Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come from a family that has been in a small business operation for the last 100 years, and the biggest concern that I hear in small businesses is government regulation; and I agree with many of the gentleman's proposals here. Some are good, but it does add complexity. It adds cost. And right now what we are seeing is a huge exodus from the retirement plan operations of so many companies. I am afraid that this would exacerbate the problem.

For example, expanding the remedies of ERISA will quite likely lead to more litigation and more expense. Requiring 401(k) insurance is already provided by many plans but adds cost. Making it mandatory will cause people to exit the system. Reporting of insider sales is already governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission; so we think this is somewhat redundant.

{time}

1500 I am as embarrassed as the author of this substitute with some of the compensation plans that we have seen by various executives, and I agree this needs to be addressed. However, when we are dealing with something that has to do with pension reform, I do not believe that this is the appropriate vehicle to use at this time.

So overall what I am saying is I believe the base bill provides sound pension reform without promoting so much complexity and expense that we would eliminate retirement plans. If we do so, we simply throw out the baby with the bath water; and I think as a result, we cause more problems than we solve.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this base bill and rejection of the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a rural district that has been hit by 3 consecutive years of draught, contains the three poorest counties in the United States, definitely not a wealthy area. We are losing population, particularly our young people.

The best way to keep our young people is to have them start their own business, to be involved in entrepreneurial activity. H.R. 2 is the most small business-friendly piece of legislation I have seen in years. It increases expensing allowance, expands the definition of small business, extends operating loss carryback. Also, the reduction in the capital gains tax to 5 percent for the low-income tax bracket also helps farmers and ranchers whose lands have appreciated in value, but they cannot sell out because of the debt they have accumulated and because of the capital gains tax they would have to pay.

Most people in my district appreciate the child tax credit increase and the elimination of the marriage tax. These are not wealthy people.

I support the rule, and I urge support of H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, along with nearly all Americans, I felt a great sense of pride at the competence and skill displayed by our military in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was extremely gratifying to see nearly all Americans united behind our troops. Even though all did not agree with the idea behind the war, at least they supported the troops.

Over the last several months, a number of communities in my district provided meals for military personnel being transported across Nebraska. That is not a big deal, but this spirit of support was really a rebirth of a project called the North Platte Canteen. The North Platte Canteen's history is as follows: just 10 days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, North Platte, Nebraska, residents learned that on December 17, 1941, Company D, Nebraska National Guard troops, were scheduled to travel through North Platte aboard a military train. According to sources, that train could possibly make a stop in North Platte on its way to the west coast. So nobody

knew because of secrecy whether they were coming or not.

Because of the secrecy, it was unknown when the train would actually stop in North Platte, but hundreds of family members from the area came out with food, Christmas gifts, and baskets of fruit to celebrate the troop train's arrival. When the train finally arrived, the Nebraska troops were not aboard. Instead, it was Company D, the Kansas National Guard troops who were heading west.

The crowd was disappointed but rallied around the Kansas troops, gave them the gifts and food that they had prepared for the Nebraska National Guard and sent them on their way. The very next day, Rae Wilson of North Platte contacted the local newspaper to suggest that the community open a local canteen to meet the troop trains traveling in either direction across the United States. With this humble suggestion, the North Platte Canteen was born.

The North Platte Canteen met every troop train that stopped in North Platte from Christmas Day, 1941, to April 1, 1946, 5 years. While the volunteers never knew when the trains would be coming through because of national security, they were always there to serve the military personnel going off to war.

The canteen served approximately 6 million members of the Armed Forces at the North Platte Canteen in the Union Pacific Railroad station in North Platte. So that really constituted probably three- fourths to 80 percent of the total military personnel in the United States Army at that time.

There were approximately 55,000 volunteers from nearly 125 communities who helped to feed the troops that traveled through North Platte. It is estimated that 23 trains a day traveled through the community carrying between 2,000 and 5,000 troops each day. It is also estimated that the troops each month consumed 40,000 cookies, 30,000 hard-boiled eggs, 6,500 doughnuts, 4,000 loaves of bread, 3,000 pounds of meat, 450 pounds of butter, 1,350 pounds of coffee, 1,200 quarts of ice cream and on and on and on. And this was done at a time when gasoline and food items were rationed. The majority of the items were donated to the effort, as the North Platte Canteen did not receive any Federal or any government assistance of any kind.

Individual volunteers also helped to get cards, letters, and phone calls to family and friends of the service personnel when they stopped in North Platte. The volunteers wrote the notes and made the phone calls to loved ones to let them know that the soldier that they were interested in was doing well.

This week I introduced a resolution honoring the outstanding efforts of the individuals and communities involved with the North Platte Canteen in North Platte, Nebraska, during World War II. This is, I think, an example of the spirit of cooperation that we currently see across our country for our troops; and it just shows what can be done when partisanship is set aside, when everyone is united in one purpose. And these people, members of our greatest generation, are now disappearing very quickly. So I think it is important that we recognize their contribution at this time because many of them in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years from now will not be around. So their extraordinary act of generosity and service to the country, I believe, needs to be recognized; and I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the National Football League draft was conducted. Over 200 players were selected in the draft. Each player eventually will be represented by an agent. The difficult thing is that many of these people who call themselves agents have no special qualifications.

We find that many of them have no legal training, no expertise in writing contracts, some misrepresent themselves, some offer illegal inducements, particularly to undergraduates, such as cars, cash, clothes, and sometimes even drugs, to get young people to commit to a contract while they still have eligibility, which makes them ineligible, of course. A few even have criminal records. Most of them will tell a player that they will get them drafted higher.

The NFL committee will say, well, you are going to be a fourth-round pick; and these agents say, well, if you come with me, I will get you a trainer and a nutritionist, and we will make you a first-round pick, which obviously does not happen. And then some even get the power of attorney, which sometimes bankrupts these individuals.

The National Football League Players Association currently says that roughly one-half of the players leaving the National Football League have no money. The minimum salary is several hundred thousand dollars. Some guys make millions of dollars; some sign for $10 million or $11 million. Yet at the end of their career, nearly one-half have no money left. A lot of that is due simply to the issue of the way they are treated by their agents.

Every coach and athletic director that I know says this is a huge problem and that we need some type of uniform standards and regulations to govern sports agents. One of the biggest problems that we have is these people come on the campus and nobody knows they are there. They see the players in the dorms; they harass them and call them on the phone. Some of the better players end up having to get unlisted phone numbers because of all the harassment.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are only 15 States that have tough laws regulating actions by sports agents. There are 17 States, including my home State of Nebraska, that have no laws at all regulating sports agents, and then there are 18 States remaining that have some laws. It is kind of a hodgepodge, a patchwork; and there is no consistency and no teeth in the regulations. So the majority of young people coming out of college really are not protected by any laws that would govern sports agents.

With this problem in mind, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and I have introduced H.R. 361, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, which is also known as SPARTA. SPARTA protects student athletes by making it illegal for sports agents to entice student athletes with false or misleading information, promises, or representations in order to lure them into a contract. SPARTA would protect student athletes when they travel to other States.

Some student athletes are in States with some laws, but once they go home for the summer in another State or go to a bowl game, sometimes they are preyed upon by sports agents in those areas. So this provides a uniform Federal backstop. It does not supplant State laws, and we feel it is a very sound piece of legislation.

As of April 2002, the National Football League Players Association reported 1,200 certified football agents. Eight hundred of those represent no clients. Now, those are the guys that are really not very well qualified, and they are particularly dangerous because they are desperate to represent somebody. So they will make almost any kind of a deal, any kind of a promise to get someone committed.

We think, of course, that this is obviously a huge problem. But let me just cite two cases from my own experience. One: we were getting on the bus to go to the Orange Bowl, and I could not find my quarterback two hours before kickoff. I finally located him in one corner of the lobby cornered by two agents that he had never seen before, I had never heard of before, and were obviously unscrupulous; and they are hammering this guy to try to get him to sign a contract right before a kickoff. Well, of course, this did not do the quarterback any good, and it did not do me any good either.

In one other case we had a young man who was contacted at his home during the summer and he signed a contract. He did not really understand what he signed, but buried in the fine print was a 13 percent commission for the agent. So the agent got several hundred thousand dollars from this young man. Fortunately, the agent was from a State that did have some laws governing agents, and this agent had not registered. So we were able to recover $300,000 of this young man's money because of some sports agent legislation.

So what we are saying is we need this kind of protection for all athletes in all States. It is a Federal backstop. We think this is sound legislation, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 361, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act.

Mr. Chairman, as I have traveled my district, I hear a lot of concerns from teachers, administrators and parents, and the most common concerns that I have heard reflect on excessive paperwork and litigation.

This bill obviously addresses those. We attempt to streamline the administrative process. It provides for less legislation through arbitration.

The second major issue we have talked about a great deal here today is funding. I am convinced that the chairman of the committee, the subcommittee chairman and others, are fully committed to full funding of 40 percent within the next 7 years. The track record pretty much backs this up. In the last 8 years, we have seen a 300 percent increase in funding for IDEA. So we are very convinced that this full funding will occur.

The third issue I would like to address is over identification. We find that some schools have 40 to 50 percent of their student body identified as learning disabled, and, generally speaking, this is simply due to reading difficulties. So if we have adequate Head Start and early learning programs, we can eliminate this process.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill. It is a good bill, and I appreciate the chairman's offering it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of Captain Travis Ford, formerly of Ogallala, Nebraska. Captain Ford was one of the thousands of men and women who were called to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Captain Travis Ford was born in Saint Paul, Nebraska, in 1973. At the age of two, Captain Ford's family was told that he had developed a heart murmur and only had one year to live. Captain Ford did not let that stop him. In 1991, as an Ogallala High School graduate, he received the Dutch Cup, and was named the male athlete of the year. He was all-conference in football and named conference champion in wrestling.

After high school graduation, Captain Ford enlisted in the United States Marine Corps as an Engineer Equipment Operator. But he decided he had more to offer his country. Captain Ford pursued and achieved a Bachelors Degree in Accounting and completed officer training at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Captain Ford also participated in extracurricular activities at the University by becoming a member of the yell squad. It was during a Nebraska football game that Captain Ford proposed to his wife, Deon, with the help of the other cheerleaders.

Captain Ford, like many Nebraskans, strived to accomplish more and set higher goals, which took him around the country. In May of 1997, Captain Ford was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. He attended Field Artillery Officer's Basic Course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 11th Marines. Captain Ford achieved his ultimate goal when he was accepted in the Fleet Accession Program in Pensacola, Florida, to train as a helicopter pilot. Captain Ford excelled and graduated second in his class, and earned his Wings of Gold. Captain Ford eventually made his way to Camp Pendleton, California, where he trained to fly the AH-1 Super Cobra helicopter.

Captain Ford's passion to fly Super Cobra helicopters took him to Iraq, where he honorably served his country. Sadly, Captain Ford did not see the outcome of his hard work and dedication because Captain Travis Ford was killed in the line of duty on April 4, 2003, before the end of hostilities.

Captain Ford leaves behind his supportive and loving wife, Deon, and two-year-old daughter, Ashley; his mother, Josie Ford; brothers Alex, Trevor, Mike, Todd and Matt; as well as his brothers' families.

I want to thank Captain Ford's family for their sacrifice to our country. They are in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, during last night's debate, there was a great deal said about renewable fuels and particularly about ethanol. Much of this was uninformed and inaccurate. I think some of it was due to the fact that it was based on old research.

One of the comments that was made was that ethanol is not energy efficient, that it takes a lot more energy to produce than what it actually yields. Actually for every Btu of fossil fuel used, ethanol yields 1.4 Btus of energy. Gasoline for every Btu of energy used yields .8 Btu. MTBE yields about .7 Btu. It is the most energy efficient fuel that we have going at the present time.

Also, ethanol reduces farm payments by $5.9 billion over 10 years and it adds $51 billion to the farm economy. It reduces the trade deficit by $34 billion over 10 years which certainly helps the economy as well, and in 2002 removed 4 million tons of carbon dioxide from the air.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the work he has done on this bill. It is a very good bill, very important to the security of our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, we are currently concerned about our economy. We are talking about the need for an economic stimulus. Increasing ethanol production from 2.7 billion gallons currently to over 5 billion in the next 12 years will do this.

Number one, it increases farm income by $51 billion; creates 214,000 new American jobs; reduces government farm payments by $5.9 billion, which will be a tax savings to our taxpayers of $5.9 billion; and reduces the trade deficit by $34 billion.

We currently import 60 percent of our oil, 500,000 barrels a day from Iraq, spend $100 billion a year on foreign oil; and this certainly remedies that problem. And, of course, it reduces air pollution. Ethanol use reduced carbon dioxide by 4.3 million tons in 2002. Finally, the current bill will reduce, not increase, the price of gasoline, which is excellent.

So this energy bill is critical. It provides assurance to those who would invest in renewable fuels that there is a long-term Federal commitment.

I thank the chairman for his work and urge passage of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, banks that primarily serve agricultural customer remain concerned with the possibility of having to rely more and more on nontraditional funding sources to support their asset growth and continued ability to provide the necessary financing for their customers--farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural businesses.

Today, more than 1,820 of our nation's banks hold more than 25 percent of their loans. According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, office in Kansas City, in Nebraska, there are 210 farm banks that are FDIC insured institutions with at least 25 percent of total loans comprised of agriculture loans. A majority of these banks are located in rural areas and are the economic engines that help support the local community.

The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003, includes modest reforms to the deposit insurance system that will substantially benefit local banks in my community and

our nation's agricultural economy. During the 1990s many farm banks experienced a decline in core deposits and would likely see that trend reversed with increased deposit insurance coverage levels. A key component of this legislation includes a provision that provides for a modest increase of general coverage levels to $130,000 and then indexes it for inflation. Deposit insurance coverage levels have not been increased in twenty-three years, the longest period in FDIC history without an increase. Deposit protection has eroded by one-half due to inflation since 1980.

Higher coverage levels would provide rural residents such as farmers and ranchers with the additional security to deposit their funds in the local bank. These funds would be reinvested in the local communities to support projects such as the building of new ethanol plants and other value-added processing activities that will benefit local agricultural producers and provide employment for rural residents. Additional economic development in rural areas would create new opportunities for recent college and high school graduates and would help stop the rural depopulation that has been occurring over the past 20 years in many of our agriculturally dependent areas.

I urge my colleagues to support our nation's local banks and rural communities by voting ``yea'' on H.R. 522.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government's unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation could increase the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

I primarily object to the provisions in H.R. 522 which may increase the premiums assessed on participating financial institutions. These ``premiums,'' which are actually taxes, are the premier sources of funds for the Deposit Insurance Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks that experience difficulties meeting their commitments to their depositors. Thus, the deposit insurance system transfers liability for poor management decisions form those who made the decisions, to their competitors. This system punishes those financial institutions which follow sound practices, as they are forced to absorb the losses of their competitors. This also compounds the moral hazard problem created whenever government socializes business losses.

In the event of a severe banking crisis, Congress will likely transfer funds from the general revenue into the Deposit Insurance Fund, which could make all taxpayers liable for the mistakes of a few. Of course, such a bailout would require separate authorization from Congress, but can anyone imagine Congress saying ``No'' to banking lobbyists pleading for relief from the costs of bailing out their weaker competitors?

Government subsidies lead to government control, as regulations are imposed on the recipients of the subsidies in order to address the moral hazard problem. This is certainly the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. However, as George Kaufman, the John Smith Professor of Banking and Finance at Loyola University in Chicago, and co-chair of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee, pointed out in a study for the CATO Institute, the FDIC's history of poor management exacerbated the banking crisis of the eighties and nineties. Professor Kaufman properly identifies a key reason for the FDIC's poor track record in protection individual depositors: regulators have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial system such as banking failures. Banking failures are black marks on the regulators' records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure to delay imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the magnitude of the loss.

Immediately after a problem in the banking industry comes to light, the media and Congress will inevitably blame it on regulators who were ``asleep at the switch.'' Yet, most politicians continue to believe that giving the very regulators whose incompetence (or worse) either caused or contributed to the problem will somehow prevent future crises!

The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned with the health of their financial institutions when the federal government is insuring banks following sound practices and has insured their deposits?

Finally, I would remind my colleague that the federal deposit insurance programs lacks constitutional authority. Congress' only mandate in the area of money, and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress' embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 522 imposes new taxes on financial institutions, forces sound institutions to pay for the mistakes of their reckless competitors, increases the chances of taxpayers being forced to bail out unsound financial institutions, reduces individual depositors' incentives to take action to protect their deposits, and exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead of extending the Federal program, Congress should work to prevent the crises which justify government programs like deposit insurance, by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to pursue sound monetary policies.

Madam Speaker, I would like to join those congratulating the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for his introduction of H.R. 1412.

Madam Speaker, a high percentage of our military personnel are Reservists and National Guardsmen. These are ordinary citizens; they have families. Many of them are in school. Many are in higher education.

I would like to call attention to a couple of aspects of H.R. 1412 which

have heretofore been somewhat ignored. Number one, this particular legislation allows Reservists who leave college and universities for military service to return with the same academic standing as they had when they left. And this may seem kind of minor, but it is very important because in many graduate programs if you are not there for consecutive semesters, you lose your standing. You are no longer in the graduate college. Also sometimes after a period of absence, a student will lose credits and so this legislation prevents that from happening. I think that is very important. Also this legislation urges full refunds of tuition and fees for those who are called to active duty. Often times this happens in the middle of the semester, and the student may have already paid thousands of dollars in tuition and fees and normally the universities, when you drop out, do not refund these, so this does call for a full refund. And of course we have already discussed the fact that this does relieve Reservists from payments of student loans while on duty, which is very, very important.

On April 15, 2002, the State of Nebraska enacted the above provisions for those called to active duty through a memorandum agreement between the Governor and the colleges and universities. This was certainly a very good step for the State of Nebraska and, of course, this legislation to make these provisions applicable nationwide. So I urge its support and, again, want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for his introduction of this bill. It is a good bill and something we can all be proud of in a bipartisan manner in this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final week of the NCAA basketball tournament. This is an exciting time, and it is also a time when large amounts of money are gambled. In 1998, $2.5 billion was gambled on the NCAA tournament. Today, that would probably be almost double that amount.

Gambling on NCAA sports has become a major problem. In 1951, CCNY had a point-shaving scandal, and Kentucky in the 1940s. In 1994, a Northwestern running back intentionally fumbled to fix a game. In 1996, 13 Boston College football players bet on NCAA games, and several bet against their own team. In 1998, a Northwestern basketball player was indicted for point shaving. In 1999, two Arizona State basketball players shaved points. This was done to pay off gambling debts. The fix was traced to organized crime in Chicago.

Last month, Florida State quarterback Adrian McPherson was charged with illegal gambling, and of course he owed a bookie thousands of dollars. A University of Michigan study recently found that 5 percent of NCAA athletes that play football and basketball provided inside information to gamblers.

So over 36 years of coaching, gambling was a major concern to me. I was always worried about our players getting involved because of gambling debts; but more importantly, as a coach you had to win twice. You had to win once on the scoreboard, and then you had to win again in beating the point spread.

Someone up in the stands who had bet $10,000 on the outcome of a game that he could not afford to lose was not a casual observer. Most of the nasty memories that I have from coaching, and I do not have very many, had to do with hate mail, obscene phone calls at night, a mailbox that was blown up. In general, most all the time these were caused by situations where somebody had lost a bet.

Gambling on NCAA sports is illegal in 49 States, yet it is legal in one State, which is the State of Nevada. So we might ask, why not have a uniform standard? It is like having 49 States that have to pay Federal income tax and then one State is given a pass.

I have four major concerns with the Nevada loophole. First, this allows bets to be laid off. If there is a big game and the action is getting pretty heavy, a local bookie can have a runner or himself go to Las Vegas, up the ante, and have his bets covered. I had a young man from Nebraska who traveled to Las Vegas weekly to do this over a period of time.

Kevin Pendergast, who orchestrated the Northwestern gambling scandal, said this: ``Without the option of betting in Nevada, the Northwestern basketball point shaving scandal would never have occurred.''

Secondly, the loophole provides money-laundering opportunities. The former chairman of the Nebraska Gaming Control Board said, ``We have no way of knowing how much is laundered through legal sports books, but based on wiretaps, it is millions of dollars.''

Thirdly, this results in ties to organized crime. FBI agent Mike Welch said this: ``Most student bookies, even if they don't know it, are working for organized crime.''

Fourthly, giving one State a pass on amateur gambling sends a message that this is not really a serious problem. It is like legalizing drugs in one State and having them be illegal in 49 others.

The argument is often advanced that legal gambling on amateur sports in Nevada tips off a fix. In other words, as the points change and there is a big shift in gambling money, this will alert people that the fix is on. Yet in 2001 testimony on Capitol Hill, NCAA officials pointed out that legal sports betting in Nevada has never prevented a point-shaving scandal from happening. Sometimes after the fact you might go back and look at it and say, well, maybe something was going on here, but it has not really prevented anything.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission said in its 1999 report, it recommended that current legal gambling on college athletics be banned altogether, and of course this would apply to the Nevada loophole.

So I urge support for H.R. 1451 which will do exactly that. This will not eliminate all gambling, I realize that, on NCAA sports; but it certainly would be a step in the right direction and I urge support of

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his support of this amendment.

A year ago, my staff brought to my attention the fact that my name uses a search word that brought up a porn site so that meant that anyone in my District who was doing research on their Congressman was subject to a porn site and anyone doing research on athletics or football quite often would be subjected to the same pornographic material. I have grandchildren who are ages 6, 7, and 10, who all use the computer much better than I do, and it really concerns me that innocent words like ``Barbie'' or ``Disneyland'' can bring up graphic pornographic material or invite them into chat rooms that are frequented by pedophiles. So this is an issue that is very personal with me.

Of course, we are concerned about first amendment rights, but what about the rights of children who grow up in a wholesome environment to maintain some innocence, to not be exploited? The Pence amendment makes the use of domain names to deliberately mislead children viewing pornography to be a criminal activity. I urge support of the Pence amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work on the budget.

As the gentleman knows, the manager's amendment on the budget resolution includes reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Agriculture for savings in mandatory programs. To clarify for my colleagues and farmers and ranchers who follow this process, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget about the reconciliation instructions.

It is my understanding that the Committee on the Budget will work with the Committee on Agriculture to identify specific proposals that eliminate waste, fraud and inefficiencies so that any reductions do not come from farm programs and the crop insurance program. Is that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget's understanding?

I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for his responses to my inquiries. As I understand what the chairman is saying, the Committee on Agriculture should look to eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, and that he will work to see that there are no reductions in the current farm program and crop insurance program other than those attributable to waste, fraud and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of H.R. 837, the renewable fuels agreement.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time U.S. fuel prices are at an all-time high, $3 per gallon in parts of the country, and $2 per gallon in most other parts. We are nearly 60 percent dependent on foreign oil. We currently import 13 million barrels of petroleum a day, and we produce only 6 million barrels per day domestically, so there is a tremendous imbalance there.

The Mideast crisis points up the uncertainty of our fuel supply. The renewable fuels agreement would increase ethanol production to nearly that of Iraq by 2012. Right now, we see by this chart that this is our current ethanol production. This is the amount of fuel that we import from Iraq, and by 2002 we would have ethanol production ramped up to somewhere near what we currently import from Iraq.

The way the ethanol industry is going, I would predict that we will far surpass by 2012 the 7 billion gallons or 7 billion barrels that we are currently importing from Iraq.

Many times agriculture and environmental groups are at odds. This is one case where I hope we are all on the same page, because ethanol production certainly benefits the environment. First of all, it decreases carbon monoxide emissions, which lead to ozone pollution; secondly, it decreases carbon dioxide and methane emissions by as much as 35 percent, which causes global warming.

In 2002, the ethanol industry reduced greenhouse emissions by 4.3 million tons in 1 year, 2002. Then, of course, ethanol does replace MTBE, which has been proven to pollute groundwater, so we think it is a win-win, in many cases.

Another common myth people do not correctly understand is that ethanol somehow is a negative use of energy. In actual fact, we find that ethanol production results in a positive use of energy. For every Btu of energy of fossil fuels used to produce ethanol, we get 1.389 Btus in return, a gain of almost four-tenths of a Btu. By contrast, gasoline, for 1 Btu of energy to produce, yields only eight-tenths of a Btu. MTBE produces roughly 6.75. So this is one area where we actually are increasing the amount of energy that we have available to us.

Implementation of the renewable fuels agreement will result in lower prices at the pump. This, again, is something most people understand; but this legislation, H.R. 837, will create much more flexibility within the refinery industry, which will allow ethanol to be produced at certain places at certain times when it is most cost-effective. Therefore, there will be a reduction in price at the pump.

Renewable fuels legislation will boost the United States' economy. I think this, again, is something people are not aware of. This legislation will reduce crude oil imports by 1.6 billion barrels while cutting the trade deficit by $34 billion over the next 9 years.

Currently the greatest part of our trade deficit has to do with petroleum imports. This will substantially reduce that. Also, this legislation will reduce government payments to farmers by $5.9 billion while adding $51 billion to the farm economy through 2012. So again, we feel this is a win-win situation.

H.R. 837 will result in roughly 5 percent of our fuel supply coming from ethanol. Actually, there is much greater potential than this 5 percent. In Brazil, for instance, 22 percent of the fuel supply comes from ethanol. We have many automobiles, and fleets of automobiles and trucks in our country that currently use a formulation 85 percent ethanol, so the opportunity is practically limitless here.

Also, we would like to mention biodiesel, which uses soybeans. This has expanded very rapidly.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 837. This is part of the energy bill at the present time. If it does not go in the energy bill, we will introduce it and have introduced it as stand-alone legislation. I urge passage of H.R. 837.

Mr. Speaker, in 1972 Title IX became law. Title IX prohibits discrimination in education programs or educational activities based on gender. This has resulted in significant gains in women athletic participation. It has been a great thing for a great many people. From 1972 to 1999, there has been a tenfold increase in women's athletic participation at the high school and the college level. At the NCAA level, the increase was from 30,000 to 157,000 athletes, roughly a 500 percent increase.

However, there is another side, Mr. Speaker, to Title IX. Between 1985 and 2001, we lost 57,000 male college athletes. During that same period, we gained 52,000 female athletes at the college level, almost the same in number. Between 1992 and 1999, there were 386 men's collegiate teams that were eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, 171 of those were men's wrestling teams. The most common reason given for the elimination of these programs was to comply with title IX.

Recently, the Secretary of Education established a 15-member commission to

establish a study of opportunity in athletics. The purpose was to examine title IX and its impact on athletics.

This committee made 23 recommendations. Many of those recommendations were accepted with unanimous consent. However, there were eight recommendations that were not unanimous. Some people are now saying that since they were not unanimous, they should not be implemented. I would like to just retrace four or five of these.

First, one proposal was that the Secretary of Education be given some flexibility in implementing title IX. Currently, if 60 percent of a student body is male and 40 percent is female, then that means that 60 percent of the scholarships should go to males and 40 percent to females; and there is only 1 percent variance, so that means 59 percent would be the minimum.

We feel that this is impossible to implement because sometimes athletes quit, and sometimes they sign a letter of intent and do not show up. So a 1 percent variance is not workable, and the Secretary of Education needs variability.

Secondly, a recommendation was that private funds be able to be used if a sport was to be dropped because of noncompliance with title IX. For instance, if a wrestling program was about to be dropped because of noncompliance, then it would allow people to go out and raise money privately to keep that program going. It would not eliminate women's sports or women's opportunities; it would simply keep a sport going that is rapidly disappearing. That makes sense, but there are those who oppose this.

Another proposal is that slots on team rosters be treated the same as actual athletes. For instance, if there were 20 scholarships on the women's rowing team available, but only 10 women went out for the sport, the question is do you allow that as 20 opportunities, or do you say you just count the 10 women? If you just count the 10 women, that means you have to get rid of 10 men somewhere because of the slots not being occupied. That does not make sense. As long as the opportunity is there, we think they should be counted as certainly athletes who are in compliance.

Fourthly is the use of interest surveys to indicate school compliance with title IX. This is one of the three major problems in title IX, is the interest of the underrepresented sex being met? So the proposal is to allow interest surveys to be used, so if, for instance, there is no interest in a given school in women's rifle, then we should not have to offer women's rifle. That would make sense. But, again, this is being opposed by a few people because they feel that somehow this will undo title IX.

Lastly, there is the issue of walk-ons, something I know about to a fairly great extent. Currently, walk-ons are excluded because of the head counts. So if there were 200 female athletes at a school and 200 male, and the student body was equally divided 50-50, that would mean if you had 100 people who wanted to walk on who were male, who would pay their own way to school, pay for some of their own equipment, that they would not be allowed out unless there were 100 female walk-ons also. Statistical studies show that women simply do not walk on anywhere near the same proportion as men, so we have thousands of young men everywhere who are excluded from competition because of title IX. There will be no more Rudys. There are no more Rudys, in many cases. Again, that does not make any sense.

Mr. Speaker, I had two daughters who competed in athletics. I have two granddaughters. I hope they compete as well. I also had a son who competed and two grandsons whom I hope will compete. I coached 2,000 young men. So I am certainly not opposed to female participation. But we need to restore fairness and balance to title IX, and I urge my colleagues to support a letter we are circulating to this effect.