Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am here in vigorous opposition to this amendment. I think if you listen to the debate, you focus in on highway demonstration projects. I agree with much of what the gentleman from Wisconsin says and the gentleman from South Carolina. There are too many pork barrel projects. There are too many demonstration projects. But this amendment does not address highway demonstration projects. That is not what this amendment is about. What this amendment does do is it would gut this legislation. That is why I am opposed to it. This legislation would assure that when people in our States pull up to the gas pump and they pay 18.5 cents a gallon in Federal taxes, which they believe will go to transportation projects, that when that money comes up here, all 18.5 cents goes back. It is not dipped in and taken out and spent on projects that are 1 million years and 1 million miles away from highway projects. The gentleman from Wisconsin and I agree that this legislation before us is good. This amendment has a good sound to it, and I compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin for bringing it. But when I read it, I realized that it is not what he, I believe, even intended. Because what it would do in fact, I am concerned about these Canadian trailers, where you put three of them together, and a truck can haul trailers longer than a 10-story building. I want to stop that. But this bill says that if we spend any money to address highway activities, if we try to stop these tractor-trailer trucks longer than a 10-story building, that we cannot do it, because we are obligating money for highway activities, and it goes out the window. I am concerned about those four teenagers that died in Talladega County, AL, a few months ago at a grade crossing. I would like to address that. Several of us in this body are looking to make grade crossings safer. We would like to commit money to this activity. But it is a highway activity, and with this amendment, it goes out the window. All someone would have to do that wanted to stop dedicated highway funds from highway projects, all they would have to do is slip something into our bill which was an activity, and it is out the window. So I vigorously oppose this amendment.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] on this bill, and I have also mentioned the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] for his strong work on the bill, and to again commend the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], who a year and a half ago realized that we needed more of a handle on the problem. Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying every time we have witnessed a terrorist act throughout this world, we can know that they have probably used counterfeit currency to fund their operations. Not only that, but drug smuggling money laundering, gun running, and the corruption of public officials throughout the world.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply say this is a change that the Secret Service requested. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and I have been working with the Secret Service to address a problem that is critical to our Nation, and that is international counterfeiting. Members of this body may not know that over half of the counterfeit U.S. currency circulates overseas, and in recent years over half of the U.S. counterfeit currency which circulates domestically was produced overseas. We, in this legislation, have addressed it in three regards. We have increased the penalties for international counterfeiting. We have worked with the Secret Service on enhancing penalties. The Secret Service has less than 20 agents overseas working on this problem. They simply do not have the manpower. So this bill would require the orderly placement of additional agents overseas. I am happy to report the Congress has already appropriated funds for those agents. They would be in place by the end of this year. The third thing that the bill does is it calls for an evaluation of the extent and location of counterfeiting overseas. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], I think, is the expert on this area, and I am going to reserve to him discussion of that. I will close simply by saying this, Mr. Chairman. International counterfeiting funds terrorism. Counterfeit currency is the currency of choice for terrorists. It makes their activities less traceable. It lowers their cost of doing mischief. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina for any additional remarks which he would like to make.

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Mr. Bevill of Alabama and Mrs. Pryce and Mr. Hobson of Ohio. Head injuries constitute a very serious public health problem. They are the most common cause of death and disability among people under the age of 44. Very often, even mild and moderate brain traumas can seriously disrupt the academic careers of our young people. For several years the Rehabilitation Services Administration has supported the activities of six regional head injury centers all of which were selected competitively by the Department of Education. At this time, two remain active--the Ohio Valley Center based at Ohio State University and the Southeastern Regional Center based at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. These centers help ensure that the latest information and knowledge about how to treat and rehabilitate head injuries are translated into services that reach victims. They upgrade and coordinate the efforts of emergency medical technicians, physicians, vocational rehabilitation and other rehabilitation agencies, victims' families, volunteer organizations, and others concerned with head injury. The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee recognized their excellent work in its report, and we are grateful for this support. I am pleased to report that the Senate made available $1 million to enable these two centers to serve as national resources so that the progress made by the regional centers would be continued. It is our hope that the committee would support this initiative in conference. At this time, I would like to address the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, head injuries are the leading cause of death and injury to people under the age of 44. I am pleased to report that the Senate has made available, and I would like to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that the Senate made available $1 million to enable these two centers to serve as national resources so that the progress made by regional head injury centers could continue. It is my hope that our committee would support this initiative in conference.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, many years ago there was written on a wall in Gibraltar these words: God and the soldier all men adore; In time of trouble and not before. When trouble is gone, and all wrongs are righted, God is forgotten, and the old soldier slighted. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, today the President once again insulted and offended and slighted our military men and our veterans when he stood up and claimed that it was Republicans who were preventing their benefit checks from being mailed to them, their dependents and their widows. Mr. Speaker, the President has offended our veterans on many, many occasions, and I think our veterans have tried to overlook this in the past. When he told his draft board many years ago that he was too educated to fight, to wear the uniform, they overlooked that. We all said, he was young, those of us who did serve, and we overlooked that. We excused the fact that he went to England and he led demonstrations. He was young. It was his right to lead demonstrations. Then, when he became our President and we had doubts, then we started hearing that his staff and the staff of the First Lady showed open disdain for our military fighting men at the White House, and it again made us question this President and his respect for our fighting men. Then sadly, recently, he sent our fighting men and women into harm's way in Bosnia, and many of us questioned that. We questioned the fact that when he was at the University of Arkansas, he told Colonel Holmes, we should not be involved in a civil war, they are dangerous. Yet, he sent our fighting men and women into an ancient civil war. More recently, he wrote in his journal, and later affirmed that he still believed this, that: From my work, I came to believe that no government rooted in democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they oppose, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the Nation. Does he believe now that we should not send our fighting men and women into a war that does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the Nation? Regardless, that is what he has done.

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for yielding me the time, and, Mr. Speaker, this is serious business, and, as the gentleman from Florida said, this is the second time that we have attempted to protect the trust fund. The first time was back on August 1, 1986, and I would like to read an excerpt of a Senator's speech when we were trying to accomplish the same thing then that we are trying to do with this legislation. By the way, that Senator was Al Gore, and here is what he said about legislation almost identical to this legislation: Like the Social Security trust fund, the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund is a dedicated--dedicated let me stress--trust fund, and, as such, its assets may only be used to provide benefits to civil service retirees. The fund stands as a strong symbol of assurance that Federal employees' retirement benefits will be paid when they are due. While employees may not fully understand the arcane interactions of Federal financing, they do recognize when money they have contributed toward the financing of their retirement has been used in ways other than those intended or promised. It was right for them to take offense last year when the civil service fund was first tapped to keep the Nation solvent during the 1986 debt ceiling crises. Is this silly? Was it silly when it again happened this year when Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin reached into the civil service retirement fund and took out Treasury securities bearing interest of almost $40 billion and substituted them for an IOU? Was it silly when he took the entire proceeds, $21.5 billion of the G fund, and did not reinvest them? I do not think so. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Senator Gore's statement 10 years ago remains the best, and let me close with a further quote by Senator Gore. Ten years later this statement remains the best explanation of why we need this bill, and I quote: To insure the trust fund assets are used only for the purpose of the trust fund, not for general government obligations. As Senator Gore stated, it was right for Federal employees to take offense when the civil service retirement fund is used for political purposes. It is time for us to protect the trust fund and restore congressional control over the Federal debt. parliamentary inquiries

Mr. BACHUS. As I said, then former Senator Al Gore. I did not refer to the fact that he is now the Vice President of the United States, although I do not think that would be inappropriate, but I think that the Speaker and other Members of this body understand that.

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit ought to take our colleagues' breath away. It is an incredible proposal. First of all, it attacks Social Security. While claiming to protect Social Security, it, in fact, condones the status quo which threatens Social Security. Every day in America, Mr. Speaker, we pay Social Security, and it comes to the Treasury, not to the Social Security fund, and then the Secretary fund, and then the Secretary of the Treasury forwards it on. He could conceivably keep it overnight, and then invest it in the Social Security fund. What if he is up against the cap? Could he keep it a few days or a week? Could he keep it a month to pay beneficiaries and not invest it? Could he underinvest it? In the 1980's the Secretary of the Treasury actually disinvested funds in the Social Security account, and he can legally do so again. This motion to recommit does not address those vulnerabilities. Mr. Speaker, we are right now relying on President Clinton saying, ``I'm not going to disinvest or underinvest the Social Security fund. Trust me.'' Secretary Rubin says the same thing. Yesterday, before our committee he said in effect, ``You can count on the President. He's given you his word. He won't mess with the Social Security fund.'' In other words, ``You can trust the President. We won't go after Social Security.'' What do all these promises tell us? It tells us that we are relying on just that: promises. ``Trust me.'' We don't need to rely on promises. The American people don't need to rely on political promises to protect Social Security. Instead what we need is legislation which says, ``No, it is a trust fund. It ought to go into the fund, and it ought to stay in the fund, and the fund should be fully invested.'' That's what we need. Not promises and assurances but a legal requirement and that's what this legislation gives us. On the other hand, this motion to recommit gives us no legal safeguard, only assurance that the President and the secretary's current policies and promises to protect Social Security will be continued. I cannot believe that my colleagues would present this motion to recommit as an attempt to protect Social Security, and ask that this legislation be recommitted to protect Social Security. What is even more astonishing is what they have actually put in writing in this motion to recommit. They actually have written in words in this motion to recommit that they are going to allow the Secretary of Treasury to continue his current policies. Policies which have led him to disinvest more than $39 billion of the Civil Service Retirement Fund. Policies which have allowed him not to reinvest the entire $21.5 billion voluntary pension fund. Policies which Wall Street Journal yesterday reported will allow him--and he actually proposes to--delay the payment of $14.5 billion in interest due the Civil Service Retirement Fund. Polices have allowed and will allow the Secretary of Treasury to substitute IOU's for interest-bearing treasury securities. That is incredible. Not only that, this motion to recommit actually puts the stamp of approval on all these activities. It says that the Secretary of Treasury can continue to use Civil Service Retirement funds to pay the obligations of government. It is right here in the motion to recommit. The motion actually has the courage to say that. By inference, this motion to recommit says something else. While claiming to protect Social Security, not doing so, it also says in effect, that with the other trust funds. We are going at them full- speed. We are going to let the Secretary of Treasury ``have at them'' with no protection whatsoever for the other trust funds. We are going to let him continue to take money out of the Civil Service trust funds and substitute IOU's. No protection for the other trust funds. Have at them, As for the Wall Street Journal article saying he is not going to pay interest due to the Civil Service Retirement fund at year-end, this motion to recommit says, ``Fine. That's okay. We are going to continue to let you keep not paying interest.'' I've heard reports that the Treasury has looked at the Postal fund as a source of addressing the debt ceiling. This motion to recommit says, ``Have at the Postal fund.'' How about the Bank Insurance fund? Are they looking at that fund? Little old ladies CD's down at the bank. They think they are federally insured. They trust there is a federal insurance backed up by a trust fund that will make any losses good. What do we say about the Bank Insurance fund if Treasury decides to go after it? This motion to recommit says, ``Go to it. Have at it.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation says a trust fund is just that. The people that deposit their money in the fund trust you not to take it out. They make payments to that fund and they trust you to put it in. That's the ``trust.'' Second, it is a fund, not an IOU. A trust fund. This motion to recommit says this about the trust fund, ``No trust and no funds.'' And for all this underinvestment, raids, IOU's, accounting entries and gimmicks, keep on keeping on. This motion to recommit puts a big seal of approval on all this chicanery. Vote against this motion to recommit and for the underlying legislation. Vote for trust funds which have both trust and funds.

Mr. BACHUS. Let me draw the distinction, and I am not arguing over my colleague's ability to do that or not. I quoted a former Member. At that time, I said former Senator Al Gore. I quoted from his speech on August 1, 1986. I pointed out that it was an amendment which accomplishes the same thing that this legislation would do, and, if I can read my----

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I would ask for one last point of clarification.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. An article recently appeared in the National Train Journal which interviewed European tourists who had come to America. The vast majority of them said they wanted to see America by rail, and they were satisfied with Amtrak, and the average tourist, European tourist, spends several thousand dollars here when he comes or when she comes. What they did criticize Amtrak for were two things. One was on-time performance. The other one was some of the stations. They said the South Bay Station in Boston was a crown jewel. They talked about the station, Union Station. They talked about Philadelphia and Harrisburg, PA, as being outstanding stations. At the same time they said that some of the stations, and I will not name all of them, they said they were disaster areas. They said they almost turned them off. We are talking about a Pennsylvania station where many of these tourists form their first opinion of our rail transportation and of our country. If we are going to continue to attract European tourists and Japanese tourists, who feel much the same way, this is money, I think, at least that we ought to consider in making this investment or not making this investment, the fact that that is one major point that they say we do need to improve, and that is our station. This is our most heavily traveled area. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat confused. You have used the analogy of a CSX freight train hitting a pickup truck.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that when the amendment came up, I was one of the ones that said, we do need to raise the limitations. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to say this. The amendment of the gentlewoman I think was meant to apply to freight railroads, but this bill and this limitation only applies to passenger trains, and I think there is a lot of confusion there.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this amendment I think probably has a good intent behind it, but, first of all, it is unnecessary; and, second of all, it is actually a dangerous amendment. Let me explain why that is. It is unintendedly so. Presently, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak must run on private railroad, freight railroad tracks, and when it does so the freight railroads really have no say. We, as the U.S. Government, say to the freight railroads, you will allow our passenger trains to run on your tracks, and we actually command them to do so. They have no choice. What we are simply saying in this amendment is when we run a passenger train on a freight line and there is an accident, we say we will limit your liability, and we do not limit the economic liability. Medical bills, lost wages, hospital bills, if someone receives a disability of 10 percent, 15 percent, they are paid for any disability. Any permanent injury, they are compensated for. The one thing that we simply say is we will only pay $250,000 for pain and suffering, and that is money that the railroads, which do not want us on their tracks to begin with, and which we say we are going to run on your tracks, even if you say you do not want us there. For us to turn around and say, we are going to run on your tracks, and when there is an accident, people can sue you, and they can get $10 million or $20 million is wrong. It goes beyond being wrong, and it becomes dangerous, and let me tell my colleagues why it becomes dangerous. Because of Amtrak and because of the Federal Government, we are spending literally millions of dollars every year eliminating dangerous grade crossings. That is what is killing people in this country is grade crossings. They are crossing these tracks, and they are getting killed. Presently, because of this legislation and because we have an Amtrak, we are eliminating every year over 100 grade crossings, and we are saving lives. But if we attach this amendment to this bill, we will kill Amtrak. We will increase the cost. In fact, two years from now we will appropriate $403 million for Amtrak. We have actually had court settlements in these accident cases of over $100 million. So we are talking about potentially one accident costing Congress and the United States, because we indemnify all of these. If there is an accident and we pay out all of this money, then we, the taxpayers, turn around and, out of Amtrak, we have to pay that money. Mr. Chairman, can my colleagues imagine us giving $400 million to Amtrak to operate these trains and then them having to pay $100 million of that for one accident? This will bankrupt Amtrak, and it will also end this elimination of these dangerous grade crossings. Other countries do not have this problem for two reasons. One is the government owns the tracks, and the people of those countries have chosen to use taxpayer money to eliminate the grade crossings. Now we have done that between Washington and New York. That is the long-term solution. That is the solution that we ought to both join in. We are both interested in one thing. We do not want people hurt; we do not want people injured. The long-term solution is for this government to eliminate more grade crossings and to put more money into that. Between Washington and New York, there is not a single grade crossing, so there will not be any grade-crossing accidents. Between New York and Boston, there are 13 grade crossings. Between Birmingham and Atlanta, Birmingham being in my district, there are 400 grade crossings. The answer is not this amendment; the answer is cleaning up some of those grade crossings. Mr. Chairman, I want to make one final point. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] I think said it all when he said, we are not making these grade crossings any safer with this legislation, because most of the trains over those tracks are freight trains, and this amendment and this bill has no application to those.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, we are going to spend much less than $1 billion each year over the next few years on passenger rail travel. The Germans today are building one 86-mile rail corridor at the cost of $5.7 billion. They are putting people to work building for the future. If this bill goes down, we lose our dream of having a good transportation system in this country. We can put people to work, we can build on that dream, or we can turn our backs on viable transportation in this country. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill and on this amendment.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me simply say this: We have all seen branch lines and spur lines across this country, and a lot of those lines, to us, look like two iron rails with a lot of weeds in the middle, and sometimes you even think that they are abandoned. But about once a week or once a day a train will go down that track, and it will haul two or three box-cars or haul a tank car or a hopper car, and it is always headed for a factory or to a grain elevator. We may say, ``What is the use of saving these lines that are used only once or twice a week or once a day? Why don't we just let them die?'' What we have to understand is when we let those lines die, we kill jobs. We kill jobs in rural America. We may have a branch line that runs 100 miles and serves seven or eight grain elevators. When that line dies, not only do we lose three or four jobs on that railroad but we also lose those jobs at the grain elevators and we lose those farmers' opportunities to get their grain, to sell their grain, to have that grain go overseas and contribute to a trade surplus, not a trade deficit like we have today. I have a factory in my district that employs 14 people. Once every 10 days, two tank cars are delivered to that factory. The railroad loses about $2,000 every month supplying that factory, but that factory makes a $40,000 a week payroll to that community. So we have to in certain cases not only protect those lines, not for the railroad jobs, but for the factory jobs, because that is also the largest employer in a small town in my district. So this bill is absolutely critical. If you vote against this amendment, then you are voting against small business and you are voting against some large businesses in some very small towns. You are going to kill some small towns. You are going to kill some factories. This is as good an amendment as you will see on the floor of this House, and I urge its passage. I also say one day, if this bill is defeated, the entire bill, we are going to lose another opportunity. Today in Paris, France, 1,500 trains will leave Paris, France, delivering passengers. Amtrak has about 200 trains a day. France is the size of Texas. We do not have much of a passenger system left in this country. In Japan, 20 percent of the people that travel today will travel on trains. Here, less than 1 percent will travel by train. When we talk about future generations, we owe it to future generations to work out not only this short-term solution to preserving passenger rail transportation, but also a long term solution. The Japanese, the Germans, the British, and the French, they all have excellent train travel. 15, 20, 25 percent of their citizens take advantage of that on either a daily or a weekly basis. We can do the same. We can compete, and, in doing so, we can end the gridlock on our highways and the dangerous situation we have in our skies today.