Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5304) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for caller ID spoofing, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have five copies at the desk currently.

Mr. Speaker, we are having a copy directed to Mr. Scott. He has got it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5304, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5304, the Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number

Enforcement Act, the PHONE Act, which was introduced by Representative Tim Murphy. I thank Mr. Murphy for his leadership and commitment to this issue.

In the last few years, the criminal activity known as ``spoofing'' has been on the rise. Caller ID spoofing occurs when a person deliberately uses an incorrect, fake or fraudulent caller identification to hide their identity in order to facilitate a fraudulent telephone call and to harass, trick or further a fraudulent scheme. The victims of this activity include the legitimate owner of a caller ID or the recipient of a fraudulent telephone call, who, as a result, may divulge legitimate financial or identifying information such as credit card numbers or other financial information. Spoofing is nothing less than criminal fraud.

Spoofing technology has become more accessible to the average person, either through the purchase of Internet telephone equipment or through Web sites specifically set up to spoof. These Web sites promote spoofing as a device to commit fraud, prank phone calls and political attacks, and are used by telemarketers who are attempting to avoid the current ``do not call'' limits.

H.R. 5304 creates a new Federal crime prohibiting the modification of caller ID to harass or commit fraud or use another person's ID without that person's consent. The bill imposes a penalty of a prison term of up to 5 years and/or a fine for any violation. However, the legislation does not affect legally available blocking of caller ID technology or lawfully authorized activities of law enforcement intelligence agencies.

This legislation will help to deter telephone fraud, to protect consumers from harassment, and to increase protection of consumers and their personally identifiable data from fraudulent telephone use.

I urge my colleagues to join together to pass this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5304.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the gentleman that this is in fact an ongoing problem where we have crimes being committed and some difficulty in some cases actually having a rationale for prosecuting people that are using this sometimes in very harsh criminal circumstances.

The original bill used the term ``misleading.'' I think we have changed that now to ``defraud or harass.'' There is no legitimate purpose when you are talking about the defrauding or harassing.

So I would encourage my colleagues to support this bill. It is much improved, taking into account the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia, and I believe that it is an appropriate bill, a bill that is well-drafted now, and I would urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), the author of the bill.

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

I would like to introduce for the Record a letter dated today, from the Department of Justice, that I think answers some of the questions that the gentleman from Virginia has asked. We will see that a copy of this is delivered to the gentleman.

Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs,

Office of the Assistant Attorney General,

Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice appreciates

the opportunity to comment on H.R. 5304, the ``Preventing

Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act'' (``PHONE

Act''). As Deputy Assistant Attorney General Barry Sabin

testified before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and

Homeland Security last month, we support Congressional action

to give law enforcement better tools to protect our citizens

and our country from identity thieves, stalkers, and other

criminals.

Overall, the bill would support the Department's efforts to

combat the threats caused by the widespread availability of

``caller ID spoofing.'' As noted at the Subcommittee's

hearing on the PHONE Act, these threats include preying on

the elderly, harassment of telephone users, and dangerous

false alarms to public safety personnel. Caller ID spoofing

facilitates a number of serious crimes, including identity

theft, pretexting, and privacy invasions. It can also be used

to hamper important, time sensitive investigations.

The Department was especially pleased to see that the scope

of the bill includes both conventional telephone calling and

many types of voice over Internet protocol (``VOIP'')

services. VOIP is an important new advance in the way

Americans communicate, and our laws need to keep up with such

technological advances if these new innovations are to reach

their full potential.

The drafters also have wisely recognized that, at times, it

may be necessary to modify caller ID information in the

course of authorized law enforcement and intelligence

operations. Accordingly, the bill properly includes an

exception for these legitimate law enforcement and

intelligence activities.

The Department has a number of recommendations (described

below) to clarify the bill and to make it even more

effective.

A. The bill could be made more effective by creating a more

graduated series of offenses.

Proposed Section 1038(a) creates only a single offense, a

felony. A felony is a very serious charge that carries heavy

penalties that may not be proportional to the conduct at

issue in every case. The drafters may wish to consider a more

graduated series of offenses that would allow prosecutors to

charge misdemeanor offenses in appropriate circumstances. For

instance, felony penalties could be reserved for caller ID

spoofing done in furtherance of another crime or tort, while

those playing practical jokes could be charged with a

misdemeanor offense. This could lead to greater use of the

statute and more just results. Such an approach has been

implemented in other federal criminal statutes such as 18

U.S.C. Sec. 1030(c)(2)(B) (part of the Computer Fraud and

Abuse Act) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 270 I (b) (the criminal

provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act).

B. The bill could be made more effective by prohibiting

attempts.

A prosecution should not depend on whether a criminal was

successful in the object of his or her crime. Thus, if a call

placed by a criminal attempting to mislead another does not

go through for some reason, the criminal should be punishable

as if the call had been completed. Such failures may occur

where a service has blocked certain numbers, such as 911, or

even for more mundane technical problems. These failures do

not make the criminal any less culpable for attempting to

mislead others. Thus, we recommend that the bill punish

attempts the same as the substantive offense.

C. The new provision should be numbered 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 1039.

The bill seeks to add a new provision to the end of Chapter

47 of Title 18. Section 1038 in Title 18 already exists,

however, and we understand that there is a good chance that a

bill currently moving through Congress would create a new

section numbered 1039. Thus, this bill should be numbered

either 1039 or 1040 instead.

D. The drafters may wish to include a clear statement of

jurisdiction.

We believe that the bill as written contains a sufficient

nexus to interstate commerce to justify federal jurisdiction

in most cases. Nevertheless, in order to make jurisdiction

even more clear, the Committee may want to consider adding

the phrase ``using any facility or means of interstate or

foreign commerce'' to proposed subsection 1038(a).

Alternatively, it may be helpful to include a specific

finding regarding jurisdiction in the Committee's report.

E. The bill can be made more effective by prohibiting

``generating and transmitting'' misleading caller

identification information in addition to ``modifying'' such

information.

Some of the caller ID spoofing services available today do

not actually modify caller ID information. As a technical

matter, the service creates a new telephone call, thereby

generating or transmitting new caller ID information. To take

into account such situations, we recommend that, in addition

to modifying information, the bill also cover generating

or transmitting caller ID information with an intent to

mislead.

F. The bill can be made more effective by prohibiting

caller ID spoofing with the intent to mislead any other

person.

Caller ID spoofing can be used not only to mislead call

recipients, but also to defraud communications service

providers. In addition to misreporting the information that

eventually is displayed on call recipients' caller ID

displays, the same methods can be and are used to falsify the

telephone numbers that carriers use to determine appropriate

billing for calls that are carried on their networks. The

bill can be strengthened to include this type of fraud by

prohibiting misleading ``any other person'' rather than only

misleading call recipients.

G. The bill can be made more effective by clarifying the

definition of ``caller ID information. ``

As currently drafted, the definition of ``caller ID

information'' is difficult to parse. We would recommend

rewording proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(A) to say ``The term

`caller ID information' means information regarding the

origination of the telephone call, including the telephone

number of the originating party.''

H. The bill can be made more effective by focusing the

definition of ``telephone call'' on the service used to

receive calls rather than the service used to make calls.

The bill seeks to cover matters involving ``telephone

calls.'' A ``telephone call'' is defined as a ``call made

using a telecommunications service or a VOIP service.'' See

proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This

definition focuses on the service being used to make the

call, thereby allowing the person seeking to mislead others

to avoid criminal liability by choosing a service not covered

by the statute. For example, a caller using a service that

allows only outbound calls to the public switched telephone

network (PSTN) would not be covered (without the

modifications suggested in Section I below), even though

ordinary telephone users would be receiving such calls. The

bill's coverage more properly should depend on the type of

service being used to receive the call, since it is call

recipients that the bill seeks to protect from being misled.

We recommend that the definition of ``telephone call'' be

changed to read ``The term `telephone call' means a

communication made using or received on a telecommunications

service or VOIP service.''

I. The bill can be made more effective by expanding the

definition of ``VOIP service.''

We have a number of concerns with the narrow scope of the

definition of ``VOIP service,'' a definition that soon could

be overtaken by advances in technology. It is important to

craft this definition well not only because of the effect it

would have on the scope of this bill, but because of the

effect it could have on the scope of other important

programs, such as the Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act and emergency response services. As Thomas

Navin, Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau of the

Federal Communications Commission, testified before the

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the

Energy and Commerce Committee, ``a restrictive definition of

VOIP . . . might establish a statutory precedent that would

restrict the Commission's authority to protect life and

property in both the public safety and law enforcement

contexts.'' The Department has expressed similar concerns in

regulatory proceedings and in connection with other bills

introduced this Congress, and we would respectfully raise

those same concerns with this Committee.

1. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service be transmitted ``through

customer premises equipment.''

It is not clear why protection from being misled by caller

ID information should depend on whether VOIP service is

transmitted ``through customer premises equipment,'' as set

forth in proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i). We therefore

suggest deleting these words (``through customer premises

equipment'') to broaden the scope of the bill.

2. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service use Transmission Control

Protocol.

The bill should not be limited to services that use the

Transmission Control Protocol (``TCP''), as many current VOIP

services use another protocol (that is not a successor to

TCP) called the User Datagram Protocol (``UDP''). We

therefore recommend that ``Transmission Control Protocol/''

be deleted from proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i).

3. The bill can be made more effective by clarifying the

parenthetical in the definition of a ``VOIP service.''

Proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i) provides that a VOIP

service is covered even when the Internet protocol conversion

is performed ``without use of circuit switching.'' The

Department believes that this provision is unclear. We

recommend that the parenthetical be clarified.

4. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service be offered ``for a fee.''

The Department believes it would be preferable that the

bill's prohibition not depend on the provider's business

model, that is, not apply only to those VOIP services offered

``for a fee.'' See proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i). At

least some VOIP services are offered at no charge and will be

supported by revenue generated from sources other than user

fees, such as advertising revenue. In fact, several VOIP

providers are currently offering free calls to or from the

PSTN. There is no reason why the business model of the

service provider should have an impact on the scope of the

bill's coverage.

5. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the

requirement that a VOIP service must offer two-way

interconnection to the PSTN.

The bill also limits ``VOIP service'' to a service that

``has the capability to originate traffic to, and terminate

traffic from, the public switched telephone network [PSTN].''

See proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1038(c)(l)(C)(iii) (emphasis

added). This provision is unnecessarily restrictive for two

reasons. First, some VOIP providers offer services that only

allow one of those two capabilities. Under the definition in

the bill, a call to a person's telephone is not a ``telephone

call'' if the caller's service does not also allow that

originator to receive calls from the PSTN. There is no reason

a person should be allowed to mislead call recipients, even

ones using traditional telephone service, simply because he

or she uses a service that restricts incoming calls. Even if

the bill were amended as suggested above to focus on the

service used to receive calls, there is no reason why

subscribers to receive-only services should be less protected

from fraudulent caller ID information simply because their

ability to call out is limited. We recommend that, at a

minimum, the word ``and'' be changed to ``or'' in proposed

subsection 1038(c)(l)(C)(iii).

In addition, the bill only covers services that are capable

of interconnecting with the PSTN. Reference to the PSTN could

be interpreted to limit its applicability to one particular

set of wires, i.e., the traditional telephone network. If, as

some predict, the future of telephone communications shifts

entirely away from that older network, the bill could become

a dead letter. We recommend adding ``or a successor network''

at the end of proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(iii).

J. The bill can be more effective by including a forfeiture

provision.

In addition, the Department believes the bill would have

more deterrent effect if it also included a forfeiture

provision. Specifically, a court could order the convicted

party to forfeit the proceeds derived from the offense, along

with equipment used to facilitate the offense. The language

for a forfeiture provision could be modeled on the wording

used for the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. See 18 U.S.C.A.

Sec. 1037(c).

K. The bill can be made more effective by giving

prosecutors tools to combat money laundering of illegal

proceeds of violations of the PHONE Act and the CAN-SPAM Act.

We recommend adding proposed section 1039 and existing

section 1037 to the list of ``specified unlawful activities''

in section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18. This amendment would

make certain financial transactions involving the proceeds of

violations of sections 1037 and 1039 money laundering

offenses under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1956 and 1957, and it will

provide for the civil forfeiture of such proceeds. See 18

U.S.C. Sec. 981(a)(l)(C) (providing for the civil forfeiture

of proceeds of crimes designated as ``specified unlawful

activity''). Existing law provides that comparable crimes,

e.g., violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030 (computer fraud and

abuse) constitute specified unlawful activities.

For convenience, we have included recommended edits to the

text of the bill in order to accomplish many of the

recommendations suggested above (attached hereto as Appendix

A). The Department appreciates the Committee's leadership in

ensuring that our country's laws meet this new challenge.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill and for

your continuing support.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there

is no objection to the presentation of these views from the

standpoint of the Administration's program. If we may be of

additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this

office.

Sincerely,

James H. Clinger,

Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice supports the bill. We recognize that sometimes in the helter-skelter of closing up Congress, things happen quickly and maybe not perfectly. I think this bill is a good bill. I think this bill does what we need it to do. I think we have answered the major questions here. We may have to revisit it sometime in the future, but I would like to see law enforcement have this tool.

So I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a copy of those comments on the way over to the gentleman from Virginia. I would hope we would never require begging in this institution for access to information, and I apologize for any inconvenience.

While we are delivering the Department of Justice's letter, the first paragraph of which talks about supporting the bill, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman from Virginia had the opportunity to review the document and the bill?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, one of the greatest pains in my life is the fact that we have colleagues in this institution who are sometimes troublesome, and so we get that caller ID and I think it is from my office and I end up talking to one of my colleagues I might not have talked to if I wasn't being spoofed by the institution.

My understanding is we had to make a copy of that letter. Apparently it was the only one we had. So we will have a copy coming to you momentarily. It is being delivered currently to your staff.

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

Let me point out to the gentleman that those are not recommendations of things that are needed to improve the bill but suggestions for improvement of the bill, and I would ask my colleagues to support the bill as it stands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and would like to point out, I am sure the gentleman when he talks about hiding the ball he is not referring to us. We have been working with the Justice Department to get this information.

We got to the gentleman's office this bill by midday today and, again, we apologize for the technical difficulties. I am not sure if the gentleman opposes the bill in substance, but I would again encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

It is my understanding the gentleman is likely to be the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee next year and can bring this up and improve it with all of the comments and the suggestions that the Justice Department has proposed, and therefore I hope that he will join with me in supporting this bill for its passage. I encourage my colleagues to pass it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns and would point out if he had more time with the bill, if the staff had gotten it to him earlier today, I suspect he would have seen that many of the suggestions he has made here or suggestions he has read from the Department of Justice document have actually been taken into account. Misleading, for instance, is one of the terms that has been adjusted because it is very difficult to deal with.

The question here is are we going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a bill that is very important to the American people. If you are a divorcee and your husband is harassing you and he is using a fake phone number to do it, you do not want to wait until next session. You want the bill passed now so that your former husband is going to be more careful and not abuse you and your children and maybe not subject you to injury or harm.

I suggest that those people that are using spoofing need to be told today that this is inappropriate, and I urge passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3821) to authorize certain athletes to be admitted temporarily into the United States to compete or perform in an athletic league, competition, or performance.

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 S. 3821, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of Senate 3821, the COMPETE Act of 2006. S. 3821 would allow minor league professional athletes and certain performers to utilize the P-1 visa category.

The P-1 visa category allows internationally recognized performers, including athletes, artists and entertainers, to temporarily enter the U.S. for a specific event, competition or performance. To date, Citizenship and Immigration Services has interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act in such a way that only allows major league professional athletes to utilize the P-1 visa category.

Minor league baseball and hockey players and some professional performers have been forced to utilize the H-2B visa category, which is capped at 66,000 visas annually and has been oversubscribed in recent years. Many minor league baseball and hockey teams attempt to bring in new players at times

of the year when the numerical cap has already been reached for H-2B visas.

Ice skaters who perform in special events in the United States find themselves in a similar predicament. Ice shows are planned many months in advance, but when ice skaters are recruited for these shows, H-2B visas are not always available. This legislation would also allow ice skaters performing in theatrical ice productions to use the P-1 visa category.

The United States is the pinnacle showground for most athletes and performers. It is where the best athletes and performers come to display their talents and skills. By moving minor league athletes and ice performers to the P-1 category, sports leagues and production teams will be able to recruit the most talented individuals from around the world and thus continue America's tradition of excellency in the professional sports arena.

I urge my colleagues to support Senate 3821.

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

Mr. Speaker, with the admonition to my colleagues to support this bill and pass it, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 4042) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Services.

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 S. 4042, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 4042, which expands existing law prohibiting certain demonstrations at military funerals.

The men and women of our Armed Forces risk their lives every day to preserve America's freedom. Military funerals honor our veterans and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Funerals are solemn occasions for family and loved ones to grieve their loss. Military funerals are important ceremonies for Americans to show their respect and gratitude for our fallen heroes.

Yet, these dignified, peaceful ceremonies are being disrupted by political demonstrations. In the last year, a fringe religious group known as Westboro Baptist Church has disrupted more than 100 military funerals across the country, claiming that the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are God's punishment for America's tolerance of gays and lesbians. Over the past 15 years, Westboro Baptist Church has staged over 22,000 demonstrations nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers this legislation today, the Westboro Baptist Church is again staging protests to disrupt the funerals of Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz in New Jersey and Lance Corporal James R. Davenport in South Carolina.

On behalf of the American people, I want to extend my sincere apologies to

the families of these soldiers, and to reassure our military servicemembers and their families that such demeaning and disgusting displays will never occur again.

In May, the President signed into law H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which prohibits demonstrations at Arlington National Cemetery and other cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration.

Approximately 650,000 funerals are conducted each year for our veterans and Active Duty military; however, only 90,000 of these are held at the Nation's 121 Federal cemeteries. Many veterans and servicemembers are laid to rest at private cemeteries. S. 4042 will expand the current law to all military funerals to ensure that all are afforded the utmost respect and dignity.

S. 4042 prohibits any person from intentionally disrupting or impeding access to a military funeral. An offense under this section is punishable by a fine of up to 1 year in jail. This bill is clearly constitutional as its predecessor was under Congress' broad authority under Article I, section 7 to raise and support armies. Congress has the authority to support America's soldiers by acting to preserve the dignity of their funeral ceremonies.

This bill is modeled after an ordinance upheld by the Supreme Court as a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction. The Senate passed S. 4042 yesterday by unanimous consent. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple comments. I thank Mr. Conyers for his very gracious response, and want to point out that Mr. Buyer was a member of the Judiciary Committee, and himself is a scholar on these issues, and obviously emotional and concerned as he has been an active member of the military and continues, I believe, in the Reserve. And so I want to thank him for his comments and recognize the intensity of his feelings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6427) to increase the amount in certain funding agreements relating to patents and nonprofit organizations to be used for scientific research, development, and education, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6427 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6427 and urge its adoption by the House.

The bill changes the way a particular royalty formula under the Bayh- Dole Act. This is the landmark 1980 law that governs protection of patented inventions developed with the assistance of Federal funding. In brief, H.R. 6427 allows small government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories and their affiliated universities or nonprofits to receive a fair percentage of revenue from a successful patent that they license. The bill produces an equitable result for small entities that perform important research in a number of scientific fields, all of which benefits the American people.

I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for his work on this issue; I urge the House to pass H.R. 6427 for expeditious consideration by the other body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield so much time as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) may consume.

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

I would just like to say that at an earlier phase of my life I had the great privilege of working with the people who helped develop these policies that allowed for the privatization of Federal R&D.

This is a simple bill that makes enormous sense and the underlying bill that it amends has resulted in massive improvements in the lives of all Americans. This is a sensible adjustment to that, and I suggest that all of our colleagues support this reasonable bill

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3546, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act. I am the sponsor of the companion bill, H.R. 6168, here in the House.

S. 3546 would require mandatory adverse event reporting of serious events for dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs, OTCs, within the FDA.

Currently, an adverse event reporting system for supplements and some OTCs exists, yet it is strictly voluntary. Under the proposed system, manufacturers, packers or distributors of OTC drugs or dietary supplements in the United States must report to the FDA within 15 business days any serious adverse event associated with their products. Serious events include those that result in death, a life-threatening experience, inpatient hospitalization, disability or incapacity, birth defect, or medical/surgical intervention to prevent one of these outcomes.

S. 3546 brings needed regulation to guarantee consumer protection from non-legitimate companies. This legislation will expose corrupt businesses that are misleading consumers and breaking the law, as well as protecting individuals from serious health risks.

S. 3546 would not restrict nor limit access to dietary supplements but in fact would strengthen the regulatory structure for dietary supplements building greater consumer confidence in this category of FDA-regulated products.

Mandatory adverse event reporting would not affect the regulation of dietary supplements under DSHEA. Although manufacturers would be required to report serious adverse events to FDA, the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act clearly distinguishes dietary supplements from drugs.

S. 3546 would actually counter critics who believe dietary supplements are under-regulated and should be treated as drugs.

The dietary supplement industry is a $20 billion industry. It is estimated that over 60 percent of Americans regularly use dietary supplements to improve health. Consumers should be confident that these dietary supplements are legitimate.

S. 3546 is supported by the major consumer and trade associations. Including the Consumer's Union, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the National Nutritional Foods Association, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the American Herbal Products Association, and the United Natural Products Alliance.

The Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Act is necessary legislation to safeguard Americans and uncover illegal manufacturers who are jeopardizing consumer's health.

Mr. Speaker, the debate before us centers on what the legitimate roles of Congress and the Executive Branch are in terms of foreign policy and intelligence gathering matters.

It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the Constitution.

I The Constitution leaves little doubt that the President is expected to have the primary role of conducting foreign policy, but Congress has a role and the debate today indulges us in defining that role.

The language that I offered at the Judiciary Committee and is included in the Substitute Amendment does not delve into the Constitutional relationship between the Congress and the Executive.

The language deals with an issue of fairness.

It deals with the issue of whether individuals or companies that comply with government orders are liable to third parties for following these orders.

The purpose of this language is to eliminate the 60 plus lawsuits that have been filed because companies complied with government orders.

Absent an effective immunity provision that allows a company to avoid these legal quagmires, an individual or company will be reluctant to cooperate with any authorized government surveillance program and that will severely undercut this country's terror-fighting capabilities and the safety of our constituents.

Should these claims proceed to judgment, the financial liabilities could add up to hundreds of billions of dollars--enough to destroy any industry.

Although I do not believe the suits will succeed the defense costs alone will be considerable.

But what is worse is the chilling effect on compliance for future requests.

We can argue what the law is but we all agree that we should encourage compliance with our laws.

The language in the Substitute amendment will separate questionable litigation from a national security imperative and focus our attention where it should be, which is what is Constitutionally allowed.

If the overall program is illegal or unconstitutional that is for us and the Courts to decide.

Judges, who are sought out in a forum shopping frenzy, should not issue decision's that could undermine our protection from a future terrorist attack and reveal classified sources or methods.

If you oppose the program administered by this Administration; if you don't believe in the Constitutional theories regarding the Executive's authority--that is an issue for discussion; that is our right as Members of Congress to debate.

But it is irrelevant to Section 10 which will merely provide liability protections for compliance with a certification from the Attorney General.

I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary recognizes that the courts, United States Trustees, and chapter 7 trustees have responsibilities in all chapter 7 cases, including cases where the filing fees are waived under 28 U.S.C. section 1930(f). The bill before the House would amend the act to permit a court to waive an additional $40 of the filing fee designated for payment to the trustee, under specified circumstances. This would be in addition to provisions under current law that permit a court to waive the entire filing fee for qualified low income debtors under specified circumstances. The committee is aware that such waivers could have an impact on the courts, the United States Trustees, and chapter 7 trustees. Accordingly, the courts and U.S. Trustees should closely monitor the impact of such waivers on those entities dependent on fee income and should report to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2069, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2006, which is also cosponsored by Congressman Matheson and Congressman Bishop.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the culmination of years of hard work, compromise, and determination involving the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, the Counties, the environmental community, the recreation community, the Department of the Interior and of course the Resources Committee staff.

H.R. 2069 authorizes the exchange of approximately 45,000 acres of Utah State school trust lands within and near Utah's Colorado River corridor for approximately 40,000 acres of Federal lands in eastern Utah. This is an equal value exchange that guarantees that the school children of Utah will finally benefit from lands they own.

The Colorado River Corridor is a uniquely scenic area that includes such treasures as the Corona and Morning Glory arches, the Westwater wilderness study area, the Kokopelli and Slickrock trails, the watershed for Castle Valley, the Sand Wash rafting site, and thousands of other acres of red rock beauty. H.R. 2069 will transfer these lands, which are owned by Utah's school children, to the Bureau of Land Management.

Congress established Utah's school trust lands upon statehood for the specific purpose of generating income for Utah's school system. Therefore, in exchange for these beautiful areas, Utah's school children will receive mineral development lands in eastern Utah to provide a much needed revenue stream for the Utah school system.

H.R. 2069 is a balanced piece of legislation that will allow the Bureau of Land Management to fulfill its management mandates along the Colorado River as well as benefit Utah's school children. Revenue from Utah school trust lands--whether from grazing, surface leasing, mineral development or sale--will be placed in the State School Fund, which is a permanent income-producing endowment for the support of Utah's public education system.

H.R. 2069 is an equal value exchange that sets out a transparent and fair appraisal process. Appraisals will be conducted by jointly selected independent appraisers and pursuant to established law and regulations. The Federal Government will retain its current interest in the minerals conveyed to the State and those revenues will be utilized to purchase lands in Utah in the future. The bill also includes public notice provisions to insure that the public is aware of the status of the exchange process.

Madam Speaker, as you are aware, Utah has a long history of working hard to consolidate our school trust lands in a way that allows us to fund our public education system. We are confident and hopeful that H.R. 2069 acts as a blueprint for future exchanges so the people of Utah can continue to receive the revenue they were promised upon becoming a state.

I would like to take a moment to thank the staff that worked on this bill. Personally, I would like to thank from the Committee on Resources: Doug Crandall, Matt Miller and Todd Willens of Chairman Pombo's staff, and Jim Zoia and Rick Healy of Mr. Rahall's staff; from the Leader's office Anne Thorsen, Greg Maurer and Jay Cranford; and from my staff Rachel Dresen for all their work on this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this exchange which is a win for America's Federal lands and is a win for Utah's school system.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, His Excellency Nursultan Nazarbayev, will arrive on an official visit to the United States on September 27, 2006, and it is my honor to welcome this distinguished leader to Washington.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, President Nazarbayev inherited a weak economy and the world's fourth largest nuclear arsenal. While Kazakhstan could have become an immediate nuclear superpower and resolved its economic concerns through military might, President Nazarbayev instead chose a path that included economic and democratic reforms, and Kazakhstan is now one of the most stable and prosperous nations in Central Asia.

For the past six years, Kazakhstan has enjoyed a 10 percent annual growth in its GDP. Kazakhstan also became the first country in the Commonwealth of Independent States to be granted market economy status by the United States. Today, more than 300 US companies account for the largest share of Foreign Direct Investment in Kazakhstan.

By 2015, Kazakhstan is expected to be one of the top ten oil producers and exporters in the world, with reserves comparable to Kuwait's. Now more than ever we need a reliable energy partner which has proven to be a friend and ally of the United States. It is appropriate now for the United States to deepen our strategic partnership with Kazakhstan.

President Nazarbayev's visit is timely. During the course of his visit, it is my hope that we will use this opportunity to set a long- term agenda for closer cooperation with Kazakhstan.

This year, Kazakhstan will celebrate its 15th anniversary of independence, and I join my colleagues in congratulating the people and government on this important occasion. Kazakhstan's path to democracy and independence has not been easy, but its progress is impressive.

I commend President Nazarbayev for his leadership and friendship with the United States, and I remain committed to furthering our partnership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2006. The issues addressed by this legislation impact many thousands of individuals and businesses every year in our country. My purpose in introducing this bill is to begin a discussion on these important issues.

In today's economy, many individuals are required to travel outside of their state of residence to engage in business. Most of these trips are for a brief duration as the employee works in a non-resident state for a short time and then returns to his/her state of residence. Despite the brief presence these individuals may have in non-resident states, many states impose a personal income tax on individuals and a corresponding withholding obligation on employers. States currently have widely inconsistent standards for such individuals to file non- resident personal income tax returns, and inconsistent requirements for employers to withhold income taxes on these employees.

Concerns have been raised that the vast majority of individuals are not aware of these varied state filing requirements. Concerns have also been raised that many employers do not have payroll systems that track employee travel and are consequently required to incur extraordinary and inappropriate expenses to attempt to comply with these various withholding requirements.

A uniform, fair and easily administrable law to address these issues, including appropriate de minimis rules would appear to ensure that the correct amount of income tax is paid without placing an undue burden on individuals or employers. Any solution to these issues would continue to provide full taxation of an individual's wages in a resident state to the extent the resident state determines to impose an income tax on its residents.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3693) to make technical corrections to the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 112) relating to correcting a clerical error in the enrollment of S. 3693, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 459, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, September 6, 2006.