Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had quite a discussion on this bill. There were efforts to move money from paying for the census, for example, to other areas of the bill or other priorities. There was a lot of talk about limited resources and the limited amount of money in this bill and the need to take money from one area to put into another.

I would submit that one area that we can take some money from that is overfunded, grossly overfunded, in this bill is in some of these earmarks. Now, I will maybe highlight 10 of them today, but there are literally hundreds in the bill that we could take the money from to fund our constitutional obligation, for example, to conduct the census every 10 years.

But I will start today with 250,000 for the Rochester, New York, Tooling and Machining Association for a workforce development program; that is an earmark. This amendment would strip that funding. The Rochester Tool and Machining Association is one chapter of a larger international tooling and machining association, which is the national representative of the custom precision manufacturing industry in the United States.

They maintain a legislative alert center on their Web site so their members can lobby Congress on issues that matter to them. They also retain a lobbying firm to advance their interests with the Federal Government. It would seem that they are doing yeoman's work for their members, as is their Rochester chapter. Their Rochester chapter offers technical training and education to its members.

They assert on their Web site that manufacturing job opportunities are not declining and that manufacturing accounts for 24 percent of the private sector jobs in New York State. They go on to claim that the size of the workforce is declining and that there are insufficient skilled workers to fill these available jobs, which I can only assume is what this earmark is for.

What we have here is simple supply and demand, not enough skilled workers for too many jobs, an equation that is normally balanced by the free market, until this earmark. For those who buy into the idea that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to plan and shape the supply and demands of our workforce, my objection to this earmark will not resonate with you.

But for those who have witnessed the profound failures of central planning in countries around the world during the 1970s and the 1980s, I hope that you will understand that this earmark is a mini-economic boost by a Federal, centralized government, to increase the supply of one industry's workers over another industry.

I would submit that if there is such a demand for skilled manufacturers, as the association claims, then wages will increase, and the workforce will adapt, and they will learn ways and skills necessary to earn those wages. Let the market decide which industries succeed or fail, not politicians in Washington.

I would like to hear the justification for the Federal function in this case, but then I ask, why are we picking winners and losers through the earmarking process? Why is this industry, this sector, these workers, more deserving than others? I don't think Congress should be picking favorites like this.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, again, we all say it is our job to represent our constituents, and it certainly is. But we are in a deficit situation. We have a massive deficit and a massive Federal debt.

What if every Member of Congress said, I am going to represent my constituents by getting every Federal dollar that I can back into my district, regardless of the deficit, regardless of the debt.

That is pretty much where we are at right now. When you had, I think last year was $27 billion in earmarks, where does it end? When do we say enough is enough? When do we say, I am not going to pick this industry over that one?

That workforce may be worthy of this kind of help, but what makes it more worthy than another one? Why do we just continue with the spoils system where if you happen to get with this group and they happen to be lucky enough to get your earmark, they get funded, but nobody else does? We simply can't continue this.

I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of Italian food. My district is home to a great Italian restaurant, Anzio's Landing. You can order many of your favorite dishes, good Italian bread, and there are many former New Yorkers in my district, and they know it well. But if the owner of this restaurant, whom I know well, if he approached me to get a Federal earmark to modernize his restaurant, I would have to tell him ``fuhgetaboudit.''

Today I am bringing this amendment to learn whether the rest of the House will agree with me on that premise. The bill before us today asks us to spend $150,000 in Federal taxpayer dollars to the Arthur Avenue Retail Market, an Italian grocery market in a neighborhood labeled Bronx's Little Italy. Over a dozen merchants currently reside in the market, including Joe Liberatore's Garden of Plenty, Peter's Meat Market and Mike's Deli, a two-generation family-owned business that sells antipasti, breads, meats, pasta, and imported cheeses. The market is also home to the La Casa Grande Tobacco Company, which offers hand- rolled cigars.

In 2004, the market received $300,000 in earmarked Federal dollars for renovations. The market received another $400,000 in Federal transportation appropriation dollars for a new parking facility in 2005. We are back.

In 1940, Mayor LaGuardia built an indoor Arthur Avenue Market to take street vendors out of the cold. This is where this originated.

In the 1980s, the merchants of the market formed a co-op and paid for renovations to that market. Now, there are long lines at the market on weekends to get great Italian bread, cheese and salami.

I would ask the sponsor of this amendment why close to $700,000 has been spent on this Italian grocery market and why another $150,000 in taxpayer funds is needed.

There is a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District, or that is, a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District for a private Italian grocery market. I think we need to slice off some of this appropriations bill. If there is a place to slice, this is certainly it.

What possible Federal purpose does this earmark serve? Does the taxpayer even get a free Italian cookie assortment? If we allow our tax money to go to this grocery market, what benefit is there for the Federal taxpayer? There are certainly plenty of private benefits, but what Federal benefit? How do we justify this?

I would argue that this is one cannoli the taxpayer doesn't want to take a bite out of.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for the invitation. I likely will take him up on it. Maybe I will learn to say ``prosciutto'' properly.

But we simply get back to the point, where does it end? Where do we stop favoring one group, one industry over another? It is mentioned that this is a city-owned facility. Those who are residing there, who have their markets there, already received that kind of subsidy apparently from the city.

Now we are going in addition and giving them further subsidy. $400,000 last year for a parking garage, $300,000 in 2004 for similar upgrades, $150,000 more today. My guess is that there are Italian eateries or restaurants or markets elsewhere in the city that are getting no subsidy at all. How is it fair to them? How is it fair to them to favor one?

And I would say the same if it were in my district. It is not fair to subsidize one and not the other, and that is where we are with this earmarking process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this earmark limitation amendment would prohibit $200,000 in Federal funds from being provided to the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism.

Now, the mission of the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism is to ``increase the prosperity and population of the Oil Region'' of Pennsylvania. The point of the alliance is to ``entice people to live, work, learn and play in the valley that changed the world.''

I am certain this is an important organization to the oil region. These folks are working to ensure that the region's future is important as was its past. I have no problem with that. I don't think anyone does. Being the site of the world's first successful oil well in 1859, this area has played a crucial role in the country's history.

My only question is, why should the Federal Government pay to develop this area's business and tourism? Why this area and not other areas?

In April of this year, Governor Rendell congratulated the Pennsylvania tourism industry for having a record-breaking year last year.

The $25 billion tourism industry sold more hotel rooms than ever before and attracted more than 130 million visitors in 2005, making Pennsylvania the fifth most visited State in the Nation. Statewide, tourism accounts for more than 400,000 jobs and is the Commonwealth's second largest industry.

I have said it before, and I will continue to say it: when the Federal Government hands out earmarks like this, we are picking winners and losers. We are encouraging people to visit and to provide tourism to this area. They have to come from somewhere else. Why aren't we subsidizing those whom they choose not to go to? Where does it end? Where do we stop? Why do we simply have a spoils system where one Member of Congress can say, I am going to benefit them but not others?

In this case, the oil region of Pennsylvania receives funding to attract businesses to locate in the region, to try to get families to move there and to stay, and to try to attract tourist dollars.

As I mentioned, there are businesses and families and tourist dollars that won't be heading to other areas of Pennsylvania or surrounding States or anywhere else in the country. Many other localities throughout the country would like to receive as many tourism dollars as possible, but we are favoring one with this earmark.

Simply put, we shouldn't be doing this. The Federal Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers like this.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply submit that every Member of Congress in 435 districts around the country can point to at least pockets in his or her district that need help, where there is high jobless rates or where there is high crime.

But where does it end? Where do we say, all right, we simply can't pass out earmarks like this and circumvent the normal authorization, appropriation, and oversight process? When does it become our job to say, all right, we are not going to go through that process and authorize these programs, appropriate and then have oversight. Instead, we are just going to slip an earmark in that we don't even know who sponsored until we offer it on the floor today. And if nobody was standing up here, we still wouldn't know.

There are hundreds and hundreds of earmarks in this bill that we wouldn't even know who is offering them or what they are for because the descriptions are often so vague as to what the earmark is supposed to fund.

So where does it end? Why can't every Member stand up and say, I have pockets in my district, if not my entire district, that need workforce development, that need facilities?

He mentioned my district has grown 40 percent in the past couple of years. It has. It has tremendous infrastructure needs. But if I were to come and say we need all the lists that he rattled off there, then the Treasury simply couldn't handle it.

We are put in this position to make decisions and to have priorities; and I would submit that when you have an earmarking process like that, we aren't going through it properly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding from going to the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center.

Fairplex is home to the Los Angeles County Fair, the largest county fair in the world. The fair is a great asset to California, contributing a major portion of the $11.6 million in State sales tax revenue generated by Fairplex and $176 million in spending.

The L.A. County Fair Association describes itself as self-supporting and boasts that it does not fall under the auspices of any county or State governmental body.

Surplus revenues that are generated by the fair and other activities are reinvested into the maintenance and development of the facility.

The association also states that Fairplex receives no government funding for the operation or maintenance of its facilities. However, Fairplex received $1 million in Federal funding for fiscal year 2006. If the money is not used for the operation or maintenance of this thriving independent facility, what is it used for?

Maybe the funding is intended for some other activities at the Fairplex, such as the Wally Parks NHRA Motor Sports Museum or the Frank Hawley Drag Racing School. Maybe these funds are for Fairplex Park, a major horse racing facility with a grandstand and air-conditioned clubhouse for satellite gambling.

There is no question that Fairplex delivers major economic benefits for L.A. County and the rest of California. But I do question, however, why the Federal Government is throwing money at an independent facility that generates over $334 million in economic activity nationwide. Fairplex does so well, in fact, that it donates more than $400,000 in cash and in kind to local organizations each year.

So why are we giving this earmark? That is the question.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman and for the gentleman who spoke, and I appreciate their efforts on behalf of this initiative. But, again, I have to say, where does it end? Where does it end when we say, this group, this organization, this facility is worthy of Federal dollars, and another is not? It simply isn't fair to continue to give earmarks like this in this manner.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would ask Members of this body, how would you define irony?

I define it as providing a Federal earmark money to the Bronx Council on the Arts, which is an entity that is advertising an event on its Web site called, Pay to Play.

Pay to Play, according to the Bronx Council's Web site is ``a multimedia exhibition ala Abramoff, Scanlon, Cunningham, Halliburton and on and on and on.'' The Web site states that ``artists are asked to offer a bribe to participate in the show that will be on display alongside selected work. Please note that special consideration will be given to work that addresses corruption, greed, scandal, cover-ups, failures of democracy, the transparent veneer of public interest that masks rampant self-interest, and such other things.''

I am not saying the earmark for Bronx Council of the Arts fits any of these categories, but I am saying that it is sadly ironic that we are funding artistic parodies of congressional earmarking with earmarks.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the Bronx Council for marketing local arts initiatives. My staff and I were befuddled as to what the Bronx Council originally was. It appears that a Bronx Council got money last year in the same section of the bill, but the earmark was called, ``$150,000 for the Bronx Council for the Arts for its Arts Cultural Corridor Project to promote local arts initiatives.''

So we went from Bronx Council on the Arts to just the Bronx Council. We dropped the ``Arts Cultural Corridor Project,'' and we are no longer promoting local arts, but we are marketing them. I call this the Earmark Protection Program, changing the names of earmarks to make them so vague that no one can recognize them and no amendment can be drafted to strike them.

We often have trouble when we are offering these earmarks. We are told by the Parliamentarian that it has to refer to a specific facility or a specific initiative, and these earmarks this year, many of the names have been changed to be more vague, and it is difficult to know what they actually fund. As mentioned a few weeks ago, we had earmarks to simply fund a facility without reference to what that facility was. It is difficult to have amendments that are actually ruled in order to challenge them because, as the Parliamentarians will tell you, to successfully challenge an earmark, it requires an assumption that the agency that funds the earmark is familiar with the project. Otherwise, we might be legislating on an appropriation bill, which is a violation of our rules. The incentive, therefore, for Members looking to protect earmarks is to become more vague or silent about the project's goals and the project's oversight.

I would submit that we should get used to more earmarks entering this protection program in the near future to prevent them from being stripped from appropriation bills. I would welcome an explanation as to what this earmark actually does.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a question, and I would like to yield to the gentleman to answer.

Is this the same council that received the earmark last year, just for my clarification?

I will do that. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In last year's conference report on the SSJC appropriations bill, there was a $250,000 earmark for the JARI, which stands for Johnstown Area Regional Industries, Workforce Development Program. There was a separate $250,000 earmark for the JARI Small Business Technology Center. This year, there is a $500,000 earmark for the JARI Workforce Development Program and the Small Business Technology Center. We also found a separate $800,000 earmark for JARI for a Regional Business Incubator.

Aside from all other arguments that can be made against this kind of earmarking, I want to point out what appears to be a trend toward obfuscation in the language of earmarks. In drafting a limitation amendment to prevent funding to the JARI Regional Business Incubator, we used the earmark language exactly as it appears in the bill.

We then asked the Parliamentarians to review it to make sure it would be in order. We were informed that the ``region business incubator'' verbiage was too vague to be considered in order. So in drafting this amendment, we had no choice but to limit funding to JARI, period. The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit any funding from the bill going to the organization, whereas our initial intention was to limit the funding to the business incubator.

That is part of the problem we have here. All we have is the language in a report that is so vague or confusing that it is even difficult to draft an amendment to cover it.

Now I have no problem limiting any funding to the organization, let me tell you, but I also want to be clear that I have nothing against JARI. I wish the organization well in its efforts. I do, however, have a problem with the increasingly opaque process by which Congress hands out earmarks.

For the first half of this year, we debated ways to bring transparency to what we do here. When it comes to the earmarking process, Members have proposed a longer notice period before consideration of bills, making bills and reports more accessible, attaching Members' names to earmarks, compiling earmarks in tables, including earmarks in the text of legislation, and on and on and on. I think all these ideas are fine, and I have introduced my own proposal.

After a good deal of compromise, this House approved the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act last month. Yet here we are, just a few weeks later, and there has been no apparent effort to comply with the proposals that we made in the House and the entire House approved.

How can we explain this to our constituents? Was the lobbying and transparency legislation just for show? I certainly don't think it was, but it is starting to look that way to most Americans.

We need to demonstrate how serious we are about establishing transparency in Congress. We have made a strong effort, and there is nothing preventing us from making good on what we said. Waiting until this bill becomes law before we act would appear as though we are under compulsion to comply with the public demand for transparency. I think we need transparency now.

A small handful of our colleagues contend that we should not change the process until the other Chamber changes its process, that if we enact unilateral reforms in the House, we would shortchange ourselves.

Who is this about? Are we here to serve our country, the best interests of our country, or simply to look out for the interests of the House?

What are we waiting for? We are almost done with the appropriation process for the year, yet nothing has changed. Where are the names next to earmarks? Where is the transparency that we say that we want?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to point out that unless the gentleman who defended the earmark is the author of the earmark, and I don't believe that he is, this is an earmark in Pennsylvania. We still don't know who authored the earmark. There is nothing in the conference report that tells us, and we still don't know. Here we are about to vote on it, and we still don't know and we haven't had a defense of that earmark from the author of it, from the Member who authored it. There is something wrong with the process when this is what we are reduced to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the committee report for this bill contains an earmark for the Wisconsin Procurement Initiative, and my amendment would limit funding for this item.

The committee report for last year's SSJC appropriations bill did not contain a similar earmark, but the conference report on this bill did include an earmark for the Wisconsin Procurement Institute for the same amount.

Though it is impossible to know by reading the report, it appears that this earmark is destined for the same institution. Again, we simply don't know. We have insufficient information, yet we are going to provide the funding without even knowing, without anybody even asking the question, is it the same thing to give money to the initiative or the institute?

It appears that this is one of several earmarks that have been funded in multiple years with similar but increasingly vague verbiage in the committee report.

The Wisconsin Procurement Institute was founded in 1987 by Les Aspin, a former Congressman and Secretary of Defense. The institute says its purpose is to ``bridge the gap for Wisconsin companies interested in supplying their products and services to Federal, State and local agencies and prime contractors.'' The institute ``guides, trains and provides hands-on assistance to firms in developing government business and improving process and technical capabilities to access and compete in the government workplace.''

When I saw this earmark, it reminded me of the late-night commercials that you see from a fellow by the name of Matthew Lesko. He will stand up and run to the camera, and he has a suit with question marks all over it, and he has a car decorated the same way, and he will wave a book and say, ``There is millions and millions of government dollars just for you, and if you pay me $19.95, I will tell you how can get these contracts, how you can get this money, how you can get these scholarships, how you can get these grants, how you can get these loans.''

This seems to be a process similar to Matthew Lesko. You have an organization here whose job it is to secure projects from the Federal Government, and we are paying money to that organization to help them procure contracts from us. It just seems like a little double-dipping in that way. We are funding an organization whose purpose it is to help other organizations obtain Federal assistance, grants, contracts, et cetera.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the 2003 budget for the Wisconsin Procurement Institute was $340,000. This year's and last year's earmarks were for $400,000 each. It seems that we have doubled their budget, or their entire budget comes from the Federal Government. I am not sure which.

I am sure the Wisconsin Procurement Institute's budget is higher now than it was 3 years ago, but a significant portion must be funded by this earmark.

I certainly support the outsourcing of Federal functions that can be better performed by private companies, but there is something inherently wrong with funding an organization whose purpose it is to help others secure government funding. Just thinking about it makes your head spin.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have done it again. We have come here to talk about an earmark that I am sure will be approved by voice vote and then probably by roll call, and we still don't even know who sponsored it. We don't know if the institute is the same as the initiative. We don't know why the organization claims on its own Web site to have a budget of $340,000, yet has received earmarks in each of the past 2 years for $400,000 each.

It simply doesn't make sense. Are we exercising the proper oversight that we ought to? We said before, both sides

have said, the gentleman and ranking minority member have said we simply don't have the staff to police the kind of earmarking we are doing here. I readily agree. Yet we are continuing to do this. I don't know where we stop. I simply don't.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $900,000 in Federal funds from being used by Fairmont State University in West Virginia for a small business initiative.

Fairmont State University is located in Fairmont, the county seat of Marion County, which has a population of 20,000 and is located in north central West Virginia. Similar to other earmarks I have challenged in this appropriations season, this earmark is vague in its description, offering no more than a general sketch of the purpose of the funding and making true oversight nearly impossible.

In addition, this is not the first earmark to benefit the school. In recent years, Fairmont State University and its partners have regularly benefited from earmarks in this appropriation bill.

For example, the 2005 Justice Department budget included a grant for nearly half a million dollars for the Fairmont State partner program looking at decoding criminal digital documents. Similarly, the 2006 SSJC appropriation bill included over $2 million in earmarks assisting the school's aviation program and aerospace curriculum.

And I guess the third time is the charm. We are likely to continue this trend in 2007 with an earmark for $900,000 for a small business development initiative.

In fact, according to some estimates, northern West Virginia has received more than $480 million in earmarks in various appropriation bills over the last 10 years.

This earmark illustrates the problem with earmarks. Year after year, we approve these vaguely described projects by the thousands. Not only do taxpayers not know how the money is being spent, the current earmark process makes those types of patterns, the same area benefiting time and time again at the taxpayers' expense, difficult if not impossible to detect.

My question is, where does it end? Where does Congress start to say enough is enough and add accountability and transparency to this runaway train that earmarks have become? If not with earmarks like this, then I do not know when.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, all of the descriptions of Arizona make it sound like Shangri-La, that everything is going so well in Arizona that we have no need for any help with the economy or any sector of the economy. That is simply not the case. We are experiencing rapid growth. There are a lot of infrastructure needs that come with that. We are experiencing transition.

I grew up in northeastern Arizona. There are tremendous problems there with drought and other issues.

But I would defy any Member of Congress to say that his district is not in need of something. But if we all said, all right, we are just going to get it all, get it all for our districts, circumvent the authorization appropriation oversight function that Congress has always had and simply say we are going to earmark it and use kind of a spoil system as to who gets the earmarks, then it is simply going to drain the Treasury, and it is not fair to anyone.

I have universities in my district. Many of them compete for educational grants, for research grants, for other grants that are typically available in this appropriation bill and others that are being depleted. Those accounts for research funds are being depleted by earmarks.

Later today I believe we will be voting on an amendment or some clarification of the TEA-LU bill to replenish a research account or some kind of research account on roads whose account was depleted because of earmarks. So people in Arizona or elsewhere are not going to receive the funding that would come by formula back to them, because of the gas taxes they paid in, because of all of the earmarking that is going on.

So this is a problem. It is not a fair system. It is not a transparent system. If it were a transparent system, we would have names next to the earmarks when they come to the floor. We would have the ability to challenge it at any step. You would have language that is such that a limitation amendment could not be ruled out of order.

This is not a fair process. We need to change it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5304) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for caller ID spoofing, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have five copies at the desk currently.

Mr. Speaker, we are having a copy directed to Mr. Scott. He has got it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5304, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5304, the Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number

Enforcement Act, the PHONE Act, which was introduced by Representative Tim Murphy. I thank Mr. Murphy for his leadership and commitment to this issue.

In the last few years, the criminal activity known as ``spoofing'' has been on the rise. Caller ID spoofing occurs when a person deliberately uses an incorrect, fake or fraudulent caller identification to hide their identity in order to facilitate a fraudulent telephone call and to harass, trick or further a fraudulent scheme. The victims of this activity include the legitimate owner of a caller ID or the recipient of a fraudulent telephone call, who, as a result, may divulge legitimate financial or identifying information such as credit card numbers or other financial information. Spoofing is nothing less than criminal fraud.

Spoofing technology has become more accessible to the average person, either through the purchase of Internet telephone equipment or through Web sites specifically set up to spoof. These Web sites promote spoofing as a device to commit fraud, prank phone calls and political attacks, and are used by telemarketers who are attempting to avoid the current ``do not call'' limits.

H.R. 5304 creates a new Federal crime prohibiting the modification of caller ID to harass or commit fraud or use another person's ID without that person's consent. The bill imposes a penalty of a prison term of up to 5 years and/or a fine for any violation. However, the legislation does not affect legally available blocking of caller ID technology or lawfully authorized activities of law enforcement intelligence agencies.

This legislation will help to deter telephone fraud, to protect consumers from harassment, and to increase protection of consumers and their personally identifiable data from fraudulent telephone use.

I urge my colleagues to join together to pass this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5304.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the gentleman that this is in fact an ongoing problem where we have crimes being committed and some difficulty in some cases actually having a rationale for prosecuting people that are using this sometimes in very harsh criminal circumstances.

The original bill used the term ``misleading.'' I think we have changed that now to ``defraud or harass.'' There is no legitimate purpose when you are talking about the defrauding or harassing.

So I would encourage my colleagues to support this bill. It is much improved, taking into account the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia, and I believe that it is an appropriate bill, a bill that is well-drafted now, and I would urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to introduce for the Record a letter dated today, from the Department of Justice, that I think answers some of the questions that the gentleman from Virginia has asked. We will see that a copy of this is delivered to the gentleman.

Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs,

Office of the Assistant Attorney General,

Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice appreciates

the opportunity to comment on H.R. 5304, the ``Preventing

Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act'' (``PHONE

Act''). As Deputy Assistant Attorney General Barry Sabin

testified before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and

Homeland Security last month, we support Congressional action

to give law enforcement better tools to protect our citizens

and our country from identity thieves, stalkers, and other

criminals.

Overall, the bill would support the Department's efforts to

combat the threats caused by the widespread availability of

``caller ID spoofing.'' As noted at the Subcommittee's

hearing on the PHONE Act, these threats include preying on

the elderly, harassment of telephone users, and dangerous

false alarms to public safety personnel. Caller ID spoofing

facilitates a number of serious crimes, including identity

theft, pretexting, and privacy invasions. It can also be used

to hamper important, time sensitive investigations.

The Department was especially pleased to see that the scope

of the bill includes both conventional telephone calling and

many types of voice over Internet protocol (``VOIP'')

services. VOIP is an important new advance in the way

Americans communicate, and our laws need to keep up with such

technological advances if these new innovations are to reach

their full potential.

The drafters also have wisely recognized that, at times, it

may be necessary to modify caller ID information in the

course of authorized law enforcement and intelligence

operations. Accordingly, the bill properly includes an

exception for these legitimate law enforcement and

intelligence activities.

The Department has a number of recommendations (described

below) to clarify the bill and to make it even more

effective.

A. The bill could be made more effective by creating a more

graduated series of offenses.

Proposed Section 1038(a) creates only a single offense, a

felony. A felony is a very serious charge that carries heavy

penalties that may not be proportional to the conduct at

issue in every case. The drafters may wish to consider a more

graduated series of offenses that would allow prosecutors to

charge misdemeanor offenses in appropriate circumstances. For

instance, felony penalties could be reserved for caller ID

spoofing done in furtherance of another crime or tort, while

those playing practical jokes could be charged with a

misdemeanor offense. This could lead to greater use of the

statute and more just results. Such an approach has been

implemented in other federal criminal statutes such as 18

U.S.C. Sec. 1030(c)(2)(B) (part of the Computer Fraud and

Abuse Act) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 270 I (b) (the criminal

provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act).

B. The bill could be made more effective by prohibiting

attempts.

A prosecution should not depend on whether a criminal was

successful in the object of his or her crime. Thus, if a call

placed by a criminal attempting to mislead another does not

go through for some reason, the criminal should be punishable

as if the call had been completed. Such failures may occur

where a service has blocked certain numbers, such as 911, or

even for more mundane technical problems. These failures do

not make the criminal any less culpable for attempting to

mislead others. Thus, we recommend that the bill punish

attempts the same as the substantive offense.

C. The new provision should be numbered 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 1039.

The bill seeks to add a new provision to the end of Chapter

47 of Title 18. Section 1038 in Title 18 already exists,

however, and we understand that there is a good chance that a

bill currently moving through Congress would create a new

section numbered 1039. Thus, this bill should be numbered

either 1039 or 1040 instead.

D. The drafters may wish to include a clear statement of

jurisdiction.

We believe that the bill as written contains a sufficient

nexus to interstate commerce to justify federal jurisdiction

in most cases. Nevertheless, in order to make jurisdiction

even more clear, the Committee may want to consider adding

the phrase ``using any facility or means of interstate or

foreign commerce'' to proposed subsection 1038(a).

Alternatively, it may be helpful to include a specific

finding regarding jurisdiction in the Committee's report.

E. The bill can be made more effective by prohibiting

``generating and transmitting'' misleading caller

identification information in addition to ``modifying'' such

information.

Some of the caller ID spoofing services available today do

not actually modify caller ID information. As a technical

matter, the service creates a new telephone call, thereby

generating or transmitting new caller ID information. To take

into account such situations, we recommend that, in addition

to modifying information, the bill also cover generating

or transmitting caller ID information with an intent to

mislead.

F. The bill can be made more effective by prohibiting

caller ID spoofing with the intent to mislead any other

person.

Caller ID spoofing can be used not only to mislead call

recipients, but also to defraud communications service

providers. In addition to misreporting the information that

eventually is displayed on call recipients' caller ID

displays, the same methods can be and are used to falsify the

telephone numbers that carriers use to determine appropriate

billing for calls that are carried on their networks. The

bill can be strengthened to include this type of fraud by

prohibiting misleading ``any other person'' rather than only

misleading call recipients.

G. The bill can be made more effective by clarifying the

definition of ``caller ID information. ``

As currently drafted, the definition of ``caller ID

information'' is difficult to parse. We would recommend

rewording proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(A) to say ``The term

`caller ID information' means information regarding the

origination of the telephone call, including the telephone

number of the originating party.''

H. The bill can be made more effective by focusing the

definition of ``telephone call'' on the service used to

receive calls rather than the service used to make calls.

The bill seeks to cover matters involving ``telephone

calls.'' A ``telephone call'' is defined as a ``call made

using a telecommunications service or a VOIP service.'' See

proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This

definition focuses on the service being used to make the

call, thereby allowing the person seeking to mislead others

to avoid criminal liability by choosing a service not covered

by the statute. For example, a caller using a service that

allows only outbound calls to the public switched telephone

network (PSTN) would not be covered (without the

modifications suggested in Section I below), even though

ordinary telephone users would be receiving such calls. The

bill's coverage more properly should depend on the type of

service being used to receive the call, since it is call

recipients that the bill seeks to protect from being misled.

We recommend that the definition of ``telephone call'' be

changed to read ``The term `telephone call' means a

communication made using or received on a telecommunications

service or VOIP service.''

I. The bill can be made more effective by expanding the

definition of ``VOIP service.''

We have a number of concerns with the narrow scope of the

definition of ``VOIP service,'' a definition that soon could

be overtaken by advances in technology. It is important to

craft this definition well not only because of the effect it

would have on the scope of this bill, but because of the

effect it could have on the scope of other important

programs, such as the Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act and emergency response services. As Thomas

Navin, Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau of the

Federal Communications Commission, testified before the

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the

Energy and Commerce Committee, ``a restrictive definition of

VOIP . . . might establish a statutory precedent that would

restrict the Commission's authority to protect life and

property in both the public safety and law enforcement

contexts.'' The Department has expressed similar concerns in

regulatory proceedings and in connection with other bills

introduced this Congress, and we would respectfully raise

those same concerns with this Committee.

1. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service be transmitted ``through

customer premises equipment.''

It is not clear why protection from being misled by caller

ID information should depend on whether VOIP service is

transmitted ``through customer premises equipment,'' as set

forth in proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i). We therefore

suggest deleting these words (``through customer premises

equipment'') to broaden the scope of the bill.

2. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service use Transmission Control

Protocol.

The bill should not be limited to services that use the

Transmission Control Protocol (``TCP''), as many current VOIP

services use another protocol (that is not a successor to

TCP) called the User Datagram Protocol (``UDP''). We

therefore recommend that ``Transmission Control Protocol/''

be deleted from proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i).

3. The bill can be made more effective by clarifying the

parenthetical in the definition of a ``VOIP service.''

Proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i) provides that a VOIP

service is covered even when the Internet protocol conversion

is performed ``without use of circuit switching.'' The

Department believes that this provision is unclear. We

recommend that the parenthetical be clarified.

4. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service be offered ``for a fee.''

The Department believes it would be preferable that the

bill's prohibition not depend on the provider's business

model, that is, not apply only to those VOIP services offered

``for a fee.'' See proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i). At

least some VOIP services are offered at no charge and will be

supported by revenue generated from sources other than user

fees, such as advertising revenue. In fact, several VOIP

providers are currently offering free calls to or from the

PSTN. There is no reason why the business model of the

service provider should have an impact on the scope of the

bill's coverage.

5. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service must offer two-way

interconnection to the PSTN.

The bill also limits ``VOIP service'' to a service that

``has the capability to originate traffic to, and terminate

traffic from, the public switched telephone network [PSTN].''

See proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1038(c)(l)(C)(iii) (emphasis

added). This provision is unnecessarily restrictive for two

reasons. First, some VOIP providers offer services that only

allow one of those two capabilities. Under the definition in

the bill, a call to a person's telephone is not a ``telephone

call'' if the caller's service does not also allow that

originator to receive calls from the PSTN. There is no reason

a person should be allowed to mislead call recipients, even

ones using traditional telephone service, simply because he

or she uses a service that restricts incoming calls. Even if

the bill were amended as suggested above to focus on the

service used to receive calls, there is no reason why

subscribers to receive-only services should be less protected

from fraudulent caller ID information simply because their

ability to call out is limited. We recommend that, at a

minimum, the word ``and'' be changed to ``or'' in proposed

subsection 1038(c)(l)(C)(iii).

In addition, the bill only covers services that are capable

of interconnecting with the PSTN. Reference to the PSTN could

be interpreted to limit its applicability to one particular

set of wires, i.e., the traditional telephone network. If, as

some predict, the future of telephone communications shifts

entirely away from that older network, the bill could become

a dead letter. We recommend adding ``or a successor network''

at the end of proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(iii).

J. The bill can be more effective by including a forfeiture

provision.

In addition, the Department believes the bill would have

more deterrent effect if it also included a forfeiture

provision. Specifically, a court could order the convicted

party to forfeit the proceeds derived from the offense, along

with equipment used to facilitate the offense. The language

for a forfeiture provision could be modeled on the wording

used for the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. See 18 U.S.C.A.

Sec. 1037(c).

K. The bill can be made more effective by giving

prosecutors tools to combat money laundering of illegal

proceeds of violations of the PHONE Act and the CAN-SPAM Act.

We recommend adding proposed section 1039 and existing

section 1037 to the list of ``specified unlawful activities''

in section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18. This amendment would

make certain financial transactions involving the proceeds of

violations of sections 1037 and 1039 money laundering

offenses under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1956 and 1957, and it will

provide for the civil forfeiture of such proceeds. See 18

U.S.C. Sec. 981(a)(l)(C) (providing for the civil forfeiture

of proceeds of crimes designated as ``specified unlawful

activity''). Existing law provides that comparable crimes,

e.g., violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030 (computer fraud and

abuse) constitute specified unlawful activities.

For convenience, we have included recommended edits to the

text of the bill in order to accomplish many of the

recommendations suggested above (attached hereto as Appendix

A). The Department appreciates the Committee's leadership in

ensuring that our country's laws meet this new challenge.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill and for

your continuing support.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there

is no objection to the presentation of these views from the

standpoint of the Administration's program. If we may be of

additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this

office.

Sincerely,

James H. Clinger,

Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice supports the bill. We recognize that sometimes in the helter-skelter of closing up Congress, things happen quickly and maybe not perfectly. I think this bill is a good bill. I think this bill does what we need it to do. I think we have answered the major questions here. We may have to revisit it sometime in the future, but I would like to see law enforcement have this tool.

So I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have a copy of those comments on the way over to the gentleman from Virginia. I would hope we would never require begging in this institution for access to information, and I apologize for any inconvenience.

While we are delivering the Department of Justice's letter, the first paragraph of which talks about supporting the bill, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman from Virginia had the opportunity to review the document and the bill?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, one of the greatest pains in my life is the fact that we have colleagues in this institution who are sometimes troublesome, and so we get that caller ID and I think it is from my office and I end up talking to one of my colleagues I might not have talked to if I wasn't being spoofed by the institution.

My understanding is we had to make a copy of that letter. Apparently it was the only one we had. So we will have a copy coming to you momentarily. It is being delivered currently to your staff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me point out to the gentleman that those are not recommendations of things that are needed to improve the bill but suggestions for improvement of the bill, and I would ask my colleagues to support the bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and would like to point out, I am sure the gentleman when he talks about hiding the ball he is not referring to us. We have been working with the Justice Department to get this information.

We got to the gentleman's office this bill by midday today and, again, we apologize for the technical difficulties. I am not sure if the gentleman opposes the bill in substance, but I would again encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

It is my understanding the gentleman is likely to be the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee next year and can bring this up and improve it with all of the comments and the suggestions that the Justice Department has proposed, and therefore I hope that he will join with me in supporting this bill for its passage. I encourage my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns and would point out if he had more time with the bill, if the staff had gotten it to him earlier today, I suspect he would have seen that many of the suggestions he has made here or suggestions he has read from the Department of Justice document have actually been taken into account. Misleading, for instance, is one of the terms that has been adjusted because it is very difficult to deal with.

The question here is are we going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a bill that is very important to the American people. If you are a divorcee and your husband is harassing you and he is using a fake phone number to do it, you do not want to wait until next session. You want the bill passed now so that your former husband is going to be more careful and not abuse you and your children and maybe not subject you to injury or harm.

I suggest that those people that are using spoofing need to be told today that this is inappropriate, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The Reading Clerk has read the title of the bill. Does that mean it is the originally introduced bill without amendments?

We have looked around the House for a bill, and we have been unable to find a bill in the Speaker's lobby or on the Speaker's desk, other than the introduced bill. Could someone explain to us what we are now considering?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for introducing the bill that addresses an important issue. People should be prohibited from defrauding, harassing others using this technology. A misleading caller ID can enable criminals to get information that they couldn't otherwise get. It will enable people to harass. There may be, however, legitimate uses for this technology, and that is why I have to oppose the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill at this point.

There are a lot of people for whom it should be illegal. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for them handing me a bill as the debate started. We have been negotiating the information in the bill.

We had a hearing and we found that there are a lot of legitimate uses for this. For example, women's shelters use misleading caller ID numbers. Businesses may use a misleading caller ID number if they are calling from one line of many lines. If they want people to call back on their main line, they want to use that caller ID.

When we had our hearing we heard that we may want to differentiate from defrauding and harassing with a criminal intent for criminal gain as opposed to just harassing. Maybe we might not have a 5-year felony, you might want to have a misdemeanor.

So I was under the impression earlier today that we were going to continue negotiating this and work on it and get a decent bill next year.

Also I heard, Mr. Speaker, that the FBI has made recommendations on the bill. We don't have that information yet because the recommendations have not been cleared by OMB. I would ask the chief sponsor or the proponents of the legislation why it is so important to pass the legislation before the Bush administration's Federal Bureau of Investigation comments can be considered?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this was earlier identified as bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that is supported in principle by both sides. However, I would point out that as of this morning, there were no Democratic cosponsors. But it is important legislation, because of the examples cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and the bill is still a work in progress.

It is an improved bill. In fact, it includes many amendments that have been discussed. One, it limits the application of the bill to cases where there is harassment or defrauding, not just misleading. I think that is an important improvement. And there is language offered by this side that addressed the case we heard where someone else's caller ID number was being used, people were making insulting phone calls, they would look at their caller ID and then call the person whose caller ID number was there. He didn't know anything about it and he was getting all of these complaining phone calls. Both of these are good improvements.

But I would still be interested in knowing what the FBI might have to say about it. They have to enforce the law. They might have some important suggestions that would be important to include in the bill.

I would ask the proponents of the bill again why it is so important to consider the legislation before the FBI has had an opportunity to be heard? We don't have to adopt their ideas, but it seems to me that since they are going to enforce it, we ought to at least listen to what they have to say.

We had indicated to the other side that we would bring it up as one of the first bills next year if we could get the FBI consideration, continue negotiating the little details and have a bill that we could be proud of.

However, Mr. Speaker, we are having it today, a work in progress, where this side just gets handed the legislation as the debate starts, which is I think insulting, and I think we have heard references to what happens in the middle of the night. Hopefully we can get the answer about the FBI from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when the FBI testified on the bill, they indicated they had some concerns. I assume I will get the concerns after we finish considering the bill. We had to beg for a copy of the legislation so we would know what we are debating. Now, I guess, would it hurt your feelings to let me know what the FBI had to say about it? They had concerns when they testified on the bill. Let me just say that. I will just wait over here until I can get a copy of their comments so I know what they said.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Actually I would say to the gentleman from Utah, I haven't gotten any letter from the Justice Department yet. I assume it is in transit. It is a long way from that side of the aisle to this side of the aisle. I don't know what kind of communication method we are using, but I haven't gotten it yet.

I would point out, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has indicated, when we make calls out of our offices in Congress, the caller ID number that shows up on someone's caller ID machine is some nonworking switchboard number.

Mr. Speaker, having just been handed the letter and gone through it very quickly, I would just point out that the last sentence on the first page says, ``The department has a number of recommendations (described below) to clarify the bill and to make it even more effective.''

They suggest, just briefly going through it, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, J, K, improvements needed for the bill.

I do not know if this is a copy or original or what, but I hope everybody reads the letter that was entered previously in the Record so they will know that we are taking this action before we have had any time to consider the recommendations of the FBI which will have the responsibility of enforcing the bill, if it ever becomes law at the end of this session.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A, the bill could be made more effective by creating a more graduated series of offenses and then details.

B, the bill could be made more effective by prohibiting attempts, then a description.

C, a new provision should be numbered 18 U.S.C. 1039 and a description.

D, the drafters may wish to include a clear statement of jurisdiction.

E, the bill could be made more effective by prohibiting, generating, and transmitting misleading caller identification information in addition to modifying such information, on and on and on.

These are substantive recommendations that we are just going to ignore by taking this bill up in the middle of the night right here at the end of the session with a bill that has been handed to this side at the last minute, with the FBI recommendations that have been hiding the ball right up until I demanded it, and then they finally let it go.

This is a ridiculous way to put things in the Criminal Code, and I would hope we would defeat the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the bill in its present form. I think we can put a bill together if we are given time. Since we have little time, we got through E. F is the bill can be made more effective by prohibiting caller ID spoofing with the intent to mislead any other person.

G, the bill could be made more effective by clarifying the definition of ``caller ID information.''

H, the bill can be made more effective by focusing the definition of ``telephone call'' on the service used to receive calls rather than the service used to make calls.

I, the bill can be made more effective by expanding the definition of ``VOIP service.''

Then one, they could go through what the VOIP service details.

The bill can be made more effective by including a forfeiture provision.

The bill can be made more effective by giving prosecutors tools to combat money laundering of illegal proceeds of violations of the PHONE Act and the CAN-SPAM Act.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that we were not going to get this until I demanded it time and time again and they finally produced it, and now we find out that the information from the FBI is very critical of the bill, suggesting that it needs a lot of work, and we can do the work. We could sit down and hammer it out. I think everybody agrees that something needs to be done about this situation. It is a work in progress.

I notice in here an amendment that was suggested this afternoon is, in fact, in the bill in a slightly different wording and I think better wording in the

bill than the original suggestion. So it is a work in progress.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we ought to be legislating. We can do better than this, and I think we ought to defeat the bill now, bring it up early in the next session, and have a product that everybody can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I understand your concerns, Mr. Farr. I agree there is a need to seek a long-term solution to the problems in the Klamath Basin and

appreciate your leadership on this issue. I commit, as we have spoken, to improve the levels of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund in conference for restoration and also for recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is a good amendment. Hopefully, the FCC will take note of what Mr. Murphy is doing. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 89, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I know the Veterans Corporation is working to get itself revitalized, and I hope we can have this thing authorized. I think the more effort that can be done would help us, particularly as we move into the outyears.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. She certainly has raised a very important issue. I pledge to explore this issue further.

It is my understanding that NASA anticipates, because they have a strong education program, building this program using the funding appropriated to the agency for education programs. I do recognize that the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program is a program charged to NASA, and we look forward to the launch of the program and the benefits that will result.

Thank you.

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the gentleman that the warnings provided by the Space Environment Center are important to protect their satellites and other space-based industries. And I will be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill moves forward through conference to try to find increased funding for the Space Environment Center.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Mr. Davis has convinced me of the merit of his argument. I would never object to him. Since it makes a lot of sense, I concede.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I believe it is an appropriate issue to debate, but the appropriate forum for debate is with the authorizing committees and with an opportunity for both sides on the issue to present their cases.

Today's pending legislation is not a place for the debate, and I would hope that the authorizing committee would schedule hearings and bring forward a bill and let the House work its will. That is the way we do it. Authorizers hold hearings, look at the impact, come back, report out a bill, and let the committee and the House work its will.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. The amendment directly amends the existing law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that I agree that educational exchange initiatives are an important component of our hemispheric foreign policy.

The fact is, as you were speaking, I thought of my daughter Rebecca who was in an exchange program and actually taught down in Honduras, Tegucigalpa, for 2 years. The relationships, the friendships, and the opportunities she made were life changing. I think you make a very powerful point.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's intention in raising this issue, and I want to assure her that I will be mindful of this issue as this bill moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the other Members for a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both you, Mr. Bilirakis, as well as Mr. Wexler and Mrs. Maloney of New York. It really does offer an opportunity. It is kind of an historic moment, in some respects, for this reconciliation opportunity.

So I support the efforts aimed at bringing a solution to the Cyprus issue and agree that new avenues should be explored. I really commend you for doing this. I share your concerns and really will be pleased to work with my colleagues to explore what might be done to gain support for this new joint initiative to someday bring peace and reconciliation to the area.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will accept the amendment, but I just wanted to highlight how ludicrous it is, and I think the gentleman has pointed it out, but to have those requirements on Taiwan when China is spying against us. In this bill is funding for the FBI to keep the Chinese from spying against us.

There is no persecution in Taiwan. On Monday, we had a meeting with the Cardinal Kung Foundation, and they pointed out that there are now 40, 40 Catholic bishops and priests in jail in China. There are zero in jail in Taiwan. This is serious, and I am glad the gentleman offered this.

There are 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, house church leaders, men and women, in prison in China today. The latest figure as of Monday. There are zero in Taiwan. There are Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibet being persecuted, and President Hu was the one who put the policy together. It is against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama. But there are no Tibetan monks or nuns being persecuted in Taiwan.

Maybe we should have the Taiwan regulations apply to the embassy in Beijing and reverse it.

Lastly, just so people know this, there is great persecution against the Uighers, the Muslims in China. And to show you how close this comes to home, Mr. Lantos and my office worked to have Reba Kadeer released, she was in prison for 5 years, by agreeing to meet with a congressional delegation. She went through a difficult time. Five years in solitary confinement. She got out. Now there was a staff codel to meet with her kids 3 weeks ago, and they have now arrested her three children and they are in jail. One was beaten and pummeled.

The Chinese security police sent out agents to northern Virginia to spy on her, and they took the license plates down of their cars and their public security police.

So I think the only difference I have with the gentleman's amendment is that these restrictions that are on Taiwan should have been on the American embassy in Beijing. It is just the opposite. It is like that Simon and Garfunkel song, The Boxer: Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

There is tremendous growing persecution in China of the Catholic church. Some of these bishops are in their 80s. One, Bishop Su, has not been seen since 8 years ago. He gave Holy Communion to Congressman Chris Smith. I repeat: 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, Buddhist monks and nuns, and now the Uighers.

So I am glad the gentleman offered this amendment, and I urge it to be strongly passed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her hard work to promote Internet safety.

Just recently, Congressman Kirk, who has been a leader on this, has raised this in our hearings a number of times.

Congressman Kirk and I urged the FTC to issue a national consumer alert to parents and children about the risk of sites like MySpace. I would say if any mother or father is listening, to have your children involved in MySpace is a mistake. So what I think you are trying to do and what Mr. Kirk is doing is very good.

I share the gentlewoman's concerns and commit to continue looking into the matter to ensure the FTC is devoting sufficient resources to fight Internet predators and protect children.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it has been 9 years since this country has adjusted the minimum wage. During that time, the food prices have gone up almost 25 percent. Health care costs overall have gone up over 40 percent. Insurance has almost doubled. Gasoline prices have doubled. Energy prices have gone out of sight, and yet people are still struggling along on the same minimum wage that they were paid 9 years ago.

To try to do something about that, we offered an amendment to the Labor-Health-Education-Social Services bill in the full committee. Every Democrat voted for that amendment, and so did seven Republicans. But after that happened and the amendment had passed, the Labor-Health- Education appropriations bill was blocked from consideration by the leadership of this House and by the Rules Committee.

Therefore, when this bill came before the full committee, we attempted once again to adjust the minimum wage in three increments of 70 cents each, because we believe that no one who works 40 hours a week ought to go home in poverty. We, this time, did not receive the support of those same seven Republicans. Five of them voted against us. The other two missed the vote, and so that amendment was lost.

We, therefore, asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment on this bill which would adjust that minimum wage, and that is what I am trying to do today.

I recognize that if the point of order is lodged against this amendment, that we will once again be blocked from our effort to provide an increase in the minimum wage, but I just want to say to those who say this is not the proper vehicle and we should try to do it on some other bill, that for 9 years we have been waiting for the majority party to find the right vehicle to accomplish this. And for 9 years, nothing has happened.

The issue comes down to this: Whose side are you on? Are you willing to help adjust that minimum wage upward or are you not? This is one effort to find out.

For those who think this is just a political or an academic exercise, I told the House on the debate on the rule that I recall, after my parents were divorced and my mother was trying to get along on the minimum wage, and I remember how it was to run out of money before you ran out of days on the calendar each month. So she would find some household item that she could take down to Etzkin's Pawn Shop and pawn to get the family through the week.

The outrage is that today that minimum wage has far less purchasing power than it did when she was earning

it years ago. I think that is an absolute disgrace.

The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country have 33 percent of the Nation's wealth. The poorest 40 percent of the people in this country are struggling to hang on to 3 percent of the Nation's wealth. That kind of gap is wrong.

This is one of the few things the Congress can do to directly impact the size of that gap. I think we have an economic obligation. I think we have a moral obligation to make this happen, and I am not interested in playing jurisdictional dunghill niceties about which committee is supposed to handle this bill. This bill ought to be out on the floor. This amendment ought to pass.

I would ask that the majority party not offer a point of order against the amendment so that we can finally bring some justice to people who are struggling in the shadows of life, who are struggling on life's underside. We can make their lives just a little bit more pleasant by passing this amendment, and I would think that, given the fact that the Congress has just in this House determined to accept a COLA for itself, I would think that we would have significantly less embarrassment if we would recognize that it takes 4 months for someone working at the minimum wage to make the same amount of money that Congress will gain by way of a COLA. It is outrageous to adjust congressional COLAs and not adjust the minimum wage. So I would urge that no one lodge a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the rules of the House normally indicate that this legislation would be handled by the authorizing committee, but I would note that on the appropriation conference report just several months ago, the majority leader in the Senate added 40 pages of authorizing language to the Defense bill, language which protected the pharmaceutical industry in this country from suit.

And it would seem to me that if it is legitimate for the majority leader of the Senate to do that, in order to protect a privileged industry in this country, that we could find a way in the House rules to protect the interests of the lowest-income wage earners in the country, but I must reluctantly concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. The Wisconsin Procurement Institute was indeed organized originally by Les Aspin when he was chairman of the Armed Services Committee in this House. It is an organization that helps many new companies who are new to the procurement process figure out how the Federal procurement process works.

Instead of providing money to individual companies, this money is used to create an institute to educate all kinds of companies so that they can compete for Federal business, especially in the procurement area and most especially in the defense area.

I would make one simple point: Right now, large corporations have the resources and they have the experience to seek Federal business, but many quality companies do not because they are unfamiliar with how the Federal procurement process works.

There are a number of organizations who rank States in terms of how much Federal money they get each year. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan always rank near the bottom. Ninety percent of the difference between them and the number one State in the Union in terms of Federal money occurs because of a difference in the number of Federal employees and because of differences in defense contracts.

The gentleman comes from the State which is the number six State in the Union in terms of getting money out of procurement. You have large companies, such as Raytheon, which produce huge numbers of missiles, so that gives you a lot of Federal procurement dollars.

You also have many talented electronic companies like General Dynamics, a huge company that also gets a large amount of Federal dollars. You have large military installations such as Fort Hauchuca, which contains the Army intelligence operation.

In Federal procurement, unfortunately, the way it usually works is ``Them what has gets more!'' This initiative, the Wisconsin Procurement Institute, which I fully confess that I and the other Members of the Wisconsin Delegation support, this initiative is to help other corporations who are not experienced in the ins and outs of Federal procurement policy, so that we can end the insider advantage that the gentleman's constituents have.

What we are trying to do is to open up the process so that you can enable a large number of companies to come in and compete. I make no apology whatsoever for that. Wisconsin has a right to expect that its corporations should be able to compete, and so does every other State in the Union.

I would simply ask the gentleman, do not begrudge the efforts of Wisconsin to close the gap between our State and yours. Your State gets $7 billion more in Federal procurement than mine does.

This operation is a small operation to try to enhance the ability of companies in our State to close that gap somewhat. We have chosen not to provide money directly to companies but instead to provide an ability for companies to learn how the procurement process works.

We also, under this process, have created a Web site which will enable Federal agencies to review the talents and the qualities of many of the companies in Wisconsin so that if they are looking for particular projects or products they know where to go to find them.

I think that what that will do in the end is help enhance competition, and it will help save taxpayers money by cutting some new companies in on the deal that so many large companies in the gentleman's State enjoy.