Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for this Congress. Farm bills are written in a bipartisan fashion. And I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California and others, the gentleman from Vermont, about the hard work that the House Agriculture Committee put into creating a bipartisan farm bill. There is a lot to like in it; there are things to dislike in it.

But this rule turns that bipartisan process on its head. It has poisoned the well in terms of bringing this to fruition. It has made this farm bill, no matter its fate here today, unlikely to have any future beyond this House of Representatives because of the tax increase that has been placed in this legislation, because of the fact that Members who are accustomed to seeing an open rule when dealing with the farm bill.

Historically no one can recall a farm bill process as closed as this one, Members denied the opportunity to deal with provisions brought into this legislation like labor provisions and so on, not allowed to offer an amendment to take out Davis-Bacon provisions that have no business being in farm bill legislation. And it is, in my opinion, very disappointing.

Now, some have said that this is not a tax increase, this is closing tax loopholes. Businesses all across America are speaking up and pointing out that this is sweeping tax reform that has received no hearing. Here we are with an Agriculture Committee bill dealing with something that should have been dealt with in the Ways and Means Committee, but was simply handed out and said, here, take this. Take this tax increase as the pay-for for a substantial cut in agricultural programs that the Budget Committee did not address properly.

We have been trying for months to get fair treatment on the promise that we would be given an appropriate offset. We reported the bill out of the committee, and now we find what we are going to do is put American jobs up against American farmers. What kind of an outrage is that?

This rule should be voted down. It is totally unfair to American farmers and ranchers to see a good, bipartisan farm bill put at risk over a tax increase that will have a dramatic impact not only on the businesses that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations providing millions of jobs here in the United States, but also on the trustworthiness of investment in the United States when we begin violating 58 different treaties that we have negotiated with other countries, and then, the ultimate, when those countries start retaliating against us, saying, if you violate a treaty, we certainly can, too, and affecting American investment abroad.

This is a very bad tax increase. It is a tax increase, not a ``closing the loophole.'' It is a very, very harmful one and should be the basis for Members to oppose this bill and bring the bill back appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this rule. Apparently, the Speaker and the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee have decided to dispense with the annoying procedures of the committee process and serious floor debate. The rule before the House begins by limiting amendments to a select few, denying Members the right to offer amendments. In living memory, there has never been a rule this restrictive on a farm bill which is traditionally considered under an open rule.

As a result, the provision requiring Davis-Bacon wage rates on the new loan guarantee program for the next generation ethanol plants that would effectively eliminate the program in many rural States will go unchallenged. Also immune from floor action, is a provision that prohibits States from contracting private concerns to help deliver food stamps or upgrade their delivery systems to provide better service for recipients. The result is that State employee unions will be protected at the expense of State taxpayers and those who need the program. These are only examples of issue after issue that Members will be denied the right to address.

But then we come to the self-enacting portions of this rule. There is a 75-page amendment from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that moves hundreds of millions of dollars around, cuts programs passed by the committee without consultation and adds new programs from other jurisdictions that spend huge sums of money. If you vote for this rule, that becomes a part of the bill without amendment.

Another self-enacting provision sweeps in billions of dollars in offsets by raising fees and royalties on off-shore oil production. Yet another spends nearly $1 billion for a mandatory international feeding program. Finally, a more than $7 billion tax increase is automatically made a part of the bill. This tax increase comes to the floor as if by magic. ``It was not considered in ways & means where it would have been noted that the provision violates up to 50 Senate-ratified international tax treaties that are the basis of international tax treatment for all trade.

In fact, this tax increase idea has been bumping around for over a decade without receiving any appreciable support. Now the

Democrats are trying to attach this bad idea to a popular bill in an unamendable form. Members should be very careful not to rush to accept this rule. The fate of thousands of companies in our districts and more than 5 million U.S. workers will be jeopardized if we thoughtlessly support this rule.

I have worked on the Agriculture Committee since I first came to Congress and I have enjoyed being part of a committee that always prided itself on a bipartisan legislative process. In all those years, I have never witnessed or experienced a situation that discarded the committee product to this extent or that precluded the members of the committee and the general Membership of the House from legislating on major portions of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this rule puts in jeopardy every Member's right to legislate and every Member's ability to rely on the careful deliberations of the committee process to produce fully vetted legislation for floor consideration. When that process is violated, we end up with a rule like this one that was cobbled together in the dead of night and contains tax increases that put at risk millions of American jobs. There is only one response possible to a rule like this and that is to join me in voting this rule down.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, it's a sad day for American agriculture when the Democratic leadership pits America's farmers and ranchers against America's working class. The tax increases included in this bill stand to jeopardize millions of American jobs by raising taxes on companies that do business in the U.S. Not only does this provision cunningly added by the Democrat leadership after the bill left the control of the Agriculture Committee jeopardize American jobs, it stands to violate treaties with other nations and lead to significant ramifications for U.S. companies with operations in other countries. Worst of all, we're not even considering a tax bill; we're considering a farm bill, a farm bill that has been twisted into a partisan pawn.

At the beginning of the week, I stood beside the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to voice my support for this bill that we had worked in a bipartisan fashion to bring to the floor. I had only one caveat, that the offsets not be in the form of tax increases. Not 24 hours before we were to consider this bill on the floor, we were made aware of a tax increase provision that had been added to this language behind closed doors. Unfortunately, all of the good things contained in this bill have been overshadowed by very partisan elements of what should be a bipartisan bill. Today we should be debating the merits of this bill, a bill that was carefully crafted to meet the calls for reform and expand programs such as nutrition and fruits and vegetable programs. But the leadership has decided to take American agriculture out of the debate on the farm bill.

Heading into the reauthorization of the farm bill, Agriculture Committee Republicans anticipated problems with the budget, given the collapse of the baseline projections for the commodity programs. The lack of funding for the nutrition interests further compounded the problem. As the number of nonfarm interests in farm bill funding has grown and the availability of funding dwindled, farm programs have become particularly vulnerable, and the Democratic leadership and the Budget Committee refused to address the needs of a forward-looking farm bill.

From the start, the Agriculture Committee Republicans have made our concerns about funding for this bill very clear. When the chairman announced his projected farm bill time line on May 17, I urged him not to rush the process and find the offsets before promising the money in the farm bill language. Again and again, I, along with my subcommittee ranking members, have implored the committee to slow down, to wait until the money is available before moving ahead.

At the Conservation, Credit, Energy and Rural Development Subcommittee markup on May 22, both subcommittee ranking member Frank Lucas and I urged caution in rushing the process.

On May 24, at the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry markup, the message was the same. The subsequent markups on June 6, 7, 15 and 19, the message to the leadership of this committee was the same; slow down and find the money. We were consistently told the money would be made available, and we were consistently denied any further information.

It would be disingenuous for my Agriculture Committee Democrat colleagues to claim our objections are at all new or recently conceived. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion throughout this process and had the opportunity to take a bipartisan product of the committee to the floor. But our work has been undermined by the addition of tax increases without consultation, review or due process to cover the extra costs of the bill.

Despite repeated assurances that the $4 billion in offsets would not come from tax increases, here we are, looking at tax increases as a funding mechanism of choice employed by the Democratic leadership.

Moreover, to insinuate that Democrats were made to do anything by the Republicans' opposition to revisions that would directly impact U.S. jobs is preposterous. The Democrats and the Democrats alone are solely responsible for any modifications made to this bill after it left the Agriculture Committee.

Because the Democrat leadership won't invest in American agriculture, they're calling for increased taxes to pick up the tab to fund our domestic priorities by increasing taxes on companies that provide millions of Americans with good jobs and stimulate economic growth.

I anticipate this tax increase will likely be the first of many needed to fund the priorities that bulge between the majority's budgets.

Rural America is served best when we work together in a bipartisan fashion. With passage of this rule, partisanship invades rural America and destroys bipartisan support for the underlying legislation.

I want to be clear, I support the farm bill. I do not support the nonagriculture, non-Agriculture Committee approved tax increase that has been shamefully attached to this legislation.

Prior to the announcement of this tax increase, it was clear that the administration, which has opposed this bipartisan effort, it was clear that a veto threat was headed our way.

A bipartisan farm bill without this tax increase would have produced a veto-proof majority and would have sent this farm bill soaring into the negotiations with the Senate. Now this farm bill will not be an effective product to move American agriculture forward.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that neither I nor any other Republican on this committee that I know of ever went to him and asked for any, any funds whatsoever, certainly not from a tax increase.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the distinguished ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.

(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, another of our ranking members on the committee, Mr. Lucas.

Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from California (Mrs. Bono).

Madam Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a very strong member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, another of the subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Neugebauer.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a new member of the committee who has distinguished himself.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to the gentleman from Georgia that no one on this side of the aisle is turning their back on anybody. We are simply recognizing that increasing taxes in order to pay for what is in this farm bill is the wrong thing to do. To set businesses who have invested in this country and the American workers whose jobs depend on them against that is very, very wrong, and I would suggest to the gentleman that everyone I have talked to has called this a tax increase.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a distinguished member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee whose work we appreciate.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the distinguished ranking member on the House appropriations agriculture subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say, Madam Chairman, that we reach this point in a process that has been going on for about 2 years. It spanned both my chairmanship and the current chairman's chairmanship. It has encompassed a great deal of effort to write a bipartisan farm bill. We have listened to hundreds of farmers. We have received input from thousands of farmers and ranchers and others interested in this legislation.

We address the reform that has been requested in a farm bill. We have addressed the concerns about more funding for fruits and vegetables for nutrition and conservation and renewable fuels. And then to have this tax increase injected into this process after the bill has left the committee is why you have heard every single Member on this side of the aisle speak about how they feel betrayed by this process. It is unfortunate for us, but it is also unfortunate for this farm bill because what happens when it leaves the House, if it passes at all, will be very different than if it passed leaving this House with a veto-proof majority. That opportunity has been lost.

I would say to those on the other side of the aisle we can fix that if we would simply slow down and take a look at the appropriate way to pay for the additional funding that is due this committee because we took a $60 billion cut in the budget. The way to do that is to vote for the motion to recommit that we will offer later on that will say you can have this farm bill that we have all praised and send it back to the committee to look for an appropriate way to do this without pitting American agriculture against American industry by having a tax increase imposed to pay for the things that are in this bill.

That's the appropriate way to proceed here. That would restore the bipartisanship that is needed in this process, and that would restore a good future for this farm bill, which is very much endangered because of the injection of this partisan tax increase that has been laid at our doorstep, the most bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives that has worked so hard and so long. And to be faced with this at the end is wrong. I do not support this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I'll say one good thing about this amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Arizona: It doesn't raise taxes. But I'll say nothing else good about it because it rips the safety net out from under America's farmers and ranchers.

The House Agriculture Committee bill is the result of careful consideration. The committee reviewed many options and took the testimony of countless witnesses at hearings in Washington and in multiple States. The committee chose to maintain a safety net that has proven very effective since 2002, but it's done so with reform.

The committee included in the safety net the option for producers to choose a priority of the administration, a revenue-based, countercyclical program.

The committee also drastically modified rules related to payment limits and income levels for participation. No one with a 3-year average gross adjusted income over $1 million may participate in the commodity program. That is down from $2.5 million for producers with AGI between $500,000 and $1 million; 66\2/3\ percent of their income must come from agriculture. These are major changes from the 2002 farm bill.

Additionally, the committee has done away with the three-entity rule. Now producers can receive payments on only one business entity.

The committee made significant reforms. By cutting $16 billion over 5

years, a 40 percent cut, this amendment shatters the farm safety net. This amendment cuts the safety net provided by direct payments by about $11 billion over 5 years, or 42 percent.

The amendment cuts the most basic level of support for farmers and ranchers, the marketing assistance loan, by $2 billion over 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The committee was able to make significant increases in conservation, nutrition, rural development, research, fruits and vegetables, and in other areas without ripping out the safety net from America's farmers and ranchers, but the Kind-Flake-Ryan-Blumenauer amendment makes increases in those areas at the expense of American farmers.

The committee's commitment to conservation is unquestionable. The committee-passed bill increases conservation spending by over $4 billion over the next 5 years. We added over $1.9 billion to environmental quality incentive programs, which helps farmers and ranchers comply with State, Federal and local environmental laws.

We also continued our commitment to highly erodible land, wetlands, grasslands and wildlife habitat by funding the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetland Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.

The committee increased the commitment to preserving working farms by increasing funding to the Farmland Ranchland Protection Program by almost 300 percent.

The committee also focused efforts to help producers such as specialty crop and livestock producers who do not participate in traditional commodity programs.

We took an unprecedented step of committing $150 million over the next 5 years to help clean up the rivers of the Chesapeake Bay.

We do not need this amendment. Oppose it.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to tell the gentleman from Florida this is the party of American jobs, of American investment, of American workers. And we are going to protect that by not supporting tax increases that will cause a disincentive for investment in this country, that will cost jobs, that will involve the violation of American treaties, and will cause retaliation in foreign countries where we will face increased taxes on American investment there as well. This is a tax increase, pure and simple, and that is why we will not turn our backs on the American people and their jobs.

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Madam Chairman, we have no further speakers on the legislation. I yield back.

If the gentleman would repeat his request.

That is correct.

We will reserve the balance of the time that has been yielded to us and we certainly have no objection to you yielding to others.

I'm not seeking time in opposition. I support the amendment.

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

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

Just to reiterate the point made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Farm Credit System is a very important thing for rural America. It provides credit to America's farmers and ranchers and is a necessary and serious challenge to get that credit sometimes. There have been times when business has been bad in rural America, and the Farm Credit System has been there to stand up in good times and bad.

I appreciate the concerns raised by my friends in the banking community. We want to make sure that there is fair treatment, given that these are two different types of systems that operate, and we have listened to them very carefully. We have held hearings. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania says, we worked very hard to come up with something we thought was fair.

We did basically three things: One related to housing, one related to lending in the energy area, and one dealing with cooperatives. All of these things are simply looking to modernize the Farm Credit System to deal with the fact that rural America and farming have changed substantially from the last time there was any major address of this issue back in the 1970s.

The rural population limit for home mortgages, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, is 2,500 population. It has not been updated since 1971, and since then, over 700 communities have grown to the point where they are not considered rural under the farm credit definition, where you could get a farm credit loan in the past and now, because of the increased population, you can't. So people who have been doing business with farm credit sometimes for generations are no longer able to do that. The law does not change the limitation on moderately priced homes, owner-occupied, single-family homes.

We are simply trying to extend this to recognize that the population of the country is growing, and, therefore, there ought to be recognition of that. They asked for a very substantial increase, and we thought that was well beyond what was contemplated by being able to lend in rural areas.

Secondly, with regard to energy, there is no doubt that when times are good, there are financial resources available, credit from a wide array of sources. But as the ethanol boom started in this country, there was not money available from some sources; so farm credit stepped up to the plate.

In order for them to step up to the plate when the risk is higher, they need to be able to have a viable system throughout, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 361, honoring the life of Jack Valenti. I rise today to express support for that resolution and to join in honoring Jack's life and accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, Jack Valenti was the poster child for what it means to be a great American. Jack was a true patriot and served our country valiantly as a pilot in the armed forces during World War II, where he flew over 50 combat missions. He later served as special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson during the tumultuous period in American history following the assassination of President Kennedy.

Following his public service, he became president of the Motion Picture Association of America, where he instituted the first movie rating system, which gave parents more information about the content of movies. It is during his tenure at the MPAA that I came to know and become friends with Jack.

One thing that always impressed me about Jack was his commitment to serving others. I remember a recent story I heard about Jack where he gave a lesson to a waiter at one of his favorite local restaurants. He told the waiter how important it was to remember the particulars of his clients, including their names and what they like to order. It is with this attention to detail that he succeeded in his mission of educating Members of Congress about the importance of copyright laws and the details of the motion picture industry.

Jack's policy was to return every call from every person who contacted him. He also emphasized the importance of telling the truth in all circumstances. These attributes explain why both those who agreed with and disagreed with his policy positions respected Jack and his work.

I am indebted to Jack for befriending this green, freshman lawmaker back in 1993, and treating me with the same respect and kindness that he would give a President.

I join with all Members of this House to send my deepest condolences to Jack's family and also to honor and celebrate the life and accomplishments of Jack Valenti.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota for yielding and for her leadership in bringing forth this amendment, which corrects a grievous problem with our immigration system.

This visa lottery program is clearly unfair to lawful immigrant applicants who are abiding by our rules and going through the process. It pushes 50,000 people chosen totally at random ahead of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding immigrants waiting to be reunified with their families.

The program is wrought with fraud. The State Department inspector general has said that the visa lottery program is subject to widespread abuse, and that identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.

A simple click on the State Department's visa lottery Web site is very revealing. The first thing you will notice on that Web site is a warning in bold red font about fraudulent websites and individuals. Indeed, a cottage industry has sprung up of individuals using the visa lottery program to take advantage of foreign nationals.

No skills are necessary to enter the lottery. As we look around the country for programs that help meet needs of reunifying families or job skills for which there is a shortage in the United States, we have a program that gives 50,000 visas based on pure luck, and the applicants must only have the equivalent of a high school diploma. But the State Department has indicated they often have very few resources to make even this determination in countries that do not have systems similar to the United States.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is a national security threat. This program of selection purely at random makes it possible for visa lottery participants to be people who are from countries that are known to be state sponsors of terror. Nothing would prevent terrorist organizations from submitting numerous names for the lottery, and, as long as they don't have criminal backgrounds, they can receive not just a temporary visa like the 9/11 hijackers had, but a permanent- resident visa to be permanently in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 964, the SPY Act.

The continued growth of the Internet has brought tremendous enhancements to our quality of life--from advances in the delivery of health care, to the ability of consumers to instantaneously conduct transactions online. Increasingly, consumers want a fast connection to the Internet and want the delivery of online services to be seamless and online service providers have invested significant resources to develop software to make their services as safe, reliable and fast as possible.

However, as Congress considers legislation to combat spyware, I believe that four overarching principles should guide our efforts. First, we must punish the bad actors, while protecting legitimate online companies. Second, we must not over-regulate, but rather encourage innovative new services and the growth of the Internet. Third, we must not stifle the tree market interactions between consumers and service providers. Fourth, we must target the behavior, not the technology. It is my hope that any legislation Congress enacts to combat spyware will adhere to these core principles.

On May 23, 2005, the House of Representatives passed legislation, similar to H.R. 964, which sought to solve the spyware problem by targeting the technology, instead of the criminal behavior behind the technology. However, many developments have occurred during the intervening two years which have convinced me that this regulatory approach to combating spyware is even more unwise than previously thought.

For example, just last month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee adopted an amendment to H.R. 964 that would have had enormous consequences for the Internet and online innovation. This amendment would have, in part, regulated Internet ``cookies'' for the first time under the bill. Internet cookies are used by most websites to enhance consumers' experiences with the Internet and to make the Internet more seamless and navigable with fewer stoplights. To make every online company that uses cookies comply with the notice and consent regime under the bill would have significantly interfered with consumers' Internet experiences. By forcing consumers to click through even more pre-scripted alert messages, this change would have, ironically, exacerbated the likelihood that consumers would become desensitized to these notices and click ``accept'' without reading them. In addition, this desensitization is likely to also give nefarious software installers a false legitimacy since there would be no distinction between the notices they provide and the notices legitimate online companies provide.

Apparently, the Democratic Leadership saw the error in the regulation of cookies and stripped the bill of this language just before the bill came to the Floor today. However, this mistake by the committee highlights the difficulties with trying to impose one-size-fits-all regulations to solve problems involving ever-evolving technologies.

In addition, Chairman Majoras of the Federal Trade Commission testified in October of 2005 that a notice-and-choice approach was not recommended for combating spyware for many reasons. He noted the fact that consumers will be overwhelmed by the notices they will receive when using the Internet and will most likely ignore the notices and click through them.

Furthermore, in the past few years there have been major developments in technological solutions to help consumers combat spyware. Consumer packages are becoming more and more effective in screening out unwanted spyware from their computers and are offered by many Internet service providers, as well as independent software providers.

Finally, a broad cross-section of legitimate online businesses and trade associations has expressed opposition to the regulatory approach of H.R. 964. On June 5, 2007, a coalition of over 30 trade associations and companies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, the Financial Services Roundtable, and numerous technology-based entities, sent a letter to all Members of the House of Representatives detailing their concerns with H.R. 964. This letter specifically expresses opposition to regulating Internet cookies, as well as opposition to including web sites (where consumers willingly submit information online) within in the scope of the legislation.

The better approach to combating spyware would be to target the criminal behavior of those who actually use spyware, and to continue our policy of letting innovative online companies interact with consumers to develop the exciting new online services that consumers have come to enjoy and expect from the Internet.

I have introduced legislation, along with my colleague Zoe Lofgren of California, to combat spyware by going after the criminals using spyware, rather than trying to regulate all software regardless of whether it is harmful or helpful. This legislation, H.R. 1525, was passed by the House and now awaits further action in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this targeted approach.

I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank her for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had the opportunity to travel with Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Majority Leader Hoyer and other members of a bipartisan congressional delegation to the war-torn nation of Sudan and see firsthand one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent times.

As a Nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, the United States has a responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated. While in Darfur, we saw directly the atrocities in this besieged nation. We toured the Alsalam Internally Displaced Persons Camp, where 47,000 people seeking food, water and safety live in crowded, deplorable and often still unsafe conditions.

This is one of nearly 100 such camps which collectively have more than 2 million people. They live in small, makeshift twig huts, many only the size of a pup tent. On numerous occasions, the IDP camps themselves have been attacked. And this is just one of

many examples of the deplorable situation in Darfur.

There is no doubt that the ongoing crisis in Darfur has led to a major humanitarian disaster. We along with the rest of the world must band together to bring change to this horrible situation. Next year the world will join together to celebrate the Olympic Games. The Olympic spirit brings together nations and people from all over the world in a spirit of peace. The People's Republic of China as the Olympic host country has a profound responsibility to ensure that spirit of peace will be celebrated throughout the games. However, I am deeply worried that this spirit will be deeply compromised due to China's implicit acquiescence to the atrocities being committed in Darfur.

The People's Republic of China has a deep relationship with Sudan and has substantial economic investment there. China's connection to Sudan, a country that supports the genocide of its own people, is troubling and seriously undermines the spirit of the Olympic Games.

There is no question that China is in a position to help improve the situation in Darfur. As an economic partner to Sudan, China must use all means possible to help bring an end to this genocide. As they seek to host the world, they must show the true extent of their leadership and call for an end to this genocide.

House Resolution 422 rightfully calls on the People's Republic of China to end military and economic assistance to Sudan until Sudan ceases attacking civilians and promotes the humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts going on in Darfur in its own country. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and call on China to fully support the Olympic spirit by calling on Sudan to end the genocide in Darfur.

While I have never seen anything like what I saw in Darfur, the situation is not completely hopeless. The humanitarian assistance the United States is providing is helping millions of people in desperate circumstances. But we must continue to do more and we must urge the international community to join with us to bring an end to the genocide. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan spirit to bring an end to this international crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1525, the Internet Spyware or I-SPY Prevention Act.

I was pleased to join with my colleague from California, Representative Zoe Lofgren, to reintroduce this legislation. This bipartisan bill will impose tough criminal penalties on those that use software for nefarious purposes without imposing a broad regulatory regime on legitimate online businesses. I believe that this targeted approach is the best way to combat spyware.

Spyware is software that provides a tool for criminals to secretly crack into computers to conduct nefarious activities such as altering a user's security settings, collecting personal information to steal a user's identity or to commit other crimes. A recent study done by the National Cybersecurity Alliance revealed that over 90 percent of consumers had some form of spyware on their computers, and most consumers were not aware of it.

The I-SPY Prevention Act would impose criminal penalties on the most egregious behavior associated with spyware. Specifically, this legislation would impose up to a 5-year prison sentence on anyone who uses software to intentionally break into a computer and uses that spyware in furtherance of another Federal crime.

In addition, it would impose up to a 2-year prison sentence on anyone who uses spyware to intentionally break into a computer and either alter the computer's security settings or obtain personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person, or with the intent to damage a computer. By imposing stiff penalties on these bad actors, this legislation will help deter the use of spyware and will thus help protect consumers from these aggressive attacks.

Enforcement is also crucial in combating spyware. The I-SPY Prevention Act authorizes $10 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 to be devoted to prosecutions involving spyware, phishing and pharming scams, and expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Justice should vigorously enforce the laws against these crimes.

Phishing scams occur when criminals send fake e-mail messages to consumers on behalf of famous companies and request account information that is later used to conduct criminal activities.

Pharming scams occur when hackers redirect Internet traffic to fake sites in

order to steal personal information such as credit card numbers, passwords and account information.

This form of online fraud is particularly egregious because it is not as easily discernible by consumers. With pharming scams, innocent Internet users simply type the domain name into their Web browsers and the signal is rerouted to the devious Web site.

The I-SPY Prevention Act is a targeted approach that protects consumers by imposing stiff penalties on the truly bad actors, while protecting the ability of legitimate companies to develop new and exciting products and services online for consumers.

The I-SPY Prevention Act also avoids excessive regulation and its repercussions, including the increased likelihood that an overly regulatory approach focusing on technology would have unintended consequences that could discourage consumer use of the Internet, as well as the creation of new technologies and services on the Internet. By encouraging innovation, the I-SPY Prevention Act will help ensure that consumers have access to cutting-edge products and services at lower prices.

In addition, the approach of the I-SPY Prevention Act does not interfere with the free market principle that a business should be free to react to consumer demand by providing consumers with easy access to the Internet's wealth of information and convenience. Increasingly, consumers want a seamless interaction with the Internet, and we must be careful to not interfere with businesses' ability to respond to this consumer demand with innovative services. The I-SPY Prevention Act will help ensure that consumers, not the Federal Government, define what their interaction with the Internet looks like.

Finally, by going after the criminal behavior associated with the use of spyware, the I-SPY Prevention Act recognizes that not all software is spyware and that the crime does not lie in the technology itself but rather in actually using the technology for criminal purposes. People commit crimes; software doesn't.

H.R. 1525 is an effective, targeted approach to combating spyware, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the memory of my constituent and my friend, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Last week, the city of Lynchburg, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the entire country lost one of our dearest sons in the passing of Rev. Falwell. Today Dr. Falwell was laid to rest. I am sad that business here in Washington kept many of us from being able to attend today's services, but since we were unable to attend, we have joined here tonight to pay homage to this great leader.

Dr. Falwell's legacy is one that will not soon be forgotten. He was a man whose strong faith and vision were unshakable. He lived his life trying to strengthen the moral fabric of our great Nation.

In his crusade to strengthen family values, he was a frequent visitor to Washington, DC, he led many people to the Nation's Capital to demand that leaders here strengthen our country's moral foundation.

Jerry lived his life guided by a strong set of values and an unshakable moral compass. He lived by example, embodying the Bible's greatest commandments. He followed the words of Matthew 22 in his daily life: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbors as yourself.

Anyone who ever met Jerry Falwell knew that he took this commandment seriously and chartered his life by it.

One thing is for sure. Whether one was viewed as a friend or foe of Jerry Falwell, he loved them all. This love for the neighbor extended to everyone, even those who wouldn't expect it. I had many times heard Rev. Falwell say, ``Love the sinner, hate the sin.'' This was more than just a catch phrase. It was a way of life.

Many people have heard of the infamous Supreme Court battle between Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt. But what few people didn't realize is that Falwell and Flynt actually became friends. I know Jerry did not approve of Mr. Flynt's business, but he separated his thoughts about the man from Flynt's activities.

To most people, Jerry Falwell is a national figure. But I also know him as a local guy who was always giving back to his community. He was a local preacher who worked to serve his congregation and the community. He started his church over 50 years ago in an old bottling factory. That small congregation has grown from 35 to the over-22,000 current members of Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Dr. Falwell, through his church, set in place many ministries to aid the community. In 1959, he established the Elim Home to help men dealing with chemical addictions. This home has transformed the lives of hundreds of men and remains a place to free men of their addictions.

Additionally, Dr. Falwell helped found the Liberty Godparent Foundation. The foundation's mission is to improve the quality of life for unwed mothers and provide a hopeful future for unborn children. The foundation maintains Liberty Godparent Maternity Home, which offers a safe haven for unwed mothers, and Family Services Adoption Agency, which helps place unwanted children in safe and stable homes. The reach of the church has touched many thousands and extends past central Virginia and across the United States.

The list of Jerry Falwell's many ministries and accomplishments is nearly endless. However, many people asked him of what accomplishment he was most proud. Without hesitation he would say, Liberty University. This university, located in my congressional district in Lynchburg, started as a small Baptist college. Today it has grown exponentially and serves over 10,000 students. Washington, DC is filled with Liberty University alumni. I have been pleased to have many Liberty University alumni serve in my office as staff and interns. In fact, L.U. alumni are all over Capitol Hill. I have heard them talk fondly of the education they received at Liberty, and they refer to themselves warmly as ``Jerry's kids.''

I have frequently been on the campus of Liberty, and they are, in fact, Jerry's kids. He loved those kids as his own. Rev. Falwell was very involved and engaged in university life. He always had time for the students. He was also a fixture at school events. Jerry was especially proud of L.U. athletics and he would, with the students, cheer the Flames on to victory. I have even heard stories of Jerry crowd surfing at basketball games. Students would transport him from the bottom of the stands to the top.

There is no doubt that Liberty and the alumni that it produces will live on as Jerry Falwell's lasting legacy. These alumni carry with them the strong values and morals that were reinforced through their education at Liberty. The university and its alumni will remain a living testimony of the work and vision of Jerry Falwell.

You cannot talk about Rev. Falwell without also talking about the town that he loved, the city of Lynchburg. Jerry, though a national figure, never left his home in central Virginia. He led his spiritual network out of his offices in Lynchburg. The city of Lynchburg greatly benefited from Rev. Falwell's work. As Falwell's ministries, and especially Liberty University flourished, so did the city. The impact that Jerry had on Lynchburg's economy and culture is undeniable.

When word of Jerry's death came, the city of Lynchburg seemed to take a collective gasp and was filled with shock and sorrow. The loss of Rev. Falwell was a huge loss for Lynchburg. And today I tell the citizens of Lynchburg that the Nation mourns with you.

When I heard of the passing of my good friend, Jerry Falwell, I was deeply saddened. My wife, Mary Ellen, and I had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Falwell for many years. He was a good man and made an undeniable impression on many lives. Two hours after his death was confirmed, an impromptu memorial service brought a standing room only crowd to Thomas Road Baptist Church, a church that holds 6,000 people. Since then, thousands have shown up to pay their respects, and thousands showed up today for his funeral.

While many people mourn the death of Rev. Falwell, no one experiences this loss harder than Jerry's family. Jerry was a devoted family man. He was dedicated to his bride and partner of 49 years, Macel. Together they raised three children. Jerry, Jr., Jonathan and Jeannie, who I have no doubt will build on the great legacy that their father leaves behind. Nothing can compare to the deep personal loss that they are experiencing, and our thoughts and prayers and hearts are with them.

After hearing the sad news of Jerry's death, I was able to call and offer my condolences to Macel. She shared with me how Jerry spent his last day. I don't think she would mind me sharing with you what happened, as I feel it fully embodies the man that Jerry was.

The night before he passed away, Macel and Jerry went out to dinner. As they talked to their waitress, Jerry found out that she attended the local community college. When he asked the young lady why she didn't go to Liberty University, she told him that she had applied and been accepted, but as a private school, it was too expensive. Jerry told her that he would find a way

for her to attend Liberty. The next morning, the morning he passed away, Rev. Falwell lived up to his word and found scholarship money for the young waitress. It was perhaps one of the last things he did before collapsing in his office.

This last act of charity and giving is a perfect example of the man that Jerry Falwell was. Right up till the end of his life, he was working to change lives.

There are many other stories like this one out there of how this extraordinary man touched and changed ordinary lives. Rev. Jerry Falwell was a loving and caring man. He led his life guided by strong convictions. He left an unquestionable impression on our country.

I will greatly miss my friend. I pray for his family and his congregation, and I join the Nation in mourning this great spiritual leader.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

I thank the gentleman for his very kind and thoughtful words.

And now I'd like to turn to the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Goode. Virgil Goode and I have the honor of representing central Virginia and share many of the members of Thomas Road Baptist Church. I have the City of Lynchburg and part of Bedford County and Amherst County in my district, and Virgil has Appomattox County and Campbell County and the remainder of Bedford. And we've both had the opportunity to work with Reverend Falwell on many, many occasions. And it's my pleasure to yield now to the gentleman for his words.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

And it is now my pleasure to yield to another representative from Virginia, Congressman Eric Cantor, the chief deputy whip from the Richmond area, who I knew not too long ago stopped

off in Lynchburg and had the opportunity to spend some time with Reverend Falwell.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words.

We will be joined shortly by another speaker, but before we are, let me tell a little bit more about Dr. Falwell.

At the age of 22, having just graduated from college in June of 1956, Jerry Falwell returned to his hometown of Lynchburg, Virginia, and started Thomas Road Baptist Church with just 35 members. The offering that first Sunday totaled $135. Falwell often said about that first collection, ``We thought we had conquered the world.'' Today Thomas Road has over 22,000 members, and the total annual revenues of all of the Jerry Falwell ministries total over $200 million.

Within weeks of founding his new church in 1956, Falwell began the Old-Time Gospel Hour, a daily local radio ministry and a weekly local television ministry. Nearly five decades later, this Old-Time Gospel Hour is now seen and heard in every American home and on every continent except Antarctica. Through the years, over 3 million persons have communicated to the Falwell ministries that they have received Christ as Lord and Savior as a result of this radio and television ministry.

In 1967, Falwell implemented his vision to build a Christian educational system for evangelical youth. He began with the creation of Lynchburg Christian Academy, a Christ-centered, academically excellent, fully accredited Christian day school providing kindergarten, elementary, and high school. In 1971, Liberty University was founded. Today, over 21,500 students from 50 States and 80 nations attend this accredited liberal arts Christian university. Falwell's dream has become a reality. A preschool child can now enter the school system at age 3 and, 20 or more years later, leave the same campus with a Ph.D., without ever sitting in a classroom where the teacher was not a Christian.

Falwell is also publisher of the National Liberty Journal, a monthly newspaper which is read by over 200,000 pastors and Christian workers; and the Falwell Confidential, a weekly e-mail newsletter to over 500,000 pastors and Christian activists.

In June of 1979, Falwell organized the Moral Majority, a conservative political lobbying movement, which the press soon dubbed the ``Religious Right.'' During the first 2 years of its existence, the Moral Majority attracted over 100,000 pastors, priests, and rabbis and nearly 7 million religious conservatives who mobilized as a pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, and pro-strong-national-defense organization. The Moral Majority supported California Governor Ronald Reagan as their candidate for President in 1980, registered millions of new voters, and set about to inform and activate a sleeping giant: 80 million Americans committed to faith, family, and moral values.

With the impetus of the newly organized Moral Majority, millions of people of faith voted for the first time in 1980 and helped Ronald Reagan be elected President, and many conservative Congressmen and Senators.

Since 1979, about 30 percent of the American electorate has been identified by media polls as the ``Religious Right.'' Most recent major media surveys have acknowledged that these ``faith and values'' voters reelected George W. Bush in November 2004.

Though perhaps better known outside Lynchburg for political activism, Jerry Falwell's personal schedule confirms his passion for being a pastor and a Christian educator. He often states that his heartbeat is for training young people for every walk of life.

Falwell and his wife of 49 years Macel have three grown children and eight grandchildren.

While we continue to await for our next speaker, let me read from a report in the Lynchburg News & Advance from last Tuesday:

``Jerry Falwell was born in 1933 in Lynchburg and lived here all his life. He married Macel Pate of Lynchburg in 1958. They had three children: Jerry Falwell, Jr., an attorney who represents the Falwell ministries and is vice chancellor of Liberty University; Jeannie Falwell Savas, a Richmond surgeon; and Jonathan Falwell, the executive pastor at Thomas Road Baptist Church.

``Falwell founded Thomas Road in 1956 in an old soft drink bottling plant after graduating from Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Missouri. That same year he started his weekly television broadcast, the Old-Time Gospel Hour.

``The church moved into a 3,200-seat sanctuary on Thomas Road in the Fort Hill area in 1970, with services broadcast around the world. Falwell founded Liberty University, then known as Lynchburg Baptist College, in 1971. He always hoped the school would be one of his lasting legacies.

``He started the Moral Majority, Incorporated, in 1979, conducting `I love America' rallies at 44 State capitals.

``The rise of the Moral Majority coincided with the Reagan Presidency, and Falwell rose to national prominence as well.''

Falwell and his ministries faced many challenges through the years.

``In the late 1990s, Falwell reemerged on the national stage in a flurry of television appearances,'' a series of changes to his ministries, ``but Falwell gave up campaigning for politicians as he did for President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. `I don't plan ever to get back into the Moral Majority-type work,' he said in a 1998 interview. `What I did I did because I felt led to do it then, and I'm glad I did it . . . My thing now is a nonpartisan Biblical approach to moral and social issues.' ''

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). I am very pleased to have his presence as we commemorate the life of Reverend Jerry Falwell.

Well, I thank the whip for joining us in this special tribute to Reverend Jerry Falwell.

I must tell you that the mountain you refer to, which is Chandler Mountain in Lynchburg, was acquired by Liberty University. You can see the university growing up the sides of that mountain now. In fact, they now have a big ``LU'' planted in trees near the top of the mountain.

Jerry Falwell climbed many mountains, and he leaves behind a legacy not only of building an outstanding educational organization and an outstanding church, but more importantly, he leaves behind the people who make that church and that university strong and growing, led by his children, who will carry on his legacy and reach out to many, many more throughout our country and throughout the world.

I close this special order with a moment of silence, acknowledging the life and work of my constituent and my friend, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Chairman, as co-chairman of the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, I rise today to introduce, along with my fellow co-chairman, Representative Adam Schiff, this resolution calling on foreign governments to lead by example in the fight against copyright piracy.

Our Nation's Framers had the foresight to place language in our Constitution to protect creators' inventions and works. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lays the framework for all of our intellectual property laws. Because the United States has been the pioneer for intellectual property protections, it is no surprise that the copyright industries are so successful and are so crucial to our national economy. The U.S. copyright industries have created millions of high-skilled, high-paying U.S. jobs and have contributed billions to our economy.

However, widespread piracy is taking its toll on the copyright industries. Copyright piracy results in billions of dollars in lost revenue for the U.S. copyright industries each year and even greater losses to the U.S. economy in terms of reduced job growth and exports. Much of the piracy these industries are facing is in foreign countries, and portions of this foreign piracy are attributable to unauthorized software use by government agencies, as well as the use of official government computers and networks to commit all types of copyright infringement.

While the United States is the world's leader in intellectual property protections, the problem does not stop at our borders. Piracy in today's economy is a global problem. We must encourage other countries to enact and enforce strong intellectual property laws in order to fully protect America's inventors and authors.

Foreign governments would do well to start by setting an example and denouncing piracy within their own agencies. One particularly disturbing trend is the growing willingness of many foreign governments to condone the use of, and even use, pirated materials. At its best, government sets the standards for the protection of rights. At its worst, government encourages and even participates in the breach of those rights.

Today, I am introducing this resolution to call on all foreign governments to publicly denounce pirated products. Specifically, this resolution calls on foreign governments to follow the example set by the United States to discourage software piracy by the government, and to prevent the use of government computers to facilitate other types of piracy. Specifically, our resolution calls on foreign governments (1) to stop using unauthorized software, (2) to enact usage policies for government computers and networks that will prevent all types of copyright piracy over their systems, and (3) to make these efforts to combat piracy in government public to their citizens.

It is my hope that this resolution will send a strong message to foreign governments to lead by example and set the standards regarding intellectual property protection for their countries.

I urge each of my colleagues to support this commonsense resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007. While I support granting these six Virginia tribes Federal recognition, I remain concerned about opening the door to casino-style gaming in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Virginia tribes have always contended that they have no interest in pursuing gaming. And I was encouraged when the Resources Committee adopted an amendment to limit the tribes' ability to pursue gaming. However, in recent days I have begun to hear murmurs that the language is not as strong as we have been led to believe, and the tribes are considering challenging the gaming limitation. I have always believed the tribes when they have said they do not wish to pursue gambling, so I hope that there is no truth to a challenge.

I believe it is the desire of this Congress that if challenged in court, this language would be upheld, just as similar language was upheld in Del Sur Pueblo v. The State of Texas, 69 Fed. App. 659. However, I urge the Senate to look closely at this bill to see if this language can be tightened and strengthened to further ensure that casino-style gambling doe not come to the Commonwealth. We must ensure that this bill, while well-intentioned, does not negatively affect Virginia.

The Commonwealth of Virginia and the Nation should honor and recognize these tribes. However, we must continue to look for a way to grant them this recognition, without leaving our beautiful Commonwealth open to the ill-effects of gambling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for this resolution.

Four hundred years ago in 1607, 104 English settlers took a dangerous voyage. The voyage alone was perilous, but their future in their new land was no less daunting. These courageous voyagers landed on the shores of what is now the great Commonwealth of Virginia. They set sail on what many have considered America's founding river, the James River, and established the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown.

These brave settlers faced many hardships--sickness, war, hunger, and death. However, their faith and perseverance allowed this colony to flourish despite these seemingly insurmountable odds. These settlers established the foundation of this great Nation, and I am happy that we, in this House, are gathered here today to commemorate their sacrifice.

These early settlers were the first to celebrate what we have now come to know as the American dream. Kathryn Lange said it best in her book, ``1607: A New Look At Jamestown,'' ``Jamestown was a place where the poor might become rich through hard work, where people could govern themselves and where cultures mixed to create a new, American way of life.''

This profound, new way of life, was unlike anything else in the world at the time. The Jamestown Colony planted the seeds of the ideals of life and liberty, which sprouted into this great Nation. As a nation we have held fast to the ideals that flourished in this early colony, and we still celebrate those ideals today.

Today we gather to commemorate that early settlement at Jamestown, but we do not commemorate just one colony, we commemorate the birth of a nation that sprung from that small colony.

I urge my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement, and the birth of our Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 264, which recognizes National Correctional Officers and Employees Week, and honors the service of correctional officers and employees.

Few jobs are more dangerous and difficult than serving as a correctional officer. There are over 200,000 correctional officers in the United States who guard us from nearly 2 million criminals and maintain the safety of the Nation's correctional facilities. It is a job with high risk and often little recognition or reward. This resolution recognizes the important role that correctional officers play in maintaining public safety.

Correctional officers carry a heavy burden each day. They are surrounded by dangerous criminals and work in a stressful environment. We hear about but don't often stop to recognize the hundreds of correctional officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Last year in Maryland, two correctional officers were killed. On January 27, 2006, Correctional Officer Jeffrey Alan Wroten II was brutally shot and killed; and on July 25, 2006, Officer David Warren McGuinn was killed. What happened to these two Maryland officers unfortunately has happened to hundreds of other correctional officers in past years. Correctional Officer Jeffrey Alan Wroten left behind a wife and five children, the oldest, age 15, and the youngest, 5 years of age. This makes his loss and the loss of others like him even more heartbreaking.

So, it is appropriate that we take a moment this week to honor the contribution of all correctional officers, pray for their continued safety and dedicate ourselves to helping them carry out their mission.

We thank each and every correctional officer, their families and loved ones, and honor them for their valuable role in protecting the public.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on the committee and his strong opposition to this legislation.

I rise in strong opposition to the legislation as well. This bill would increase penalties for those who commit crimes against certain groups of citizens, but not others. For example, if a man walks down the street and punches another man because the victim is a transvestite, the aggressor would be punishable by up to 10 additional years in prison. However, if the same man walks down the street and punches another person because the victim is a pregnant woman, a senior citizen, a child under the age of 10, a veteran or the like, then the aggressor would not be punishable by the potential 10-year prison sentence. This is simply unfair.

While I strongly support efforts to rid our schools, neighborhoods and communities of violent crimes, I do not believe that new Federal laws specifically addressing hate crimes are necessary.

Today, there are few, if any, cases in which law enforcement has not prosecuted violent crimes to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of the background of the person.

In addition, this bill sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent of punishing citizens for their thoughts. When prosecutions occur under this bill, prosecutors will undoubtedly submit evidence of prior statements by individuals to prove that the aggressor was motivated by hate. This will have a chilling effect on citizens' willingness to speak freely as citizens will adapt to a new world where the Federal Government can cause any unpopular statements they make to be used against them in the future.

One of the great freedoms we have as Americans is our first amendment right to speak our minds, whether our thoughts are popular or unpopular, and this legislation undermines that right.

Again, I abhor acts of violence against any citizen. I abhor bigotry and believe that such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law when aggressive violence occurs. However, this legislation gives special preferences to certain classes of citizens and would create a chilling effect on one of our most cherished constitutional rights.

For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. However, if my colleagues need to be reminded further, I would like to share with them the statement of the administration regarding this legislation, H.R. 1592:

``The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

``State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively.

``There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State's own hate crimes law.''

Mr. Speaker, I include the balance of the statement of administration policy for the Record.

H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to

cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's

race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual

orientation, gender identity, or disability. The

Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes

(such as the elderly, members of the military, police

officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar

special status. The Administration believes that all violent

crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and

should be punished firmly. Moreover, the bill's proposed

section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises

constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law

concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be

constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power

granted to the Federal government, such as the power to

protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce,

or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1)

is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power,

and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal

grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the administration and oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation.

Earlier this month, I had the invaluable opportunity to travel to the war torn country of Sudan as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation led by our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. We journeyed to the besieged African nation to meet with the government and humanitarian leaders to discuss issues related to the ongoing atrocities in Darfur. What I saw was horrendous, and I am pleased that we have once again joined together here in this Congress to call for an end to this genocide.

The ongoing crisis in Darfur and western Sudan has led to a major humanitarian disaster. At the core of the current conflict is a struggle for control of political power and resources, with an estimated 1.9 million people displaced, and more than 213,000 people forced into neighboring Chad. Observers estimate that up to 450,000 people have been killed over the course of this violence.

It is deplorable that any government would use the systematic dislocation of its own people and the disease and starvation that inevitably follow as a weapon, not to mention the outright violence that the Government of Sudan has helped foster in Darfur. The situation there is clearly one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent times. As a Nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, we have a responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated, whether at home or abroad. This House has already taken action condemning the situation in Sudan, but still more must be done to end this humanitarian crisis. That is why I am joining with my colleagues in supporting this resolution.

The resolution calls on the League of Arab States, Sudan's neighbors, to acknowledge the genocide in Darfur and step up their efforts to end this genocide. This crisis has cast an international spotlight on Darfur and the region, and we must urge the Arab League to step up their efforts and join with the world in ending genocide.

While I have never seen anything like what I saw in Darfur, the situation is not completely hopeless. The humanitarian assistance the United States is

providing is helping millions of people in desperate circumstances, but we must continue using international sanctions to force access for additional peacekeeping and humanitarian missions in order to stabilize this volatile place and prevent further genocide.

Madam Speaker, while I was in Darfur, we had the opportunity to visit the Alsalom Internally Displaced Persons Camp, where some 47,000 people live in the most humble of conditions, some in huts made of twigs barely the size of a pup tent, with perhaps a piece of cloth or plastic to provide some additional protection. This is one of a hundred such camps spread across Darfur containing nearly 2 million people.

While there, we had the opportunity to meet some very wonderful and very desperate people. We had the opportunity to look into the eyes of children, children who have the same hopes and expectations that all young children have, and yet, as I stood there, I realized how uncertain their future was.

As long as that condition exists, the United States must continue to be the leader in shining a spotlight on what is going on in Sudan and working together to bring an end to this atrocity, and to bring hope, real hope, to those children.