Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2120) to ensure regulatory equity between and among all dairy farmers and handlers for sales of packaged fluid milk in federally regulated milk marketing areas and into certain non-federally regulated milk marketing areas from federally regulated areas, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, who I understand is on his way, and in his absence the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), to have control of time for 10 minutes, and that they be permitted to yield blocks of that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2120. My original interest in this legislation was to address a loophole created in the interface of the Federal Milk Market Order System with individual State milk marketing arrangements.

Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1993, the Secretary of Agriculture protects dairy producers from predatory pricing by setting a minimum price that must be paid by processors who distribute fluid milk within a Federal Milk Market Order Area.

While a majority of the country is covered by one of 10 Federal orders, some States, California in particular, have enacted legislation which authorizes State agencies to regulate minimum milk price for intrastate sales.

Herein lies the dilemma. Milk processed and distributed in the neighboring State of Arizona, which operates under a Federal order, is subject to the Federal minimum pricing regulations. However, milk processed in Arizona and then sold in California is exempt from the Federal existing regulations.

And since the commercial product originates from outside the State, it is exempt from California State regulations. Because of this loophole, milk produced in Arizona and sold in California is not subject to any minimum pricing regulations. This creates an unfair advantage for out-of-state fluid milk processors.

This situation was first brought to my attention by the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) and I agreed to help resolve this issue.

The solution simply directs the Secretary to apply the minimum pricing regulations of the Federal order system to any covered milk handler if they sell a significant portion of their fluid milk production in States that have established minimum milk pricing regulations.

Mr. Speaker, as all of our colleagues can attest, Federal dairy policy is among the most complicated and politicized of all of our programs. Indeed, the main reason that it has taken as long as it has to bring this bill to the full House for consideration is because often the simplest dairy bills tend to act as magnets and attract all kinds of unrelated pieces that are in many ways controversial.

This legislation is no exception. While the original intent was to remedy a situation that has caused great concern to the California dairy industry, two additional provisions have been added to this legislation to address concerns elsewhere.

Admittedly, I was reluctant to include these provisions; but after meeting with members of the dairy industry and hearing their near universal support, I decided to move forward with the legislation as drafted.

The two provisions that were added simply exempt Clark County, Nevada from the existing Arizona-Las Vegas

Milk Market Order and create a 3 million pound-per-month cap on the exemption for producers who process and distribute their own milk within the Arizona-Las Vegas Order.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some Members may have concerns about one or more of these provisions. As I indicated, I too had some reservations. But as I stated, there is near unanimous support within the dairy community, both the producers and the processors, for these changes. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Just to respond to the gentleman, I certainly respect the gentleman's concerns. I too learned about the measure last Thursday or Friday, but this is very common with the scheduling of suspensions.

As the gentleman is well aware, we have been discussing this issue, and it has been on the cusp of coming to the floor for a long, long time. We need to attempt to resolve these differences, and I think the consensus, on the part of many, is that we need to proceed with this debate today. I think that is the best way to get to the heart of what is going on here.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin regarding the concern that this legislation is targeting one or two individual producer handlers to the benefit of the rest of the dairy industry.

We are here today to discuss how to keep the current Federal milk market order, something very important to the people of Wisconsin and other States, operating in a fair and equitable manner. I do not fault companies for their success. In fact, I applaud them for it.

When one or two companies' success, however, is based on a gap in the regulatory system, I believe we have an obligation to respond. In this particular case, millions of pounds of unregulated milk flows in your State commerce in direct competition with regulated milk. This certainly has the potential to impact markets.

I support this legislation because I believe that this milk should be treated the same way by the Federal Government that we treat milk that is in direct competition with it.

This is not about punishing individuals. It is about ensuring a level playing field for competition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the chairman of the Dairy Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just one speaker remaining, and I believe we have the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Authorization Act.

As a statesman, scholar, and President, Woodrow Wilson faced economic crisis, democratic decay, and a world war. Presidential historians agree that World War I, and President Wilson's leadership, radically altered the role of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy--a policy that established a new path for America's role in promoting democracies throughout the world. So too did Wilson's high-minded ideals craft a legacy that shaped the powers and responsibilities of the Executive Branch in times of war.

As a professor and president of Princeton University, Wilson created a more selective and accountable system for higher education. By instituting curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the world. Due to Wilson's legacy at Princeton, I am pleased to have the support of current President Shirley Tilghman as we seek to establish a Presidential library and museum at Wilson's birthplace in Virginia.

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany, for ``The world must be safe for democracy.'' Eighty-eight years later, we continue to champion that right of mankind.

In order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life, principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the United States, I ask that you join me in co-sponsoring legislation that will enable the construction of a Presidential Library and Museum dedicated to Woodrow Wilson at his birthplace in Staunton, Virginia.

Specifically, this legislation will make grants from the National Archives for the establishment of a Presidential Library to provide educational and interpretive services to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson. To ensure that a public-private partnership exists, my legislation also mandates that no grant shall be available for the establishment of this library until a private entity has raised at least twice the amount to be allocated by the Congress. Finally, once the library is complete, this legislation states that the Federal government shall have no role or responsibility for the operation of the library.

In studying the life and times of the 28th President, we see how Woodrow Wilson affected and continues to influence how the United States responds to national and international crises. I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that would establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Innovation and Competitiveness Act.

The Framers of our system of government realized that innovation was essential to the success of the United States. They embodied this strong belief in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution, which lays the framework for our nation's copyright and patent laws. The Framers realized that American innovation was so important that it merited specific reference and protection in our founding document.

Today, America is the world leader in innovation. However, to ensure that America remains the world leader, we must again take a hard look at our policies to make sure that they still encourage inventors to create and businesses to grow and expand.

Every business and individual must weigh the advantages and the hurdles when making the decisions about whether to bring an idea to the market, expand services to other geographical areas and the like. In addition to market factors, unfortunately, today there are additional hurdles to innovation and growth--excessive litigation, as well as taxation, red tape and regulation imposed by governments.

The Innovation and Competitiveness Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation to get Congress engaged in the business of promoting innovation in America by creating additional incentives for private individuals and businesses to create and rollout new products and services so that America will remain the world leader in innovation. Government sometimes is the problem--not the answer to the problem--so the Innovation and Competitiveness Act also addresses government- imposed hurdles to innovation by clearing the way for inventors and businesses to do what they do best--create and compete.

Specifically, this legislation will promote research and development by permanently extending the R&D tax credit. Companies know best how to spend their money on research and development, not government bureaucracies.

In addition, excessive red tape and confusing rules regarding tax liability are currently stifling businesses from moving across State lines. Increasingly, States are taxing businesses outside their borders for the right to do business within the State even when those out-of- State businesses have minimal contacts with the taxing jurisdictions. Given this environment, some businesses have made the decision that it is not worth expanding to other jurisdictions because of the ambiguity about when they must pay these taxes and the fear of aggressive taxation and the resulting litigation and compliance costs. The Innovation and Competitiveness Act contains provisions to set clear, bright line rules for when out-of-State businesses would be obliged to pay taxes to a jurisdiction. This bill creates a physical presence test such that States could only collect business activity taxes from businesses with employees or property in the taxing State. This will create the clarity necessary for businesses to grow beyond State lines, and offer new and exciting products and services to consumers.

In addition, excessive litigation hampers investment and innovation. With that in mind, this legislation cracks down on frivolous lawsuits by strengthening sanctions against attorneys who file truly frivolous actions.

Furthermore, rising health care costs are one of the most difficult challenges facing individuals, businesses and manufacturing today. The Innovation and Competitiveness Act contains provisions that will allow individuals to purchase health insurance that best suits their needs and budgets, while also promoting competition in health care. In addition, our bill encourages the use of health information technology, which will improve health quality and

reduce errors by leveraging cutting edge technology to make medical records available almost instantaneously to doctors when they are needed so that they can best treat patients. Technology can help reduce paperwork and administrative burdens and thus help doctors provide the best and fastest care possible to their patients.

Finally, as we have heard, by 2010, more than 90 percent of all scientists and engineers could be living in Asia. This is a major challenge to our competitive leadership, but America must keep pace. To address this issue, the Innovation and Competitiveness Act includes provisions that will provide incentives for teachers to specialize in math, science, and other technical fields--and to remain in the classroom to educate our youth in these fields. In addition, this legislation provides incentives for students to receive degrees in technical fields with financial aid and scholarships.

The Innovation and Competitiveness Act will get Congress into the business of protecting America's place as the world leader in innovation and competitiveness, and I urge the Members of the House to support the initiatives in this important legislation.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue, and I rise in support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. This bill takes a measured approach to national uniformity for food by providing a mechanism for a thorough, orderly review of States' existing regulations that may differ from those of the Federal Government.

In the United States, the food production and distribution system is truly national. Products made in one State are distributed not only in all 50 States, but also the District of Columbia, the U.S. territories, and many countries around the globe. Consumers, as well as food manufacturers, have a right to expect that rational, scientifically based and consistent standards will apply. Citizens of all States and territories deserve and expect the same level of food safety protection. Likewise, all citizens in this country will benefit from uniform standards.

The House Committee on Agriculture oversees a significant portion of America's food safety system. The Federal food safety functions over which this committee has jurisdiction have long employed uniform standards to protect public health, facilitate the marketing of agricultural commodities, and improve efficiency of the interstate trading of producers' goods. The adoption of uniform standards is common practice and, indeed, the general rule when it comes to the Federal food safety efforts.

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for the safety of domestic and imported meat in the United States. It enforces uniform standards through the authority granted by USDA, by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Ag Products Inspection Act, and other authorities.

Likewise, previous amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which were included in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, provided that a State may not set tolerance levels for pesticide residues that differ from national levels unless the State petitions the Environmental Protection Agency for an exception based on a State- specific situation.

Moreover, uniformity is not limited to those areas of food safety. Congress has repeatedly recognized the importance of uniformity in food regulation in other sectors. For example, the FDA, as authorized by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, implements uniform standards for nutrition labeling, health claims, and standards of identity.

With the world's safest food supply, every American benefits from this system of national food safety standards. H.R. 4167 builds on this record of success by extending this same approach to food safety standards used by USDA and other agencies to the FDA's food safety programs. This is an important step forward in ensuring consumer confidence in the food they buy for their families, and I urge all Members to support H.R. 4167.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today bipartisan legislation, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, along with my colleague Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia, to address the ever increasing problem of illegal Internet gambling in our Nation.

The Internet is a revolutionary tool that dramatically affects the way we communicate, conduct business, and access information. As it knows no boundaries, the Internet is accessed by folks in rural and urban areas alike, in large countries as well as small. The Internet is currently expanding by leaps and bounds; however, it has not yet come close to reaching its true potential as a medium for commerce and communication.

One of the main reasons that the Internet has not reached this potential is that many folks view it as a wild frontier, with no safeguards to protect children and very few legal protections to prevent online criminal activity. The ability of the World Wide Web to penetrate every home and community across the globe has both positive and negative implications--while it can be an invaluable source of information and means of communication, it can also override community values and standards, subjecting them to whatever may or may not be found online.

Gambling is an excellent example of this situation. It is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated by the States. With the development of the Internet, however, prohibitions and regulations governing gambling have been turned on their head. No longer do people have to leave the comfort of their homes and make the affirmative decision to travel to a casino; they can access the casino from their living rooms.

Since 1868, the Federal Government has enacted Federal gambling statutes when a

particular type of gambling activity has escaped the ability of States to regulate it. For over 100 years, Congress has acted to assist States in enforcing their respective policies on gambling when developments in technology of an interstate nature, such as the Internet, have compromised the effectiveness of State gambling laws.

The negative consequences of online gambling can be as detrimental to the families and communities of addictive gamblers as if a bricks and mortar casino was built right next door. Online gambling can result in addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, crime, and moral decline just as with traditional forms of gambling, the costs of which must ultimately be borne by society.

Gambling on the Internet is especially enticing to youth, pathological gamblers, and criminals. There are currently no mechanisms in place to prevent youths--who make up the largest percentage of Internet users--from using their parents' credit card numbers to register and set up accounts for use at Internet gambling sites. In addition, pathological gamblers may become easily addicted to online gambling because of the Internet's easy access, anonymity and instant results. Finally, Internet gambling can provide a nearly undetectable harbor for criminal enterprises. The anonymity associated with the Internet makes online gambling more susceptible to crime.

I have long been an advocate of the Internet and of limited government regulation of this new medium. However, that does not mean that the Internet should be a regulatory free zone or that our existing laws should not apply to the Internet. I think we can all agree that it would be very bad public policy to allow offline activity deemed criminal by States to be freely committed online and to go unpunished simply because we are reluctant to apply our laws to the Internet.

Gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business. Numerous studies have charted the explosive growth of this industry, both by the increases in gambling websites available, and via industry revenues. Some estimates show that it is now a $12 billion a year industry.

Most Internet gambling sites are offshore. Virtual betting parlors accepting bets from individuals in the United States have attempted to avoid the application of United States law by locating themselves offshore and out of our jurisdictional reach. These offshore, fly-by- night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated and are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States. In addition, the FBI and the Department of Justice has testified that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities and can be exploited by terrorists to launder money.

Current law already prohibits gambling over telephone wires. However, because the Internet does not always travel over telephone wires, these laws, which were written before the invention of the World Wide Web, have become outdated. My legislation simply clarifies the state of the law by bringing the current prohibition against wire line 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.

In addition, my legislation will add a new provision to the law that would prohibit a gambling business from accepting certain forms of non- cash payment, including credit cards and electronic transfers, for the transmission of illegal bets and wagers. This provision provides an enforcement mechanism to address the situation where the gambling business is located offshore but the gambling business used bank accounts in the United States. The bill also provides an additional tool to fight illegal gambling by giving Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement new injunctive authority to prevent and restrain violations of the law.

The legislation I am introducing will return control to the States by protecting the right of citizens in each State to decide through their State legislatures if they want to allow gambling within their borders and not have that right taken away by offshore, fly-by-night operators. The regulation of intrastate gambling is within the jurisdiction of the States, so the bill leaves the regulation of wholly intrastate betting or wagering to the States with tight controls to be sure that such betting or wagering does not extend beyond their borders or to minors.

Internet gambling is a serious problem that must be stopped. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act will help eliminate this harmful activity before it spreads further. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Tax Code Termination Act''.

This bi-partisan legislation, which I introduced with my colleague Collin Peterson of Minnesota, will accomplish two goals. It will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2009, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of the same year.

The fact is our current tax system has spiraled out of control. Today's tax code is unfair, discourages against savings and investment, and is impossibly complex.

A few years ago, Money magazine asked 50 professional tax preparers to file a return for a fictional family. No one came up with the same tax total, nor did any of the preparers calculate what Money magazine thought was the correct Federal income tax. The results varied by thousands of dollars. At a time when Americans devote a total of 7 billion hours each year to comply with the tax code, we need tax simplification.

Whichever simple tax system is adopted, the key ingredients should be: a low rate for all Americans; tax relief for working people; protection of the rights of taxpayers and reduction in tax collection abuses; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth and job creation. Taxes may be unavoidable but they don't have to be unfair and overcomplicated.

While many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, I am certain that if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today. The problem is Congress won't act on such a contentious issue unless it is forced to do so. The Tax Code Termination Act will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform.

Just like other programs that require reauthorization, the tax code must be reviewed to examine whether it is fulfilling its intended purpose and then Congress must make what changes are necessary.

There is a widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 11 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 1, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Several months ago, when the Committee on Agriculture was given instructions to find savings within the programs under our jurisdiction, we took the task seriously and reported to the Budget Committee a total package that exceeded our original instructions. We did so without the support of our colleagues from across the aisle and found ourselves in a similar situation when the Deficit Reduction Act was brought to the House Floor several weeks ago.

Our efforts to try to gain control of mandatory spending have been politicized and demonized by Members of the other party who claimed that this was the wrong time and the wrong way to rein in mandatory spending. If not now, then when? If we continue to stand by and play the passive observer role, in 10 years mandatory will grow to consume 62 percent of the federal budget. I will also note that throughout this process, we have yet to see a comprehensive proposal from the minority. This bill will not solve all of our problems and it isn't a magic solution, but it is a step in the right direction. It is unrealistic to think we can meet the pressing challenges facing our Nation without reducing federal spending and redirecting priorities.

Additional costs associated with recent disasters further necessitate the need for budget reform. The Agriculture Committee has worked with our counterparts in the Senate to come up with a compromise that contributes to the deficit reduction while maintaining the interests of American agriculture. Our producers rely on our domestic agriculture policy. The 2002 Farm Bill, provided our producers with a foundation they could base their decisions on through 2007, which is when we will re-examine the Farm Bill for reauthorization. It would be irresponsible to rip the rug out from our producers midway through the Farm Bill and I am pleased that this legislation keeps the policies of the 2002 Farm Bill intact.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to limit or reduce funding for any program, but it is imperative that instead of cowering away from the problem, we take a stand and vote yes to reducing the deficit and vote yes to responsible spending.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, each year, the United States Government chooses the names of 50,000 people who will be given the status of legal permanent resident, not based on family or employer sponsorship nor based on any rationale reason, but based only pure luck through a random lottery. My amendment would eliminate the controversial visa lottery program. The visa lottery program presents a serious national security threat.

A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of 2002. He was allowed to apply for legal permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner.

The State Department's Inspector General has even testified before Congress this year that the Office of Inspector General continues to believe that the Diversity Visa Program contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry into the United States as permanent residents.

Do not gamble with national security. Join me in eliminating the visa lottery program.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth). This bipartisan amendment is based upon legislation introduced by myself and the gentlewoman.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), another of the bipartisan supporters of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to close the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4473) to reauthorize and amend the Commodity Exchange Act to promote legal certainty, enhance competition, and reduce systemic risk in markets for futures and over-the-counter derivatives, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Agriculture brings to the House today H.R. 4473, a bill that, among other things, reauthorizes appropriations for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission through fiscal year 2010. The committee approved the bill last week by voice vote.

The committee began the reauthorization process early this year, holding 2 days of hearings in March when all witnesses supported CFTC reauthorization and testified favorably to the general success of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The CFMA brought legal certainty to the off-exchange derivatives industry and brought the exchange-traded regulatory program into an era when the futures pit is being replaced by electronic trading.

The bill the committee brings to the floor today contains remedies to the areas of concern outlined by then FTC chairman, Sharon Brown- Hruska, in her testimony before the Risk Management Subcommittee. With the assistance of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the committee has included the following provisions:

A change to the so-called Treasury amendment contained in section 2(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act to stop unscrupulous persons who write and market contracts in foreign currencies that are nothing more than schemes to defraud the general public; a final resolution to the outstanding issues on establishing risk-based portfolio margining systems for stock futures products and stock options; as well as moving forward on approval of trading on foreign debt indexes and foreign security indexes; of these two matters, the bill provides deadlines for action by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC; a clarification of the Commission's authority to bring anti-fraud actions in off-exchange principal-to-principal transactions under section 4(b) of the CEA; and a refinement of the CFTC's surveillance program to provide certainty to consumers that the CFTC is looking at significant and highly unusual price moves in natural gas and additional information to the CFTC's large trader reporting system.

A number of end user and consumer groups have endorsed title II of the bill, which was originally drafted by my committee colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow). These new provisions will codify the factors the CFTC will consider as they conduct surveillance of volatile markets in natural gas futures and option contracts. I believe this will go a long way to restore the public's trust and confidence that the price discovery mechanism for natural gas is subject only to the factors of supply and demand.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes the adjustments in the Commodity Exchange Act that will enable our markets to continue their efficient operations for price discovery and risk management. The legislation will provide additional tools for the CFTC and the self- regulatory organizations under its purview to police the markets and bring enforcement actions for fraudulent business practices aimed at the unsuspecting public. I urge my colleagues to adopt H.R. 4473.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for the cooperation from him and a number of others on his side of the aisle, and also the gentleman from North Carolina as well as my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, another individual who has played a critical part in bringing this legislation to the floor and thank him for his cooperation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the chairman of the Commodities Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the vice chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, the natural gas language contained in the committee bill makes two changes to the CFTC's current regulatory program to detect and deter manipulation or attempted manipulation.

First, upon a finding that there has been a significant and highly unusual change in the market price of natural gas, the CFTC is required to determine what had caused that price change.

Second, persons with futures or option positions in natural gas are required to keep records of those trades and other related transactions and to submit those records to the CFTC upon request.

In the committee's view, and in my view, this is a reasonable compromise that does not add significant new costs to transactions in natural gas, whether futures or options contracts or other transactions used in over-the-counter strategies of most of the major firms involved in the natural gas markets on a daily basis.

This new recordkeeping requirement is the only part of the legislation that imposes any new regulatory mechanism. The CFTC is not required to impose itself into any new market arena and will not as a result of this legislation. The bill requirements are unobtrusive, contain no burdensome new costs and will be used sparingly.

We have seen over the years, over the course of the last half year, an energy sector that is under great stress. And the price response to that stress has been of great concern to all of us. This bill does nothing to add to that stress, and it should be adopted today.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his good work on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from this side of the aisle about what this is about today. Let me tell Members what this is about. This is about reforming programs that are important to the American people, but they do not always work properly. They do not always reach the people that the programs are intended to reach; and these positive reforms which are a modest, a tiny percentage of the $2.5 trillion that this government will spend next year, more than $12.5 trillion over the next 5 years, to save $50 billion is not a very big percentage.

I would say to my colleagues, Where is your plan to reform programs? Where is your plan to achieve savings? What are you doing for the American people, the American taxpayers? And, yes, even the people who depend upon the programs that you claim to so strongly support. And yet you will do nothing to protect the programs by

putting in the reforms that are necessary.

I will tell you where their plan is, it is locked up. And I will tell you why it is locked up, because what that plan primarily consists of is raising taxes on the American people. The reason they want to raise taxes is because they are opposed to the effort to do what has done wonders for our economy in the last few years, and that is to extend the tax relief that we have provided to stimulate the economy, create jobs, bring the unemployment rate below 5 percent; and they have done nothing except wait in the wings to raise taxes on the people of this country. That is what this is all about.

That is the party of spending. They will not come forward with any savings. That is the party of taxes, the tax and spend Democrats, the same way they have always been. That is why we are here today with a responsible plan in response to this abuse that they would sit here and attack modest reforms of important programs and suggest that, as a result of that, they can sit back with nothing and wait for the opportunity to raise taxes yet again on the American people.

The last time they were in power, the last thing they did was to impose the largest tax increase in history on the American people, and we should not ever allow them that opportunity again. That is what they are trying to achieve here by bringing down this plan, and they should not be allowed to succeed.

Let me talk briefly in the time remaining about the reforms we have made in important programs under the jurisdiction of my committee.

First of all, we have approached this across the board. We have achieved fair savings in farm programs which keep the programs intact. We have achieved savings in conservation programs that make those programs work better. We have achieved savings in research for agriculture. We have achieved savings in other areas that are important. And, yes, we have also achieved savings from the food stamp program: one-half of 1 percent of the $180 billion that will be spent on food stamps in the next 5 years is what we are hoping to achieve. It is less than one-half of 1 percent. It will affect less than 1 percent of the 24 million Americans that receive food stamps. And it is targeted at whom? People who are not citizens of the United States who signed a document that said they would not become wards of the State and who by virtue of having been in this country for more than 5 years are eligible to apply for United States citizenship and avoiding the savings we are attempting to achieve by not giving food stamps to people who are not citizens of this country.

Secondly, we say that under the food stamp program if you are attempting to achieve food stamp benefits through a particular State's programs, you ought to qualify for real welfare programs like the TANF program. The bridge from welfare to work ought to be sustained, but it ought not be abused by those who would do so. Those are the savings we want. They are good reforms, and we ought to pass them.

We are here today in a good faith effort to continue putting the Nation's fiscal house in order. Some have questioned the need or the degree to which mandatory spending should be reduced. I would remind my colleagues that mandatory spending today takes up almost 55 percent of the total federal budget and, if left on its current path it will, within a decade, consume 60 percent of the federal budget. Clearly, it is unrealistic to think we can meet the pressing challenges facing our Nation without reducing Federal spending and redirecting priorities.

The House and Senate agreed to reduce mandatory spending by $34.7 billion earlier this year to start reining in mandatory spending. Paying for hurricanes and other disaster assistance--in addition to addressing the threat of international terrorism here and abroad--has necessitated targeted reductions in spending by all authorizing committees, including agriculture.

Eight House Committees were instructed to put together a reform savings plan to reduce the growth in mandatory spending over the next five years to reduce spending and address some of the Nation's most pressing financial needs. The committees were asked to do more and I am pleased to report that the committee on agriculture headed this call and reported out savings above the $3 billion we were originally asked to find.

From the beginning of this process it was the goal of the House Agriculture Committee that no single program should bear a disproportionate share of the spending reductions. The committee's final recommendations are balanced terms of the impact they will have on the many diverse interests that will be affected by this reform savings plan.

The Agriculture Committee's savings plan includes an overall reduction in mandatory spending of $3.48 billion over five years (FY06- 10). The savings package includes reductions in a variety of programs under the committee's jurisdiction including commodity, conservation, energy, rural development, research, and food stamp programs.

There are some who have suggested that food stamps take a disproportionate share of the spending reductions. This is simply not the case. While food stamps comprise nearly 60 percent of the agriculture committee's mandatory spending, they account for only 19 percent of the total savings under the package. The proposed reductions account for less than a half a penny for every dollar spent on the food stamp program.

Under the agriculture's reform savings plan, eligibility requirements are harmonized between Federal assistance programs so that food stamp benefits go to those truly in need.

By tightening the categorical eligibility for some temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) recipients as well as the eligibility requirements for non-citizens, this legislation ensures that the Nations most needy will continue to receive this Federal assistance.

When an individual enters the country to become a legal permanent non-citizen, an affidavit is signed indicating that they will not participate in programs such as food stamps; however, this is not the reality. Under current law, non-citizens are eligible for food stamps after five years of resident status. The house agriculture committees savings reform plan extends this time requirement to seven years.

This provision will not affect children non-citizens. Non-citizens who are 60 years old and above and are currently receiving food stamp benefits on the date of enactment will not be affected. Additionally, non-citizens who have submitted their citizenship application by date of enactment and currently receive food stamps would still be eligible to receive food stamps.

After five years, non-citizen residents can apply for U.S. citizenship. If approved, they can apply for food stamps immediately. If someone chooses to remain a non-citizen, that choice will result in a longer waiting period to qualify for food stamps.

It is essential that the House approves a reform savings plan. While all government safety net programs--including agriculture--need to be sustainable, the burden of addressing the nation's budget pressures needs to be broadly shared in order to be effective. Let me also say that in an ideal situation we would have had the support of the minority in moving this reform savings plan forward, However, in the absence of bipartisan cooperation, it is incumbent on those of us who are privileged to serve in the people's house that we address the budgetary problems facing the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the deficit reduction act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 230, expressing the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation must protect intellectual property rights.

As co-chairman of the Congressional International Anti-piracy Caucus, I am very concerned about the appalling levels of copyright piracy in Russia. Russia's copyright piracy problem is among the most serious in the world, and it is getting worse. In Russia, 80 percent of all motion pictures and 87 percent of business software are pirated. I have personally witnessed pirated American copyrighted works, movies, music and software, sold openly on the streets in Moscow, even in view of the Kremlin.

Considering that the core copyright industries account for 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and the total copyright industries account for approximately 12 percent of U.S. GDP, it is clear that America's businesses are facing a serious problem in Russia. In fact, the FBI estimates that U.S. businesses lose between $200 and $250 billion a year worldwide to counterfeit goods.

We must make sure that each nation recognizes that piracy is a global problem. The growth of piracy among organized crime rings is illustrative of its global scope.

The combination of enormous profits and practically nonexistent punishments by many foreign governments makes copyright piracy an attractive cash cow for organized crime syndicates. Often specializing in optical disks and business software piracy, these crime rings are capable of coordinating multi-million dollar efforts across multiple national borders. Russia has become one of the largest producers and distributors of illegal media material, and the increasing number of optical disk plants in Russia has a production capacity that far exceeds Russian demand for copyrighted works.

Another disturbing trend is the growing willingness of 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.

By recent Russian government accounts, 16 optical disk plants are on Russian State (owned) Restricted Access Regime Enterprises where regular law enforcement is prohibited from visiting. In addition, corruption in Russia's justice system results in the routine dismissal of piracy complaints or inadequate and non-deterrent sentences.

We all must realize that copyright piracy and counterfeiting are serious problems that do not merely affect private companies' bottom lines in the short term. They also discourage investment and innovation in the long term which will eventually lead to fewer consumer choices, a repercussion that affects entire societies and economies. Government must work together to reward creators and punish thieves.

In addition, counterfeit goods can pose serious risk of bodily harm and even death. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that trade in counterfeit goods makes up between 6 and 9 percent of all world trade. With products as essential as airplane parts and car brakes being faked, we must focus attention on this growing problem for the sake of our citizens' safety.

In passing House Concurrent Resolution 230 today, we send a clear signal to the Russian Federation we will not stand idly by while our copyrights are infringed. The Russian Federation must make fighting copyright piracy a priority for the country and law enforcement authorities. And, if Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization is to be approved by Congress, Russia must make meaningful progress against piracy now.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important resolution. I commend the gentleman and gentlewoman from California on this issue.