Floor Statements

I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bloated budget resolution.

Facing a slowing economy and an increased cost of living, Americans have to tighten their belts and carefully budget their hard-earned money. It's time the Federal Government did the same.

Instead, the budget proposed by the majority exceeds the President's spending levels by $276 billion over 5 years. This budget increases discretionary spending and fails to touch entitlement reform.

To pay for the massive spending increases, the bill passes the cost on to lower and middle class American taxpayers. This budget resolution calls for the largest tax increase in American history, $683 billion over the next 5 years, which means 116 million taxpayers will face an average tax hike of more than $1,800. Worst of all, it raises the debt by $646 billion.

Mr. Chairman, Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This budget makes no attempt to rein in wasteful government spending or balance our Federal budget. I believe it should be the highest priority in this House to balance the budget, which is why, on the first day of this Congress, I introduced House Joint Resolution 1, a constitutional amendment to require that the Federal budget be balanced, with 160 bipartisan cosponsors.

When families across the country are preparing their budget, they know that they can't spend more than they take in. It's a simple concept but one that Congress has not adhered to for far too long. We must balance the budget and cut the national debt, not by raising taxes but by being good stewards of taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this fiscally irresponsible budget and rein in wasteful spending.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2745, the short- term farm bill extension that will extend some provisions of the 2002 farm bill until April 18. The other body passed the same provision this morning, and this body must pass this bill so both bodies can continue to work on conference negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like nothing more than to stand before you today and report that we are on the brink of an agreement on the farm bill. However, progress on a new farm bill agreement has been painfully slow, and this process has become a source of frustration for me and my colleagues, and the chairman I know as well, as well as millions of rural Americans awaiting a new farm bill.

If we do not seek prompt and substantive action on the farm bill, I believe we must pursue a different course of action, because our farmers and ranchers have already waited too long. Interminable delays in implementing a new farm bill may not have real ramifications in Washington, but in rural America the effects are real, and they are substantial.

I appreciate the efforts of our committee chairman to try to keep this process moving. I know at times he has shared my frustrations. We all recognize the need for a new farm bill, and we continue to work toward completing a farm bill and getting it to the President for him to sign into law by April 18.

I urge my colleagues to support this farm bill extension to give us a little more time to try to overcome the budget obstacles that have been standing in the way of the farm bill finish line since last year.

We started this process together in a bipartisan fashion more than 2 years ago. We worked together in the committee to move a farm bill forward, but we have been hindered time and time again outside the committee by the fact that others in the Congress have failed to recognize the fact that this farm bill starts out $58 billion below the last farm bill in terms of what it will cost to continue the farm legislation forward. That is a great thing. That is a tremendous savings for the American taxpayer. But when we are trying to write a modern, forward-looking farm bill that encompasses changes in conservation, in nutrition, in energy, in specialty crops, and we are trying to reform the commodity title of the farm bill, we needed to have some additional resources.

The chairman and I went to the Budget Committee last year in a bipartisan fashion and asked for some money above the baseline, not $58 billion coming back to us, but $5 billion, $10 billion above that baseline, which still would have been a huge savings for the taxpayers and allowed us to write a farm bill inside the committee and bring it to the floor of the House without being dependent on another committee or another source. The same problem existed in the Senate.

The outcome has been that we have been spinning our wheels having to deal with other outside influences rather than getting the job done in the committee because of this funding not being available. We are going to have to look at some new alternatives if we don't get a breakthrough here in the next couple of days, because even this extension will expire very, very soon, and the time it takes to write a farm bill that encompasses a whole host of issues, from what goes on on the farm to all of our nutrition programs, to our environmental and conservation programs, to research programs for agriculture, to a whole host of other areas that are very, very important, not just to America's farmers and ranchers, not just to people living in rural America, but to every American consumer who depends upon our farm community to continue to provide the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world, and we will be working together.

I appreciate the chairman's working with me and with other Members on this side of the aisle to accomplish that goal. He has been tenacious in that effort. But we need to either move on, or we need to get the help that was promised a year ago to finally come to the committee so we can get the job done.

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

Madam Speaker, I am submitting for the Congressional Record a letter from the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) signed by 45 Attorneys General opposing Representative Barney Frank's legislation, H.R. 2046, the ``Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.'' In this letter, these Attorneys General declare that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which provided an additional Federal enforcement tool against Internet gambling and which was signed into law last year, has ``effectively driven many illicit gambling operators from the American marketplace.'' The NAAG letter then goes on to detail the opposition of 45 top law enforcement officials to H.R. 2046. I request that the entirety of this letter be included in the Record immediately following my remarks, including the list of all the signers of this letter.

National Association

of Attorneys General,

Washington, DC, November 30, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate

Washington, DC.

To the Leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives and

Senate: We, the Attorneys General of our respective States,

have grave concerns about H.R. 2046, the ``Internet Gambling

Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.'' We believe that the

bill would undermine States' traditional powers to make and

enforce their own gambling laws.

On March 21, 2006, 49 NAAG members wrote to the leadership

of Congress: ``We encourage the United States Congress to

help combat the skirting of state gambling regulations by

enacting legislation which would address Internet gambling,

while at the same time ensuring that the authority to set

overall gambling regulations and policy remains where it has

traditionally been most effective: at the state level.''

Congress responded by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling

Enforcement Act of 2006, UIGEA, which has effectively driven

many illicit gambling operators from the American

marketplace.

But now, less than a year later. H.R. 2046 proposes to do

the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a Federal

licensing program that would permit Internet gambling

companies to do business with U.S. customers. The Department

of the Treasury would alone decide who would receive Federal

licenses and whether the licensees were complying with their

terms. This would represent the first time in history that

the Federal government would be responsible for issuing

gambling licenses.

A Federal license would supersede any state enforcement

action, because Sec. 5387 in H.R. 2046 would grant an

affirmative defense against any prosecution or enforcement

action under any Federal or State law to any person who

possesses a valid license and complies with the requirements

of H.R. 2046. This divestment of state gambling enforcement

power is sweeping and unprecedented.

The bill would legalize Internet gambling in each State.

unless the Governor clearly specifies existing state

restrictions barring Internet gambling in whole or in part.

On that basis, a State may ``opt out'' of legalization for

all Internet gambling or certain types of gambling. However,

the opt-out for types of gambling does not clearly preserve

the right of States to place conditions on legal types of

gambling. Thus, for example, if the State permits poker in

licensed card rooms, but only between 10 a.m. and midnight,

and the amount wagered cannot exceed $100 per day and the

participants must be 21 or older, the Federal law might

nevertheless allow 18-year-olds in that State to wager much

larger amounts on poker around the clock.

Furthermore, the opt-outs may prove illusory. They will

likely be challenged before the World Trade Organization. The

World Trade Organization has already shown itself to be

hostile to U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling. If it

strikes down State opt-outs as unduly restrictive of trade.

the way will be omen to the greatest expansion of legalized

gambling in American history and near total preemption of

State laws restricting Internet gambling.

H.R. 2046 effectively nationalizes America's gambling laws

on the Internet, ``harmonizing'' the law for the benefit of

foreign gambling operations that were defying our laws for

years, at least until UIGEA was enacted. We therefore oppose

this proposal, and any other proposal that hinders the right

of States to prohibit or regulate gambling by their

residents.

Sincerely,

John S. Juthers, Attorney General of Colorado; Bill

McCollum, Attorney General of Florida; Douglas Gansler,

Attorney General of Maryland; Troy King, Attorney

General of Alabama; Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General

of Alaska; Terry Goddard, Attorney General of Arizona;

Dustin McDaniel, Attorney General of Arkansas; Edmund

G. Brown. Jr., Attorney General of California; Richard

Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut; Joseph R.

(Beau) Biden III, Attorney General of Delaware.

Linda Singer, Attorney General of the District of

Columbia; Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General of

Georgia; Alicia G. Limtiaco, Attorney General of Guam;

Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General of Hawaii; Lawrence

Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho; Lisa Madigan,

Attorney General of Illinois; Stephen Carter, Attorney

General of Indiana; Paul Morrison, Attorney General of

Kansas; Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General of

Louisiana; G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General of Maine.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General of Minnesota; Jim Hood,

Attorney General of Mississippi; Jeremiah W. (Jay)

Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; Mike McGrath,

Attorney General of Montana; Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney

General of New Hampshire; Anne Milgram, Attorney

General of New Jersey; Gary King, Attorney General of

New Mexico; Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North

Carolina; Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General of North

Dakota; Marc Dann, Attorney General of Ohio.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Hardy

Myers, Attorney General of Oregon; Tom Corbett,

Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Patrick C. Lynch,

Attorney General of Rhode Island; Henry McMaster,

Attorney General of South Carolina; Larry Long,

Attorney General of South Dakota; Robert E. Cooper,

Jr., Attorney General of Tennessee; Greg Abbott,

Attorney General of Texas; Mark Shurtleff, Attorney

General of Utah; William H. Sorrell, Attorney General

of Vermont.

Robert McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia; Rob

McKenna, Attorney General of Washington; Darrell V.

McGraw, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia; J.B.

Van Hollen, Attorney General of Wisconsin; Bruce A.

Salzburg, Attorney General of Wyoming.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this reckless energy policy, which will do absolutely nothing to make us energy independent, or lower energy costs. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ties our hands in a regulatory mess to ensure that we cannot produce domestic energy.

Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy. The biggest concern facing the farmers and ranchers of this country is increased input costs from higher fuel prices and fertilizer. The U.S. fertilizer industry relies upon natural gas as the fundamental feedstock for the production of nitrogen fertilizer. The rest of the U.S. farm sector also depends on significant amounts of natural gas for food processing, irrigation, crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes, the production of crop protection chemicals, and, let's not forget, ethanol biofuel production. In addition to the farm sector, the forest products industry relies more on natural gas than any other fossil fuel, and energy amounts to the third largest manufacturing cost for the industry .

Unbelievably, this legislation contains no new energy supplies in it and does nothing to relieve the burdens of increased costs on producers who provide the food and fiber for American consumers. It seems that the majority's plan to move toward energy independence includes limiting domestic energy production and imposing new government mandates that will prove to be costly and burdensome to the American people.

This legislation would dramatically expand the Renewable Fuels Standard RFS, by increasing it to 36 billion gallons by 2022. This initiative is extremely ambitious and could be achieved by tapping all sectors of agriculture including plant and wood waste, vegetable oil, and animal fat and waste which would result in the production of 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol. While I am in favor of finding new markets for agriculture products, what good is finding new markets for agriculture commodities when the cost of production is too much for our farmers and ranchers?

We should develop a policy that is technology neutral and allows the market to develop new sources of renewable energy. The RFS provisions create an unrealistic mandate for advanced biofuels technology that doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles for the development of second generation biofuels by placing restrictions on alternative fuels, renewable fuel plant production, and, most important, limits the harvesting of our homegrown feedstocks. These restrictions will undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in production that will occur if this policy is put into place.

Even with the advancement of cellulosic ethanol, the expansion of the RFS would still require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel to come from the only current commercially available option: grain ethanol.

Last year, 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production and that amount is expected to rise significantly over the next few years. With feed stocks meeting most of our renewable fuel initiatives, the livestock sector is facing significantly higher feed costs. Corn and soybeans' most valuable market has always been, and will continue to be, the livestock producers. We must ensure that there are not unintended economic distortions to either grain or livestock producers as a result of these sectors prospering from other markets.

The benefits of reduced reliance on foreign energy sources, stable energy prices, and new markets for agricultural products should not be replaced with a risk of adding even more increased input costs for livestock producers and creating even higher food prices for consumers.

In addition to the above mentioned concerns, I'm also deeply disappointed that the Renewable Fuels Standard would essentially shut out one of the largest potential sources of feedstock for renewable fuel, forest biomass. In total, forests have the potential to sustainably produce 370 million tons of biomass for energy every year. This is approximately two and one-half times the amount of forest biomass we currently consume in traditional forest products. This amount of forest biomass could produce 24 billion gallons of ethanol per year, according to very conservative estimates. This could supplement, not replace, existing forest products markets.

Unfortunately, H.R. 6 would not allow forest biomass grown on public lands to be used to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard, unless the biomass was removed near buildings, public infrastructure, or areas people inhabit regularly. This greatly reduces the opportunity for any substantial market in the energy sector for the byproducts of hazardous fuels reduction. These markets could help lower the costs of reducing wildfire risks and improving forest health on public lands. With the restrictions in H.R. 6, very little of these byproducts could be used to meet the Standard. Currently, we have serious issues in our public forests, with over 90 million acres at risk of wildfire, insects, and diseases. H.R. 6 would do nothing to help address these concerns.

Additionally, H.R. 6 stipulates that, with respect to private forests, only forest biomass

removed from ``tree plantations'' or biomass that is considered slash or brush can be used to meet the renewable fuel standard. It would also exclude any biomass taken from old growth forests, forests in the later stages of development, or forests that are considered ``ecological communities'' as defined by State Natural Heritage Programs.

With these restrictions, this Renewable Fuels Standard discourages efforts to reduce wildfire risk, control insects and disease in forests, improve forest health and wildlife habitat, and create market opportunities for family forest owners. There is also a tremendous opportunity to utilize existing forest products industry infrastructure to produce renewable fuels. H.R. 6 would do little to encourage that development.

A renewable fuels producer would likely look at all these restrictions on forest biomass and decide not to bother with forestry materials. If we are to come anywhere close to meeting the RFS mandates in H.R. 6, we must have a substantial amount of forest biomass as a feedstock. I'm deeply concerned that we will not be able to meet these mandates with the restrictions in H.R. 6 on the use of forest biomass.

This energy policy, set in place by the Democrat majority, exemplifies the Democrat motto through and through: tax and spend. This bill imposes $21 billion in tax increases. The other side will tell you that these tax increases will not affect the average hardworking American, only the ``big, evil oil companies.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth. The taxes contained in this bill will impede new domestic oil and gas production, will discourage investment in new refinery capacity, and will make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in the U.S. than their foreign competitors, making the price at the pump rise even higher.

Let's make no mistake: an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed to consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises energy prices for consumers.

What is even more disturbing is that these increased costs will be felt by some of our Nation's most poor. On average, the Nation's working poor spends approximately 13 to 30 percent of their yearly income on energy costs. This average is already too high, and sadly this legislation will only dramatically increase the amount of money these workers will have to spend on energy costs. I have heard those on the other side of the aisle say that we must all shoulder the cost to produce clean energy. Well, the costs of the clean energy in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) alone, as estimated by just one of Virginia's many electric utilities, will increase $200 million for its retail customers. By shifting to renewable energy sources, that are not as available or as cost effective as traditional sources, we will see a rise in energy prices across the board and this will be hardest felt by working people who cannot afford to shoulder any more costs.

While this bill is said to be focused on new energy technologies, it fails to address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies that could be cost effective for American consumers. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of coal-to-liquid technologies is ignored in this bill. Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to encourage the construction of new nuclear facilities.

Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they should encourage the production of more nuclear sites, which provide CO2 emission-free energy. The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that in over 1,000 pages this legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious about encouraging CO2-free energy use, we must support nuclear energy.

This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our country; and it does nothing to relieve agricultural producers of their increasing input costs. This legislation only makes the situation worse and it is the product of a flawed process that does not have bipartisan support.

This bill is a dangerous policy for our country. If we really want to make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy bill that contains energy. This bill does not. I urge my colleagues to reject this awful bill, let's start over, and work to find real solutions to the energy needs of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express strong support for H.R. 3454, which I've cosponsored with my colleague Mr. Boucher. H.R. 3454 would authorize the U.S. Forest Service to convey roughly 8 acres of the George Washington National Forest in Alleghany County, Virginia, to the Central Advent Christian Church.

These 8 acres contain a 6 acre cemetery and 2 acres between the cemetery and the adjoining interstate. The cemetery has been managed by the Church since 1941, under a special use permit, with no fees.

It's frustrating to me that limited federal dollars are being spent to manage this property that is clearly not in line with the mission of the Forest Service. That's why I've cosponsored this legislation. This bill will help relinquish the Forest Service of this responsibility so they can focus on the lands that our forefathers intended them to manage.

Several times, the Forest Service has attempted to sell this property but to no avail. The local community church lacks the resources to purchase the property. While I would of course prefer that we sell the land, I believe it is in the federal government's interest to convey the land to the Church rather than spending additional resources on it.

I urge adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this reckless energy policy, which will do absolutely nothing to make us energy independent, or lower energy costs. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ties our hands in a regulatory mess to ensure that we cannot produce domestic energy.

Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy. The biggest concern facing the farmers and ranchers of this country are increased input costs from higher fuel prices and fertilizer. The U.S. fertilizer industry relies upon natural gas as the fundamental feedstock for the production of nitrogen fertilizer. The rest of the U.S. farm sector also depends on significant amounts of natural gas for food processing, irrigation, crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes, the production of crop protection chemicals, and, let's not forget, ethanol biofuel production. In addition to the farm sector, the forest products industry relies more on natural gas than any other fossil fuel and energy amounts to the third largest manufacturing cost for the industry.

Unbelievably, this legislation contains no new energy supplies in it and does nothing to relieve the burdens of increased costs on producers who provide the food and fiber for American consumers. It seems that the Majority's plan to move toward energy independence includes limiting domestic energy production and imposing new government mandates that will prove to be costly and burdensome to the American people.

This legislation would dramatically expand the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) by increasing it to 36 billion gallons by 2022. This initiative is extremely ambitious and could be achieved by tapping all sectors of agriculture including plant and wood waste, vegetable oil, and animal fat and waste which would result in the production of 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol. Strangely, the bill discourages the production of cellulosic fuels from forests, even though forests are the largest potential source of cellulosic feedstock. While I am in favor of finding new markets for agriculture products, what good is finding new markets for agriculture commodities when the cost of production is too much for our farmers and ranchers?

We should develop a policy that is technology neutral and allows the market to develop new sources of renewable energy. The RFS provisions create an unrealistic mandate for advanced biofuels technology that doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles for the development of second generation biofuels by placing restrictions on alternative fuels, renewable fuel plant production, and, most important, limits the harvesting of our homegrown feedstocks. These restrictions will undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in production that will occur if this policy is put into place. Even with the advancement of cellulosic ethanol, the expansion of the RFS would still require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel to come from the only current commercially available option: grain ethanol

Last year, 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production and that amount is expected to rise significantly over the next few years. With feed stocks meeting most of our renewable fuel initiatives, the livestock sector is facing significantly higher feed costs. Corn and soybeans' most valuable market has always been, and will continue to be, the livestock producers. We must ensure that there are not unintended economic distortions to either grain or livestock producers as a result of these sectors prospering from other markets.

The benefits of reduced reliance on foreign energy sources, stable energy prices, and new markets for agricultural products should not be replaced with a risk of adding even more increased input costs for livestock producers and creating even higher food prices for consumers.

This energy policy, set in place by the Democrat Majority, exemplifies the Democrat motto through and through: tax and spend. This bill imposes $21 billion in tax increases. The other

side will tell you that these tax increases will not affect the average hardworking American, only the ``big, evil oil companies.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth. The taxes contained in this bill will impede new domestic oil and gas production, will discourage investment in new refinery capacity, and will make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in the U.S. than their foreign competitors, making the price at the pump rise even higher.

Let's make no mistake: an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed to consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises energy prices for consumers.

What is even more disturbing is that these increased costs will be felt by some of our Nation's most poor. On average, the Nation's working poor spends approximately 13 to 30 percent of their yearly income on energy costs. This average is already too high, and sadly this legislation will only dramatically increase the amount of money these workers will have to spend on energy costs. I have heard those on the other side of the aisle say that we must all shoulder the cost to produce clean energy. Well, the costs of the clean energy in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) alone, as estimated by just one of Virginia's many electric utilities, will increase $200 million for its retail customers. By shifting to renewable energy sources, that are not as available or as cost effective as traditional sources, we will see a rise in energy prices across the board and this will be hardest felt by working people who cannot afford to shoulder any more costs.

While this bill is said to be focused on new energy technologies, it fails to address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies that could be cost effective for American consumers. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies is ignored in this bill. Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to encourage the construction of new nuclear facilities.

Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide CO2 emission-free energy. The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that in over 1,000 pages this legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious about encouraging CO2-free energy use, we must support nuclear energy.

This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our country; and it does nothing to relieve agricultural producers of their increasing input costs. This legislation only makes the situation worse and it is the product of a flawed process that does not have bipartisan support!

This bill is a dangerous policy for our country. If we really want to make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy bill that contains energy. This bill does not. I urge my colleagues to reject this awful bill, let's start over, and work to find real solutions to the energy needs of our Nation.

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

Earlier this year, the tranquil campus of Virginia Tech and the town of Blacksburg was shattered by the actions of a lone gunman. The horror that the Virginia Tech community has experienced is something that every parent, every American, hopes never to learn has affected their families and friends.

Although this horrendous and unspeakable violence showed the worst of mankind, it also showed what those of us who have been a part of Virginia Tech community for years have always known; the students, the instructors, the administrators, and the citizens of Blacksburg care deeply for one another and take great pride in their community.

Even in the worst circumstances, the Virginia Tech community showed great compassion for their fellow man and did what they could to help each other. Liviu Librescu, a survivor of the Holocaust, blocked the doorway of his classroom so that his students could climb out of the windows to safety. Ryan Clark, a resident advisor in the West Ambler Johnston Hall, rushed into the hallway to help his fellow students when the first attack came, and became the second victim. And I was deeply saddened to learn that one of my constituents, Henry Lee, a graduate of William Fleming High School in Roanoke, was one of those who died in the attack on Norris Hall.

In the days and months following this tragedy, the Virginia Tech community and Hokie Nation saw an outpouring of love and support from people around the country. The university saw donations come in excess of $7 million, as people sought to give aid to those affected. As time went on, the university had to decide how to use the money donated as a result of this horrific act, and the university made a wise and selfless choice. They decided that the best way to disburse this money was to put it in the hands of those who experienced and lost the most as a result of this unspeakable violence. So, recently Virginia Tech distributed the money to 79 families or individuals. These are the families that have lost the most and have experienced emotional trauma that no one should ever have to experience. This money, given by the people across our Nation, is a small way to help those directly affected by this horrendous act. These families can determine the best uses for these contributions. Some already have decided to endow memorial

scholarships at Virginia Tech or elsewhere. Some simply have bills to pay.

While the university has acted graciously to help the families, we have discovered that there is a new problem the families are facing, this time by the Federal Government. It has become apparent that the funds these families received will become significantly reduced because of taxes. These are funds some families desperately need to pay medical bills, funeral costs, and to simply rebuild their lives. The last thing these families need to worry about is an additional tax burden. And I guarantee that those who gave so generously want their money going to help those directly affected, not paying taxes. I do not believe that these funds should be taxed or that it is Congress' intent that they should be taxed.

In 2001, Congress passed Public Law 107-143. In this law, there is a provision that makes qualified disaster payments exempt from taxes. There is no doubt that the Virginia Tech tragedy was, in fact, a disaster. Ask any member of the Virginia Tech community, Hokie Nation, or citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and to them it unequivocally was. In fact, the Governor of Virginia declared so that day.

Despite this well-intentioned law that Congress passed to make tax- exempt payments from qualified disasters, the families and the university have all been told it is likely these funds will be taxed. It was not the intention of the Congress that disaster payments should be taxed; and so, I am proud to join with my neighbor from the Ninth Congressional District, Congressman Rick Boucher, who actually represents Blacksburg and Virginia Tech, in introducing this legislation that seeks to have these funds, like those resulting from any other disaster, made tax exempt. I ask Members of this House to join us in passing this bill and help the Virginia Tech families rebuild their lives.

The tragedy at Virginia Tech will never leave our minds, but we in Congress have an opportunity to help rebuild this community. I ask all Members of Congress to join us in supporting this legislation. Let us help the families and those so personally affected as they seek to rebuild their lives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia, Congresswoman Drake.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from the Ninth Congressional District of Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a good friend and colleague, for his leadership in introducing this legislation. It's been a pleasure to work with him.

And it is, I think, fair to say on behalf of not only all members of the Virginia delegation, but all Members of Congress, our heart goes out to the families of the victims and to the Virginia Tech Community who suffered this horrendous tragedy. This is just a small way that we can make right a part of that by ensuring that the generosity of thousands of Americans across the country to the Virginia Tech Hokie Spirit Fund will see that money in its entirety go to the benefit intended by those who donated it and for the purposes designated by the family members of the victims of this tragedy. So again, I thank Congressman Boucher.

I want to thank Congressman Cantor for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee, as well as the effort that Congressman McCrery, our ranking member, and Chairman Rangel made in bringing this legislation to the floor as promptly as possible.

And I want to also thank the staff of the Ways and Means Committee, and the staff of Congressman Boucher and myself for the hard work that they put in to making sure that this was done and done in a way that would benefit the families of the victims of this tragedy.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honor to rise and speak of the life of a great American statesman and a true friend of the American people and a personal friend, Congressman Henry Hyde.

When I arrived here in the Congress in 1993, Henry Hyde was already legendary. He had many years before that begun work on the Hyde Amendment, which established for now some 30-plus years the principle that the American taxpayers' dollars would not be used to fund abortions. That principle has stood with us all these years and I believe will stand with us well beyond Congressman Hyde's passing. It was a great legacy.

In addition, Congressman Hyde was known as an outstanding orator, a public speaker of the first order. He brought both his keen intellect and sharp wit with his heart to the speeches that he gave on this floor, and he commanded the attention of his colleagues and often changed the minds of people who might have been very much hardened against the position that he was putting forward. He did it with considerable skill, with considerable intellect, and with considerable commitment.

When I arrived in 1993, I became very much aware of his personal attention that he gave to other Members of this House. As a new Member, he helped me through one of the more difficult committees to serve on in the Congress, the Judiciary Committee. And when we gained the majority, the Republican majority in 1994, the Republican leadership recognized Henry Hyde's capabilities and actually passed him over other Members of the Congress to make him chairman of that committee, knowing that that committee had an enormous task ahead of it because, as many will recall, in 1994, Republican Members campaigned for election on the Contract for America. What many may not realize is that of the nearly 30 bills that comprised the 10 principles that made up the Contract for America, more than half of them went through the Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Hyde shepherded each one of those through the committee and then across the floor of the House, and many subsequently passed the Senate as well and became law. And he accomplished that not just by his own hard work and dedication, but by delegating responsibility to virtually every Member of the committee on both sides of the aisle in some instances, in fact, giving new Members like myself an opportunity to play a key role in managing that legislation and offering key amendments, because he recognized the importance of operating the committee in an open and fair fashion.

His greatest challenge may have come with the impeachment of President Clinton. And I served on the committee with him during that very difficult time as well. The impeachment of the President of the United States is one of the more serious things that the Congress has to deal with, and it is certainly something that can evoke great emotions and can bring about great contention in the committee. But Chairman Hyde managed the committee with great fairness, with great attention to detail, and did so at a time when he was personally vilified and attacked in a number of different ways, most unfairly, and yet did it with equanimity, with grace, and I think commanded the respect of Members on both sides of the aisle as he handled that very, very difficult challenge, and did so, I might add, successfully in bringing forward impeachment resolutions which were sound, which passed the House of Representatives, and which I think spoke for all time about the importance of the respect of the rule of law by all of those who serve in government, even in the highest places.

Henry Hyde was an individual who believed very, very deeply in our Constitution, and he showed that through his hard, hard work for 6 years as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in passing a multitude of pieces of legislation that showed that great respect for our Constitution. But he was more than simply a believer in the rule of law. He was a believer in the human heart. And he showed that time and time again in his work with other Members of this Congress, as we have heard some mentioned here this evening, and also in his work internationally; because after he completed his work as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he was given another important and great challenge of serving as chairman of the International Relations Committee. And I have had the opportunity to see him in action with Presidents and Prime Ministers, to see the kind of respect that he commanded from world leaders because of his leadership of that committee and because of his great concern for the promotion of American interests around the world. Those interests are very pure, interests of promoting democracy and opportunity for freedom and peace for people in every corner of the globe.

I have not had the privilege of serving on the International Relations Committee, but I have had the opportunity to serve for 14 years on the Judiciary Committee with Congressman Hyde, and I will never forget the leadership that he provided on that committee and in this Congress. He has been an inspiration to me, he has been an inspiration to millions of other Americans, and he deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest statesmen of our time. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 3013, the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007. H.R. 3013 bars Federal prosecutors from requiring corporations and individuals to waive their attorney- client privilege as a condition of cooperation or for avoiding criminal charges. H.R. 3013 would not prohibit a corporation from voluntarily waiving the attorney-client privilege.

This bill is designed to remedy overreaching by Federal prosecutors. It protects the attorney-client privilege, which is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence and the legal profession. The attorney-client privilege encourages frank and open communication between clients and their attorneys so that clients can receive effective advice and counsel.

In the corporate context, as we saw in the case of Arthur Andersen, the life of a corporation can turn on a prosecutor's discretionary decision to charge a corporation. That decision can have profound consequences on our economy, the employees and the community; and it should not turn on whether or not a company waives its attorney-client privilege.

Cooperation in the criminal justice system is an important engine of truth. However, prosecutors should not require privileged waivers as a routine matter.

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

Not in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority has decided to promote politics rather than fully protecting our Nation's children. In its last-minute rush to bring bills to the floor, the majority has selected five bills addressing the problem of sex offenders on the Internet and Internet safety for children. These bills were never considered by the Judiciary Committee, never subject to legislative hearings, and never brought through the markup process.

In addition, the majority failed to address concerns that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Justice Department expressed. To ignore the concerns of these major stakeholders is no way to legislate when it comes to the safety of our children.

Why did the majority avoid the Judiciary Committee process? For one reason, they knew the amendments we would offer at the committee would gain bipartisan support. Again, avoiding amendments that both parties would support is no way to protect our children.

Even on the substance, the majority's bills ignore the needs of law enforcement. At a full committee oversight hearing on October 17, 2007, the majority heard from law enforcement and the Justice Department about specific tools needed to protect children. The testimony at the hearing underscored the need to give law enforcement flexible tools necessary to protect children and apprehend sex offenders.

Instead of working to produce a strong bill that responds to law enforcement's requests, the majority has bypassed the normal committee process and brought an incomplete bill to the floor.

Last Congress we passed landmark child protection legislation, the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, which combined new tools, new authorities, additional programs, and important requirements on the registration and notification requirements for sex offenders. This legislation was developed through bipartisan cooperation, subject to full Judiciary Committee markup, extensive testimony on legislative proposals, and consultation with the NCMEC, and the Justice Department. In stark contrast, the majority has failed to meet these basic requirements in developing new child protection legislation.

H.R. 3845 is replete with problems. For example, the bill creates a super-bureaucratic special counsel in the Justice Department and charges that counsel with coordinating all child protection efforts across the Federal Government.

The special prosecutor duplicates existing offices within the Department of Justice with the expertise to prosecute child crimes cases and administer the ICAC grant program.

The innumerable responsibilities of this new special prosecutor require expertise across so many issues, prosecution, policy, and grant administration,

just to name a few, that no one person can fulfill this role. The bill in fact acknowledges this by directing the creation of an entirely new office within the office of the Deputy Attorney General, creating yet another layer of bureaucracy in Washington. This eats up precious resources, rather than sending them to our neighborhoods and communities.

Moreover, the bill places approval for all ICAC grants with the new special prosecutor, a role traditionally held by the Office of Justice Programs. Why? We don't know. We have been presented no evidence to suggest that the Department's performance in administering grants to existing ICAC task forces is somehow flawed.

It is sad to see that our children's safety is being sacrificed for the benefits of a quick press hit. While the bill has some good provisions, much more could have been done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond briefly to the distinguished chairman, for whom I have great respect. And when bills do go through the process of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman has been most fair to us on our side of the aisle. And the previous chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner on our side of the aisle, was also very dedicated to fulfilling that process. In fact, that indeed is what took place with regard to the Adam Walsh legislation, which was moved through the process of the committee. I only wish the same thing had been done here. It would have enabled us to have produced a much, much better piece of legislation that would more effectively protect our children.

At this time, it is my pleasure to recognize the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), for such time as he may consume.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, recently we were all shocked to learn that over 20,000 registered sex offenders were on commercial social networking sites. In response to press attention, the social networking sites removed the sex offenders from these sites.

H.R. 719, as introduced, included an important provision requiring that sex offenders update their registration information to include their electronic mail addresses, instant messaging addresses, and other similar Internet identifiers used by the sex offender.

In addition, H.R. 719 included a mechanism to permit social networking sites to check sex offender registries to prevent sex offenders from accessing the social networking site.

Finally, H.R. 719 included on introduction a new criminal prohibition on misrepresentation of age by a person designed to lure children into sexual activity.

Unfortunately, H.R. 719 has been stripped of all of these important provisions. It's my hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with us to address these important provisions in the future. The gap in our laws must be filled so that children on social networking sites do not have to fear sex predators joining their circle of so-called friends.

I wish to commend my colleagues for including in this legislation a critical provision to prohibit the financial facilitation of child pornography. Originally proposed by our ranking member, Lamar Smith, at the beginning of the year, this criminal penalty is vitally important for prosecuting an emerging tool used by child pornographers to prey on children anonymously: virtual money systems. Unlike credit card companies, which require merchants and customers to provide personal information such as name, address, and Social Security number, virtual money is essentially anonymous. Subscribers provide fictitious personal information, or no personal information, and no credit card or Social Security number is required, making them virtually untraceable.

The key to combating the commercial child pornography industry is to cut it off at its source: money. Virtual money is now the payment method of choice. It is imperative that our law enforcement tools keep pace with changing technologies.

H.R. 719 also includes a technical correction to the Adam Walsh Act to expand the eligibility for participation in a child safety grant program. And I want to particularly thank Congressman Forbes, the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, for introducing legislation that would have accomplished this technical correction.

I commend my colleague from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his dedication to protecting children and for working with us on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers remaining on this legislation, so I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4120, the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act of 2007.

This bill responds to a recent decision by the 10th Circuit United States Court of Appeals in United States v. Schaefer, in which the court ruled that the transmission of child pornography on the Internet did not satisfy the interstate requirement in child pornography laws.

The proposed legislative fix will allow the government to satisfy the interstate requirement by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the material moved in or affected interstate foreign commerce, which would expand the jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes when the Internet is used. This is the broadest assertion of interstate commerce power that the Congress can make consistent with the Constitution.

Unfortunately, this bill, and the majority's package of bills, does not include a needed modification to existing law which would require a 2-year mandatory minimum for possession of child pornography. At an October 17, 2007, full committee hearing on the subject, the Justice Department witness outlined why such a measure was needed. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Laurence Rothenberg explained that child pornography fueled the victimization of children and led to sexual assaults against children. He also noted that Federal judges were routinely giving out lenient sentences to child pornographers below levels established by the Federal sentencing guidelines.

While the fix proposed today in H.R. 4120 is a good step forward, it is a limited step in comparison to other measures that are needed, including a mandatory minimum for child pornography crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his gracious comments regarding my involvement on issues related to the Internet, particularly as it relates to fighting child pornography, but also to point out that a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years for these child pornographers is not a small thing. What is a small thing are the sentences that many judges unfortunately are imposing upon child pornographers much, much less than 2 years, and a mandatory minimum sentence would go a long way towards curing this problem and keeping more of these pornographers off of the Internet.

I thank the chairman.

It is now my pleasure to yield for such time as she may consume the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) who has been a leading advocate on this issue and a strong supporter of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4134 which directs the Attorney General to provide grants to I-Safe, Incorporated for Internet safety education programs.

I-Safe provides a number of Internet safety programs with Federal Government agencies, including the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

Crime prevention is an important component in promoting safe communities. Internet safety programs help to raise the awareness of Internet users, children and parents, to the dangers on the Internet. H.R. 4134 authorizes $5 million to I-Safe, Incorporated to promote Internet safety. I-Safe is a worthy program, and I support the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers remaining, so I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4136, the Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography Act of 2007. This bill adds child pornography offenses as money laundering predicates and clarifies existing law to prohibit knowingly accessing child pornography with the intent to view it. Child pornography is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry. It is despicable in its scope, and it is vicious in its victimization of children. Money is what fuels this horrific crime.

The majority's proposal in H.R. 4136 takes a limited step to prohibit money laundering offenses as part of a child pornography scheme. But much more is needed. Legislation proposed by our ranking member, Lamar Smith, and Mr. Chabot, a member of the Judiciary Committee, contains a host of proposals to increase penalties for child predators and pornographers and provides law enforcement tools for combating these heinous crimes in a virtual universe. Unfortunately, the majority chose to ignore the improvements proposed by many Republican members.

However, H.R. 4136 does enact Representative Marilyn Musgrave's proposals in H.R. 3148, which was introduced on July 24, 2007, the Child Pornography Elimination Act. I commend Mrs. Musgrave for her legislative efforts. This closes a loophole in the law that child pornographers use to avoid possession of child pornography by not downloading the material. This provision will prohibit accessing such material with the intent to view it and will not require an offender to actually download the material.

This provision is a good one, and we support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank the chairman of the committee for his hard work on all of these series of bills and hope to have the opportunity to continue to work with him to perhaps make some perfecting improvements as we move forward.

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