Floor Statements

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

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

I want to thank all the Members who have spoken so eloquently in favor of this resolution and who have helped to remind us of this tragedy of 40 years ago. This devastating event for this church and these families helped bring us together; a wrong put us on the path to doing things right. This is a very worthwhile resolution. I thank everybody who has helped to bring it forward. I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; I thank the gentlewoman from Texas and others.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4661) to amend title 18, United States Code, to discourage spyware, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4661, the bill currently under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4661, the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation which I introduced with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) will impose tough criminal penalties on the most egregious purveyors of spyware without imposing a broad regulatory regime on legitimate software providers. I believe that this targeted approach is the best way to combat spyware.

Spyware is a growing and serious problem. The Federal Trade Commission has testified that spyware appears to be a new and rapidly growing practice that poses a risk of serious harm to consumers. Spyware is software that provides a tool for criminals to crack into computers to conduct nefarious activities, such as altering a user's security settings, collecting personal information to steal a user's identity, or to commit other crimes.

The I-SPY Prevention Act would impose criminal penalties on the most egregious behaviors associated with spyware. Specifically, this legislation would impose up to a 5-year prison sentence on anyone who uses software to intentionally break into a computer and uses that software in furtherance of another Federal crime. In addition, it would impose up to a 2-year prison sentence on anyone who uses spyware to intentionally break into a computer and either alter the computer's security settings or obtain personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person or with the intent to damage a computer. By imposing stiff penalties on these bad actors, this legislation will help deter the use of spyware and will thus help protect consumers from these aggressive attacks.

Enforcement is crucial in combating spyware. The I-SPY Prevention Act authorizes $10 million for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to be devoted to prosecutions and expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Justice vigorously enforce the laws against spyware violations as well as against online phishing scams in which criminals send fake e- mail messages to consumers on behalf of famous companies and request account information that is later used to conduct criminal activities.

In addition, the I-SPY Prevention Act is technology-friendly. It would not interfere with the development of technological solutions to block spyware. Many technologies are currently available to help consumers detect and rid their computers of spyware. As these technologies progress, we must be careful not to impose unnecessary burdens on these innovators who are helping to fight against spyware. Furthermore, by targeting the truly bad actors, this legislation would protect the ability of legitimate software companies to innovate and develop new and exciting products and services in response to consumer demand instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all regulation on the entire industry.

The I-SPY Prevention Act is a targeted approach that protects consumers by imposing stiff penalties on the truly bad actors without imposing excessive red tape and regulations on legitimate technology companies. I

urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this legislation forward.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from California for her help in making this legislation possible. This is truly a bipartisan effort that has been broadly supported in the Committee on the Judiciary and by other Members of Congress. I think it is a very appropriate approach to a very serious problem. I also want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, who also were very helpful and very supportive as we moved this legislation forward.

There are a number of organizations. The gentlewoman from California mentioned some. I would like to call Members' attention to others that have indicated their strong support of this legislation, including the Information Technology Association of America; the Information Technology Industry Council; the Business Software Alliance; the Center For Democracy and Technology; NetChoice, a coalition representing e- commerce companies and thousands of e-consumers from across the Nation; the Internet Commerce Coalition; the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; the Software Information Industry Association; and a host of individual companies and individuals who have been in touch with us about the ravages that occur with spyware and the phishing scam.

These are things that are great threats to consumers. We want them to feel confident when they use the Internet. The Internet holds great promise for people to be able to use the Internet for education, for commerce, for communicating with families and friends and people who share a common cause with them; but people increasingly know of the dangers they face on the Internet, from hackers and spam and pornography and people attempting to participate in various types of fraudulent schemes.

Many of those center around the use of spyware and phishing. These are threats to people's use of the Internet. We need to crack down on the people who perpetrate these actions. This is the legislation to do that, to make sure that people feel comfortable, that they themselves and their children can go online and have the opportunity to use the Internet with confidence that their personal information is not being stolen, that they are not becoming the victim of identity theft, that they are not confronting what looks like a Web site of a legitimate company using all of the technology available.

Some of these criminals will actually create a duplicate Web site that looks exactly like the original, but then attempt to use that Web site to extract information from you by suggesting that they need to update their account information or need your Social Security number or need your driver's license or some other personal information which they then intend to use to steal from your bank account, run up credit card bills, whatever the case might be. This legislation is designed to come down hard on those people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from

Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary and a real leader on technology issues in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of this rule.

I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work, and I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the opportunity that we expect to have, the opportunity to put in place a way to provide the kind of assistance that America's farmers and ranchers need and deserve all across this country.

For weeks, we have been working on this problem, and we have come upon a solution, and a solution that will work. It is a solution that is very, very, very similar to one that this Congress joined together in a bipartisan fashion, across the aisle, to support just about 18 months ago to help farmers in the 2001-2002 disaster period. That was to take funds from a program that had funds available, took them off the back end of it and went ahead and paid it.

Now we find that this program has in it four-and-a-half times as much money as was in the program when the gentleman from Texas and my predecessor, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest, wrote the farm bill and put money in for this new program; but after that work was done, others, apart from those here today, went in and took the cap off that program.

So, in addition to being able to meet the needs of farmers all across this country from Florida to Texas to Minnesota, we will have the opportunity to do the same thing. We will have the opportunity to pay for it, and we will have the opportunity to have money in that program in a greater amount than was in the program when we did this the last time. We will have the opportunity to put a cap on that program because I think those on the other side of the aisle would agree that the future of farm programs is very dependent on one program not being uncapped, not having the opportunity to spend these enormous amounts of money.

So I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), who is going to have, if this rule is passed, the opportunity to offer an amendment to take care of this problem for every American and end this problem.

I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in the same bipartisan effort that helped America's farmers and ranchers when we did this in the beginning of 2003 in a very, very similar circumstance with a very, very similar solution.

Mr. Chairman, obviously we would prefer to provide assistance without offsets, but the reality of the situation is that there will be no disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget offsets. We will not touch the farm commodity programs that are the heart of the farm bill.

The savings we are making will cap the Conservation Security Program at $6 billion. That is three times the amount of money that was put into this program. It was a new program when the farm bill was created. This is a new program still in its start-up phase. The gentleman suggested that some people might be at risk for this program. This year, this program will spend $175 million. With the 3 years remaining in the farm bill and $9 billion to spend, nothing is at risk in the rest of the farm bill.

We should make sure we accomplish two things here: use this money, as we did 18 months ago with support from the folks on the other side of the aisle, to do exactly what we are doing today; and make sure that we put a cap back on this program so that it does not raid other parts of the farm bill. We can accomplish both of those goals here tonight.

I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his leadership on the issue of disaster assistance for producers. We have been working for several weeks to find a way to help farmers and ranchers from west Texas to Minnesota to Colorado, as well as those devastated by hurricanes in the Southeast. With the tight budgets we now face, it has been a difficult task, but we believe the Neugebauer amendment provides the path to secure assistance our producers need.

I urge my colleagues to support this sound amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3242, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004.

The specialty crop sector is comprised of a diverse group of commodities produced across the Nation and is a vital portion of our agricultural community. Because of their hard work, Americans have access to a healthful and wholesome diet which includes fruits and vegetables. The 6th District of Virginia, which I represent, is home to a wide variety of these

producers. They are part of the larger specialty crop sector, which makes the United States the second largest importer and exporter of fruits, nuts, vegetables and other horticultural products.

I would like to take the opportunity to commend Mr. Ose of California for his commitment to the fruit and vegetable sector. His hard work with the industry, as well as his colleagues here in Congress, has been fundamental to moving this bill forward. Mr. Ose has diligently represented his constituents and I am sure they will miss his leadership upon his retirement.

H.R. 3242 is the culmination of many months of hard work in developing a consensus document. While the markup of this legislation proceeded quite smoothly, it did outline some issues that need additional attention.

However, it is clear from the quality of the discussion among Committee Members, that we understand the importance of the specialty crop sector in production agriculture.

I believe this bill represents a first step in what will undoubtedly be a lengthy conversation leading up to the next Farm Bill. Some issues in this bill will likely be revisited as we proceed forward with this process. For example, I still have some reservations about the block grant system and whether or not it is the best way to address the long term goals of the agriculture community. However, I remain open to further consideration of this point and I believe this is a good faith effort to begin the conversation about improving the competitiveness of specialty crop producers in the context of the Farm Bill.

Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Ose for his commitment to this complex effort and would like to reiterate my support for passage of H.R. 3242.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 3242, the ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act''.

While I remain concerned about the funding levels--my colleagues from California, Mr. Ose and Mr. Dooley, must be commended for their dedication and hard work over the past year on this legislation to bring the specialty crop industry long overdue recognition from Congress.

I especially want to mention my strong support for provisions in the bill that address methyl bromide use by specialty crop growers. Continued use of methyl bromide as a fumigant is of utmost importance to a number of crops in my district and throughout California and I greatly appreciate the House Agriculture Committee bringing this issue to the forefront of the debate.

As you may know there are over 250 specialty crops produced in the United States and the industry as a whole is vitally important to the continued prosperity of our farm economy. In 2002, specialty crops had a collective value of nearly $52 billion or about 53 percent of the value of all agricultural crops. Their farm-gate value continues to rise as growers throughout the United States consistently produce the most abundant, highest quality crops of their kind in the world.

Currently however, specialty crops do not enjoy the same support from the Federal Government as do traditional ``program'' crops. Their main source of government assistance is not through marketing loans, direct payments, or counter-cyclical payments but instead they are supported--albeit in much smaller proportions--through programs like the Market Access Program, conservation programs like EQUIP, and through research funding.

The honest truth is that the majority of the specialty crop industry does not want a traditional subsidy program as cotton, corn, rice and others enjoy. Instead, they simply desire a seat at the table and recognition for their hard work and contribution to the farm economy. H.r. 3242 does just that, it improves upon previous Farm Bill programs aimed at specialty crops and proposes a reinvigorated block grant program that will allow each State Department of Agriculture to apply for, and administer, marketing assistance programs tailored specifically to the needs of their respective crops.

This legislation could not come at any better time. As many of you know, specialty crop growers across the United States are currently in the midst of an industry crisis. They are facing a number of challenges in international trade, caused by lack of market access, rapidly increasing import competition and efforts by our trading partners to keep our products out of their markets. Additionally, our foreign competitors routinely employ considerably cheaper labor and liberally use pesticides that are banned here at home.

In my home State of California, the situation worsens. Growers are constantly dealing with new environmental regulations, which often require costly compliance measures such as purchasing new equipment and machinery or applying for Federal and State permits. Furthermore, the cost of land, water, labor and pesticides are significantly higher in California compared with other larger specialty crop States. It is no wonder that prime agricultural land is disappearing at such a rapid rate, right before our eyes.

H.R. 3242 will finally direct Federal support to specialty crop growers in a proactive manner, to promote consumption of specialty crops at home and abroad and increase the competitiveness of growers in the aggressive global market.

One of the key components to H.R. 3242 is Title 1, the Specialty Crop Block Grant program. In 2001, Congress approved a block grant program from which California received roughly $64 million and one of the first things I did as a member of Congress was to convene a forum of California's specialty crop industry to determine how the program was implemented and what the benefits were. The results were outstanding-- milk vending machines were placed in schools, the California Grown program was a success, research programs for pest disease and prevention were completed and countless other important programs were funded for the first time in decades. Block grants worked in California and they will work in the United States but they only work if we adequately fund them.

There is no doubt in my mind that my colleague from California, Mr. Ose, fought the good fight to retain the full authorization included in the original Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act but the bill we are voting on tonight falls pathetically short of what is needed for this industry. The original H.R. 3242 allocated $470 million for the specialty crop block grant program, a number that may seem substantial at first but that one that is dwarfed by the billions of dollars spent annually on program crops. It is unfortunate that important legislation such as H.R. 3242 was not adequately funded and I remain committed to rectifying this inequity in the future.

Regardless of my concerns, I will be support H.R. 3242 tonight. I firmly believe that H.R. 3242 is an important first step in acknowledging the strength and important of our Nation's specialty crop industry and I urge my fellow members of the House of Representative to join me in approving this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 2929, the ``Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act.''

I believe that there is a need to impose appropriate civil penalties against those who use software to commit egregious acts against computer users. In that respect, the provisions in H.R. 2929 that impose civil penalties on the truly bad actors, including those who use spyware to take over a user's computer to send spam, or those who engage in keystroke logging to steal personal information, are a step in the right direction.

However, I also have concerns that portions of the bill cast too wide a net and that they would have unintended consequences that could penalize the legitimize software companies that are actually trying to play by the rules. Many provisions of this bill would not only encompass spyware, but also legitimate interactive software services. I oppose the provisions of this bill that stretch beyond punishing the truly bad actors and instead create a static regulatory regime in an industry that is always innovating and changing to respond to consumer demand.

Also, imposing a notice and consent requirement for most software that is loaded onto computers could create unintended consequences. Specifically, when consumers are faced with the multiple notices that would be required under this bill, they will likely become desensitized and stop reading the disclosure altogether. The result could be a heavy-handed regulation that does not even achieve the desired goals of informing consumers and protecting them from spyware, especially since the truly bad actors are likely to simply ignore these regulations.

I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4661, the Internet Spyware I-SPY Prevention Act, which impose tough criminal penalties on the most egregious purveyors of spyware without imposing a broad regulatory regime on legitimate software providers. I believe that this more targeted approach is the best way to combat spyware.

While I have serious reservations about many portions of H.R. 2929, I also believe that it contains many civil prohibitions that would help in the fight against spyware. I support this bill, not in its entirety, but as an acknowledgement that some civil penalties are appropriate in the fight against spyware when properly targeted. However, I remain concerned about the broad regulatory aspects of this legislation, and hope to continue working to ensure that the final legislation is appropriately targeted at the truly bad actors, and that it does not cast a broad regulatory burden on those who continue to innovate and create new and exciting services in the interactive software industry.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3514) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands and improvements associated with the National Forest System in the State of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3514, as amended, the Pennsylvania National Forest Improvement Act of 2004, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or convey six parcels of land from the Allegheny National Forest to local municipalities or private individuals. All of these parcels, totaling just over 22 acres, have been identified by the Forest Service as outlying parcels that are not connected to the National Forest. Three of the parcels would be conveyed to local government agencies, allowing them to consolidate operations to better serve their communities. Proceeds from these sales will be used to improve administrative sites and acquire inholdings from willing sellers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), the author of the legislation.

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 in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3514, the bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the

bill (H.R. 2984) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to remove the requirement that processors be members of an agency administering a marketing order applicable to pears.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2984, introduced by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). This legislation removes the requirement that processors be members of an agency administering a marketing order applicable to pears.

The pear industry has been working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to consolidate the various pear marketing orders. Current statute requires that any marketing order that assesses processing pears must have equal representation from producers and processors on its governing board. This statute is a barrier to the industry's consolidation plan and would unjustly grant processors, who do not pay in the Federal marketing orders, a role in directing activities funded with producer dollars.

H.R. 2984 would allow producers alone to dictate how their funds will be used in pear promotion activities. The pear industry, from producers to processors, is united in their support of this bill.

I want to applaud its gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for his work in bringing forth commonsense legislation that is wholeheartedly supported by the pear industry. I appreciate his leadership on behalf of his constituents. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2984.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, 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. 2984.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 261) expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the efforts of organizations such as Second Harvest to provide emergency food assistance to hungry people in the United States, and encouraging all Americans to provide volunteer services and other support for local antihunger advocacy efforts and hunger relief charities, including food banks, food rescue organizations, food pantries, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which recognizes the efforts of communities and faith-based groups such as Second Harvest to recover surplus food from restaurants and other facilities and donate it to local soup kitchens.

These efforts play an important role in combating hunger, which afflicts far too many Americans, particularly children.

The resolution is sponsored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and has 43 cosponsors. As we approach the holiday season, it is important to acknowledge these voluntary efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

This is a very worthy resolution and it reflects on the great work done by food banks and those who volunteer their efforts in the various food pantries and soup kitchens and restaurants that depend upon those food banks, including food banks in my congressional district, the Southwest Virginia Second Harvest Food Bank and the Blue Ridge Second Harvest Food Bank.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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 resolution just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 481) recognizing the establishment of Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States and the contributions of those programs to efforts to decrease hunger and help feed those in need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 481, as introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

This resolution recognizes and encourages Hunters for the Hungry programs. These are voluntary, cooperative efforts among hunters, sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat inspectors, and hunger relief organizations to help feed those in need. These programs are in place in almost every State. They have brought hundreds of thousands of pounds of venison to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks, feeding thousands of needy people.

Hunters for the Hungry programs are great examples of community service. This resolution is intended to bring attention to these programs and to promote additional constructive ideas for addressing the problem of hunger.

Hunting season is right around the corner in much of the country, and I urge my colleagues to do everything they can to support these important programs. Not only does hunting contribute to our rural economy, it helps our communities fight hunger.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his efforts to move this resolution forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate again the gentleman from Georgia and thank him for bringing forward this fine resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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 H. Res. 481, the resolution just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5042) to amend the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 to ensure that the dependents of employees of the Forest Service stationed in Puerto Rico receive a high-quality elementary and secondary education.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5042, introduced by the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila).

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5042 amends the Department's Organic Act to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to cover tuition and transportation costs for dependents of Forest Service employees in Puerto Rico.

When the U.S. Naval Base at Roosevelt Roads closed its school, several Forest Service employees lost the only nearby English language school available to their children. H.R. 5042 would allow the Department of Agriculture to reimburse tuition and transportation costs for these employees' dependents. Currently, several other Federal agencies, including the FAA, Department of Justice, and the Coast Guard, have made use of this authority for their employees assigned to Puerto Rico.

The bill should have minimal fiscal impact, as USDA was reimbursing the Department of Defense for the use of their school at the same rate authorized in this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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