Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3942) to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7 Commercial Boulevard in Middletown, Rhode Island, as the ``Rhode Island Veterans Post Office Building''.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I rise in support of H.R. 3942. This legislation redesignates the U.S. Postal Service facility at 7 Commercial Boulevard in Middletown, Rhode Island, as the Rhode Island Veterans Post Office Building.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Armed Forces are comprised of dedicated, skilled, and courageous individuals from all 50 States and every territory. Today, I am pleased to take time along with my colleagues to honor those who have served our Nation from the State of Rhode Island.

According to the 2000 census data, over 102,000 veterans live in Rhode Island, comprising 13 percent of the adult population of the State. This post office designation in Middletown is intended as a tribute to those 102,000 Rhode Islanders.

As we all know, U.S. military men and women remain engaged today in the war on terror in faraway places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Here at home we can never give too much back to our brave active duty personnel or our veterans to whom we owe our Nation's freedom. That is why I am pleased that the House is considering H.R. 3942 today. I ask all Members to support its swift passage.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for his work to honor our Nation's military service veterans from the great State of Rhode Island.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of H.R. 3942.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 399) honoring the life and legacy of Melvin Jones and recognizing the contributions of Lions Clubs International.

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. Res. 399.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 399 recognizes the remarkable global contributions of Lions Clubs International, the largest service club organization in the world.

Lions Clubs work to aid communities in 190 different countries with all sorts of humanity's problems. From collecting five million pairs of used eyeglasses each year to give to those with vision loss, to collecting thousands of books for hospitals and schools in need, and to establishing disease prevention programs, the Lions Clubs consistently live up to their long-stated mission, ``We serve.''

Mr. Speaker, the resolution also honors Melvin Jones, the founder of the Lions Clubs. Jones grew up in Chicago and worked in the insurance industry as a young adult at the turn of the 20th century. He became affiliated with the business group known as The Business Circle, but was dismayed that the group focused only on improving the financial status of its members. Jones sought a business club that asked for more from its members.

On June 17, 1917, Jones pulled together leaders of business clubs from

all over the U.S. to discuss a new business-oriented organization that also would be committed to community service. The nascent group was called the Association of Lions Clubs, and it has grown into the largest service club organization on Earth with 1.4 million members worldwide today.

This year is the 125th anniversary of Melvin Jones' birth and, therefore, a fitting time to pay tribute to his commitment to volunteerism and service.

Mr. Speaker, the Lions Clubs International are truly worthy of commendation by this House, and I would encourage anyone interested in volunteer opportunities to think about contacting a nearby Lions Club chapter.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for his work to honor Melvin Jones and the Lions Clubs. I know the gentleman from Minnesota has been a Lions Club member for many years. I congratulate the gentleman for advancing this resolution to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the mellifluous gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his contribution to the Lions Club in his area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the distinguished sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 578) supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month, and for other purposes.

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 materials on H. Res. 578, the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 578 supports the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month. The National Council on Economic Education, its State Councils and Centers for Economic Education and the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy have deemed April to be Financial Literacy Month. Along with my colleagues, especially the sponsor of this resolution, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), I am pleased to be highlighting this designation and the important cause of financial literacy.

This resolution aims to increase awareness of the significance of thoughtful and well-planned personal financial management. It can be overwhelming for people of any age to manage money, credit and debt, but learning simple financial principles can help protect you against severe family illness, short-term losses of employment, economic downturns, and other aspects of life that most of us will experience at one time or another.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution cites the fact that over the last 20 years personal savings have decreased from 7.5 percent of personal income to just over 2 percent today. This reality means more Americans have just a small cushion on which to fall back on when financial times become difficult. We all need to take steps to learn economic fundamentals and teach our children these principles as well. All of us can enjoy big returns on our investments in financial literacy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), my friend and distinguished Member from Illinois, for her work on H. Res. 578. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the sponsor of H. Res. 578.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments, commend him for his significant work in promoting financial literacy, and associate myself with his comments about the importance of training especially children in financial literacy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), one of the most financially astute Members of the House.

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

The prior speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), referred to the financial services products that we have available. I would just like to remind us all that we now have a new product in that array, that is, the health savings account which we passed in the recent Medicare package. It is good for all Americans. It is one of the elements of financial awareness that I hope is advanced through this financial literacy approach that we are taking here today.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for their support of this bill and bringing it to the floor today. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). It is

always a pleasure to work with him on projects like this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 578.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in support of H.R. 3147. It is my pleasure to sponsor a bill that would designate the Federal building located at 324 25th Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V Hansen Federal Building.

Almost all Members of this body will fondly remember our colleague Jim Hansen. I had the privilege of working with Jim during the first 6 years of my service in Utah's Third Congressional District, and during that time I looked to Jim for advice, guidance and leadership on countless occasions, and he never let me down.

Jim Hansen will be remembered for many things during his 22 years in Congress. He was a champion for multiple use and access to public lands. He fought numerous battles to protect the rights and interests of rural Utahns, and he never tired of fighting to preserve Hill Air Force Base.

When Jim was the dean of the Utah delegation, he dedicated his career to protecting the interests of his constituents. Not only did he represent Utahns and their values in Congress, he has impressed his colleagues by living those values. During his tenure as chairman of the Committee on Resources, Jim went to great efforts to bring together both sides of the aisle on contentious and complex resource issues. It was truly my pleasure to serve with him during that time on that committee.

Jim Hansen never lost an election. I credit that to his ability to listen and understand the people he represented. Jim never forgot the concerns of his constituents. I have learned from his example, and I appreciate the service he has given on behalf of Utah.

Above and beyond all his personal accomplishments, the most important thing I can say about Jim Hansen is that he made a difference. He made a difference in our national policies. He showed us that by acting honorably and with mutual respect we can get things done here in Congress. Over the course of his 42 years of public service, Jim Hansen has shown what it means to be a true statesman and a man of the people.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to sponsor this bill, but more importantly it is my pleasure to call Jim Hansen my friend; and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3147.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we had many people who wanted to come speak today, but I think the calendar has precluded them from coming. So I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill that honors our colleague, who I want to assure everyone is in vital health and still alive, despite all of the honors he has received recently.

Mr. Speaker, Jim Hansen was a man of great good humor, great political insight, great integrity, and a man of principle. I am honored to sponsor this bill on his behalf.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. Recently, the food industry has been targeted by a variety of legal claims which allege businesses should pay monetary damages and be subject to equitable remedies based on legal theories of liability for the overconsumption of its legal products.

In our subcommittee hearings last year, we explored the threat the food industry faces from frivolous litigation, the threat to personal responsibility posed by the proliferation of such litigation, and the need for H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.

H.R. 339 currently has 119 cosponsors. A similar bill was signed into law by Louisiana Governor Mike Foster on June 2, 2003, with huge bipartisan support. Every Republican in both legislative Chambers voted for the measure, as did 93 percent of Democrats in the Louisiana House and 83 percent of Democrats in the Louisiana Senate.

Recent history shows why similar legislation is necessary at the Federal level. We have seen industries brought to the verge of bankruptcy by frivolous lawsuits seeking billions of dollars. Today we have Ralph Nader comparing fast food companies to terrorists by telling The New York Times that the double cheeseburger is ``a weapon of mass destruction.'' In a hearing before our subcommittee last year, a law professor who helped spearhead lawsuits against the tobacco companies has said of fast food litigation, ``If the legislatures won't legislate, then the trial lawyers will litigate.''

It is clear that obesity is a problem in America. Equally clear, however, is the simple availability of high-fat food is not a singular or even a primary cause. For example, recent findings drawing on government databases and presented at a scientific conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology biological showed that over the past 20 years, teenagers have, on average, increased their caloric intake by 1 percent. During that same time period, the percentage of teenagers who said they engaged in some sort of physical activity for 30 minutes a day dropped by 13 percent. Not surprisingly, teenage obesity over that same 20-year period increased by 10 percent, indicating it is not junk food that is making teenagers overweight, but rather a lack of activity.

In short, it is unlikely that lawsuits against food establishments over their menu offerings will do much, if anything, to make us healthier. On the other hand, such lawsuits will threaten thousands of jobs that are today available to teenagers and other entry-level workers who need those jobs. Further, such lawsuits send the wrong message regarding personal choices and responsibility. Do we want our kids growing up believing it is a restaurant's fault that they are eating too many cheeseburgers?

Besides threatening to erode values of personal responsibility, the legal campaign against the food industry threatens our notion of government. Nationally coordinated lawsuits seek to accomplish through litigation what has not been, and will likely not be, achieved through legislation.

Last year, the House passed H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by a large, bipartisan vote. That bill bars frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry for the misuse of legal products by others. H.R. 339 similarly seeks to bar frivolous lawsuits against the food industry for overconsumption of its legal products by others. It is appropriate for Congress to respond to this growing legal assault on the concept of personal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, it is not only important, but also fundamental that Americans have access to courts to redress legitimate wrongs and the harms they cause. The trial bar serves an invaluable purpose in helping average Americans gain rightful and proportionate compensation when harm is done. However, frivolous lawsuits such as the ones this legislation seeks to prevent serve only to undermine our legal system and those who truly need its protections.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill, H.R. 339.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) on these two points that he has just made and then point out in response to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) this bill is about getting money from people who have it. It is not about oppressing the poor. And I think the structure of the bill, if you look at it fairly, will show that I rise in support of Senate 1920.

The amendment in the nature of a substitute of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) merely makes technical corrections to H.R. 975, which was passed by the House early last year. Given the uncontroversial nature of these revisions, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Last March the House passed H.R. 975 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 315 to 113. The administration has endorsed this legislation. The House has voted affirmatively on five separate occasions to pass this bill. Today we are reconsidering this bill in an attempt to reignite a stalled process. We must take action. America's bankruptcy system is, in fact, broken. It gets worse every day with more filings that break record after record, putting an enormous strain on the judiciary's resources. I have seen numbers that indicate the exponential growth to the number of bankruptcy filings.

I believe the increase in consumer bankruptcy filings will have adverse financial consequences for the American economy. In 1997 alone, more than $40 billion was discharged as a result of bankruptcy cases. This loss translates into a $400 annual tax on every household in our Nation in the form of higher prices and higher interest rates.

I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1920.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I would like to point out is if you look at the structure of the bill, this is not intended to keep people in slavery or economic servitude. It is intended to take money from those people who are gaming the system who have a large ability to earn income.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, will they be able to pay off the $10,000?

If they can pay off $10,000? In other words, is it possible that someone who owes millions and millions of dollars in debt may be held responsible for $10,000? We would certainly hope so.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding of this bill that the court can impose a structured pay-out. And that is $10,000, and he can pay $10,000, then he is relieved under the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I understand the gentleman's question, and the point is that the person can get discharged in the course of bankruptcy including a payment, but that payment is not related to what his grocery bill is. It is related to what he can earn and presumably based upon the judgment and discretion of the court what should be paid in addition to a general discharge.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important here to agree where things are agreeable and to be clear about what the disagreements are.

I think it is very clear that we have had a number of extensions to the farm bill. I think it is clear that those extensions have all been retroactive. I think it is clear that every Member of this body wants to make sure that this noncontroversial provision continues in place. I think everyone should agree here that it is important that farmers are able to get credit, and balancing the issues before us are important so that that credit system stays in place and so that we also enhance, by the way, the rest of our economy.

The fact is the bill before us is a bipartisan bill. We have heard special interests uttered numerous times here, and perhaps we ought to have the same kind of response to that that we have in the Bible because it is so misleading. The fact is this is not a special interest bill. This is a bill that passed 315 to 115. This is a bipartisan bill that solves problems that we need to resolve in our economy.

On the other hand, those people who are passionate about prosecuting possible acts of people who are against abortion, that represents I believe a special interest that should not be one that sets aside this bill and allows it to go forward.

Another thing that we apparently disagree on is that this bill can be passed or not. The fact is this is a passable bill. It can be passed very quickly. It can solve the problems of our family farmers. It can reinstate chapter 12, which we all agree is very, very important, and it can move through a conference with the Senate and to the President for signature very quickly. We have done a number of things in this bill to make it helpful for Americans and for American consumers, and I would urge opposition to the amendment and support for the underlying bill.

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

(H.R. 408) to provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 408 introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) of Michigan and amended by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundaries of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore by acquiring from a willing seller approximately 104.5 acres of land adjacent to the Lakeshore along the Crystal River.

H.R. 408, as amended, is supported by the majority and minority of the subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3062) to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sand and a lease for oil and gas, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1981, Congress passed the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act. This act was in direct response to the energy crisis of the late 1970s and a policy of the Carter administration to promote alternative energy sources. This law has not only failed to accomplish its primary objective, which was to stimulate the development of tar sands as an alternative fuel to imported oil, it has restricted conventional oil and gas development in over a million acres of land that is highly productive. The vast majority of this land is located in the Uinta Basin in my State of Utah.

The reality is that extraction and processing of tar sands is an uneconomic venture in the United States. Even if these designated tar sands were designated for lease, the industry would be reluctant to acquire the leases since recovery and processing of the tar sands is so costly. Only one lease sale has occurred on the tar sands since 1981, totaling 1.34 percent of the lands. This fact clearly illustrates the shortcomings of the act.

The potential reserves of conventional natural gas and oil under the tar sands areas is huge. This is a tremendous resource that is not currently available to the citizens of Utah or to the citizens of the United States who, in the recent past have and in the near future, will suffer from extremely high natural gas prices to heat their homes during the coming winter months.

In addition to the valuable oil and gas resources that are being lost, the Federal Government and the citizens of Utah are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in potential royalty and tax revenues from producers who are willing to process the oil and gas deposits in the tar sands areas. The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management would still administer these lands.

Producers attempting to lease these lands will be subject to every existing environmental stipulation as well as any new regulation that may be placed on these lands. Protections are already in place to prevent any degradation of existing wilderness areas and wilderness study areas.

The goal of my bill is to not circumvent or change any environmental regulations, but simply to make available for lease over 1 million acres of land that contain tremendous potential for natural gas and oil development by allowing the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately for the same area, a lease for tar sand and a lease for oil and gas development.

Action is in the public interest and would help increase the Nation's energy independence.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that in the spirit of comity and fair play, we appreciate the gentleman's statement. This initiative, I think, is well understood and well known, and I can assure the gentleman that all environmental concerns will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 708) to require the conveyance of certain National Forest Systems lands in Mendocino National Forest, California, to provide for the use of the proceeds from such conveyance for National Forest purposes, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 708, sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), would require the conveyance of certain National Forest System lands in the Mendocino National Forest, California, to provide for the use of the proceeds from such conveyance for National Forest purposes, and for other purposes.

This legislation would resolve a long-standing problem regarding the property boundary between the Mendocino National Forest and the Faraway Ranch in rural northern California. I urge support of the legislation.

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

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 and include extraneous material on the bills H.R. 408, H.R. 3062, and

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for his long hours and hard work on this issue. We appreciate that very much. Also, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has been very clear and very helpful in setting up the issue of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, and others who have worked on this bill who I will mention during my speech; but I also want to mention the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, who for years has worked on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 49. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of this committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their constant support of preventing taxation on Internet access. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for championing this issue since he, together with Senator Wyden, first introduced this legislation.

I also wish to recognize the efforts of my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, on companion legislation in the other body. I look forward to working with him and others to guide our product to the President's desk for signature.

This body has debated Internet tax moratorium bills several times since 1998. In the past, efforts were made to link these moratoria to consideration of whether Congress should adopt legislation authorizing States to compel the collection of sales taxes from remote vendors. This effort, known as the ``Streamlined Sales Tax Project,'' or SSTP, has made progress without Federal intervention. But as we know, before interstate compacts can become effective, the Constitution requires congressional approval.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his attention to the SSTP and assure him of my cooperation in considering all facets of this effort. My subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on the project for October 1 in order to give Members an opportunity to examine this issue fully.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 49. This bill would broaden access to the Internet, expand consumer choice, promote certainty in growth in the IT sector of our economy, and encourage deployment of broadband services at lower prices.

The bill puts to rest the ``grandfather'' clause and makes tax-free Internet access a national policy. As I stated during committee consideration of this bill, the amount of tax revenue that certain States collect as a result of the grandfather clause pales in comparison to the amounts of aid these States receive under President Bush's economic package. We established a consistent national policy of not taxing Internet access through this bill.

H.R. 49 was amended in the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that the moratorium is equally applied to all forms of Internet access. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my good friend, and I were alerted to the fact that since 1998, the ITFA tax protections were not being fairly applied by the States. In particular, some States have begun to tax DSL Internet access in plain circumvention of the intent of the ITFA.

I supported the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) in an

amendment at the committee to achieve what we believe is a fair and sound policy; parity of tax treatment for all forms of Internet access. This bipartisan effort, led by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), underscores the importance of the Internet to our economy. The result is a thoughtful and necessary clarification restoring the ITFA to its original intent. It strikes a careful balance between those who tax and those who are taxed.

I want to emphasize that telecommunications services not used to provide Internet access remain outside the moratorium and that voice services over traditional telephone lines, therefore, remain taxable. Not taxable are the DSL, cable, dial-up, or other Internet access technologies that may run over those lines.

This bill, cosponsored by more than 130 Members of this body, is endorsed by administration and supported by numerous technology companies and organizations. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes sense for an economy that, while improving, needs clarity of tax policy by encouraging investment in broadband.

Finally, I want to thank again the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his consistent support as we move toward permanent tax freedom for Internet access. His work has been invaluable. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 49 as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to speak in favor of the United States and Chile Free Trade Agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact the administration has worked closely with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and other members of the Committee on the Judiciary on the legislation to implement the temporary entry provisions that are included in the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements.

The bill language relating to the temporary entry of professionals was carefully crafted to track the H-1B program, therefore ensuring that Chilean professionals fall under the H-1B cap and that comparable fees can be charged and that the labor attestations for these visas are modeled after the H-1B program.

The temporary entry of professionals, who must have bachelor degrees or more advanced degrees, facilitates trade and services which currently account for 65 percent of the U.S. economy. The international mobility of business professionals has become an increasingly important aspect of competitive markets for suppliers and consumers alike. Facilitating the movement of professionals allows trade partners to more efficiently provide each other with services, such as architecture, engineering, consulting, and construction. It has been customary to include such provisions in trade agreements as a part of the services chapter, and the U.S. service providers are very supportive of these provisions.

The current U.S. Trade Representative inherited the Chile agreement from the prior administration, and this USTR has consulted very closely with Congress on negotiations on the agreement last year and on the implementing legislation in recent weeks, including on temporary entry of professionals. I know the USTR appreciates this consultation process on these sensitive issues. The USTR has continued to consult with Congress on trade agreements now being negotiated, including the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the Australia FTA, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and none of these agreements currently includes provisions on the temporary entry of professionals.

Over the past few weeks, Congress has sent a clear message asking USTR to discontinue the practice of including such provisions in these agreements. I know the USTR listens closely to Congress, and I am confident that we will continue to have opportunities to work closely with Ambassador Zoellick and his team in ensuring that the best possible free trade agreements are achieved.

Congress' goal, however, is not to become the U.S. trade negotiator itself but to be a close partner in the overall process. Recent consultations with the administration on the Chile agreement shows that this partnership is beneficial and can work. Let us not take a step backward at this crucial time. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado has insisted that this is a back-door deal. I think that it is important to understand that this is not a back-door deal; it is a deal that was done at the suggestion of the National Association of Counties under their direction and under their purview as a memorandum of understanding that could be used in other States and as a model for solving these problems. This is about solving problems.

In addition, the gentleman continues to suggest that there are areas that are worthy of wilderness designation when, in fact, wilderness is not a protection of land. A wilderness designation is a recreational protection. It is a place where people can go and be away from modernity, and that is a worthy value; but it does not go to the legal right that States and counties have to their roads, the roads that they have had for 100 or 150 years. That is the issue that we need to deal with today.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The gentleman is aware that there is an underlying memorandum of understanding between the Department of the Interior and the State of Utah in that it is not possible, given the context of that MOU for the issue of private property, to be relevant.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, in fact, this memorandum of understanding was done at the suggestion and under the oversight and direction of the National Association of Counties, with the explicit point of seeing how it works in Utah so we could go to these other States. In other words, no one is getting out ahead of anyone else or going to solve or create problems in Oregon based upon an MOU in Utah.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

You realize we have 5 million acres in the BLM excess land fund. We would love to sell those acres and fund the land and water conservation deal.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by thanking the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for his work on this issue. It is a very important issue, obviously, an issue that has some intensity.

I thought about asking unanimous consent to lower the temperature on the floor here by 8 degrees. I think that would be very helpful, since it seems to be about 78, as opposed to 70.

This has been a very important issue to us in Utah in particular, and as a matter of policy we appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Taylor) involvement in the issue of policy.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who probably has done more reading on this issue than anybody else in this room and has drawn conclusions that he has presented, I think, very eloquently earlier.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his thoughtful words on this issue.

I would also like to thank the proponent of this issue, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), who is someone with whom you can disagree without being disagreeable. We disagree stridently on this issue, dramatically on this issue, but it is in an environment in which we can talk, and I appreciate that.

The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) talked about this as a back- room agreement. It is not a back-room agreement. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) talked about this as an archaic, arcane and arbitrary rule or law. That is what you call a law you do not like. But the fact is we have law in America.

I have been interested to follow the debate of several people on the Democratic side here. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) talked about our institutional prerogatives in Congress. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) said it is time for Congress to do its job. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) talked about continuing to work to find the solution to this problem.

But, in fact, this is not a congressional problem. It is true we have oversight, we have responsibility for these kind of issues, but we have law in place already. And that law delegates certain authorities to the Department of the Interior. And in the context of that delegated law, the Department of Interior has entered into an agreement.

It is an open agreement. It is not a back-room agreement. It is an agreement that was precipitated by the National Association of Counties, of which every single Member of this body has counties that are part of that group. That is not a group that is hiding the ball or doing something in the back room. That is a group that wanted to create a process that we could start and evaluate as we used it to come to the point of understanding whether or not we could solve these problems in the context of law.

If that process got out of hand or something radically wrong happened, we could step in and resolve that process. Because, ultimately, that is our prerogative as Congress.

It is an emotional issue that is very intense to me.

Let me point out this is not a problem with Utah. We have a letter from what is called The Club of 20 which are 22 counties on the western slope in Colorado who have sent a letter to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) supporting his amendments.

May I just suggest if you look at what the Taylor amendment does, it takes what I think is an egregious step in taking away the proper authority from the Department of the Interior and brings back into context what we should be doing, as a matter of oversight, what we should be doing to express ourselves to protect the interests that are of such great concern to Americans. And that is it allows the process that has been set up by the Department of the Interior and the State of Utah to go forward.

It does that in the context of protection. It protects national refuges, national wildlife refuges. It protects wilderness study areas. It protects wilderness areas. It protects national parks. It protects monuments.

We cannot protect private property. May I just suggest that all the discussion about private property misses the point? We should not be creating national policy in the context of nasty neighbors.

RS-2477 rights exist in the context of law and have to be resolved at the proper level and not here. So we can do nothing about the private property issue. And, in fact, the memorandum of understanding, the MOU, between the Department of the Interior and Utah does not allow for the disclaimer to be used in the context of any road over private property. It is only to be used in the context of the roads that you saw that my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) showed with his picture.

Let me point out that Utah is different from some other parts of the country. I was the Associate Solicitor in the Interior Department for some period of time in charge of coal mining reclamation. I probably have been in more coal mines than everybody else in this group put together, and I have seen the devastation in the Northeast of the United States. We built our economy on the devastation of the coal mining lands in Kentucky and West Virginia and Virginia and Tennessee and other areas.

But you cannot find a coal mine in Utah without a map, and the reason you cannot find a coal mine in Utah is because we have been careful about how we have used our public lands.

I grew up in an area called Wayne County, to some degree. One of my favorite areas in Utah, they call it Wayne Wonderland. I once walked five miles down a ditch that our ancestors had dug to get some water to a lousy 200 acres of land, a beautiful 200 acres of land, and they did it with great sweat and pain and suffering because they loved the land and wanted to produce on it.

We have used the land in Utah, I think, well; and I think that our record

of the environment stands up to anyone's scrutiny.

I suggest to this body that this memorandum of understanding is appropriate, and it should not be interfered with by this amendment. I urge a vote of yes on the Taylor amendment perfecting the Udall amendment and a vote of no on the underlying amendment.

I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his work on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing my great esteem for the proponents of this bill. I believe that they honestly think that this bill will limit or, to some degree, prohibit or slow the growth of the pernicious vice of gambling on the Internet. I am personally not convinced that that will happen; and if I might, I would like to just focus on comments by the last two gentlemen who have spoken.

The gentleman from Kentucky talks about 52,000 jobs in his State that depend upon horse racing, which is currently legal in his State and currently legal in many other States in the Union and around the world. The gentleman from Florida has just talked about 700,000 jobs in the country or more that relate to horse racing and 30,000 jobs that relate to dog racing; and, of course, the other two exceptions that are carved out in the underlying bill are jai alai, which is, of course, a big sport in Florida, and State-run lotteries.

The problem with this bill and the reason we have so much emotion and so much emotional support for the idea that this amendment is bad is that this amendment might make those activities illegal when in fact what this amendment does is eliminate carve-outs and eliminate gambling that is now illegal. The problem for me is that I represent the State of Utah, one of only two States that actually totally prohibits gambling. The other State is Hawaii. From the perspective of our States, and I say this with all due respect, this is not the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, this is Internet Gambling Enabling Act. It actually allows gaming in Utah and will do so in Utah and Hawaii and other States where there are limitations on gambling unless the carve- outs are removed.

The underlying bill provides these major carve-outs, and I think we have broad consensus from those who have actually looked at the bill and understand it. The U.S. Department of Justice and the National Association of Attorneys General have expressed themselves on this issue. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, John Malcolm of the U.S. Department of Justice testified that the aforementioned section, the carve-out section, was one of the reasons DOJ could not endorse Senate 627, which is nearly identical to H.R. 21 and now H.R. 2143. Testifying on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, warned that under that bill the exceptions could swallow the rule. Certainly in those States where gambling is outlawed or some gambling is outlawed, the exceptions could swallow the rule. In testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, when asked if that action would allow lotteries to go online, Malcolm responded, ``Absolutely.'' You cannot do that in Utah today, but you will be able to if this law preempts local State law.

Thus, H.R. 21 is not really an Internet gambling prohibition bill. You might actually consider it an Internet gambling industrial policy bill because we are choosing a favored class of state-sponsored Internet gambling under this bill.

Last year during consideration of a similar bill, H.R. 3215 in the 107th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary voted overwhelmingly against allowing carve-outs in Internet gaming legislation. Last year when the Committee on the Judiciary was considering the Goodlatte Internet gambling bill, which had similar carve-outs, I offered amendments to strike those carve-outs. The amendments were adopted by wide margins, and the bill as modified was reported overwhelmingly by the committee.

The argument that the provisions simply allow States to regulate intrastate wagers does not wash. The provision is an exception from the definition of ``bets or wagers.'' It is not confined to intrastate. It essentially says that state-licensed facilities can do anything their license allows them to do, be it pari-mutuel, casino-style, or any other kind of betting.

This bill is ill considered despite the great intentions of its proponents. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 361.

This bill is important for all of the reasons that have already been discussed. An athletic agent is in a unique position in that while he stands to gain from his relationship with the student athlete, that student athlete client shoulders much of the risk when rules are not followed.

H.R. 361 evens the responsibilities and will help to act as a deterrent for agents who would otherwise not play by the rules of the game.

H.R. 361 will prohibit an athlete agent from recruiting or soliciting a student athlete to enter into an agency contract through the use of false or misleading information, or by the provision of anything of value to the athlete or those associated with him.

In addition, the bill would require the contract between the agent and the student athlete to have a conspicuous notice in bold typeface stating that the agreement for agent representation may result in the termination of the student athlete's eligibility to compete in collegiate sports.

Violations of this act may be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission or the attorney general of the State of occurrence. The FTC may pursue an action as an unfair or deceptive act or practice. States are authorized to commence civil actions against the agent who is in violation of this act and seek remedies, including enjoining the practice, enforcing compliance, obtaining damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the State's residents.

In addition, this bill allows for educational institutions to seek damages in the event that a university athletic director is not informed of a new contractual relationship within 72 hours, either of the signing or the first event that the athlete is eligible to participate in.

Failure to so instruct may allow the ineligible athlete to compete, thus causing exposure for the institution to be liable or penalized under sanctions, fines, forfeitures, or disqualifications. The bill allows the institution to file suit against the agent for his failure to disclose, and to seek compensation for those damages which the educational institution suffered.

At the subcommittee, with the support of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), working with the minority and with the distinguished ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), I offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which made this bill better.

The amendment clarified several portions of the bill to make it clear what behavior will and will not be tolerated. The amendment clarified that the only representation to be prohibited is that of an agent, and should not otherwise prohibit or discourage an athlete from seeking legal representation.

Further, the amendment included a specific ban on the giving of loans or acting as guarantor or co-guarantor for anything of value to the athlete or those associated with those athletes. This subterfuge is currently a common way of skirting NCAA rules.

Finally, the amendment clarified that nothing in this bill was meant to prohibit an individual from seeking Federal, State, or equity remedies under existing law, thus strengthening the student athlete's right to pursue a claim under existing contractual law.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in urging the House to give its full support to the adoption of H.R. 361.