling on the President to enforce our existing laws against illegal imports and to take ``all necessary measures'' to respond to the increase in foreign steel. The House asked for a one-year ban on the import of all steel products from any country that violates international trade agreements with the U.S. Still, the White House refuses to enforce our trade laws and continues to stand by and do nothing. If the President won't act, Congress must. Those of us in the Congressional Steel Caucus have proposed legislation that will freeze steel imports at the level they were in July 1997, before the flood of illegal imports began. By taking dramatic action as President Reagan did 15 years ago, we can roll back imports to pre-crisis levels and restore fair competition between American and foreign steel producers. The United States, as a matter of sovereignty, must send a message to the world that we will not allow our trade laws to be broken. What is happening is illegal and cannot be tolerated. This is not about ``free trade.'' It is about fairness. If American steelworkers are allowed to compete on a level playing field, they will win. If we do not restore fair play and stop the flood of illegal steel imports, our steelworkers will be the latest innocent victims of misguided government polices. But they will by no means be the last victims. The security of the United States will be at risk. At its most basic level, this debate is a matter of national security, for if we allow the steel industry in this country to disappear we will be forced to rely on foreign countries for the material we use to build our ships, aircraft and tanks. President Reagan showed the world that America would take strong action to protect its own in tough times. It's time to do so again and put an end to the steel crisis.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by the Cahaba Girl Scout Council in Birmingham, Alabama. She is Amanda Christine Drescher of Girl Scout Troop 563. She has been honored for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The award can be earned by a girl aged fourteen through seventeen, or in grades ninth through twelfth. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than twenty thousand Girl Scout Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout Volunteer. As a member of the Cahaba Girl Scout Council, Amanda Christine Drescher began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award on February 12, 1998. She completed her project, Art Day Camp, and I believe she should receive the public recognition due her for this significant service to her community and her country.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by the Cahaba Girl Scout Council in Birmingham, Alabama. She is Marian Kristen Church of Girl Scout Troop 395. She has been honored for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The award can be earned by a girl aged 14 through 17 or in grades 9 through 12. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout Volunteer. As a member of the Cahaba Girl Scout Council, Marian Kristen Church began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award on August 20, 1998. She completed her project, Landscaping of Alabama Mining Museum Sign, and I believe she should receive the public recognition due her for this significant service to her community and her country.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 540, the Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments. This much needed legislation will protect nursing home residents from being unfairly evicted just because they are on Medicaid. I commend my colleagues from Florida, Mr. Davis and Mr. Bilirakis, for introducing this measure and I am very proud to support it. Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits nursing homes that decide to withdraw from the Medicaid program from evicting current residents already admitted under the Medicaid program. Nursing home residents should not have to live in fear of eviction simply because they must depend on Medicaid for help in paying their nursing home bills. After we pass this bill and get it signed into law, families can be confident their elderly loved ones won't be evicted because of economic factors. This is a problem in the United States today. One nursing home in Florida tried to evict Medicaid residents and replace them with higher- paying, privately insured residents last year. After a relative of one of the residents of that Florida nursing home brought suit, a federal judge issued an injunction and the residents were allowed to remain in the nursing home. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that similar evictions were attempted at thirteen homes in nine states. We cannot allow this to happen. Under the Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments, a nursing home that decides to withdraw from Medicaid must provide notice to future residents that it no longer participates in the program and won't accept Medicaid payments. Existing residents, however, are protected. Mr. Speaker, all of us want to do something to help our senior citizens. We talk about that every day in Congress, sometimes in terms of saving Social Security, sometimes in terms of strengthening Medicare. But today, we can do more than just talk about helping our seniors. Today, we can actually do something to help millions of our senior citizens who face the real threat of being unfairly evicted from their nursing homes. Let's pass H.R. 540. Let's help our senior citizens. Let's protect them from these unfair evictions.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by the Cahaba Girl Scout Council in Birmingham, Alabama. She is Beverly Pankrat of Girl Scout Troop 563. She has been honored for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The award can be earned by a girl aged fourteen through seventeen, or in grades ninth through twelfth. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than twenty thousand Girl Scout Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout Volunteer. As a member of the Cahaba girl Scout Council, Beverly Pankrat began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award on November 9, 1997. She completed her project, Introduction to the Internet and Web Page Design, and I believe she should receive the public recognition due her for this significant service to her community and her country.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by the Cahaba Girl Scout Council in Birmingham, Alabama. She is Amy Page of Girl Scout Troop 395. She has been honored for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The award can be earned by a girl aged fourteen through seventeen, or in grades ninth through twelfth. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than twenty thousand Girl Scout Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout Volunteer. As a member of the Cahaba Girl Scout Council, Amy Page began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award on August 13, 1998. She completed her project, Dora's first Intertribal Pow-Wow and Education Day, and I believe she should receive the public recognition due her for this significant service to her community and her country.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to eulogize and celebrate the life of Dr. George Vernon Irons, Sr., distinguished professor of history and political science at Samford University for 43 years, who passed away July 21, 1998. Dr. Irons taught 17 university presidents-- more than any other known educator. Dr. Irons was also a colonel in the United States Army for 33 years, active and reserve, and received full military honors. Dr. Irons was a member of the prestigious Alabama Sports Hall of Fame for 22 years--its oldest member. He was the only distance star ever inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame and a true great in Alabama's rich athletic history. As captain of the University of Alabama distance team, he broke the record for the Birmingham Road Race in 1923. His record was never broken or equaled. Dr. Irons also broke the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association, now the Southeastern Conference, record for two, three and three and one-half mile races. Dr. Irons was listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the South and Southwest, Who's Who in American Education and Directory of American Scholars. Dr. Irons was awarded the George Washington Honor Medal from Freedom's Foundation, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in 1962. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that articles from the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame and Bama Magazine be included in the Congressional Record to share the achievements of this great Alabamian who served Samford University as distinguished educator 43 years, his country as colonel in the U.S. Army 33 years and his alma mater, the University of Alabama, as a record-breaking champion athlete and Phi Beta Kappa honor student. [From the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame] Irons Accustomed to Seeing Finish Line First (By Kyle Mooty) While football was far from its `king' stages the University of Alabama would enjoy in the future, Crimson Tide track star George Irons was keeping the athletic flame burning at the Capstone as its `Knight of the Cinderpath.' Former Alabama Sen. John Sparkman was a classmate of Irons at Alabama and later served in the Army together. And according to Sparkman, if it hadn't been for Irons, athletics would have been pretty boring during that time period at Alabama. ``George Irons was all we had to cheer about,'' said Sparkman. Today, Dr. George Vernon Irons is catching another milestone, as he'll turn 91 on Aug. 7. With the discipline, desire and skill he possessed, Irons would have probably been a standout distance runner anyway. But there were other reasons for perfecting the art of running. ``For the fear of being paddled,'' Irons said. ``When I was a freshman at Alabama the sophomores were always getting after the freshmen. If they caught you, you could do one of two things . . . you could lie or you could run. Don't press me too much on which I did because I did both of them.'' Irons also said that running was getting for catching up with the co-eds. Born in Demopolis as a son of a Presbyterian minister, Irons moved to Fort Valley, Ga., shortly afterwards and eventually took a job as a paper boy. Strangely enough, it was perhaps that job was the start of something that led to him being inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame in 1978. ``I rode the bicycle a whole lot delivering those papers, so I had strong legs,'' Irons said. Later, as a freshman at Alabama, Irons first realized he could run a long distance in a short period of time. ``From where I was living, when I would hear the whistle blow each morning I had about 10 minutes to make it to class,'' Irons recalled. ``And it was a pretty good distance. But I always made it to class on time. I don't think I was ever late. I guess you could say I found out I could run fast by accident.'' His trip to class would take him across an open field, a few acres of ground that now is the home of Bryant-Denny Stadium. Irons also noticed the `college boys' running around the university's campus having what seemed like good times. He laughs now at remembering thinking they were running around in their underwear, when actually it was the track team's shorts. Irons joined the Alabama track team and would never lose a race to a teammate. In fact, from his sophomore year on, Irons never lost a race to another collegian. But the problem was not fellow collegians. The problems was pros. The big running events often allowed older, professional runners to compete with the collegians. And one of the best of those that Irons would compete against in events ranging from the 880-yard run to the four-mile run would be a fellow by the name of Ellsworth Richter. Richter was Irons' biggest nemesis in a Birmingham road race that was held annually for the SIAA (Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference) championship. Irons recalls the race through Birmingham had about seven turns in all, and Richter knew the course well, which gave him an added advantage each year. As a freshman at Alabama, Irons would place 10th in the event, but would come back and claim second-place finishes both as a sophomore and junior, as only the professional Richter was able to beat him. Then came Irons' senior year at Alabama, and although Richter was busy having an appendectomy, Irons completely shattered the course record by 20 seconds. And he did so in the rain. It was a record that stood for the final 20 years of the race until its demise. How could a record be broken by so much, and especially by an amateur, and in the rain? It must have been the shoes. In fact, Irons wore kangaroo skin shoes. ``They stuck to my feet very tight,'' said Irons. ``While the others were sloshing along in their tennis shoes, mine felt just great.'' Richter would never beat Irons on other courses such as Atlanta. The two would later become friends before he passed away many years down the road. His son, Ellsworth Richter, Jr., would later be an SEC champion distance runner for Auburn University in the 1980's. Irons had other ways of getting the edge. While he had no state of the art weight set to work out with, he would simply lift an old shotgun repeatedly for upper body strength. ``That improved my endurance, my wind and strength,'' Irons said. During the early '20s, college football games had all the excitement a game may have today . . . or at least while the game was actually going on. But halftimes were more of a dead period. Irons explained, ``There were no bands, or girls to watch at halftime. There was not much entertainment. So they'd bring us runners in to run before these big crowds. We'd run for 10 or 15 minues during the half. We'd start inside the stadium and run a couple of laps, then go outside and run a road race. It was usually a three-mile run and we'd finish in front of the grandstand. ``The big game back then was Georgia Tech and Auburn and I guess there would be fifty or sixty thousand at those games even back then at Grant Field. They would bring in 75 runners, and of course the crowd would be really pulling for their school.'' Once again, the rules were pretty loose as pros were allowed to compete once again. ``Richter was there, but I would always beat him in Atlanta because he didn't know the course,'' said Irons. Irons added that Alabama's big rival in track was Mississippi A&M, which is now known as Mississippi State University. Irons worked his way through school. Despite his success, he ran for three years on no scholarship. But as a senior he became aggressive off the track, too. ``Yeah, my last year I suggested to them that I could use a scholarship,'' laughed Irons about something that was certainly no laughing matter at the time. Irons' coach at Alabama was the late Hank Crisp, who was more widely known for his football and basketball duties. He served as an assistant for five Alabama football coaches, and was the head basketball coach from 1924-42 in Tuscaloosa, but he actually came to Alabama to be the head track coach. The NCAA rule book was nowhere near as thick as it is today. And with Crisp being what Irons called ``a very kind man,'' his players would never have to worry if they got in a serious bind financially. ``He (Crisp) would loan you money on the side if you really needed it,'' said Irons. Irons, like everyone else that came into contact with Crisp, had great respect for the coach. ``He was a four-year letterman at VPI (Virginia Tech) despite having his right arm cut off,'' said Irons. Crisp lost his arm when he was 13 cutting corn to fill a silo. ``But man was he tough,'' said Irons. ``And he ran the hurdles, and if you've ever run hurdles before you know how important balance is, but he did it with just one arm. He also played football, basketball and baseball. They said he played outfield and after he would catch the ball, he'd throw the glove up in the air and catch the ball coming out and throw it back to the infield.'' Crisp died the night he was inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame on Jan. 23, 1970. Irons wouldn't let the university or Crisp down for awarding him the scholarship for his senior season. He finished undefeated in dual matches. And the biggest race in the south during that period was an AAU event run in Atlanta where some of the top eastern runners were also in the field. Irons won that race two years in a row. Irons path in life took a turn during World War II. He had finished at the university just after World War I, but through his ROTC classes he had made 2nd Lt. He would become a Captain in WWII and eventually a Lt. Col. for four and a half years. ``I had various experiences in the Army,'' said Irons. ``I was in a swamp about 30 miles north of Wilmington, NC. They put us there so when the shrapnel fell it wouldn't hurt nothing but the rattlesnakes.'' He would also be stationed in Texas, Mexico and New Jersey before returning home. He would enter the educational field once back in Alabama at Howard College (known today as Samford University) in 1933. ``Howard was really struggling to keep its head above water at that time,'' Irons said. ``I was lucky to be hired. Jobs were scarce during the Depression. We were accepting a side of beef and 12 dozen eggs for tuition. Those were hard times. Nobody had cash, so we took produce instead.'' But Irons knew a banker in Woodlawn, and he feels even today that may have helped him get hired at Howard College. ``Yeah, one of my first jobs was to go down to First National Bank and try to get them to extend the loan for the college. I knew the banker so they thought I'd be a good one to send.'' He didn't say whether he got the extension or not, but he got the job, and stayed for 43 years. During his tenure at Howard College, Irons taught future sports legends Bobby Bowden and Shorty Cooper in the classroom. But he also remembers a young man from Rattlesnake Gulch, Montana named Homestead. ``He was a big fella that talked big, but he wasn't too brave at heart,'' recalled Irons. ``But everybody just assumed he was tough because he came from Rattlesnake Gulch, Montana. As the only University of Alabama track man in the Alabama Sports Hall of Frame, Irons is extremely proud. But perhaps no more than his son, Birmingham attorney Bill Irons. ``Dad is the most disciplined person I've ever known,'' said Bill Irons. ``He goes beyond the doctor's wishes. And he also has a very high threshold of pain.'' Bill calls the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame ``a galaxy of stars and assembly of greats.'' Dr. George Irons is certainly a great star in the Hall of Fame. ``Being inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame was the most important event of my life,'' said Irons. ``Everybody wants to get to heaven. Well, this may be the nearest I come. ``I've read about all of these guys in the Hall and now I'm in it.'' Just a couple of months away from his 91st birthday, Irons still gets in a couple of miles a day, although they're most accomplished by walking. He does jog on occasion. ``It's good to get a little sweat out of you and spend a little time in the sunshine each day,'' said Irons. Asked how he's made it, Irons said simply, ``All my life I've been doing what seemed the best thing to do at the time.'' One of his favorite quotes comes from another Hall of Famer. ``Satchel Paige used to say, `Don't look back, they may be gaining on you.' '' Gain on George Irons? Hardly.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has arrived at the time when we and the Nation must look beyond the polls, the media, and beyond the political rhetoric and consider the grave matter of voting on the impeachment of the Nation's President. We stand at a moment of defining action, one that will require each of us to state for the Record our commitment to the principles involved in this case. As the gentleman from Florida, a member of the minority said earlier, our decision is not about Bill Clinton, it is not about personalities, it is not about partisanship, it is not about Republicans or Democrats. Popular opinion and polls cannot dictate our course of action. Duty, honor, and obligation must. Ageless principles must. On this solemn occasion, I will vote for impeachment. People, politics, and polls change. Presidents come and go. Fundamental principles do not. My vote is based on the following principles: The first, a commitment to the truth. It is essential to a just society. A commitment to the truth is the foundation of our democracy and our freedom. The second is, actions and behaviors matter. Only God can search and sift the soul. Because we cannot read the heart, we must rely on actions and behaviors. Certain actions and behaviors are inconsistent with the office of President. Third, forgiveness does not absolve one of responsibility for actions, nor relieve one of the consequences of those actions. Earlier I asked for unanimous consent, and at this time I will submit for the Record an article out of the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Religion Should Not Be Used as a Political Tool,'' signed by 85 religious scholars. In that, it says, ``We challenge the widespread assumption that forgiveness relieves a person of further responsibility and serious consequences.'' I commend this article to all my colleagues and introduce it here.

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. 1756.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in conclusion that Catherine Cruz Wojtasik did work very hard on this bill. I think it shows that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) has assembled a good staff, and I would like to commend Ms. Cruz Wojtasik on her work on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that oversight.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1756 is the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998. It was introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and myself, and it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to create a national strategy for combating money laundering and other financial crimes by coordinating money laundering and other financial crimes. It also supplies resources to Federal, state and local agencies in the coordination of their efforts. I would explain to Members what is so important about money laundering. Money laundering is the flip side of narcotics trafficking. When we talk about the war on drugs, when we talk about our efforts against drugs, some people do not realize that it is a two-way street. On the TV we observe pictures of large amounts of drugs being seized, of drugs being destroyed, of them being intercepted, and, in fact, we have been very successful in seizing a great percentage of the drugs coming into this Nation. Where we have failed, where we have not addressed the problem that needs to be addressed, is in money laundering. When drugs are sold, for them to be profitable to the money launderers and the drug cartels overseas, they not only have to sell their product, they have to reap their profit. That means that the money must flow back out of the country. They must get the money back out. In fact, law enforcement agencies and policy makers tell us that if you want to hit the drug cartels where it hurts the worst, you do not seize the drugs, because there is an endless supply of that; you seize the money. And that is what this new strategy is about. Unfortunately, we estimate we are seizing less than 1 percent of drug proceeds money, and, therefore, this legislation I think is going to be a hallmark and really a nail in hopefully the coffin of drug cartels overseas which are preying on our young men and women on the streets of America. The legislation provides for the designation of high risk money laundering areas for the purpose of providing those localities with increased Federal attention and funding for state and local law enforcement efforts. We had a pilot project in New York City in the district of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who, I am sure, will cover this in more detail. But to tell you about the gravity of this situation, this effort was headed up by the New York police, the city police, New York State police, Customs. In a short period of time, over $1 billion of money transfers to Colombia were intercepted during this effort. I am not talking about $1 million, I am not talking about tens of millions of dollars. Over $1 billion in transfers were intercepted. So that gives you some idea about the magnitude of this problem. Now, the House passed this measure earlier this month by voice vote. On Wednesday, the Senate passed it with an amendment, again by unanimous consent. The Senate amendment is relatively modest in scope. I think it improves the bill, and I have been asked by Members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce to explain that amendment for the record. As passed by the House, this act provided that the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to develop a national strategy for combating money laundering and related crimes extended to all potential violations of title 18, sections 1956 and 1957. Those sections are the basic criminal money laundering provisions of our Federal law, and they contain more than 100 predicate offenses involving crimes as varied or desperate as obscenity and arms control export violations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation raised concerns that the shear breadth of the criminal conduct covered by these two sections, 1956 and 1957, might complicate the Treasury Department's ability to develop a coherent national strategy for combating money laundering and in allocating scarce law enforcement resources to initiatives undertaken at the state and local level. In response to that, we in the House, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), requested and the Senate conceded and actually offered an amendment, and also the Senate was very supportive of this amendment and amended the bill to provide that the national strategy should be directed at the movement of elicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of and through the United States, or into, out of and through United States financial institutions, because many of these are electronic transfers, rather than directing the scope to the more broad offenses delineated in title 18 and other portions of the U.S. Code. We all agree this is a good amendment that strengthens the bill. I also want to, at the request of the Committee on Commerce, take this opportunity to clarify the legislative intent behind another provision of H.R. 1756, and that is section 2. Section 2 amends chapter 53 of title 31 of the U.S. Code to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to regularly review enforcement efforts under the chapter and under the subchapter and other provisions of the law, and, when appropriate, modify existing regulations or prescribe new regulations for the purposes of preventing money laundering and related financial crimes. On June 25, 1998, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) wrote to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and myself, to express concern that such a broad mandate could be interpreted to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to review enforcement actions under the Federal securities laws or to modify regulations promulgated pursuant to Federal security laws or to grant the Secretary of Treasury new or additional authority to prescribe regulations applicable to entities that are regulated pursuant to the Federal securities law. In response, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) affirmed that it is not the Committee on Banking and Financial Services's intent for the language in section 2 to grant the Secretary of Treasury any new or additional authority over entities that are regulated pursuant to the Federal securities law or to require or encourage the Secretary of the Treasury to review enforcement actions under the Federal securities law, or to modify or recommend the modification of regulations promulgated under the Federal securities laws. That response has been accepted. Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to emphasize that H.R. 1756 is an excellent example of the spirit of bipartisanship and comity that has historically characterized the Committee on Banking and Financial Services's deliberation on anti-money laundering initiatives. We do hear a lot of partisanship and wrangling in this body. That is not always the case. In bringing this bill before both the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans have joined together, they worked closely with the administration, and the result has been a nonpartisan or bipartisan effort, which we believe will go a long way in combating illegal drugs and money laundering. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) should be particularly commended for her work, and by this I mean her hard work on this matter. She has been a big help in dealing with the law enforcement agencies. In addition, I would like to commend and give special recognition to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and to the ranking minority member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for their efforts in moving this important bill through the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Also I want to commend members of the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations staff for their hard work on money laundering in this Congress. An example of the administration and the Congress working together on this bill is that Dave Cohen from my staff, who basically worked with Ms. Velazquez on a daily basis in the particulars of this bill, as a result of working with Customs, he is no longer with the subcommittee. He was in fact hired by Customs, which sort of pays us a compliment to his ability. Dave, within the last month, has taken the position as assistant to the Commissioner, Ray Kelly, at Customs. So I think that ought to be a compliment to the entire Congress and to the staff that worked on this bill. In addition, I would like to compliment the legal staff that worked on this bill. Jim Clinger, the Clinger name is a name that most of us in Congress recognize. His father, Bill Clinger, served in this body with distinction. Jim Clinger and Win Yerby, legal counsel for the majority, worked closely on this bill. I am particularly pleased that Win Yerby is a native Alabamian. On the democratic side, Rick Maurano, who is seated at the table with Ms. Velazquez, also did yeoman's work on this bill. Again, this was a totally nonpartisan effort. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I will say in closing that I have had six money laundering hearings. In fact, money laundering has been the central focus of the subcommittee's work, because I see it as one of the most important responsibilities of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations. The reason I do is because the threat that narcotic drugs has in every community, in every state, in every locality, to us, to the integrity of our law enforcement agencies, and to the safety and welfare of our citizens. As I said, again, thanks to the gentlewoman from New York, this bill will go a long way in hitting the drug cartels where it hurts the worst, in the pocketbook. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1756, the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, introduced by the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez. Chairman Leach, Representative Gonzalez, and myself, directs the Secretary of the Treasury to create a national strategy for combating money laundering and other financial crimes by coordinating Federal State, and local efforts and resources. The legislation provides for the designation of high risk money laundering areas for the purpose of providing these localities with increased Federal attention and funding for State and local law enforcement efforts. The House passed this measure earlier this month by voice vote, and on Wednesday, the other body passed it with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate amendment is relatively modest in scope. As passed by the House, H.R. 1756 provided that the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to develop a national strategy for combating ``money laundering and related crimes'' extended to all potential violations of 18 U.S.C. sections 1956 and 1957, the basic criminal money laundering provisions, which themselves contain more than 100 predicate offenses involving crimes as disparate as obscenity and arms control export violations. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation raised concerns that the sheer breadth of criminal conduct covered by sections 1956 and 1957 might complicate the Treasury Department's ability to develop a coherent national strategy for combating money laundering and to allocate scarce law enforcement resources to initiatives undertaken at the State and local levels, the Senate amended the bill to provide that the national strategy should be directed at the ``movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of or through the United States, or into, out of or through United States financial institutions,'' rather than at the specific underlying offenses delineated in title 18 and other portions of the United States Code. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to clarify the legislative intent behind another provision of H.R. 1756. Section 2 of the legislation amends chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to ``regularly review enforcement efforts under this subchapter and other provisions of laws and, when appropriate, modify existing regulations or prescribe new regulations for purposes of preventing'' money laundering and related financial crimes. On June 25, 1998, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bliley, wrote to Chairman Leach to express the concern that ``such a broad mandate could be interpreted to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to review enforcement actions under the Federal securities laws or to modify regulations promulgated pursuant to the Federal securities laws, or to grant the Secretary of the Treasury new or additional authority to prescribe regulations applicable to entities that are regulated pursuant to the Federal securities laws.'' In response, Chairman Leach affirmed that it is not the Banking Committee's intent for the language in section 2 to grant the Secretary of the Treasury any new or additional authority over entities that are regulated pursuant to the Federal securities laws, or to require or encourage the Secretary of the Treasury to review enforcement actions under the Federal securities laws or to modify, or recommend the modification of, regulations promulgated under the Federal securities laws. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that H.R. 1756 is an excellent example of the spirit of bipartisanship and comity that has historically characterized the Banking Committee's deliberations on antimoney laundering initiatives. The gentlewoman from New York Ms. Velazquez, should be particularly commended for her hard work on this matter. Special recognition should also be accorded to Chairman Leach and to the ranking minority member, Mr. LaFalce for their efforts in moving this important bill through the Banking Committee. I also want to commend members of the Banking Oversight Subcommittee for their hard work on money laundering in this Congress. As chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, I have made money laundering a central focus of the subcommittee's work because I see it as one of the most important responsibilities of the Banking and Financial Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill ( H.R. 1756) to amend chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, to require the development and implementation by the Secretary of the Treasury of a national money laundering and related financial crime strategy to combat money laundering and related financial crimes, and for other purposes.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the University of Alabama at Birmingham is one of our Nation's premiere medical research universities, and one that I am proud to represent in the Sixth District of Alabama. This institution should be particularly commended for its recognition in U.S. News and World Report's 1998 Guide to America's Best Hospitals. UAB is recognized as outstanding in five of the sixteen specialties rated by U.S. News and World Report. These specialties are cardiology and cardiac surgery, geriatrics, gynecology, pulmonary disease, and rheumatology. To be named as among the best within these categories out of the Nation's 6,400 hospitals is certainly an outstanding achievement which speaks highly of all the faculty, staff, and employees of UAB. The contributions this institution makes to the Sixth District, the State of Alabama, and people all over the country are highly commendable. I recognize and honor UAB not only in the five areas acknowledged by U.S. News and World Report but for all the outstanding contributions made in the areas of medicine and health care to the community and to the country. Congratulations to all of those at UAB who work daily to improve the lives and health of Americans.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Alfred E. Kahn, the noted economist and ``father of deregulation,'' has rightly earned our gratitude for his work over the years. With all due respect, however, Dr. Kahn is doing himself and his many admirers a disservice in his continued calls for increased economic regulation of the freight railroad industry in this country. Dr. Kahn testified on April 22, 1998, before the Subcommittee on Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. At that hearing, he testified at length on his perception of anti- competitive conduct by the rail industry and his suggestions on steps that should be taken to alleviate such conduct. Dr. Kahn has repeated his viewpoints at other times and in other venues in recent months, including testimony to the Surface Transportation Board. Most recently, an interview with Dr. Kahn was the basis for an article in the October 5, 1998 issue of Traffic World. In that interview, Dr. Kahn continues to advocate misguided railroad reregulation. At the April 22, 1998 hearing at which I was present and engaged in considerable discourse with proponents of reregulation, Dr. Kahn was challenged by a number of experts in railroad economics and finance. In my opinion, his pronouncements were inconsistent with operating and marketplace realities. I respectfully submit he likewise errs on a number of points in the recent Traffic World article, including the following: Dr. Kahn's basic premise is that service by a single railroad is equivalent to monopolization and that competition does not now exist for shippers. To the contrary, railroads face intense competition from other railroads, from other modes such as trucks and barges, and from other sources for the vast majority of their traffic. Shippers of all types, including those which are served by only one railroad, almost always have ways to obtain competitive transportation. And because of this competition, rail customers exert meaningful power in negotiating railroad rates and services. In those relatively few cases wherein shippers do not have effective transportation options, existing maximum rate regulation protects shippers form egregious railroad rates. In two recent cases, for example, two utilities were awarded millions of dollars in reparations by the STB because they were deemed to have been charged unreasonably high rates by the railroads that served them. In response to criticisms by Dr. Kahn and others that rate reasonableness case procedures were cumbersome, lengthy and expensive, expedited procedures for small shipper cases were recently implemented by the STB, though shippers have not taken advantage of them to date. Dr. Kahn is wrong in dismissing the likelihood of reduced investment in rail infrastructure if mandated access forces rates too low. Under forced access, railroads would be unable to recoup the full costs of their investment in their infrastructure. Without the ability to cover total costs, railroads would be unable to maintain or increase their investment commitment. This would lead to deterioration and/or shrinkage of the national rail system and reduced service levels. Given the vital importance of transportation to the national and global economies, this is the last thing the national transportation system needs. Dr. Kahn is wrong in claiming that ``structural remedies'' such as mandated competitive access would assure rail-to-rail competition and permit market forces to determine rate and service levels. In fact, under a system of forced access, government bureaucrats would have to regulate anew an incredible variety of price and operational decisions, creating a system of economic regulation that would be far more costly and pervasive--and far less effective--than the current system. Proponents of mandated access, like Dr. Kahn, essentially advocate that freight railroads should be regulated on the basis of how many railroads serve an individual shipper, rather than on the presence or absence of competition. They propose that access to a railroad's privately owned and maintained infrastructure by its competitors should be mandated, and that the fees for access should be set by regulation, not by competitive market forces. This uneconomical reregulation of freight railroads is an attempt to gain short-term rate reductions for some shippers, at the expense of other rail customers, railroad investors and society in general. Deregulation of the U.S. railroad industry has led to tens of billions of dollars in savings since 1980 to shippers and, ultimately, to all of us. It would be a tragedy of enormous proportions to jettison these gains in favor of cleverly disguised regulation that has failed in the past and would fail again.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all, and this has been said several times but let us say it one more time, this Exchange Stabilization Fund was created by this Congress, by an appropriation by this Congress in 1934. And our Nation, our Treasury, our taxpayer, that is taxpayer money, that is money that belongs to the citizens of the United States. It is not the Treasury's money. It is not the Congress's money. It is not the President's money. It is the people's money. And presently it is $38 billion. What this amendment says to this money which we can oversee, it says that we will not loan more than $250 million of this money at any one time to a foreign country. It does not place any limitations on us using this fund for currency transactions. In fact, we had a currency transaction 2 weeks ago by the Treasury. This fund is a fund to strengthen the U.S. dollar. And what did we use this fund for 2 weeks ago? We used it to drive down the U.S. dollar and drive up the yen to enable Japan to be able to export cheaper to the United States. That is what we used it for 2 weeks ago. We used it to help the Japanese economy and to help people that compete against our businesses. I was told, in opposing this amendment, the chairman of the subcommittee said $250 million is not a lot of money. Well, let me say this about the economy. Let me say this about protecting our economy. And when the gentleman has time, I will let him yield to me and we will debate. Let me say this about our economy. Senator E.B. McLean came to my office today. He and I served in the Alabama legislature. He told me that a company that had been in Birmingham for over 100 years, employed 400 people, had gone out of business 3 months ago, a coke plant. There were no Federal funds available to help this coke plant. Had it been in Korea, we could have taken money out of this fund I guess and propped it up because it would have helped the Korean economy and that would have helped our economy perhaps. But it failed. And he said it failed because of cheap coke coming into our country from the Pacific Basin. So I am not saying that we should not use all this money to go around the country. And the President said we want to use $5 billion to loan to South Korea; we want to loan $3 billion of this money to Indonesia. I am simply saying, I do not think we ought to continue to loan this money. It is not strengthening the U.S. dollar. It is strengthening those economies. It strengthens their economies. And, yes, there is a residual of benefit for us. But what if we had gone to Birmingham, Alabama, and used some of that money to have assisted that coke plant with 400 people that worked there? Would that not have helped our economy? Would that not be a more direct way? We can turn our backs on all this and we can say this is not under our control and this $38 billion can be loaned all over the world. Or, as representatives of the people, we can vote for this amendment and say, if they are going to loan this money to foreign countries, which was not the original intent of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, at least vote yes or no. They are giving away money, billions of dollars. They are proposing it. If this amendment does not go on, the President has already announced $8 billion worth of loans out of the Treasury. Somebody talked about the Constitution, what is appropriate and what is not. Let me quote section 9 of Article I of the Constitution. ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but by appropriation made by law by this Congress.'' What happened to the Constitution when we gave $20 billion to Mexico? I do not care whether it was paid back or not. It was given to Mexico. Did it help Mexico? No. Their GNP is worse than it was before the loan. They owe $160 billion today. They owed $40 billion then. We can continue to loan money to every country around this world, Russia, China, Japan; and one day we are not going to have a fund to bail out our own dollar. Mr. Chairman, let me say this in conclusion. I am saying let us vote on this. If we want to loan money to these foreign countries, take a stand, vote on it. Do not turn our backs and let the President do it without consent.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his comments. I will tell the gentleman that he and I share some of the same concerns. In fact, I served as Assistant Attorney General and legal counsel for a State agency that seized more drugs 2 straight years than any other State agency in the United States. Unfortunately, most of those drugs made their way through Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we do have to be in partnership with Mexico, and I hope that this resolution brings a greater understanding, particularly when the Mexican Government has indicated that they may ask for extradition of our agents. I am glad that the gentleman from Texas agrees that that is inappropriate. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) has already said that it expresses the support of the House for our enforcement agencies involved in the successful money laundering investigation, code named Operation Casablanca, and it expresses the view of the House that it would be inappropriate and indefensible to accept any request from the Mexican Government that these courageous American agents be extradited. Operation Casablanca was announced last month by the Treasury and Justice Departments and it was the largest money laundering investigation in the history of the United States. Three things are clear. First, the drug trade is a scourge on both the United States and Mexico, and the people of both nations are committed to fighting this threat. Second, Operation Casablanca struck a major blow to the Colombian and Mexican drug cartels and their dirty money men. Finally, the U.S. Customs agents who placed their lives on the line to conduct this operation should be commended, not threatened with prosecution. As chairman of the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I have conducted several hearings to examine money laundering, including one September 1996 to examine the issue of money laundering in Mexican financial institutions. That hearing painted a quite disturbing picture. The drug thugs who have caused harm in virtually every American community have essentially two choices after they receive cash for their poisonous product. They can smuggle the money out as cash or they can utilize financial institutions through ``smurfing,'' peso brokering, and other techniques. Our United States banks and other financial institutions have done a fairly good job of closing the front door to money laundering by rigorous enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act. However, it is a different story in Mexico. The bottom line is that once drug proceeds cross the border, it is virtually impossible to trace them and money laundering is done with ease. This year, the State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report states, ``Mexico continues to be the money laundering haven of choice for the transportation of U.S. cash drug proceeds.'' Mexico has recently enacted money laundering legislation, but it neither has the regulatory infrastructure nor the reliable personnel at this time to enforce those rules. Our best strategy in the short run is law enforcement infiltration of criminal organizations and corrupt financial institutions. That is what Operation Casablanca did, and that is why Operation Casablanca is so significant. The Customs Service and other agents are to be commended for undertaking this risky but courageous investigation. In one operation, our Customs Service was able to penetrate high into the Mexican and Colombian criminal organizations and flush out many of the financial institutions and banks serving them. Over a dozen Mexican and Venezuelan banks were implicated. It will be some time before the banking friends of the narco-traffickers feel laundering for the cartels is a relatively risk-free way to make a dirty fortune. We do not know all the details about Operation Casablanca. We do know that Mexican authorities were notified of the Casablanca probe, but were not notified of all the details. That is because specific information would have endangered the lives of our law enforcement agents. The sad reality is that we cannot do this type of operation at this time and share specific information with Mexico. Neither can we halt the war against the drug cartels. We would not tolerate missiles being stationed in Mexico and aimed at the United States. The drug threat is every bit as sinister. In conclusion, Operation Casablanca will prove to be a watershed event in our joint fight against drugs. Mexico can no longer remain in a state of denial about complicity of their financial institutions with the drug trade. In the short run, it was an embarrassment for Mexico, as demonstrated by their angry reaction. While their shock is predictable, their threats against U.S. law enforcement agents was disappointing and should not be given credence. It is truly outrageous for the Government of Mexico to threaten to seek extradition of our law enforcement agents, even reportedly going to the ludicrous extreme of offering to swap narco-traffickers for law enforcement agents. United States agents place their lives on the line. We in Washington should never lose sight of the fact that the drug cartel operation is not fought by paper-pushers here in Washington, but by men and women of our law enforcement agencies who are out on the front lines. It is a mystery to me why the administration and the State Department have not put forth stronger statements in support of our law enforcement agencies. But if they will not take the lead in supporting our agents, Congress must. Democrats, Republicans and Independents have joined together in cosponsoring this legislation. This morning every Member received a letter from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a New York Democrat; the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the House's only Independent; and myself urging all Members to support this resolution. Twelve other Democratic cosponsors have joined us. Mr. Speaker, I hope the United States and Mexico will work together and not let drug fighting take a back seat to diplomatic and political concerns. The bottom line is that our law enforcement agents should not be prosecuted or even threatened for fighting the drug thugs.

Mr. BACHUS. What this resolution says, and I hope it was a message that we carried to Mexico, is that this fight against narco-traffickers is a dangerous one, and we simply do not need to let our law enforcement agencies be made pawns in a diplomatic or political struggle. I appreciate what the gentleman has said, but I think we ought to make it clear that extradition is not an appropriate path.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, one does not have to be a rocket scientist, one does not have to be an economics professor to know that many families today are struggling to pay their child's college education. Both sides of the aisle would agree with that. In fact, college tuitions have increased 234 percent since 1980. Now, this prices many families out of a college education. Others have had to go deep in debt to send their children to college. As a matter of fact, parents and children attending college have borrowed more money for college education in the 1990's than in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's. Now, I was an elected member of the Alabama State School Board, and we were faced with this problem in Alabama, one of our poorer states, people unable to send their children to college. And we were one of the first 3 states to devise a prepaid tuition plan where parents could put away a little money each month and when their children reached college age they could take that fund and then pay for their college tuition. I am glad to say today that 43,000 Alabama children are enrolled in our prepaid college tuition plan. 18 other states have made similar moves and have prepaid tuition plans. We have heard about Kentucky from the gentleman from Kentucky. And it is my understanding that most other states expect to start their own plans in the near future and these plans will help make college a reality for many, many children. It is because of that that I rise today in strong support for this conference report, for this conference report is good news for all those families and all those children enrolled in those prepaid tax plans. There was bipartisan support for this provision, a provision which I introduced originally in this Congress 2 years ago and again last year and has been included in the conference report which makes savings and state prepaid tuition plans tax free. Can we all not agree that no tax makes less sense than one that punishes families for saving for their children's college education? We should be rewarding families who save for their child's college education, not penalizing then. The current law penalizes them. When they draw that money out, they have to pay taxes on it. This conference report changes that. For that reason, I congratulate the conferees and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for yielding this time to me. When we consider an issue like child pornography, we need to understand that issue. A recent poll showed that most people in the United States know little about child pornography and understand little about it. They are surprised when they learn that child pornography is the tool of choice used by child molesters and pedophiles to entice young children into sexual activity. They also are unaware that most sexual pedophiles, sexual predators, possess child pornography that is usually on their person or found in their homes. They also, in fact, ask very often how does child pornography, how is it even created? How does it begin? Mr. Chairman, we can answer all three of those questions with one answer, and that is, and the final report of the Commission on Pornography outlined this, why sexual predators use pornography, why they always possess it, how child pornography is created. And Dr. Shirley O'Brien, there was an attachment of her study on this, and it shows that this is how child pornography is created. Child pornography is shown to a child by an adult; 2, the adult uses the materials to convince the child that the depicted sexual act is acceptable, even desirable; 3, the material desensitizes the child, lowering his or her inhibitions; 4, some of the sessions progress to sexual activities involving the child; 5, photographs or home movies are taken of the activity, and finally the nude pornographic material is used to lure more child victims and also to keep the victim from talking about the experience. So, as we discuss this issue, bottom line, let us remember that child pornography is used in every community in America to lure children into this child abuse.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Texas for their remarks, and I would like to associate myself with those remarks. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses something that is wrong and does what is right. What is wrong? Present Federal law, which says it is legal to possess one or two pieces of child pornography, but not three or more. Now, that was said to be the result of a compromise with civil libertarians, but I would say that it was an insane compromise with the devil, a compromise which exposes every American child to pedophiles and child predators who lurk in every American community, armed with items of child pornography. Let us also say that any item of child pornography, one item, is the ultimate example and evidence of the ultimate child abuse. What is the right thing to do? The right thing to do is full protection for American children against these predators, zero tolerance for this perversion. We have seen pictures from Paducah, Jonesboro, Pearl, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Oregon, cruel examples of children gunned down, of lives lost. Less graphic, but equally destructive and disturbing and more widespread, is that we have allowed under the Federal law pedophiles and child predators in every community of our country to legally possess child pornography and to use this child pornography to destroy our youth. That is wrong. Therefore, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) and I have offered this amendment. The amendment is right, and I urge each Member to do what is right and vote yes on the Riley amendment.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, I would like to say that the gentleman from New York said something that I agree with. That is, that we are mixing a lot of things in this amendment. And I wish that the Committee on Rules had given us an opportunity to address CRA reform in a separate amendment. I had offered an amendment to exempt the community banks of CRA up to $250 million, but this House is not going to get to address that. However, in this amendment, there is a provision which will exempt the small banks up to $100 million in assets from CRA. Let me tell my colleagues, this is not a revolutionary idea. In fact, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), Democratic Member of this body, offered and the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services passed a provision which exempted banks up to $150 million and rural banks up to $250 million in 1991. We continue to back-pedal on this issue. In the Senate, 12 Democratic Senators have endorsed the idea of a two-tier approach to CRA. Forty-one Democrats have joined in the House, saying that we need to have a two-tier approach. But first of all, we are not going to get to vote on that in a clear shot. I wish we all did. I wish that the Committee on Rules had seen in their wisdom to let us take a stand on this issue. All we will get to do today is vote on this provision, and one of the things it has in it that I strongly support is an exemption for banks up to $100 million in assets. And who are these banks? Seventy-five percent of them are in communities of 10,000 people and less; 45 percent of them, the majority of their loans are agricultural loans to small farmers. These banks are simply being driven out of the market by the cost of compliance. It is open season on the small banks. H.R. 10 is going to continue to put them at a disadvantage and put them out of business, but at least this amendment gives them a little bit of relief, not as much as the Democratic House of Representatives in 1991 gave them, because we obviously love regulation today more than we did then, not as much as this entire House did when it passed the provisions a few years ago. We are back-pedalling, making the exemption smaller, giving less relief, but good gosh, can we not at least do this?