Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me time and for his leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution, which I introduced with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to express the sense of Congress supporting the current method of administering the Internet.

The Internet's domain name system is administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, a private nonprofit organization based in the United States that works closely with the U.S. Department of Commerce. This privately-operated approach fosters market principles and is the most efficient way to administer the Internet's domain name system and root servers.

However, the United Nations, with the support of countries including China, Iran and Cuba, released a report earlier this year, which included proposals to take control of administration of the Internet from the United States-based ICANN and give it to a bureaucratic U.N. body. The European Union had also signaled that it would support having an international body oversee the Internet.

The more governments and bureaucracies involved in running the Internet's day-to-day operations, the more likely that red tape and overly burdensome regulations will result. However, last night at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia, the United States struck a deal with the international community which ensures that, for now, the administration of the Internet's core technical functions remains within the private hands of ICANN with continued oversight by the United States Department of Commerce. This appears to be a big victory for the Internet, for free market principles and for the free flow of information around the world.

While I am optimistic about the agreement that was reached yesterday in Tunis, there is little doubt that some countries will continue to push for more control of the Internet, so the United States must continue to be vigilant. The United States is uniquely positioned to protect the fundamental

principles of free press and free speech upon which the Internet has thrived.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees these basic rights, and to cede control of the Internet with countries, with at best questionable records regarding these rights, would jeopardize the continued success of the Internet and lead to significant restrictions on access to the Internet's wealth of information.

House Concurrent Resolution 268 will send a strong message that the United States is committed to the principles that have made the Internet thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his management of this legislation as chairman of an important Energy and Commerce subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important piece of legislation. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this issue. I also appreciate the hard work of Congressman Henry Bonilla, who introduced the STOPP Act, legislation that passed out of the Agriculture Committee, and Ranking Member Peterson on the Agriculture Committee, as well as Ranking Member Conyers on the Judiciary Committee.

I especially want to thank my colleague from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) who was the first Democrat to take a leading role on this issue in introducing the STOPP Act, and it is in part due to her leadership that we will have a very strong bipartisan vote on this legislation today.

Private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and it is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in our Constitution. The Founders realized the importance of property rights when they codified the takings clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: that the subsequent use of the property is for the public and that the government gives the property owners just compensation.

However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London is a step in the opposite direction. This controversial ruling expands the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to seize properties under the guise of economic development when the public use is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government takes property from one private individual and gives it to another private entity.

By defining public use so expansively, the Court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the Founders of our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments can use eminent domain powers to take the

property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other developments.

For these reasons, I joined with Chairman Sensenbrenner to introduce H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. This important piece of legislation represents a merger between two pieces of legislation, H.R. 3135, introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner, and H.R. 3405, the STOPP Act, which I introduced along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) and which passed the House Committee on Agriculture by a strong bipartisan vote of 40 to 1.

I am pleased that H.R. 4128 incorporates many provisions from the STOPP Act. Specifically, this new legislation would prohibit all Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years for any State or local government that uses economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity. In addition, this new legislation would allow State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. Furthermore, this bill specifically grants adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill.

H.R. 4128 also includes a carefully crafted definition of economic development that protects traditional uses of eminent domain, such as taking land for public uses like roads, while prohibiting abuses of eminent domain powers.

No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm, or business; and the Private Property Rights Protection Act will help to create the incentives to ensure that these abuses do not occur in the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and the author of the STOPP Act, which was passed out of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), another member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), the newest Member of Congress, who is standing up on this important issue.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking some people who do not always get thanked, and that is the diligent, hard-working staff of the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle, the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle and my congressional office staff. They worked very, very hard on what I think is a comprehensive and carefully crafted piece of legislation.

We are going to begin to entertain some amendments, and some of those amendments could have a devastating impact, a gutting effect on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to follow that debate closely and help us defeat amendments that would open this back up to the same kind of court misinterpretation that has been a problem here.

Finally, let me say that the United States Constitution protects private property rights as a fundamental right, and we need to make sure that we respond to a Supreme Court decision that has cast private property rights in America into question by passing this important legislation today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say very quickly to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority that he mistrusts is about the business of protecting the minority that he values, because a private property owner facing eminent domain powers being used to take their property for private economic development purposes is very much alone, and he needs this kind of weight of authority behind him or her to protect their private property rights.

If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, it will reopen exactly the kind of confusing and controversial court decisions that we are about trying to address here today. The specificity in the bill is superior to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am going to acquiesce with the chairman on the amendment, but I want to express some reservations.

It appears that it is the author's intention that nonprofit and religious organizations not be singled out by local governments due to their tax-exempt status alone. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, is it also the gentleman's intention that this provision would not trump the other provisions of the bill that provide additional protections to nonprofits by prohibiting takings from private entities for other economic development reasons to give to other private entities?

Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the language in the bill could be confusing in the amendment, would the gentleman be willing to work with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and myself and others to ensure in conference that his intentions are accurately reflected in the amendment language?

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us; and, on that basis, we will support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for bringing this legislation forward.

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly declares that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Despite this fundamental protection, an extreme minority determined to restrict the supply of firearms and firearms ownership has discovered a new tool, frivolous lawsuits.

Recently, more than 30 cities and counties have filed lawsuits against the firearms industry alleging that the industry is liable for the actions of third parties, including those that use lawful firearms in a criminal manner. Many legitimate firearms manufacturers could be forced to go out of business due to the prohibitive costs of defending these targeted lawsuits.

If the courts are so allowed to decide the fate of gun manufacturers, then the trial lawyers and the courts will effectively be regulating the supply of firearms and thus the right of citizens to bear arms.

However, legislatures, not courts, are the proper forums for deciding the scope of regulation for the firearms industry. S. 397 would prevent plaintiffs from bringing civil actions against firearm manufacturers and sellers for the criminal or unlawful misuse of third parties of properly made firearms. This bill will help to put an end to the judiciary legislating in the firearms field.

It will also serve as an important statement that responsibility for wrongdoing should rest with the wrongdoer. As Oliver Wendall Holmes stated in an 1894 Harvard Law Review article: ``Why is not a man who sells firearms answerable for assaults committed with pistols bought of him since he must be taken to know the probability that sooner or later someone will buy a pistol of him for some unlawful end?''

The principle seems to be pretty well established in this country, at least, that everyone has a right to rely upon his fellow man acting lawfully. Over 30 States have enacted legislation to prevent junk lawsuits against the firearms industry based on the criminal behavior of others. These States have thus declared that the responsibility for wrongdoing should rest with wrongdoers. Congress should follow the States' lead and pass S. 397.

The House has passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on several occasions. Now the Senate has passed it. We have a chance to send this bill to the President of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for moving this legislation to the floor. This legislation will help prevent frivolous lawsuits that allege that the consumption of lawful food products caused injuries resulting from obesity or weight gain.

The food service industry employs some 11.7 million people, making it the Nation's largest employer outside of the government. However, this vital industry has recently come under attack by waves of lawsuits arguing that it should be liable for the misuse or ``over-consumption'' of its legal food products by others.

It is common sense that individuals should take responsibility for their own dietary and eating habits. Unfortunately, trial lawyers have ulterior motives for these lawsuits. They have made their intentions quite clear, calling the fast food industry the next tobacco. They estimate potential profits of $40 billion from obesity-related lawsuits. It is crucial that something be done to guard against these aggressive attacks.

These ill-conceived lawsuits require businesses to devote hard-earned dollars to litigate unmerited claims. In order to help ensure that America continues to be a good place to do business, and to help create and maintain American jobs, it is important that we not allow opportunistic trial lawyers to extort money from legitimate companies.

This bill also protects our Nation's farmers and ranchers from the potentially far-reaching effects of these lawsuits. American agriculture produces the safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in the world and should be protected from trial lawyers' attempts to reach as far up the food chain as possible with unfounded claims seeking unjust enrichment.

While preventing frivolous claims, this legislation would protect legitimate lawsuits. It would allow claims to go forward in several circumstances, including cases in which a State or Federal law was broken. Other types of food-related lawsuits not dealing with obesity would also be protected.

The American public understands the importance of this effort. According to a recent Gallup poll, almost 90 percent of Americans oppose holding restaurant owners responsible for the diet-related health problems of regular fast food consumers.

H.R. 554 is a common sense bill that will protect legitimate businesses from frivolous lawsuits, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for their outstanding work on this legislation.

This legislation will reform the 1973 Endangered Species Act so that real species recovery can be achieved while minimizing conflict with landowners, businesses, public land managers, and communities, and particularly the farmers and ranchers of America that my committee represents.

Since the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) introduced this bill, we have heard groups on both sides of the issue recite statistics with the intent of proving or disproving the effectiveness of the law. Well, I do not believe I can change many minds simply by pointing out that over 99 percent of the species placed on the list are still on it. I would like to make a comparison that may put this dismal success rate in perspective.

If I, for instance, ran a hospital where only one half of 1 percent of the critical patients who checked in recovered, I could hardly claim to be doing a good job. What we need is an endangered species law that not only protects the species, but allows them to recover, to expand and to get off of the endangered species list as a thriving species. This is, however, the record the Endangered Species Act has today compiled, one where only one half of 1 percent of the species have recovered.

Its proponent, nonetheless, continue to claim that that is a success. Along with its glaring shortcoming, the law contains numerous unintended consequences that have proven to be extremely harmful to landowners and local communities. In fact, landowners have come to fear the Endangered Species Act as it has evolved into a giant regulatory menace.

Under the current law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the power to halt lawful landowner activities if an endangered species is identified on their property and it is determined their actions would take that species. The landowner and his right to use his land are then simply left to the mercy of the courts.

Private property rights are fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution, and Congress periodically needs to take steps to ensure that government is protecting them, not trampling on them.

In my own committee, the Committee on Agriculture, we have recently examined another example of the infringement of property rights through the use of eminent domain. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for working with us to address that problem as well.

TESRA achieves a balance between environmental concerns and property rights protection through its compensation and cooperative conservation provisions. Through these provisions, this legislation will fairly compensate landowners when they must forego use of their property and provide varied and unique ways to work with landowners.

The bill also makes other important changes, such as doing away with the Act's emphasis on designating critical habitat by placing emphasis instead on functional recovery plans. These reforms will not only be more effective in achieving species recovery, but do so in a flexible, non-adversarial manner. I believe the protection of endangered species is exceedingly important, however, a law that forces Federal wildlife officials to simply catalog declining species while alienating landowners and discouraging good management practices is a bad thing. Support this legislation.

Failing to improve the lot of species in more than 99 cases out of 100 isn't working. TESRA is a commonsense step towards improving and modernizing the 35-year-old law, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1752) to amend the United States Grain Standards Act to reauthorize that Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 1752, a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act. The other body passed this bill by unanimous consent last week, and I look forward to its swift approval today as the act expires September 30, 2005.

This bill is identical to the language that the administration provided Congress earlier this year. The bill is a simple 10-year extension of current law. It will reauthorize the Secretary's authority to charge and collect fees to cover costs of inspection and weighing services and to receive appropriated dollars for standardization and compliance activities.

The House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management of the Committee on Agriculture held a hearing on May 24, 2005, to review the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Testimony provided on behalf of the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association highlighted the need for the U.S. grain industry to remain cost-competitive for bulk exports of U.S. grains and oilseeds in the future.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Grain Sorghum Producers, and the American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies all voiced support for this legislation.

The U.S. Grain Standards Act first became law in 1916. In the intervening 89 years, Congress has reauthorized and amended the U.S. Grain Standards Act so that the law could adapt to changes in grain production, grain marketing, crop diversity, competitive pressure, and fiscal constraints.

The U.S. Grain Standards Act has served agriculture and our Nation well. For nearly a century, it has provided for standard marketing terms, grades and weights and facilitated domestic and international marketing of our farmers' production. Among its many responsibilities, the Federal Grain Inspection Service establishes and maintains official grades for our Nation's crop production, promotes the uniform application of official grades, provides for the official weighing and grading at export locations, provides Federal oversight of weighing and grading done by States, and investigates complaints or discrepancies reported by importers. Passage of this bill ensures the continuity of these standards and the opportunity for our farmers to remain competitive in the world marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the committee, for his cooperation in working with us to bring this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1752 is a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act. The other body passed this bill by unanimous consent last week. Timely approval of this bill is important because the current law expires September 30, 2005.

This bill is identical to the language the Administration provided Congress earlier this year. This bill is a simple 10-year extension of current law.

The House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management held a hearing on May 24, 2005 to review the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Testimony provided on behalf of the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association highlighted the need for

the U.S. grain industry to remain cost-competitive for bulk exports of U.S. grains and oilseeds in the future. Specifically, these organizations proposed that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) utilize third party entities to provide inspection and weighing activities at export facilities with 100 percent USDA oversight using USDA-approved standards and procedures. The American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Grain Sorghum Producers, and the American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies all voice support for this proposal. USDA testified that the ``proposal of the industry establishes a framework for changing the delivery of services without compromising the integrity of the official system.''

During the hearing, the Committee also learned of workforce challenges currently facing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). The majority of official grain inspectors will be eligible for retirement over the next several years. Testimony presented explained that transitioning the delivery of services through attrition would minimize the impact on Federal employees.

Since the hearing, I have reviewed legislative proposals and discussed the issue of improved competitiveness with my colleagues, farm and industry organizations, and USDA. Chairman Saxby Chambliss of the Senate Agriculture Committee and I asked USDA to determine if they had the authority under the existing law to use private entities at export port locations for grain inspection and weighing services, and if they did, how would they implement this authority.

Accompanying this statement is a copy of USDA's response to our questions. The letter states that the U.S. Grain Standards Act ``currently authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to contract with private persons or entities for the performance of inspection and weighing services at export port locations.'' The letter further explains that GIPSA considers the use of this authority as an option to address future attrition within the Agency and to address expanded service demand. I fully expect USDA to use this authority in a manner that improves competitiveness of the U.S. grain industry, that maintains the integrity of the Federal grain inspection system, and that provides benefits to employees who may be impacted.

The Committee greatly appreciates the work that has gone into the reauthorization of this law and we are pleased to extend the authorization for 10 years.

The Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2005.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of

this date, also signed by Saxby Chambliss, Chairman of the

U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry, posing two questions regarding legislation which is

currently pending before the Congress. The legislation would

reauthorize, for an additional period of years, the United

States Grain Standards Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 71 et seq.

(Act), which is presently scheduled to expire on September

30, 2005. Your questions and our responses are as follows:

1. Would existing authority under the U.S. Grain Standards

Act allow USDA to use private entities at export port

locations for grain inspection and weighing services?

Response. The Act currently authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture to contract with private persons or entities for

the perfonnance of inspection and weighing services at export

port locations. See 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 79(e)(I), 84(a)(3).

2. If so, how would USDA implement this authority?

Response. The Act currently authorizes the Secretary to

contract with a person to provide export grain inspection and

weighing services at export port locations. The Grain

Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has

reserved this authority to supplement the current Federal

workforce if the workload demand exceeded the capability of

current staffing. GIPSA has also considered use of this

authority as one of several options to address future

attrition within the Agency and to address expanded service

demand as several delegated States have decided or are

considering to cancel their Delegation of Authority with

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 S. 1752, the bill just considered.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which contains an amendment that I proposed during the consideration of the bill by the House Judiciary Committee to address the rising threat of Organized Retail Theft, ORT.

ORT poses a serious threat to our Nation's consumers and businesses. It is estimated that professional organized retail theft rings are responsible for pilfering up to $30 billion in merchandise from retail stores annually.

Organized retail theft groups typically target everyday household commodities and consumer items that can be easily sold through fencing operations, flea markets, swap meets and shady store-front operations. Items that are routinely stolen include over-the-counter drug products, such as analgesics and cold medications, razor blades, camera film, batteries, videos, DVDs, CDs, smoking cessation products, infant formula and computer software items. Thieves often travel from retail store to retail store, and from state to state, stealing relatively small amounts of goods from each store, but cumulatively stealing significant amounts of goods. Once stolen, these products can be sold back to fencing operations, which can dilute, alter and repackage the goods and then resell them, sometimes back to the same stores from which the products were originally stolen.

When a product does not travel through the authorized channels of distribution, there is an increased risk that the product has been altered, diluted, reproduced and/or repackaged. These so-called ``diverted products'' pose significant health risks to the public, especially the diverted medications and food products. Diverted products also cause considerable financial losses for legitimate manufacturers and retailers. Ultimately, the consumers bear the brunt of these losses as retail establishments are forced to raise prices to cover the additional costs of security and theft prevention measures.

At the State level, organized retail theft crimes are normally prosecuted under state shoplifting statutes as mere misdemeanors. As a result, the thieves that participate in organized retail theft rings typically receive the same punishment as common shoplifters. The thieves who are convicted usually see very limited jail time or are placed on probation. I believe that the punishment does not fit the crime in these situations. Mere slaps on the wrists of these criminals has practically no deterrent effect. In addition, criminals who are involved in organized retail theft rings pose greater risks to the public because their intent is for the goods to be resold. Because the routes of these diverted products are extremely difficult to trace, there is a greater risk that these goods will be faulty, outdated and dangerous for consumer use. The punishment for these interstate crimes should be greater than that for common shoplifters.

In December 2003, in response to growth of ORT crimes, the FBI established an organized retail theft initiative. While this is a good start, much work needs to be done to combat this problem.

The amendment incorporated into H.R. 3402 will earmark resources for DOJ to address ORT crimes to ensure that these crimes receive the appropriate attention. Specifically, this amendment creates a Federal definition of organized retail theft crimes, and authorizes $5 million for each of the next three fiscal years for educating and training Federal law enforcement regarding these crimes, as well as for investigating, apprehending and prosecuting individuals engaged in these crimes. In addition, this amendment directs the FBI to consult with the private sector in order to construct a database, housed in the private sector, where retail establishments, as well as Federal, State, and local law enforcement can compile evidence on specific organized retail theft crimes to aid investigations and prosecutions. Often, a lack of information about the interstate nature of these crimes prevents federal law enforcement from getting involved in these cases. This database will help put the pieces together to show the organized and multi-state nature of these crimes, as well as provide important evidence for prosecutions.

I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his willingness to address organized retail theft crimes in this important authorizing legislation, and I look forward to continuing to work to combat these serious crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend and colleague Representative Marion Berry of Arkansas, the Temporary Agricultural Labor Reform Act of 2005, a bi-partisan bill to reform the H-2A guest worker program. As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have traveled across the nation and seen first-hand that the H-2A temporary visa process is not working. I have talked face to face with producers who have to deal with participating in a costly, time-consuming and flawed program. For example, employers have to comply with a lengthy labor certification process that is slow, bureaucratic and frustrating. In addition, they are forced to pay an artificially inflated wage rate. My bill will streamline the cumbersome requirements of the current H-2A program to make it a more viable option for our nation's farmers.

Likewise, as a long-time Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I understand the immigration problems that currently face our country. Illegal immigration penalizes those legal immigrants and citizens who play by the rules. It is estimated that there are over 10 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States. This population grows by over 350,000 each year. Clearly, this situation has reached crisis proportions and cannot be allowed to continue.

Some believe that the only way to reform the guest worker program is by including amnesty provisions and allowing illegal aliens to adjust to Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status. However, this would create the wrong incentive by encouraging foreign nationals to come into the country and break our laws. Amnesty is unfair to those foreign nationals trying to comply with our laws and encourages more people to come into the U.S. illegally with the thought that they, too, will get rewarded for their illegal actions in the future.

My bill would not grant an amnesty. Instead, it would require that anyone wishing to participate in the guest worker program must first return to their home country and apply from there to participate legally. This requirement will help us track who is entering our country and will create an incentive for those currently present illegally to return home and begin the process again while respecting our immigration laws.

In addition, this legislation would address a troublesome wage issue. Employers. are required to pay an inflated wage called the Adverse Effect Wage Rate or AEWR. The AEWR was designed to protect similarly situated domestic workers from being adversely affected by guest workers coming into the country on a seasonal basis and being paid lower wages. However, the shortage of domestic workers in the farm workforce forces employers to hire foreign workers, and thus, is also forcing them to pay an inflated wage. My bill abolishes this unfair wage and creates a prevailing wage standard, under which, all workers are paid the same wage as workers doing similar work in that region.

The facts are simple. Agriculture needs a reliable guest worker program. Workers need access to stable, legal, temporary employment. It is in our national security interest to create a sensible way for workers to come in on a temporary basis, work, and go back to their home countries. My bill addresses problems in the guest worker program, and I look forward to working with Representative Berry and all of the Members of this body to reform this program and make it a more viable process for everyone involved.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3408) to reauthorize the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 and to amend the swine reporting provisions of that Act, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, a bill to reauthorize the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999.

Mr. Speaker, when the Congress considered this legislation in 1999, its intent was to improve the livestock market news reporting system so that farmers and ranchers, particularly those that rely on cash market sales, could enjoy improved market transparency and better price discovery.

In particular, the Act provided the USDA with the authority to collect and disseminate information that can be readily understood by livestock producers, packers, and other participants, including information with respect to pricing, contract for purchase, and supply and demand conditions for livestock, livestock production, and livestock products.

The legislation enacted in 1999 was the product of extensive discussion between livestock producers and packers. We relied on this process partly because it was such a technical issue, but mostly we wanted to avoid the situation where segments of the industry were divided against each other. After considerable give and take, the final product was agreed on by all participants.

As the time for reauthorization neared, producers and packers engaged again in a dialogue to develop a consensus proposal for reauthorization. H.R. 3408 is the product of this hard work. The coalition that supports this consensus legislation included the National Pork Producers Council, the American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the American Sheep Industry Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation.

This package, as it appears before us today, is a carefully crafted document. All of these organizations have agreed that they will oppose it ``if any amendment is adopted that does not have the prior agreement'' of the coalition.

Mandatory price reporting expires at the end of September, and this bill reauthorizes it for 5 years with minor changes representing the consensus of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for working with us on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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 H.R. 3408.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a conferee on the energy bill, I want to make it clear that sections 316 and 1281 of the conference report dealing with Natural Gas and Electricity Market Transparency are quite important. Those provisions clearly affirm the long established legal foundation of the Commodity Exchange Act, specifically the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC over exchanges and trading of futures in this country. I applaud the work of the conferees in producing sections 316 and 1281, which directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to complete a memorandum of understanding regarding information sharing between the commissions within 180 days of enactment, without affecting the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to markets under its jurisdiction.

The Conferees recognized that domestic energy markets involve activity in both the physical energy markets and in futures markets, and that the FERC and the CFTC have important oversight duties in these markets, respectively. In order to ensure effective and efficient oversight of these markets, the Conferees expect the FERC and the CFTC to use the memorandum of understanding as an opportunity to memorialize the good information sharing relationship that has developed between the two agencies over the past several years. The Conferees expect this agreement to accomplish 3 important goals: (1) avoid regulatory duplication of information reporting; (2) ensure appropriate protection of proprietary business information, including business transactions or market positions of any person and trade secrets or names of customer; and (3) acknowledge the respective jurisdictions of both agencies in order to avoid any jurisdictional overlap. Moreover, the Committee expects the memorandum of understanding to insure that in creating an effective and efficient means for FERC to secure legitimately needed market trading information in the possession of the CFTC, FERC does not attempt to secure such information directly from CFTC-regulated futures exchanges. This would be contrary to the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over those futures exchanges and inconsistent with the longstanding process followed by all other Federal and State authorities. Sections 316 and 1281 do not give--and no other provisions of the NGA and FPA give--FERC such authority. Rather, these sections specifically intend for FERC to get such information but only through submitting its requests to CFTC.

I would further note that FERC will be subject to same restrictions on the use of such futures and options trading data information as the CFTC. Section 8(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act places restrictions on the public disclosure of futures and options trading data, as well as other sensitive CFTC information. If the CFTC provides futures and options trading data, or other materials identified in section 8, to FERC then FERC will be subject to the same restrictions as the CFTC, or any other Federal or State Agency which receives such information.

It is my understanding that the CFTC has a long history of sharing futures and options trading data as well as other confidential materials from their investigations with FERC and other Federal and State agencies who have a legitimate need for such information. Federal and State agencies not only recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC but they also agree that they are subject to the section 8 restrictions on public disclosure ofthe information they receive. For these reasons it is my view that the MOD between the CFTC and FERC will merely formalize well established practices in tills area.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the colloquy between the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and Chairman Regula that highlights the importance of restoring funding for the Community Service Block Grant Program.

Mr. Chairman, while I certainly understand the difficult work of the Appropriations Committee as it strives to keep the 2006 budget process under strict allocations, it is my hope that we can somehow find additional funding for the C-S-B-G Program. While the President sought to consolidate the program in his 2006 budget to the Congress, I was pleased to support language in the House-passed budget package, which states that:

Community Service Block Grants provides invaluable

assistance to low-income families and communities. These

funds are used to build healthy and stable communities. Due

consideration should be given to this program before Congress

implements any changes.

Mr. Chairman, thousands of community action agencies provide services that help low-income individuals: Train for gainful employment, obtain quality living environments and generally move toward self-sufficiency. One of those agencies is ``Total Action Against Poverty,'' in my congressional district, which has provided much-needed services to the Roanoke Valley and southwest Virginia for nearly 30-years.

I Believe a major reason for the effectiveness of organizations like ``Total Action Against Poverty'' are that they are locally controlled. Rather than seeking guidance from a know-it-all bureaucracy in Washington, DC, community action agencies can resolve community problems with community solutions. These organizations are grassroots- based, and are led by local boards and volunteers, with diverse memberships and strong roots in their communities. By nature, these groups are invested in their communities--and have the ability to leverage C-S-B-G funds with significant resources from private organizations including corporations and foundations with a stake in promoting the wellness of their neighborhoods, rather than pleasing constituencies in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that C-S-B-Gs are the kind of good- government programs that Congress should continue to support. I hope that conferees can support the C-S-B-G program.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the McGovern amendment.

This amendment would take valuable resources away from a program that is working to help keep drugs off our streets. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative was established to eliminate the cultivation and production of cocaine and opium, build Andean law enforcement infrastructure, arrest and prosecute traffickers, and seize their assets. The more we can disrupt the production of the drugs that are smuggled into our country, the safer our citizens will be.

The Andean Counterdrug Initiative has provided resources necessary to fight the war on drugs where these drugs are grown and processed, and efforts to disrupt the drug trade are working.

Aerial eradication efforts in Colombia have been impressive: 127,000 hectares were sprayed in 2003; 136,000 in 2004; and 95,000 hectares, or nearly 250,000 acres, have already been sprayed in this year alone.

Efforts like these, which are supported by resources from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, have reduced coca cultivation in Colombia by 33 percent. Opium poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped 52 percent in 2004, which represents the third straight year of decline.

Due to these types of efforts, traffickers have been forced to decentralize their crops of coca, which has worked to decrease the total amount of coca cultivation. Efforts to seize drugs in Colombia have also seen impressive strides with the help of this important program.

Mr. Chairman, 114 metric tons of cocaine were seized in 2003, 178 metric tons in 2004. Drugs seized in Colombia are drugs that do not make it to the United States. Now is not the time to reduce funding for such a successful program. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to the Watt substitute and in support of H.J. Res. 10, which would amend the Constitution to give Congress the authority to prevent the physical desecration of the American flag. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) says that the Bill of Rights has never been amended. It may be that the words have never been changed, but the United States Supreme Court on many, many, many occasions has amended the first amendment and other provisions in the Bill of Rights by changing the meaning of those words. This is one of those such occasions.

For 200 years, many Supreme Court Justices opined that flag desecration laws which were in effect in 49 States were not in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution. This is in defiance of the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people, the will of the overwhelming majority of the State legislatures, and as we will see later today, the will of the overwhelming majority of the United States Congress.

Clearly, free speech goes beyond the written or spoken word to include other forms of expression, including the wearing of symbols and other actions. However, not all actions constitute free speech, and I am hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration is not speech to be protected under the first amendment. In 1989, the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson unilaterally invalidated flag protection laws in 48 States and the District of Columbia, overturning 100 years of Federal and State precedent, banning the physical desecration of the American flag. When that occurs, and when the people and the Congress believe that is wrong, it is a constitutional amendment that corrects the error of the Supreme Court.

Following this decision for the first time in our Nation's history, an overwhelming 49 State legislatures petitioned Congress to send a flag desecration amendment to the States for ratification. The physical desecration of the American flag constitutes an assault on the most deeply shared experiences of the American people. Our flag is more than a piece of cloth; it a symbol of our freedom. It represents the sacrifices of those who gave their lives to win and preserve freedom.

There have been those who have gone unarmed into battle carrying the flag, and many have died to keep the flag from falling into the hands of our enemies. To burn a flag in front of a veteran or someone else who has put his

or her life on the line for their country is an act not deserving protection.

Our Nation is unique in the world because our citizens represent a variety of heritages, religions, ethnicities, and political viewpoints. Indeed, we debate our differences openly and vigorously; yet we can always look to the flag and remember that we share certain core values that bind us together as a people.

For over 200 years, our flag has flown proudly over our Nation, a visible promise of our commitment to the preservation and expansion of democracy. However, symbols, like values, are eroded gradually. Each time they are desecrated, their symbolism is diminished. We must act now to protect one of our Nation's most sacred symbols because the Supreme Court has struck down Congress' effort to protect the flag by statute. It is now necessary to amend the Constitution to give Congress the authority to protect the flag.

Supreme Court Justices as varied as William Rehnquist, Warren Burger, and Hugo Black have all recognized the appropriateness of these desecration statutes that were struck down by the Court.

I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 10.

Of course, words or other forms of expression do not have to be correct in order to be protected. And clearly, free speech goes beyond the written or spoken word to include other forms of expression, including the wearing of symbols and other actions. Not all actions constitute free speech, and I am hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration isn't free speech to be protected under the First Amendment.

``I believe that the states and federal government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace,'' wrote former Chief Justice Earl Warren. This view is shared by many past and present justices of the U.S. Supreme Court across the ideological spectrum, including Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and current Chief Justice William Rehnquist. These eminent men and women haven't taken a merely political stance based upon ``shallow assumptions'' or ``perilously sloppy thinking.'' Rather, they rely upon well-established principles.

``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society,'' wrote Rehnquist, ``is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag burning.'' Free speech isn't the right to do anything you want to do anytime you want to do it. Rather, it's a precious liberty founded in law--a freedom preserved by respect for the rights of others.

To say that society isn't entitled to establish rules of behavior governing its members is either to abandon any meaningful definition of civilization or to believe that civilization can survive without regard to the feelings or decent treatment of others. To burn a flag in front of a veteran or someone else who has put his or her life on the line for their country is a despicable act not deserving protection.

It's well-established that certain types of speech may be prevented under some circumstances, including lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, insulting or fighting words. When it comes to actions, the proscriptions may be even broader. That's where I have voted to put flag desecration--back where 48 state legislatures thought it was when they passed laws prohibiting it.

This amendment doesn't, in any way, alter the First Amendment. It simply corrects a misguided court interpretation of that amendment. As Justice Rehnquist eloquently observed in concluding his dissent: ``Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized governments are instituted . . . The government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.'' I am proud to play a part in trying to right that wrong.