Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his generously yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of this rule reported out of the Rules Committee and of the underlying legislation, which I have been pleased to introduce along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and more than 150 other Members of the House to address something that is long overdue, and that is modernization of our laws, our Federal laws, dealing with gambling, particularly what is referred to as Internet gambling.

This is a scourge on our society. It causes innumerable problems. Historically, gambling in the United States has been illegal unless regulated by the States. But Internet gambling ignores the laws of the 50 States, which vary each one compared to the next. Some States, like Utah, ban all forms of gambling. Other States, like Nevada next door, legalize a great many forms of gambling. This legislation does not interfere with that, but it addresses the now hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of offshore sites that are sucking billions of dollars. The latest estimate is a $12 billion industry with more than half of that coming out of the United States illegally, unregulated, untaxed.

Many like me who are opposed to gambling are concerned about the family problems. I have one family in my district whose son committed suicide because of debts run up on the Internet

due to gambling. Many are aware recently of the student at Lehigh University who ran up significant gambling debts and then robbed a bank in order to try to pay those off.

Those anecdotal evidences simply help to point out what is a magnifying problem of family problems, bankruptcy problems, problems with minors gambling, problems with addiction to gambling, problems with organized crime's being involved in gambling, all of which goes completely out of the purview of the States, which have jurisdiction over gambling in the United States.

So as a result of that, 48 out of 50 of our State attorneys general and the U.S. Justice Department and many other organizations, all the major sports organizations of the United States, many family organizations, many religious organizations, have come to the Congress asking for this legislation, asking to modernize the Wire Act, asking to take steps, as Congressman Leach has ably done in his legislation coming out of the Financial Services Committee, to enable the Treasury Department, working with law enforcement, working with the financial industry in this country, to see that this flow of money going out to these sites is cut off.

This legislation accomplishes those goals. It is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic Organization that is concerned about the proliferation of sports betting on the Internet and the effect that it is having on their ability to keep these games fair and honest. We have had scandals in the past with regard to betting on sports. And all of the major sports organizations in the country, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, have joined with the NCAA in supporting this legislation. But other groups, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Advance USA, Eagle Forum, the United Methodists, Southern Baptists, and many, many other religious organizations and family organizations have joined in support of this effort to address this problem. And it is my hope that the House today will pass this legislation.

In the process it is very, very important that the amendment that has been made in order under the rule be defeated because this is, most clearly, a poison pill amendment. This amendment is designed to take away the carefully crafted legislation, the careful negotiations with the States to make it clear that the Congress is not attempting to interfere with the activities of the States that take place completely confined within their borders. This addresses interstate gambling on the Internet, and it addresses offshore gambling on the Internet. And this amendment would take out of the legislation those carefully crafted provisions and would effectively gut the bill and defeat the cooperative effort that the Congress has been engaged in with the States, with the State attorneys general, with the Justice Department, and with others. So I would urge my colleagues to support the legislation and to defeat the amendment.

The legislation clarifies the Wire Act, the 1961 statute that made it a Federal felony for gambling businesses to use wire communication facilities to transmit bets or wagers or related money in interstate or foreign commerce. The Wire Act did not contemplate the Internet or wireless communications devices and is ambiguous as to whether it applies to only sports-related gambling or all forms of gambling. The bill updates the Wire Act to clarify that it covers all types of gambling and all types of communication facilities.

H.R. 4411 also increases the maximum penalty for violations of the Wire Act from 2 to 5 years in prison and explicitly preserves the right of the States to regulate gambling that occurs solely within State borders. And the bill cuts off the flow of money to Internet gambling Web sites by regulating payment systems. The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve will jointly develop policies and procedures for identifying and preventing financial transactions related to illegal Internet gambling.

Payment systems will be required to comply with these regulations. Even when criminal law cannot be enforced, the Federal Government's jurisdiction over financial systems can nevertheless cut off the money sources for these illegal businesses.

The bill authorizes State and Federal law enforcement to seek injunctions against persons who facilitate illegal Internet gambling, even when the person is not criminally liable; and when deliberating with foreign governments, the U.S. Government is exhorted to advance international cooperation in law enforcement efforts against illegal gambling and related money laundering. The Secretary of the Treasury will report to Congress about these efforts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this legislation that many people are very familiar with, and that is that 6 years ago the predecessor to this legislation was killed on the floor of this House, and subsequently in another Congress in the Judiciary Committee, based upon the misleading representations and the flow of enormous sums of money related to lobbying activities of one Jack Abramoff, who has been widely reported in coverage in the Washington Post and elsewhere regarding the activities that he and others carrying his water, his dirty laundry, engaged in to misrepresent the purposes of this legislation and to defeat it.

Many in this House are very determined that they have the opportunity today to clear the record, to purge the smear on the Congress that was placed on it by these actions; and Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take full advantage of that opportunity to do today what should have been done back then when this industry was much smaller. It has quadrupled in size since then, and we need to make sure that this legislation passes this House here today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, defeat the amendment and support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman for yielding. I want to be very, very clear about this. This legislation is very, very similar to the legislation that Jack Abramoff helped to defeat. He in no way supports it, number one. Number two, there is no carve-out in this legislation for horse racing or for lotteries.

That has been misrepresented time and time again. That is exactly the device, that is exactly the argument that Jack Abramoff used to defeat this legislation twice before. So to make the argument again I think is entirely wrong; it is entirely misleading. The fact of the matter is that the horse racing industry has a separate statute, the Interstate Horse Racing Act, and this legislation does nothing to enhance that legislation nor to repeal it.

The Justice Department negotiated very carefully the language that preserves their right to proceed against the horse racing industry if they choose to do so, because they maintain that separate statute, the Interstate Horse Racing Act, does not allow them to do what they are doing.

But this legislation does nothing to enable that in any way, shape or form; nor does it do anything to enable State lotteries to engage in Internet gambling operations.

The legislation makes it very clear that for any type of operation to take place, it must be confined within the borders of the State which cannot be done on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his long support of our efforts on this legislation. He is now in his sixth year as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and this legislation even predates his strong leadership of the committee.

I want to thank most especially Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, who has worked very, very hard and very, very long in the Financial Services Committee to accomplish these same goals that we have worked on in the Judiciary Committee. Bringing these two bills together for the first time is a major accomplishment and provides the strongest bill that has ever been offered to deal with this scourge of Internet gambling.

I am also deeply grateful and indebted to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) who has been the lead Democratic cosponsor of the Judiciary version of the legislation with me for many years, as well, and I thank him for his efforts.

There are many Members on both sides of the aisle who have made great contributions, Congresswoman Hooley, Congressman Cardoza of California, many other Members on the Democratic side who will join with us to finally pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business. Internet gambling is now estimated to be a $12 billion industry, with approximately $6 billion coming from bettors based in the U.S. It has been reported that there are as many as 2,300 gambling sites, and the Department of Justice has testified that these offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operations can serve as vehicles for money laundering by organized crime syndicates and terrorists.

The anonymity of the Internet makes it much easier for minors to gamble online. In addition, online gambling can result in addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, crime and moral decline just as with traditional forms of gambling, the costs of which must be ultimately borne by society.

In fact, I have been contacted by a constituent in my district whose son fell prey to an Internet gambling addiction. Faced with insurmountable debt from Internet gambling, he took his own life.

We heard earlier from Congressman Dent and his constituent, whose son robbed a bank as a college student because he could not meet his Internet gambling debts, and the final thing that the father had to say just in today's Associated Press story, This bill would have definitely helped my son.

That is what we are about here today. As Congressman Leach said, this is about protecting America's families.

Traditionally, States have had the authority to permit or prohibit gambling within their borders. With the development of the Internet, however, State prohibitions and regulations governing gambling have become increasingly hard to enforce as electronic communications move freely across borders.

Current Federal law already prohibits interstate gambling over telephone wires. However, these laws, which were written before the invention of the Internet, have become outdated. The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act brings the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to speed with the development of new technology. It also makes clear once and for all that the prohibition is not limited to sports-related bets and wagers, and would provide Federal, State and tribal law enforcement with new injunctive authority to prevent and restrain violations of the law.

In addition, H.R. 4411 prohibits a gambling business from accepting certain forms of noncash payment, including credit cards and electronic fund transfers. In order to block transactions going overseas, the legislation also requires the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department to issue regulations to help banks block illegal gambling transactions.

H.R. 4411 also protects the rights of citizens in each State to decide through their State legislatures whether to permit gambling within their borders. The regulation of intrastate gambling has always been within the jurisdiction of each State, and this bill leaves the regulation of wholly intrastate betting to the States with tight controls to ensure that such betting or wagering does not extend beyond their borders or to minors.

The opponents of this legislation have a lot to lose. Offshore, online gambling Web sites are cash cows, and the greed that propels these companies leads them to solicit bettors in the United States despite the fact that the Department of Justice already believes this activity is illegal. The greed that motivates many of these offshore establishments has also motivated nefarious lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff to spread misinformation about previous attempts of the Congress to ban online gambling.

Internet gambling is a serious problem that must be stopped. The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act will help eliminate this harmful activity before it spreads further.

This is legislation that was defeated by Jack Abramoff before. He is still out there with other lobbyists trying to do it again. Support the legislation. Defeat the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. A lot has been said here today about motivations. Well, I won't talk about motivations, but I will talk about consequences of this legislation, of this amendment.

The gentlewoman from Las Vegas, who has here on the floor lauded the merits of gambling, or gaming as she calls it, now offers an amendment to make this bill that we have fought for 8 years tighter and tougher on gambling? I don't think so. I will tell you that this is all about undoing what was done before.

The gentleman from Michigan tells us that this is what Jack Abramoff would love to see. But this is exactly the same method that Jack Abramoff used to derail this bill 6 years ago and 5 years ago, by arguing that the legislation was not strong enough on prohibiting gambling, when he was representing gambling interests, a whole host of gambling interests, offshore interests, lottery interests, a whole host of gambling interests. And that is what is being attempted here today.

This, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment that is clearly a poison pill designed to derail this legislation. Regardless of the intentions in offering it, 48 of 50 State attorneys general have come out in support of a ban on Internet gambling. An amendment such as this that restricts the right of States to continue to permit gambling within their borders is nothing more than an attempt to derail the bill by undermining the support from the States. That provision was in the previous versions of the bill; that provision is in this bill today, only it is even tighter.

The States have always had the right to allow or prohibit gambling within their borders. H.R. 4411 continues to ensure that States have that right, while imposing strict safeguards to ensure that the activity stays within State borders and does not extend to other States. These safeguards include requiring that the bettor, the gambling business, and any entity acting with a gambling business to process the bets and wagers all be physically located within the authorizing State, and that age and residence requirements are effective and in place.

Everyone knows that there is no technology that enables that to be done on the Internet and, therefore, there is no exception on this legislation for lotteries or any other form of State gambling on the Internet.

Furthermore, H.R. 4411 gives new authority to State and Federal law enforcement to enforce the provisions of this bill to ensure that States comply with the safeguards established in the bill and that the law is enforced to the greatest extent possible.

The Berkley-Conyers-Wexler amendment would limit what a State can do exclusively within its borders and infringes on the rights of the States that have always had the opportunity to create and enforce their own gambling laws.

This amendment also deletes crucial language in the bill supported by the Department of Justice and the horse racing industry that maintains neutrality with respect to the Intrastate Horse Racing Act, a separate Federal statute that is not a part of this legislation unless you allow the supporters of this amendment to inject it into this bill.

This amendment is nothing more than a poison pill that would kill this strong bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Berkley amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his very patient leadership in getting this legislation to this place.

There are many others to thank on both sides of the aisle: Congressman Rick Boucher, Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, who helped get this legislation out of both the Judiciary Committee and the Financial Services Committee.

Congressman Meehan, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, Congressman Cardoza, Congressman McIntyre, Congressman Van Hollen have all helped in great ways on the Democratic side, and many, many more.

I am especially deeply indebted to Congressman Jim Leach. Congressman Leach has worked on this legislation since the 1990s, as I have. And we have finally managed to bring one bill forward, merging the product of both the Judiciary and the Financial Services Committees, that is the best bill to deal with this scourge of Internet gambling that we have ever confronted.

Members, this is the opportunity to expunge, expunge a smear on this House done by many lobbyists led by one Jack Abramoff, who misled this Congress and many Members about this legislation a long time ago.

The Washington Post, the Atlanta Constitution Journal, many of our publications have exposed that. Now is the time to set the record straight and pass this legislation.

This motion to recommit is not necessary. Our bill already imposes age and location requirements on bets and wagers and requires that the activity be wholly within the authorizing State.

And it is confusing as to which attorney general must approve this. It reduces the authority of the States to create their own laws on gambling within their borders, conflicts with the bill because the Department of Justice asks for two requirements, and this amendment changes that.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have worked out the final solution to this issue. We have done what is necessary to modernize the 45-year-old Wire Act, to make it possible for the Treasury Department and other authorities to work with law enforcement to keep the billions from flowing out of this country, over $6 billion a year going to unregulated, untaxed, illegal sites outside of the United States.

But most importantly, most importantly of all, as my friend and colleague Jim Leach said, this is about America's families. This vote is to help families like the one in my district whose son committed suicide.

This vote is for the young student in Congressman Dent's district who, when he ran up thousands of dollars in Internet gambling debts, robbed a bank to pay for this.

Unlike State-regulated gambling, and I am opposed to all forms of gambling, but unlike State-regulated gambling, there are no strictures at all in what these fly-by-night offshore entities do.

Support this legislation. Oppose the motion to recommit and send this great measure across the Capitol for the other body to consider.

Mr. Chairman, my friends, I rise in support of H.R. 4761, the Domestic Energy Production Through Offshore Exploration Act of 2006.

In 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering more than 85 percent of the U.S. outer continental shelf. At the time, U.S. natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world.

Today, U.S. Natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world. Prices for natural gas continue to increase, while the government continues to promote new natural gas consumption.

To balance the market, we need to invest in efficient, alternative energy. Additionally, we need to increase access to new energy supply sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, to keep pace with new and growing demands.

The high cost of natural gas and oil has a major impact on both the farm and forest sectors.

Paper mills, a major employer in my district, are very energy intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of operating a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The effects of higher energy prices have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills have closed and 182,000 jobs lost since 2000 when energy prices started their steep ascent.

For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 2006 stood 74 percent higher than the 1990-92 levels, nearly approaching all-time records. The high cost of oil has also greatly effected farmers and ranchers. Unlike many businesses, farmers and ranchers cannot pass on the extra costs to their customers and must absorb rising costs themselves.

H.R. 4761 addresses the supply piece of the puzzle to help bring natural gas and oil prices down. We can no longer continue to ban access to large sources of supply, while we continue to encourage innovation and advancement in all areas of industry, education, and technology.

This bill allows the Federal government to begin the process of developing these important resources throughout the outer continental shelf.

The bill's provisions are essential to ensuring a more cost efficient source of natural gas and oil. The benefits of efficient and cost- effective energy are not limited to one single industry, but extend to businesses, farmers, consumers, and communities. We find ourselves for the first time in a quarter century acknowledging that we as a Congress can no longer continue to promote natural gas and oil consumption and, at the same time, prohibit more production. I urge my colleagues to vote. ``yes'' on H.R. 4761.

Mr. Speaker, just over 3 years ago the world watched as a treacherous tyrant disregarded United Nations resolutions and burrowed into the bunkers of Baghdad. Within a short period of time, coalition forces dismantled Saddam Hussein's regime, which was built on fear, murders, assassinations, torture and lies. And today this despotic dictator stands on trial before the Iraqi people in a courtroom that is a stone's throw from his prison cell.

While insurgents and terrorists continue their attempts to dismantle the progress that the Iraqi people have made, our resolution to see a free Iraq

must remain as strong as ever. Iraqis have also demonstrated their commitment to rebuilding their nation from the ashes of tyranny by their overwhelming participation in three democratic elections.

On the eve of completion of Iraq's democratically elected government, coalition forces and Iraqi police tracked down and killed the man Osama bin Laden referred to as the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi led one of the bloodiest insurgent groups in Iraq in a bloody campaign of shootings, bombings beheadings and kidnappings aimed at derailing democracy in Iraq.

America is the world's leader in laying the foundations for freedom and future peace. We have stood for the spread of democracy around the world. We believe in it and have stood for it, not only for ourselves, for Europeans, Latin Americans, Asians and Africans. We have stood for it in the Middle East for the Israelis and now for Arabs in the wider Muslim world, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

With our leadership ideals that have inspired our history, freedom, democracy and human dignity are increasingly inspiring individuals in nations throughout the world, because free nations tend toward peace. The advance of liberty will make America more secure.

Americans have felt the sting of the terrorist threat on our own soil, and we must make clear that we are dedicated to preventing any future attacks by tracking and eliminating terrorist threats. America is more secure today, thanks to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces whose dedication, patriotism and bravery are helping advance freedom and democracy in Iraq and around the world.

President Bush said it best while speaking to our troops during his recent visit to Iraq: this is a moment, this is a time where the world can turn one way or the other, where the world can be a better place or a more dangerous place. The United States of America and citizens such as yourselves are dedicated to making sure that the world we leave behind is a better place for all. Support freedom, support peace, support our troops, support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 565(a)(3) because it violates rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislative language in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support of this legislation, which will increase competition in the video services market by reducing the regulatory barriers that effectively bar new entrants into this important market. Competition will give consumers more choices and will help ensure the delivery of new and innovative services at lower prices.

However, I have concerns about the way this bill addresses the net neutrality issue. Specifically, this legislation was drafted such that it grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Communications Commission to adjudicate complaints arising from anticompetitive practices of broadband providers. This grant of exclusive jurisdiction unfortunately puts into question whether the antitrust laws would apply when anticompetitive conduct arises in this area.

I believe in free market principles and the fact that government involvement often stifles innovation in the marketplace. However, I also believe that our Nation's antitrust laws have served as important guidelines to ensure that markets remain competitive and that these antitrust laws must remain applicable in the broadband services market.

I understand that Congressman Lamar Smith will offer an amendment today to expressly state that the antitrust laws do indeed apply despite the use of the word ``exclusive'' in the underlying bill. I support that clarification to ensure that our nation's antitrust laws continue to have full effect and continue to guard against anticompetitive conduct in the marketplace. However, I do not believe that this amendment goes far enough to discourage anticompetitive conduct in the Internet arena.

On the other hand, I do not believe that the amendment that will be offered by Congressman Markey is the right approach either. Specifically, that amendment would create more government red tape and hurdles for broadband providers by applying an FCC-focused overly regulatory approach to protecting the Internet. The way to ensure competition in the provision of broadband is not to bury broadband providers with more regulations.

I believe that competition in this area can be encouraged by setting forth clear and articulate guidelines that do not stifle innovation or the ability for broadband providers to recoup the investments they make in their infrastructures. Relatively minor amendments to our Nation's antitrust laws could be the right approach in this area. Unfortunately, neither this legislation, nor any of the amendments being offered today, contains such a narrowly-tailored and effective approach.

Despite my strong concerns about how the underlying bill handles the net neutrality issue, I will support this legislation because of the video services provisions that will increase competition and lower prices in that market. However, I look forward to working with all affected parties to ensure that robust competition remains the standard in the broadband services market.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Chairman Bonilla in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the most important thing that should come out of this debate is that the American beef supply is very, very safe, the safest in the world. And that is based not only on the statistics maintained by the Department on food-borne illness, the lowest in the world, but also based on the fact that there is no evidence of any American ever contracting any disease from BSE based upon consuming American beef, ever.

The enhanced surveillance program for BSE was designed as a one-time intensive assessment to test as many animals as possible from the portion of the cattle population considered to be most at risk for BSE.

A surveillance program is not designed to test every single animal at risk for a disease, and surveillance is not a food safety measure. Surveillance testing looks for signs of the disease in the cattle herd. But it is USDA's other safeguards, such as the removal of specified risk materials from cattle at slaughter, that protect consumers and the food supply.

USDA has tested over 714,000 samples. And they have tested the greatest at-risk cattle for having BSE. It has cost us more than $1 million a week to do it. The USDA's analysis of that surveillance data shows that we are dealing with an incredibly low prevalence of the disease in the United States, no more than four to seven cases in the entire U.S. herd of 100 million cows.

What is more, because of the other practices, even if a cow has BSE, like four to seven may have, they are not getting into our food supply. The two cows that have been found so far in this country with BSE, neither one got into our food supply. The USDA is currently putting its analysis through a rigorous peer review process to ensure that the conclusions drawn are sound and that they are scientifically credible.

We should allow that process to go forward. The enhanced surveillance program gives the USDA the ability to stand on solid scientific ground in saying that the prevalence of BSE in the United States is extraordinarily low.

Mr. Chairman, given that fact, there is little justification for continuing surveillance at the enhanced level once the USDA analysis is affirmed by peer review. The USDA has said that the framework for ongoing BSE testing will be based in science and will be in line with international guidelines for a country like the United States that is at minimal risk for the disease.

Mr. Chairman, we now have the data to draw scientific specific conclusions, leaving no need to continue the enhanced program and no justifications for the related costs. Surveillance testing is distinct from food-safety testing, which we also conduct.

It is appropriate that the USDA will transition to ongoing testing for BSE from a standpoint of sound science and policy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.

I rise to make a point of order against section 749, which begins on page 80, line 19, and ends on page 81, line 7, because it violates rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislative language in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 752.

I raise a point of order against page 82, line 6, ending on page 82, line 17, because it violates rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislative language in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

While I appreciate the intent of the amendment and the questions that have led to it, the appropriations measure as reported contains language on animal identification that should be sufficient to address its concerns. Since becoming chairman of the Agricultural Committee, we have conducted five hearings on the national identification, national animal identification system.

It is clear that animal ID has the potential to significantly improve our animal health monitoring system and enhance our ability to respond to an animal health emergency. Unfortunately, many of the livestock producers I talk with about the USDA's animal ID system, still have questions about cost, liability, regulatory burden, confidentiality and barriers to commerce that have yet to be addressed.

It is reasonable to expect that an individual producer could look at a USDA document and determine what he would be required to do under either the voluntary program or the mandatory program that will follow on later.

Today, it is simply not possible. The Appropriations Committee has included language in their bill that holds funding until the Secretary of Agriculture publishes an advance notice of proposed rulemaking outlining how USDA's animal ID system will work. This informal process will provide the details necessary to have a full and thoughtful debate about animal ID and allow us to find our way forward with this important public policy initiative.

For those who worry an ANPR might slow down an animal ID implementation, I offer this observation, if USDA is not prepared to quickly answer these fundamental questions about its plans, then USDA is in no position to be moving forward in any case.

Mr. Paul's amendment has the best of intentions. However, the underlying bill has provided the mechanism to work through the issues he seeks to address. For this reason, I believe his amendment should be defeated.

Mr Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Chabot to limit funding to the Market Access Program. This very important program helps boost U.S. agricultural exports.

U.S. agricultural exports are expected to be $64.5 billion in 2006, resulting in a trade surplus of more than $1 billion. Just a year ago, this trade surplus was significantly higher, but with increased subsidized foreign competition, all U.S. economic sectors have seen a steady increase in trade deficits.

Agriculture is still one of the few sectors of the American economy to enjoy a trade surplus, and it is programs such as MAP that enable this. Exports also provide needed jobs throughout the U.S. economy and generate economic activity in the nonfarm economy.

Nearly every State exports agricultural commodities. Agricultural exports in 2001 generated an estimated 912,000 full-time civilian jobs, including 461,000 jobs in the nonfarm sector. MAP helps the U.S. meet heavily subsidized foreign competition.

Mr. Chairman, the European Union spent more than $3.25 billion in 2003 on agricultural export subsidies, compared to about $30 million by the U.S. The EU and other foreign competitors are moving aggressively in providing other forms of assistance to maintain and expand their share of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers.

In recent years, they have devoted approximately $1.2 billion for market development and related activities. Without U.S. policies and programs to counter such subsidized competition, American farmers and ranchers will be at a substantial disadvantage.

MAP is specifically targeted to help small businesses, farmer cooperatives and trade associations to meet this subsidized foreign competition. It is not a subsidy to big business as some would want you to believe; in fact, it represents a successful public-private partnership.

MAP is administered on a cost-share basis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture with farmers, ranchers and other participants required to contribute up to 50 percent toward the program. In fact, since 1992, for every dollar contributed by Federal funding, MAP participants have increased their contributions from 30 percent to 166 percent.

According to the USDA, every Federal dollar invested has resulted in $16 in additional U.S. agricultural exports.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided amendment. MAP helps U.S. agricultural exports meet foreign competition, improves U.S. trade, strengthens farm income and protects American jobs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blumenauer amendment which calls for reductions of the loan rates established in the 2002 farm bill for both refined beet sugar and raw cane sugar.

Mr. Chairman, farmers have crafted their business plans based on the assurances of the 2002 farm bill. Farmers have invested time and money in that crop often with capital borrowed from the bank. It is unfair now to reduce the returns that farmers counted on when planning, financing, and planting that crop.

This debate concerning the sugar program is an important one. However, it is a debate that my committee will conduct at the appropriate time during the authorization of the new farm bill. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have already held farm bill field hearings this year and will be holding additional farm bill hearings this summer and fall.

During this process, and not when we are on the floor debating an appropriations bill, is the correct time for discussing and making possible changes to U.S. sugar policy.

Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, it is my responsibility to look at all of agriculture and consider what is best for the United States and our farmers and ranchers. The policy that was put in place by the 2002 farm bill must remain intact. I stand by this commitment to farmers and ranchers and urge a ``no'' vote on the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close? I just have one speaker remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and close.

This has been a very interesting debate. It is just the wrong place for this debate. This is important agricultural policy that should not be determined based upon a 20-minute debate in the middle of an appropriation bill that funds agricultural programs. This is a debate that needs to wait until the 2007 farm bill.

I hear the arguments. I am very much interested in good policy for agriculture, including addressing some of the concerns that have been raised about the sugar policy. This isn't the place to do it.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I look forward to addressing this in the writing of a new farm bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again we are confronted with the question of how to manage one of our great national treasures, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. It is my hope that we will choose more wisely this time.

The choice here is really quite simple. We can choose to follow the law and respect the results of the forest planning process, or we can trump the law and substitute our own political needs for those of an economically depressed region of the country.

The gentleman's amendment is the final piece of a long-standing strategy to do one thing and one thing only, to kill what remains of the forest products industry in Alaska. This is not a decision about protecting pristine forests. My friends, we have already done that. More than 96 percent of the Tongass National Forest has not and will not be managed for timber under the existing forest plan. This amendment simply says ``get lost'' to the last few sawmills in the region and the hundreds of jobs they provide.

The Tongass National Forest has a newly revised forest management plan, a carefully considered plan that took more than 13 years to complete. The plan provided for careful roadless area management following established planning processes, including extensive public participation. The gentleman's amendment ignores all of this for no other reason than to shut down the Alaska timber industry.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so always reluctantly when it involves my good friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam), with whom I have the greatest respect.

But in 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering more than 85 percent of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world. Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world.

Prices for natural gas continue to increase while the government continues to promote new natural gas consumption. To balance the market, we need to invest in efficient and alternative energy. But we also need to increase access to new sources of supply to keep pace with new sources of demand.

The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and forest sector. Paper mills, a major employer in my district, are very energy intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of operating a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The impacts have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills across the country have closed, and 182,000 jobs lost since 2000, when energy prices started a steep rise.

For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-1992 level, very near all time high records. The Interior appropriations bill begins to address the supply piece of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down.

We can no longer continue to ban access to large sources of supply, even as we continue to encourage new demand. The bill exempts natural gas from the congressional ban on energy development in the OCS. The ban on oil development remains in place. It allows the Federal Government to begin the process of developing these important resources.

The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, prohibit more production.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

My friends, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

In 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering more than 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world.

Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world. Prices for natural gas continue to increase, while the government continues to promote new natural gas consumption.

To balance the market, we need to invest in efficiency and alternative energy, but we also need to increase access to new sources of supply to keep pace with new sources of demand, like ethanol and hydrogen.

The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and forest sector.

Paper mills, a major employer in my District, are very energy intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of operating a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The impacts have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills have closed and 182,000 jobs lost since 2000 when energy prices started a steep rise.

For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-92 level, very near all- time records.

The Interior Appropriations bill begins to address the supply piece of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down. We can no longer continue to ban access to large sources of supply, even as we continue to encourage new demand.

The bill exempts natural gas from the Congressional ban on energy development in the OCS. The ban on oil development remains in place. It allows the Federal government to begin the process of developing these important resources.

The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, prohibit more production. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, or FERRA. This bill has 147 bipartisan cosponsors, including almost every Representative whose district includes substantial amounts of public forest land.

FERRA is designed to help our professional foresters respond to disasters such as fires, hurricanes, and ice storms more quickly, while providing a dedicated source of funding to conduct research on forest recovery.

In 2003, this House came together on a bipartisan basis and passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. That bill was designed to help our public land managers move quickly to help restore forest health across our national forests. But with millions of acres of our public forests at risk of catastrophic wildfires and still others subject to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, it is obvious that some forests will sustain catastrophic damage. The question then becomes what to do about it.

Our public land managers have been faced with this question over and over again in recent years. It has become apparent that the framework of existing laws and regulations discourages them from acting quickly to restore forests and capture the value of damaged timber.

The Forest Service has encountered difficulties in my home State when insect outbreaks or ice storms have damaged our national forests. Between 1992 and 1994, the gypsy moth, a nonnative, invasive pest, defoliated over half a million acres of Virginia's national forest, killing trees on tens of thousands of acres. Unfortunately, the Forest Service conducted salvage sales on a mere 2,700 acres, a very small percent of the total.

Furthermore, the response to the ice and windstorms that hit our forests proceeds at a snail's pace, and it can take the NEPA from 6 months to several years to move forward with a salvage and recovery project. Even as the agency has attempted to use administrative rules to move more quickly, radical environmental groups who oppose all timber harvest on our public lands have sued to force even small projects through cumbersome appeals processes.

H.R. 4200 would help provide some assurance that restoration projects would at least be considered in a timely fashion.

I have worked closely with the bill's bipartisan lead sponsors, my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) on this bill. The final version before you today reflects months of work and countless revisions to ensure that the bill protects the environment while ensuring that forest recovery can take place while damaged trees still have value.

That is why there is broad support for H.R. 4200 within the private sector where it has been endorsed by more than 50 organizations, including professional resource managers and sportsmen's groups.

My belief is that H.R. 4200 provides a balanced approach to forest recovery while sending Federal land managers a clear signal that forest recovery should be a priority. Delays result in wasted timber resources, degraded environmental conditions, and increased costs for taxpayers. Projects which could have paid for themselves, provided valuable timber to local industry, and help put our forests on the road to recovery wind up delayed to the point where the timber is valueless. Adjacent private landowners meanwhile absorb the risk as national forests become the source of future insect epidemics and wildfires.

H.R. 4200 also focuses on improving the science behind forest recovery, and it does not waive a single environmental law. It requires consideration and, if appropriate, implementation of expedited environmental review to ensure that projects are documented and implemented in a timely fashion.

As Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth told the Committee on Agriculture, ``H.R. 4200 would provide direction for rapid response to catastrophic events and allow managers and partners to spend less time planning and more time doing.''

Recovering forests quickly after a disaster is common sense. Our bill ensures that the Forest Service will take these commonsense measures and back them up with sound science.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the accompanying legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. This bill is a very moderate approach to a very serious problem. As usual, I have worked in close cooperation with my friends and colleagues on the House Resources Committee to develop a commonsense approach to forest recovery that has garnered wide bipartisan support from our colleagues and strong endorsements from professional foresters, firefighters and local officials.

The Society of American Foresters, representing some 15,000 forestry professionals in both public and private service, has supported and, in fact, provided constructive input as both committees have worked through numerous revisions of this important bill.

FERRA has been endorsed by the Federal Wildland Fire Service Association, which represents some 12,000 firefighters who annually risk life and limb fighting forest fires and responding to other disasters. The association called FERRA ``a commonsense approach'' to addressing forest recovery.

Additionally, this bill has been endorsed by the National Association of State Foresters, State officials who manage millions of acres of State forests and help the Nation's over 10 million family forest owners keep their woodlands healthy.

Among the bill's many other supporters are the National Association of Counties, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Wildlife Management Institute, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Many of you have heard that FERRA is not relevant to your States. I am here to tell you that is not the case. First, the bill directs the Forest Service and Department of the Interior to work with the adjacent landowners and managers when catastrophe strikes to develop landscape- scale assessments of the damage. Since the Forest Service is only in charge of about one-quarter of our Nation's forests, this leaves the large majority of forestlands in the hands of private land owners. This provision is critically important to any Member who represents a forestland owner back home.

Second, many of you have been told not to worry about forest catastrophes, that they only happen somewhere else. Unfortunately, catastrophic events know no boundaries.

In my home State of Virginia, just last week the Forest Service wrapped up fire-fighting efforts on the Cardinal fire in Page County, Virginia, just outside my district. This fire, seen in these photographs, damaged over 1,900 acres of public lands.

So what would happen in Page County if H.R. 4200 was already in place? The Forest Service would simply have 30 days to complete a rapid evaluation of the burned area and then it would have to decide whether or not to propose a catastrophic event recovery project. That is it. No environmental laws are waived, no wilderness areas are entered, no logging is required. Nothing in the bill forces the Forest Service to cut a single tree.

If the professional land managers and the Forest Service do decide that H.R. 4200's emergency procedures are appropriate, the agency would have 90 days to analyze a proposed project and the no-action alternative. Appeals and litigation would be governed by the same sort of rules overwhelmingly approved by this body under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. All projects would comply with existing forest plans.

FERRA also directs the Forest Service to develop preapproved practices that will undergo rigorous scientific peer review. It emphasizes the need for research, and provides that 10 percent of the revenues from any timber removed for a recovery project be dedicated to research on forest recovery. This bill addresses the need for further research and is equipped with its own funding mechanism to drive this research.

The bill will also pay for itself. CBO found that H.R. 4200 will save the taxpayers $21 million over the next 5 years.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that has earned the strong support of our professional forest management people. Please join me in giving them one more tool to use in their efforts to promote forest health and the sustainability of our precious forests.

Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, the gentleman makes an excellent point. And the point you made earlier about choosing between dead, dying, burned trees versus live, living trees not being cut down are also helping the environment by absorbing that CO2. So this is a very proenvironmental piece of legislation

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4709, the Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act. I was pleased to join with Representatives Smith, Conyers and Scott to introduce this important legislation to protect phone records from thieves and opportunists.

The sale of confidential phone records is a serious problem. for approximately $100, anyone can buy an individual's private cell phone call history. These histories catalogue every outgoing and incoming call a customer makes or receives. This information should not be available for unauthorized sale on the Internet.

The primary method thieves use to obtain this information is known as ``pretexting''. This involves an individual with some key information-- a cell phone number or possibly a Social Security Number--pretending to be the subscriber to get information about an account. The Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act puts a stop to this by imposing criminal penalties for ``pretexting,'' As well as other methods of seeking to obtain such records through the use of fraud.

Furthermore, this legislation will provide additional punishment for those who illegally sell or obtain phone records knowing they will be used in a criminal act. This is extremely important for the protection of law enforcement officers and potential victims of domestic violence, whose call histories may be particularly desireable to those who wish to do them harm.

We all use telephones and cell phones with the assumption that information about who we receive calls from and make calls to will not fall into the wrong hands. I urge the members of the house to support this legislation to ensure that phone records are protected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

Article I section 8 of our Constitution lays the framework for our Nation's copyright laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators, for limited amounts of time, exclusive rights to their inventions and works. The Founding Fathers realized that this type of incentive was crucial to ensure that America would become the world's leader in innovation and creativity. This truth is still applicable today. We must be sure to continue to reward our innovators with the exclusive rights to their works for limited periods of time. This incentive is still necessary to maintain America's position as the world leader in innovation.

Most industrialized nations provide legal protection for fashion designs. However, in the United States--the world's leader in innovation and creativity--fashion designs are not protected by traditional intellectual property protections. Copyrights are not granted to apparel because articles of clothing, which are both creative and functional, are considered ``useful articles,'' as opposed to works of art. Design patents are intended to protect ornamental designs, but clothing rarely meets the criteria of patentability. Trademarks only protect brand names and logos, not the clothing itself, and the Supreme Court has refused to extend trade dress protection to apparel designs.

Thus, if a thief steals a creator's design, reproduces and sells that article of clothing, and attaches a fake label to the garment to market it, he would be violating Federal law. However under current law it is perfectly legal for that same thief to steal that same design, reproduce and sell the article of clothing if he does not attach a fake label to it. This loophole allows pirates to cash in on others' efforts and prevents designers in our country from reaping a fair return on their creative investments.

Furthermore, the production life cycle for fashion designs is very short. Once a particular design gains popularity through a fashion show or other event, a designer usually has only a limited number of months to effectively produce and market that original design. Further complicating this short-term cycle is the fact that once a design is made public, pirates can now virtually immediately offer an identical knock-off piece on the Internet for distribution. Again, under current law this theft is legal unless the thief also reproduces a label or trademark. Because these knock-offs are of such poor quality, these reproductions not only take away designer's profits, but also damage the designer's reputation.

Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act offers protection for the designs of vessel hulls. The Design Piracy Prohibition Act protects designers

by amending Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act to also include protections for fashion designs. Because the production life cycle for fashion designs is very short, this legislation similarly provides a tailored period of protection that suits the industry--3 years. This legislation further establishes damages for infringing a fashion design at the greater of $250,000 or $5 per copy.

As America's fashion design industry continues to grow, America's designers deserve and need the type of legal protections that are already available in other countries. The Design Piracy Prohibition Act establishes these protections, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I too want to congratulate you for the hard work that you have put into this legislation and thank you for that.

I know that you agree that peer to peer piracy is a serious challenge on college and university campuses. This activity is not only theft but also exposes college and university information technology infrastructures to security risks from spyware. There is bipartisan agreement that these institutions should have effective policies and punishments in place to deter this illegal activity, and I am asking if you would commit to working with me to combat peer to peer piracy on college and university campuses.