Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in addressing this issue, I think we ought to first ask ourselves who is the IMF. Well, the IMF functions like a private club. Its minutes are secret. They are never released to the public. Its votes are not a matter of public record. The people who work for the IMF do not pay income taxes; or, actually, they pay income taxes, but then the IMF reimburses them for those income taxes. We are talking about funding the IMF and funding its operation. Hear me, we are talking about an organization whose employees receive reimbursement for their income taxes. When their children want to go to private schools, that education is financed; and we will continue to finance that if we vote another $18 billion to the IMF. When their children want to go to a private university or college, the IMF will pay their full cost of education, tuition, books. We are asking the U.S. taxpayers in this funding request to reimburse the employees of the IMF for income taxes, for private school costs, for tuition, and not only that, but for salaries higher than those paid by the U.S. Government. We might say, well, is it worth it? What will the IMF do with our money? We have been told they are going to bail out Asia, but that is not true. They have already funded the bailouts of Asia. They have $80 billion in reserve. They have $40 billion in gold reserve. Indonesia, who they loan money to, has $16 billion in reserves. What are they going to do? They are going to expand their role and continue to give loans to foreign countries at 4.5 percent interest when the going market rate is 10 to 14 percent. I will tell my colleagues there is going to be an infinite supply of those lined up to get money subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2552.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I do it on behalf of not only myself, but my oldest son, who I am proud to say serves in the U.S. Marines, and his family, my other four children and their mother.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this concerted effort to, hopefully, force China to change its present practice of religious persecution, suppression of individual freedoms and liberties, systematic genocide of children, and intimidation of Taiwan. Despite its many claims of reforms aimed at improving its business climate, China is still a Communist regime. China imprisons citizens who hold prayer meetings in their homes. That is repression. China requires registration of all religious groups and imprisons those who refuse to register. That is repression. China refuses to recognize the Catholic Church's appointment of a bishop, in fear that he will advocate service to the Pope or to the state. And that is repression. We all are, sadly, aware of the population control efforts which force abortion of Chinese children, especially girls. We are also all sadly aware of the crackdowns on dissidents who dare speak out for democracy and fairness. And we are all disturbed by China's constant threats to the security of the people of Taiwan, such as the missile firings and military exercises. Too often those who rattle sabers become tempted to use them. In my view, trade is an important component in encouraging China to move towards democracy. Once the forces of free market and free enterprise start their dynamic reaction, heavy-handed regimes can no longer contain their by-product, a real desire for more and more freedom. China's leaders can try to build a free market without free people, but they will not succeed. A free market requires, demands and therefore leads to a free people. The United States granted normal trade relations to China for one primary purpose, to foster change. China's President thinks that there are no strings attached to the generous treatment our country has afforded China. But today we in Congress need to send a message to Jiang Zemin, stop the religious persecution, stop killing babies, stop arresting and killing peaceful dissidents and stop the threats aimed at Taiwan. This legislative package sends that message. It offers an important set of tools for fostering human rights improvement and freedom for the people of China. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the China package in its entirety.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], the chairman of the subcommittee. What they have done through their leadership on this bill is to give us a much better piece of legislation than what we had when it came over from the Senate. The bill is not to punish; the bill is to protect our veterans. It is to respect our veterans. It is meant to protect them. It is not punitive. This bill does a very fine job of doing that. When the bill came over from the Senate, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] talked about a loophole, and I think that is a very good word. I think the gentleman is correct, in that when it came over from the Senate it said that certain people could not be buried in a National Cemetery if they had committed a Federal offense or a Federal capital offense. We agreed with that. But the Committee on Veterans' Affairs felt we should not set up a preference for someone who commits Federal offenses, nor should there be preferential treatment given to Federal offenses as opposed to State offenses. In other words, if you blew up a Federal building, if you killed a Federal officer, if you committed a murder on an Indian reservation, you would be prohibited from being buried in a national cemetery; but if you blew up a city hall, if you killed a sheriff, if you walked in a McDonald's and killed 20 people, there would be no prohibition on you, a mass murderer, being buried in a national cemetery. We took care of that simply by saying that all capital offenses were covered. What the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] took leadership on is he was interested in respecting our cemeteries, preserving their dignity, thinking about those heroes who are buried there, and our statement to the Nation on who are our heroes. The Senate bill, I think, was punitive, in that it denied to the widows, to the dependents, all benefits, and that was not what we were after. That is not what we were seeking. We were seeking to protect and to respect, not to be punitive. The final product I wholly endorse. I originally introduced part of this legislation in response to a lynching of a 19-year-old young man in Mobile County. The bill that came from the Senate would not have addressed this. The people that participated in the military honor guard protested having to participate in honoring a man who had just been executed in the electric chair in Alabama. The Senate bill did not address that; the House bill did. Madam Speaker, this is a much better bill, and I urge its passage, and I thank the chairman and the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, there have been several issues that have come up on the floor that I think need clarification. One thing that has been said on this House floor is why is there a need for labor reform? Why can Amtrak labor and management not just sit down and negotiate through the collective bargaining process? I would point out to the Members that Amtrak is presently required by Federal law to make labor protection payments of up to 6 years of full wages and benefits to any employee who is laid off due to a route discontinuation or the reduction in service below three times a week. Now, there have been some statements also on the floor of this House that that is the same labor protection that the freight railroads enjoy. But that fact is not true. Reducing service below three times a week does not kick in the freight railroad protection. The discontinuation of service does not kick it in. Under the labor protection in this bill, if an employee is asked to move 30 miles or more, these labor protection provisions kick in. That is not true with the freight railroads. What we basically have by the protection that is in the bill today is we have our railroads competing with bus lines and airlines which do not have these restrictions, and they are losing money, and that is despite the fact that we have subsidized them to the tune of $19 billion between 1970 and today. That is something that we should not ask the American taxpayer to do. And we also should not have the type of restrictions in this bill that we find nowhere else in America, that no other worker enjoys. We also have the contracting out provisions. Those are a source of capital drain for Amtrak. That is one of the reasons that Amtrak capital and their equipment is in such bad shape today; that it is beginning, I think, to be a responsibility of all of us in Congress either to operate Amtrak safely or not operate it at all. This is becoming more and more a safety issue. There was a reference on the floor of the House that they are presently contracting out some work. The only work that they can contract out now is work if it would not result in one single employee of Amtrak being terminated. So we have almost zero contracting out now. The final thing that I would say is it has been said that Amtrak pays out very little cash in labor protection payments. The reason for that is, and that is probably one thing that has been said that is true, that this simply proves that Amtrak management is unable to make normal, rational business decisions because the statutory labor protection standards are standing in the way. I repeat again this example. Most Amtrak service reductions do not go below three trains a week. The reason they do not is to do so would trigger the labor protections. So Amtrak is tied up. That is why they are running three trains on some routes when they would like to run none. We ought to at least give Amtrak the right to operate with sufficient capital and to operate the way that other businesses operate in this country. And we also should not come to this floor and say that what Amtrak now has is the same labor protection that the freight railroads have. That is not true. In fact, and I will close with this, these labor protections not only extend to labor, they extend to the management of Amtrak, which I do not think I have ever seen an instance of that before.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we are caught unawares without any warning. Last month there was a commuter strike in San Francisco where over 270,000 commuters found themselves without a way to work and a way home, when the 60-day cooling-off period expired on a labor dispute out there and the San Francisco Bay area's commuter railroads were shut down. About the same time here in Washington, afternoon commuters who were going home on VRE suddenly found that their trains were not leaving Union Station, and tens of thousands of them were stranded when dispatchers at Norfolk Southern called a wildcat strike. Now, these were regional strikes, they were unforeseen but they caused a great deal of disruption. What may be happening to our Nation that I think most of the Members of this body are unaware of is another strike on the magnitude of the UPS strike. The gentleman from New York mentioned ``Groundhog Day,'' where suddenly Bill Murray woke up and it was the same day all over again. We could very well be facing that again later this month. The date: October 22. Amtrak is faced on that day with a possible national shutdown because of an impasse between the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way employees and themselves over wages and work rules. What precipitated this latest crisis was a Presidential emergency board, actually ruling 232, recommending that Amtrak pay the union employees what amounts to $25 million in wage increases, including some retroactive payments, and left another $30 million in arbitration. If this pattern were to continue, if this Presidential emergency board ruling were applied to all 27,000 Amtrack employees, it would cost Amtrak an additional $136 million. Amtrak, which as we all know is financially strapped, has simply taken the position that it cannot pay what it does not have, and it cannot pay these increases. As I said, this 30-day cool-off period expires on October 22. That is one day after we return from recess. At that time, I fully expect that Congress will be in the middle of resolving a strike or taking steps to prevent a strike. If Amtrak is shut down, it will not be a commuter authority, it will not be like San Francisco or Virginia, it will be nationwide. It will not be thousands of commuters, it will be millions. On the northeast corridor alone, think about this impact: Not only does Amtrak operate several hundred trains, but also commuter authorities in Boston, the MBTA operates over Amtrak territory; Connecticut DOT, Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority; MARC and VRE. We are talking about commuters all up and down the northeastern corridor being unable to get to and from work. We are also talking about 73 freight trains on the northeastern corridor alone that would not be able to get to and from their customers. If this happens, the strike in San Francisco will pale by comparison and it will not be one city. What can we do about this? I would urge the Members of this body to come together and push for reauthorization of the Amtrak bill, or to authorize the Amtrak bill that has been reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on which I am a member. I would also urge labor not to take this position of a win-at-all- costs position. Unfortunately, they are holding up the authorization legislation this year because they are opposed to the same language in the bill that two years ago they wrote, language which would have been enacted as part of this year's tax bill and given Amtrak access to funds. Now, these same unions are demanding a pay increase. They are now demanding that Amtrak pay this. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have got to start thinking about what we are going to do. If we do not, we will wake up October 22 or sometime thereafter faced with a national crisis, and the American people, and us, will be caught unawares. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record data in support of the topic of my special order this evening: Effects of a 1 Day Strike Against Amtrak Amtrak either operates or allows access over its tracks to 10 commuter agencies serving communities in 12 states. A one day strike would strand or frustrate the communities of nearly 600,000 commuters. Depending on the scope of the strike, all Amtrak trains could potentially cease operation. Amtrak's average daily ridership is 60,000 passengers. This would idle 253 trains, stop service to 510 communities, 130 of whom have no direct air service, and 113 of whom do not have intercity bus service. Each day of the strike will likely cost $3.8 million of lost revenue while costs will likely go up. In addition, Amtrak receives nearly $200,000 each day in mail revenues which would likely be lost. Mail service would be delayed to 35 cities nationwide. Freight train operations on Amtrak owned property would also be disrupted or canceled. On the Northeast Corridor alone, freight operators serve 308 customers, including such large industries as Chrysler, Proctor and Gamble, and Delco Battery. Twenty-seven of the 308 customers are listed as Fortune 500 companies. Amtrak is a vital link for all freight shippers and their customers along the Northeast Corridor. Each day approximately 73 freight trains use the Northeast Corridor and 2 daily trains serve 6 customers on the track Amtrak owns between Porter, Indiana and Kalamzaoo, Michigan. There is currently nearly 250 non rail-related construction sites on or near the Northeast Corridor. To access these sites, construction crews must cross Amtrak property each day to access job sites adjacent to the corridor. In the event of a strike, Amtrak could not safely allow access over its property potentially curtailing or idling work at these sites. In addition, to the lost revenues, Amtrak expects that additional costs will be incurred from the securing of facilities and equipment. This cost will escalate with each day the system is idled. The effects of the strike will linger for several months and be reflected in lost reservations and customer uncertainty. The strike will also damage customer loyalties enjoyed by commuter authorities. Even a short strike could be devastating to the Virginia Rail Express still reeling from service disruptions in June and July. Once any portion of the railroad right of way that Amtrak owns or inspects has had a complete shutdown, it could be up to 24 hours before any train can operate again. This time is required to perform federally mandated safety inspections. If a system shutdown lasts more than 2-3 days, condition such as rusty rails could keep the railroad shutdown for as much as 1\1/2\ days beyond resolution of the dispute. If a system shutdown lasts longer than 3 days, it will take as much as 1\1/2\ to 3 days before trains can operate again.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, the Banking Oversight Subcommittee has conducted a review of the procedures of the CDFI fund administered by the Department of the Treasury. I think it is safe to say there is a consensus that the CDFI fund operated with very few safeguards against abuse during its first round of awards in 1996. I am pleased that these concerns have been addressed in the VA, HUD, and independent agencies conference report. However, this conference report fails to address one area of concern. One area of abuse by the CDFI Fund brought to the attention of the Appropriations Subcommittee is the exorbitant use of so-called management consultants by the CDFI Fund. In less than 2 full fiscal years, the CDFI fund has paid out approximately $1.2 million to these management consultants. Our review has shown that contracts were handed out without full or open competition to a network of contractors. Certain of these contracts are truly sweetheart deals: one consultant alone was paid $216,713.41 for part-time work over a period of approximately 15 months. I appreciate that the VA, HUD, and independent agencies conferees seemed to recognize this problem and attempted to place limits on the amounts the CDFI Fund pays to outside contractors. The conference report to H.R. 2158 provides funds for the CDFI fund ``including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for ES-3. Unfortunately, the conferees seemed to have failed in their goal of closing this loophole. The conference report language will have no impact whatsoever upon abuse of contracting authority by the CDFI fund as it is limited solely to the CDFI fund's use of contractors retained under 5 U.S.C. 3109. Although much confusion remains concerning the procedures used by the CDFI fund in selecting outside contractors and fixing their compensation, the one thing that has been established is that the CDFI fund did not rely upon 5 U.S.C. 3109 in retaining its contractors. As a result, the conference report fails to place any limitations upon the CDFI fund's use of contractors.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services undertook an investigation of the CDFI fund in the past year. As a result of that investigation, the two top officials of that fund have resigned. I have been working with the Committee on Appropriations to legislate some safeguards to end the type practices which resulted in their resignation. Among these practices, one that continues to go on is they still are paying outside consultants, one, $217,000 for a 15- month period. I am happy to report to this body today that the Committee on Appropriations and this conference report, this conference report has addressed most of these concerns. There is, however, one concern that I think we are leaving hanging out there. I do not think it was an intentional thing. I think it was just the conference language unintentionally may not have taken care of that. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy concerning this practice of hiring outside contractors. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that the VA-HUD conferees sought to curtail the exorbitant use of management consultants and outside consultants at the CDFI fund? As we know, they spent a little over $2 million this past year.

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

Mr. BACHUS. That being the case, would the gentleman join me in a request to the Department of Treasury that it immediately bring its contracting practices at the CDFI fund into conformance with the intent of the VA-HUD conference report language, that being that contractors, outside contractors not be paid more than the ES-3 rate?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I have shared with the gentleman my concern, and I ask the gentleman and the committee to support me in separate legislation to achieve the goal of limiting abusive contracting practices at the CDFI fund. I intend to introduce legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I respect what the gentlewoman said, and I agree with what she has said in part. I would say that there are many questions because we simply do not know, we have not had an explanation. And until we have an explanation, it is hard for us to make final judgment, and that is basically what I have asked for.

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

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on September 18, I wrote the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] and told him how important I thought it was that he give a public explanation for his trip to Libya. When I received no response to that letter, I noticed 2 days ago my intention to file a privileged resolution. That resolution I read in full to this body two nights ago. It is very important that our body know the facts and circumstances surrounding this visit. It was, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] noted, to an outlaw nation, a nation which is presently, not sometime in the past, but is presently engaged in terrorist activity in several countries. I have again called on the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] today to make a public explanation. I welcome the assurances of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] that the committee will be looking into these facts. What I intend to do at this time is not to go forward with my resolution, but I will note that if the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] does not make a full and complete explanation of his trip, as I have outlined in the resolution, that in the interests of this body and its integrity, and because the American people have a right to an explanation, I will renotice my resolution next week or the week after. I again call on the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard], and I know other Members of the body share my opinion, that he make a full and complete explanation of his trip to Libya. It is my understanding that the Committee on International Relations, and it was from earlier conversations, that they are going to do an investigation into this trip which I hope will include talking to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] and asking the gentleman from Alabama for an explanation of his trip. I will be looking forward to that. I believe that it is a much better forum, if it is done before the Committee on International Relations, it is done in a public hearing, and this is something that we will just have to follow day by day. But the American people deserve and I think demand an explanation. It is against the law for anyone to travel to Libya. It is against the law for a United States Congressman to travel to Libya. The laws apply to everyone, including U.S. Congressmen.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 (a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Resolution Directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to undertake an appropriate investigation of the circumstances surrounding Representative Hilliard's travel to Libya Whereas Libya is an unapologetic terrorist state that openly supports, promotes and inspires terrorists, Whereas Libya arms, trains and harbors terrorists; Whereas Libya was involved in the 1985 terrorist attacks on airports in Rome and Vienna that left 20 men, women and children, including 5 American citizens, dead; Whereas Libya is responsible for the deaths of two American soldiers in a 1986 terrorist bombing in Berlin; Whereas Libya is responsible for the deaths of 270 men, women and children, including 189 Americans, in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988; Whereas the Security Council of the United Nations has imposed sanctions on Libya in response to its responsibility for the bombings of both Pan Am flight 103 and UTA flight 772; and Whereas those sanctions were put into effect in the United States in 1986 by imposing of Treasury Department regulations, the violation of which may be punishable by a civil penalty and by criminal penalties including fine or imprisonment, and which among other things bar United States persons from engaging in transactions relating to transportation to and from Libya and from dealing in any property in which the government of Libya has any interest; Whereas Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi has called terrorist attacks that have left innocent men, women and children dead and wounded ``heroic operations''; Whereas Congress has gone on record in its opposition to the Libyan government, passing laws that condemn Libya for supporting terrorism, list Libya among the countries denied direct or indirect United States assistance, authorize the President to prohibit imports and exports to Libya, and ban investment in the Libyan oil industry; Whereas Libya is dedicated to destroying the Middle East peace process; Whereas the Department of State has reported that Representative Earl Hilliard traveled to Libya in August without authorization of or approval from the Department of State; Whereas Representative Earl Hilliard has refused to confirm or deny whether he traveled to Libya or offer an explanation for his travel to Libya; Whereas if Representative Hilliard did travel to Libya, his actions would be in direct violation of United States policy toward Libya; Whereas this episode raises questions of propriety regarding travel to Libya, Representative Hilliard should explain his reasons for traveling to Libya and his activities while there; Whereas the Committee should inquire of Representative Earl Hilliard what individual, organization, government agency or other entity paid for his travel to and from Libya and his expenses while in Libya; Whereas Representative Hilliard has not disclosed whether he engaged in any transactions relating to his travel to and from Libya, or in other transactions while in Libya; Whereas these circumstances warrant an immediate affirmation by the House of its unequivocal opposition to travel to Libya by its members and to terrorism and the terrorist agenda pursued by the Libyan government of Moammar Ghadafi; and Whereas Representative Earl Hilliard has conducted himself in a manner which is inconsistent with the dignity of the House and is not conduct appropriate to the House and its members: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct undertake an immediate and thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding Representative Earl Hilliard's travel to Libya and report back to the House.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, presuming that the interpretation is that this resolution is an appropriate privileged resolution, would that mean that the resolution will have to be considered within the next two days, meaning either tomorrow or Friday?

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, a jury in New Orleans, LA, last week has given us a prime example of this country's need for serious tort reform. Ten years after a tank car fire, CSX Transportation was hit with a $2.5 billion punitive damages verdict for this incident in which it was considered blameless by the National Transportation Safety Board. No matter who was at fault, such an enormous punitive damages award in this case would still be out of line, because there were no deaths or serious injuries as a result of the fire. But to make matters worse, every governmental authority that reviewed this incident, from the city of New Orleans to the National Transportation Safety Board, found no fault with CSXT. In fact, the city of New Orleans issued a proclamation recognizing the individuals from CSXT who prevented the fire from spreading for their heroic actions. Certainly local residents were inconvenienced because of the evacuation, but it was the trial lawyers who filed a class action lawsuit before the fire was even put out that convinced the jury to reach into the deepest pocket in the lawsuit, not the parties who were responsible. Punitive damages in our legal system are supposed to punish egregious behavior, but Mr. Speaker, in this case what was the jury possibly punishing? These high cost punitive damage awards must be reigned in, from the McDonald's hot coffee case to the bad paint job on the BMW, the consumers are actually the ones who will feel the belt-tightening because of the lack of tort reform laws.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is important for all of us in Congress to understand what the loan guarantee program is and what it provides assistance to. What it provides assistance to are the short line railroads in our country. Most of us in this Congress do not know what those short line railroads are. They have no appreciation for them. They do not know of their importance to the community. If they did, we would be providing funding for or we would be providing these loan guarantees. In this bill, we have provided assistance for our airlines, for aviation, we have provided assistance for highways, for our motor freight carriers, we have provided assistance for our waterways and for passenger railroad. The one area that we have not addressed is our railroad system. We heavily subsidize all forms of transportation and transport except our freight railroads. Today within the freight railroads, there is definitely a segment that needs some assistance and recognition from the Federal Government. That is our short line railroads. Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues about one short line railroad in my district. A short line railroad in my district is 52 miles long. Over 4,000 employees work for small plants on that railroad. That railroad has not turned a profit for 4 years. It has had two washouts. If that short line railroad goes defunct, it will result in over 2,000 blue-collar workers being laid off in my district. That is only one of over 300 short line railroads. Most of them are minimally profitable or marginally profitable or not profitable at all. I would simply appeal to the Committee on Appropriations and to the Transportation chairman and to this subcommittee to learn more about this important segment. These are the have-nots of the freight railroads. These companies, they are sort of the grassroots, they are the fingers and the toes.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my remarks to the entire body and specifically about the short line railroads. The short line railroads are the result of the Class I railroads. There used to be over 30 Class I railroads. In certain areas, the density of the track, the amount of freight over those lines was insufficient for them to operate. So what those large railroads did is they tried to abandon that track in most cases. But State and local governments came in and Federal agencies and said that you cannot abandon that track because it is necessary for the economic vitality of a certain region. These short line railroads came in and are now operating those tracks. As I have said, people's jobs, people's welfares, communities' existence depend on these railroads. Wherever we have large agricultural areas, grain roads, the farmers depend on those roads to get their crops out. In high industrial areas, they depend on those small railroads. Those railroads may not be known, they may not be appreciated by Members of this body, but they are absolutely critical to those communities, and they are absolutely critical to the economic welfare of our country. To me it is a sad day that probably because of simply a lack of understanding, a lack of knowledge about where these railroads are, what factories they serve, what they mean to the people they serve and the fact that if we do not continue these loan guarantee programs, these railroads will go out of existence, and with them factories and jobs. I do plan to have some conversations with members of the Committee on Appropriations. I plan to ask them, among other questions, do they know how many factories are served by short line railroads? How many of those short line railroads are profitable? How many employees work for those plants that are served by those short line railroads? And whether or not they feel that this minuscule amount of money that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had authorized and urged the Committee on Appropriations to set aside, if they think that that was too much money for the livelihood of over 2 million American workers that depend on these short line railroads for a paycheck every Friday. It is something that we ought to ask ourselves. These workers are blue- collar workers, they are in industries that sometimes are competing fiercely with foreign companies, and by jerking this loan program, we will put people out of business, we will cause people to lose their jobs, we will cause some of these 16,000 small businesses, not the railroads, but the 16,000 small businesses to declare bankruptcy and go out of business to foreign competition. I am just sad that we have made this decision. I am going to vote for the bill on the whole, and I know that this was not willfully done, I know it was not intentionally done, but when we vote through this bill and it does not have these loan guarantees in, we are putting at jeopardy over 2 million jobs, over 16,000 factories in this country.

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

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I would be more comfortable with these two gentlemen working out that agreement, as opposed to oversight.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, one thing I want to make clear is there has been some reference here to criminal acts, or anyone prosecuted criminally. The oversight committee does not do that. This Congress does not investigate people criminally. So I certainly do not want anything in this agreement which says that this body in any way investigates people, that we have any criminal goal, because that is not it. I do not want to mislead anybody into believing that I am undertaking any criminal investigation, or that we are going to wait for that, or that we are going to encourage that. That is something else.

Mr. BACHUS. Then we have an agreement.