Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members to realize that this legislation that we are voting on applies only to passenger trains. Yet this amendment that is being offered puts liability on not only passenger trains but also the freight companies. It is a wide- reaching amendment and it applies to the freight company. If the gentlewoman wants to stand up and say that this does not impose liability on the freight line, she needs to do so at this time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, that accident occurred in my home State. It was a passenger train. This legislation would apply to that, but I would point out to the gentlewoman that it would reimburse each of those passengers not only for the loss of their lives but for any permanent injuries, for any medical expenses, for any lost wages, and in addition to that punitive damages and noneconomic damages with a cap, under this legislation. I would further say that that train was running by command of Congress over that freight line.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago on ``Larry King Live,'' candidate Bill Clinton made a promise to the American people to balance the budget in 5 years. He spoke of a balanced budget as both an obligation to our children and a necessity of our country. Tonight we will give him an opportunity to make good on his promise to the American people. To balance the budget--not in 2 more years as he originally promised, or in 5 years from tonight. No, we ask simply that he commit to a real balanced budget in 7 years. Seven years. Tonight is his and our moment of truth. Tonight he, and we in this body, will be given the opportunity to choose between higher taxes and a bigger, more costly, more reaching Federal bureaucracy, and, on the other hand, lower taxes on American families, and a smaller, more effective, less intrusive Washington. Will Bill Clinton choose the latter, as he promised? Will he keep his word? Or will he break his promise to the American people, to our children, and the future generations, and in the process, shut the Federal Government down. The choice is first ours, and then Bill Clinton's. It's promise keeping time. Mr. President?

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Whitfield amendment. Mr. Chairman, this year there are 132,000 miles of railroad in America, 132,000 miles. Last year there were 137,000 miles. We lost 5,000 miles of railroad. You have to go back to get to 135,000 miles of railroad, what we have now, you have to go back to 1885. That was the last year we had 135,000 miles. So we have got the same mileage that we had in 1885. We have come 110 years, and we are back to the same number of railroad miles. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that those of us in this Congress could agree that if there is not a railroad, there are no railroad jobs; and the ultimate way to protect a railroad job is to protect these rails. I can remember when they pulled the rails out of the back of the farm that my cousin lived on, and he asked my grandfather, who was a locomotive engineer, ``When are they going to put the rails back?'' And my grandfather, who worked 58 years for the Southern Railroad said ``Son, when they pull the rails up, they don't put them back.'' And he was right. Those rails are still up. They still are not back down. Now, just to give you some statistics or facts, in 1960 we had 220,000 miles of railroad, trains running on those tracks and workers working on those railroads; 1970, it dropped to 208,000; 1980, 178,000; 1990, we lost another 382,000, almost 20 percent of our rails in 10 years, 146,000; 1995, we have hit 133,000 miles. And presently railroads want to abandon another 15,000 miles. Eighty percent of that rail, the high bid will be class 2 railroads, the railroads that we want to saddle with this additional expense. If we want, just to show in one State what has happened, Pennsylvania, 1950, the chairman's home State, almost 10,000 miles of rails; 1978, 8,000; 1980, 7,000; by 1990, in 10 years, they lost half their rails. But let me tell you what did happen in the last 2 years. Let me tell you some good news. We had eight States this last year, eight States, that actually put new rail, that increased their rail mileage. Do you know how they did that? They did that because class 2 railroads bought track that was going to be abandoned. Let me say this to those who are advocating for unions. This amendment is bad for the unions, because if you look at those railroads who have taken [[Page H 12303]] over those tracks, and in Mississippi alone, 700 miles of new class 1, the class 1 came in and bought a union carrier, it went from a class 1 to a class 2, and the class 2 bought it without any labor protection, without having to pay any labor protection. Now it has gone back to the Kansas City Southern, and union members are running trains over those tracks every day.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are eight States which have added class 1 railroad track this year, which was class 2. Class 2 has bought it as opposed to abandoning it. These include Alabama, Florida, and Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would like more time to pursue this, to show some other reasons why I think this is going to boomerang on the unions. The unions, the last railroads that they have organized, have been class 2 railroads.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the hard truth apparently is not what it used to be. I rise in strong support for banning partial birth abortions, and in defense of the innocent little victims of these procedures. Today we take another important step in protecting the lives of the unborn. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act will end this most cruel practice--a practice that even the American Medical Association's legislative council has publicly stated is, ``not a recognized medical technique.'' They also called this procedure, ``repulsive.'' Abortion advocates argue that partial birth abortions are only used after 26 weeks of pregnancy in cases where the procedure is nonelective. But the abortionists' interpretation of nonelective has an enormous scope and includes: severe fetal abnormality, Down's Syndrome, cleft palate, pediatric pelvis--that's if the mother is under age 18, depression of the mother, and even ignorance of human reproduction. Today, those who would support this horrible procedure tell us that it is not a common practice. Can anyone really take comfort in debating the number of babies subject to this death? Whether it is a few hundred or tens of thousands or even one, wrong is wrong and no argument on how many will ever change that. A single life being taken in this way is reprehensible. In conclusion, I would like to introduce into the Record a copy of a recent editorial in the Washington Post by Douglas Johnson. It spells out some of the most important reasons to support this legislation. Support H.R. 1833, the ban on partial birth abortions. [From the Washington Post, July 16, 1995] Ban Partial-Birth Abortions (By Douglas Johnson) Congress is considering a bill to ban the ``partial-birth abortion'' method, defined as ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' The bill is aimed at an abortion method usually used after 4\1/2\ months into pregnancy and often much later, even into the ninth month. At 4\1/2\ months, a human being is about eight inches long, and--in the words of columnist Richard Cohen [op-ed, June 20]--``looks like a baby.'' The method in question, as described in a June 16 Los Angeles Times story, ``requires a physician to extract a fetus . . . through the birth canal until all but its head is exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors are thrust into the base of the fetus's skull and a suction catheter is inserted through the opening and the brain is removed.'' Some pro-abortion lobbying groups now claim that this method is utilized mainly to save the life of the mother or on fetuses that suffer from grave disorders incompatible with life. A number of syndicated columnists, major newspaper editorial boards and members of Congress have uncritically embraced these claims, even though there is [[Page H 11608]] ample documentation that they are erroneous. How many partial-birth abortions are performed? In the mind of Richard Cohen, ``they almost don't exist'' because ``just four one-hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks.'' Why does citing such percentages give so much comfort to defenders of late-term abortions? Consider that Cohen's statistic, if accurate, would translate into the death of 600 humans each year--more than twice as many as resulted from the recent Ebola virus epidemic in Africa. Actually, there are 13,000 abortions annually after 4\1/2\ months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, whose estimate should be regarded as conservative. There is really no way to know how many doctors are using the partial-birth abortion method, or how many partial-birth abortions are performed. However, two specialists in the method, Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, and Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles, have between them performed more than 3,000 such abortions, and have also circulated detailed papers and given interviews on the subject. The polemical claims now being made by critics of the pending legislation cannot survive a careful reading of this material. Is the baby already dead when the abortionist partly removes her from the uterus? The American Medical News-- official newspaper of the ``pro-choice'' AMA--put that question to Haskell in a tape-recorded interview in 1993. Haskell replied, ``No, it's not. No, it's really not. . . . I would think probably about a third of those definitely are dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not.'' Brenda Shafer, a registered nurse, accepted assignment to Haskell's clinic because she was strongly ``pro-choice.'' She quit after witnessing, close-up, three partial-birth abortions. In a July 9 letter to Rep. Tony Hall, Shafer described the end of life for one six-month-old ``fetus'': ``His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside [the uterus]. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up.'' McMahon now claims that analgesia he administers to the mother causes ``a medical coma'' and ``neurological fetal demise.'' But Prof. Watson Bowes, co-editor of the Obsterical and Gynecological Survey and an internationally recognized authority on fetal and maternal medicine at the University of North Carolina, responds: ``This statement suggests a lack of understanding of maternal/fetal pharmacology. . . . Having cared for pregnant women who for one reason or another required surgical procedures in the second trimester, I know that they were often heavily sedated or anesthetized for the procedures, and the fetuses did not die. . . . Although it is true that analgesic medications given to the mother will reach the fetus and presumably provide some degree of pain relief, the extent to which this renders this procedure pain free would be very difficult to document.'' A 1993 internal memo written by the then-executive director of the National Abortion Federation explained that these late abortions are done for ``many reasons,'' including ``social- psychological crises [and] lack of knowledge about human reproduction.'' An even more revealing statement appears in the American Medical News interview transcript, in which Haskell said, ``In my particular case, probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.'' McMahon told American Medical News that he uses the method for ``elective'' abortions up until 26 weeks (six months). After that point, he said, he does only ``non-elective'' abortions. But in materials provided to a House Judiciary subcommittee, McMahon revealed that his definition of ``non- elective'' is extremely expensive. For example, he listed ``depression'' as the largest single ``maternal indication'' for such so-called ``non-elective'' abortions. A 1990 article about McMahon by reporter Karen Tumulty, published in the Los Angeles Times Magazine, found that many such abortions involve not medical factors but young teenagers, who ``put telling anyone as long as they can.'' McMahon's materials also show that he uses the method to destroy many ``flawed fetuses,'' as he calls them. These include unborn humans with a wide variety of disorders-- including conditions compatible with a long life with or without disability (e.g., cleft palate, spina bifida, Down's syndrome). True, some babies have more profound disorders that will result in death soon after birth. These unfortunate members of the human family should not be killed. In some such situations there are good medical reasons to deliver such a child early, after which natural death will follow quickly. The bill itself permits use of the partial-birth abortion method in any case in which it is really necessary because of danger to the life of the mother.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in July 1994 I received a letter from a 90- year-old woman in my district, and she said: I live in a senior citizens' apartment building which now accepts tenants with drug, alcohol, and emotional problems. There have been several threatening instances caused by these problem people. I no longer feel safe in this building. She signed the letter: Please help us. As a result of that letter, I made some inquiries and found that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] was to offer H.R. 117, and I became an original cosponsor. Since that time I have heard testimony which basically tells us of the terror of these senior citizens. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] spoke of a lady who saw her public housing building turned from a wonderful place to live to a nightmare. I heard testimony from a similar woman on our committee who said, and I am going to read her description: When I first moved in about 8 years ago, it was beautiful. Most tenants were senior citizens. Now we have almost more young people than seniors. Most of the young tenants are drug addicts, or alcoholics, or both. Old ladies are afraid to ride with these people in the same elevator. At night prostitutes are being led into the building. I've seen drugs dealt outside my porch. A lady went to the laundry room to wash her clothes. She placed them in the dryer, goes back to her apartment. When she returns, her dryer is empty. This happens quite a few times. A few times human waste was found in the elevator. I would like for the young people to have their own building. Let the seniors live in peace and without fear for the time they have left. I call on all of us in the time that these seniors have left, let them live in peace. Vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Birmingham Southern College and it's men's basketball team for winning the NAIA championship in Tulsa, OK. Birmingham-Southern College is ranked ``among the best and most noteworthy in North America'' by ``The Insiders Guide to the Colleges 1994'' edition, compiled and edited by the staff of the Yale Daily News. Birmingham-Southern College has again been ranked as one of the top ``National Liberal Arts Colleges'' by U.S. News and World Report in the magazine's recent ``Best Colleges'' issue. Southern is recognized in the magazine's October 1994, issue as one of the best values in higher education. Birmingham-Southern is ranked No. 8 among the 160 National Liberal Arts Colleges in the category of Most Efficient Schools. Enrollment has reached a high in recent years. From an enrollment of only 727 in 1976, Birmingham-Southern enrolled some 1,800 students this Fall. The recognition and enrollment are the result of the college's outstanding academic reputation and the leadership its president, Dr. Neal R. Berte, who is an acknowledged national leader in higher education across the country, and the leadership and hard work of the trustees and the faculty. Four prestigious guides, ``The National Review College Guide,'' ``The Fiske Guide to Colleges 1994,'' the ``Princeton Review 1994 edition of The Student Access Guide to The Best 286 Colleges,'' and U.S. News & World Report magazine have ranked Birmingham-Southern College as among 58 of ``America's Top Liberal Arts Schools,'' according to National Review; as among ``315 of the best and most interesting colleges in America,'' according to Fiske; among the highest ranked in academics, quality of life and financial aid, according to the Princeton Review, and among the 140 top national liberal arts colleges, according to U.S. News in its October 4, 1993 issue. Birmingham-Southern graduates' records indicate the quality of the educational experience at Birmingham-Southern. They are admitted to graduate schools, law schools, and medical schools at rates two to three times higher than most colleges across America. These recognitions and impressive enrollment standards at Birmingham- Southern are the result of the outstanding academic reputation and hard work of the trustees and faculty along with the superior leadership of BSC's president, Dr. Neal R. Berte. Accomplishments such as the ones mentioned above would make any school proud, but Birmingham-Southern College's successes go far beyond the classroom. The Birmingham-Southern College Men's basketball team was unranked in the preseason poll and selected to finish fourth in the Southern States Conference. Despite these predictions, the Panthers were the first team to go 14-0 in Southern States competition and made their fourth trip to the tournament in only 6 years, and their second championship in that time. They completed the season with an incredible 32-consecutive-game winning streak, the longest in college basketball. Their record for the year was 35 wins, with only 2 losses, setting a record for the most wins in school history. The record setting performance of the Birmingham-Southern College men's basketball team can be attributed to the relationships that are developed between coach and player. The Panthers winning attitude and success is a direct correlation with the accomplishments of Head Coach Duane Reboul and his assistant coaches Dwight Evans and Paul Arthur. Winning 83 percent of his games, coach Reboul [[Page E 1444]] has the best winning percentage in the NAIA. As one of Birmingham- Southern College's most successful basketball coaches, the biggest achievement for Reboul is not the records he attains, but the respect he receives from former players. Each year, the goals remain the same-- winning a championship and striving to make each player the best possible person he can be. Consequently, the student-athletes take these ideals and this winning attitude into the classroom and win them for the rest of their lives. Finally, the winning attitude that has been instilled in the minds of the players should not go unnoticed. At this time, I would like to congratulate the student athletes who have worked so hard, and dedicated their time and efforts to achieving these accomplishments. Chris Armstrong, Obra Carter, James Cason, Nigel Coates, Bo Coln, Tommy Dalley, Dwayne Elliot, Paul Fleming, Todd Largen, Jay Mitchell, Mike Schwallie, Eddie Walter, Damon Wilcox, and Will Worrell are each to be applauded for their accomplishments both on and off of the court. I wish them all success in their academic as well as athletic pursuits. Congratulations to Coach Reboul and his team for an outstanding year. We look forward to your continued success and achievement of excellence.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am up here because of one thing, and that is because the sponsor of this bill gave a very effective, very articulate opening statement. As I listened to that statement, had I not know better, I would have said how could anyone disagree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying? How could anyone oppose this amendment? Well, let me tell you why I am here in strong opposition to this amendment. I am here because what he said was very effective, it was very articulate, and it was very wrong. You know, if you can close someone's mind by giving an effective opening statement, you can win a trial. Do you know that a trial can be won in a 1-minute opening statement if everybody accepts what is said as true and quits listening? But let me tell you, I am here for the reason that what was said in the opening statement is incomplete, it is inaccurate, and it certainly is not the complete story. We were told in the opening statement that the people that you would hear advocating for the ARC were going to be from Alabama, they were going to be from Tennessee, they were going to be from West Virginia. We were not told about the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Montana, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York that I may yield to if I have enough time. We were not told any of that. And had you quit listening, had the Members back in their office quit listening, they might have gotten the wrong impression that this was something that only Members from the ARC States were advocating. Not true. Let me tell you what is even worse then that, and let me tell you something about the flawed argument. When the California floods came, did I, from Alabama, come out here and say ``We have got floods in California. Knee deep?'' No. I came and I voted to assist those people. I am from Alabama. I could have got up and said ``Let's vote for no earthquake relief in California, or the floods in the Midwest.'' I could have said you are going to hear from people in the Midwest. And the gentleman from Utah who sponsors this bill, he comes before us and says, ``We need to support the people on the Indian reservations.'' I have never come down here and said ``I do not have any Indian reservations.'' I do not have any military bases, but I vote for military expenditures. What an outlandish, illogical argument. Let us not buy this. Let me conclude in saying then he gave a description of the ARC which was even more inaccurate than who he said would be speaking for this amendment. This is about reducing the number of infant deaths, infant death mortality. This is about clean drinking water. This is about roads for people to get to work and haul their products. But we were told about a few examples that had been limited in the legislation before us, not something that is going to happen but something that happened before and we changed. Finally, we are not talking about adding. We are talking about a 50- percent cut.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman means his amendment is certainly not a great idea.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].

Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Smith amendment to prohibit use of taxpayer dollars to promote abortion overseas. While not reducing any U.S. funding of legitimate family planning programs, this amendment simply redirects those American dollars to organizations which, like most Americans, believe our tax dollars should never be used to promote abortion as if it were an acceptable method of family planning. It is not. We should provide funding only to organizations whose goals are consistent with those of the United States. If they want our money, they should be required to play by our rules. Since 1993, the Clinton administration has taken every opportunity to promote the pro-abortion platform at home and around the world. Most Alabamians resent their tax dollars being used, by anyone, to promote abortion on demand. Their hard earned money should not be squandered to provide what is seen by some as an easy way out of an inconvenient pregnancy. Mr. Chairman, the United States should be a role model for the world--especially when it comes to issues of morality, honest values, and concerns. This amendment is our opportunity to do just that and to take a small step to stop the insanity of abortion on demand or whim. Support the Smith amendment.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, some people just don't get it. Our flag is more than just another piece of cloth. Our flag is a symbol, a proud symbol. It represents much of what is good and right in America. But, as history has taught us, what is good and right does not necessarily prevail merely because it is good and right, often it must be fought for. We face just such a fight today as we consider an amendment to the Constitution that would forbid burning the flag. Some self-styled liberals contend this is a question of freedom of speech, that malcontents in our population have a right to burn the flag to show their defiance of this country or its policies. They are wrong, dead wrong. Dissidents in this country have an unbridled freedom to voice their dissent and opposition whether it comes from the right or the left of the political spectrum. This freedom does not extend to the physical destruction of our flag, the official symbol of our Nation. Millions of Americans have often spoken of having proudly fought for the flag. Such a statement is not quite accurate. Those millions fought not for the flag itself, but they did fight for what that flag represents--what it stands for--what it means. Just before the critical battle at Valley Forge, George Washington cited the true importance of our flag as he implored his desperate, outnumbered troops. Washington said, ``Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair, the event is in the hands of God.'' This standard helped carry the Nation to victory. That is the real significance and meaning of this debate. We are fighting for the very values, concepts, and principals on which this country was founded. I am proud to be one of the 281 members of this House in support of the amendment to protect our flag. I urge all of my colleagues to reflect on the true significance of this issue and join us in support of this amendment.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 382, I was unavoidably detained while meeting with Alabama's delegation to the White House Conference on Small Business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment. amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by mr. spence

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Morella amendment and in support of the Smith amendment. The Smith amendment will reinstate the long-standing prohibition on providing taxpayer dollars to any private organization that performs or promotes abortion in foreign countries. The Smith amendment is correct in recognizing that promoting abortion is never in the true interests of our Nation. Over 95 countries in Central and South America and Africa have laws on the books against abortion on demand. The Hyde amendment, prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions here in the United States, has been in effect for years. The United States has no business using American taxpayer dollars to overturn abortion laws in other countries. Why would we, as a nation, encourage a practice that is so divisive and controversial in our own country? The Smith amendment provides clear rules that will ensure that no taxpayer dollars will be diverted for any form of abortion promotion. The outrageous practice of forced abortion in China demands such clear and strong rules as proposed by the Smith amendment. It should be noted that the Smith amendment will not prevent private individuals from promoting family planning or abortion around the globe. Rather, the Smith amendment reinstates a sound policy that was in effect under the Reagan and Bush administrations. It is a policy that reflects the views of most Americans. Family planning is important but killing the unborn is just as wrong in Africa, Asia, or Latin America as it is in the United States.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think one unfair thing about this debate is there has been some suggestion that under this amendment that the States and their water quality agencies do not have significant authority under this amendment. I would remind the gentleman from Oregon and anyone that is concerned about this that FERC will still be required to include the State's position on the need for power for the project, the value of the project to the local and regional economy, as well as the effects on recreation, fish and wildlife, and water quality in deciding whether or not to issue a license, and over the past history of FERC's regulation, even prior to this amendment which expands the rights of the water quality agencies of the States, FERC has accepted the recommendations of the States in over 90 percent of the cases, and we strengthen that. We strengthen under this amendment the right of the States to mandatory input and to mandatory participation.

Mr. BACHUS. In conclusion I would like to say to the gentleman from Oregon and to the Members, ``Remember the days when hydroelectric power was the most popular of energy resources. It was cheap, it was friendly to the environment. Fishermen and boaters loved the reservoirs that were created. The big dams were called the Eight Wonders of the World. The National Geographic had article after article about the popularity and the attractiveness of hydroelectric power.'' I say that is not changed today. It is 95 percent of our renewable energy comes from hydroelectric power. It is as important today, if not more important, than it was then, and 70 percent of those projects, hundreds of projects throughout this country, are going to be coming up for relicensing in the next 10 years. We have to establish an arbitration and a licensing agreement and not keep these tied up in court, as the gentleman alluded to, for years and years. It is a matter of national security. It makes us less dependent on foreign oil.

Mr. BACHUS. Either those or the Clean Water Act, which is now in effect, or other statutes and FERC regulations, rules and regulations.

Mr. BACHUS. All the present protections of the Federal Power Act are included and preserved under this amendment.

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

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