Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 228: Page 2, line 15, insert (increased by

$2,600,000) after the dollar amount.

Page 93, line 11, insert (reduced by $2,600,000) after the

dollar amount.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 229: Page 96, line 14, insert ``(reduced by

$31,588,000)'' after the dollar amount.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.

And I think her comment about the ``human wrong commission'' is appropriate, and I think that is a very apt way to explain it. When you talk about all the work they did, and she mentioned Darfur, that the Human Rights Council of the U.N. was unable to even pass a simple resolution dealing with it, that is unbelievable.

But where did they spend most of their time? That is a good question we could ask. Do you know where they spent most of their time? Condemning Israel. The Council's sole country-specific resolution censured Israel and adopted a decision to discuss human rights violations committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories permanently and in all the Council's meetings. Every Council meeting would discuss Israel's alleged abuses against Palestinians, without mentioning Palestinian provocations or their aggression. It is just unbelievable. In fact, the Council adopted a resolution that strongly condemned Israel for ``violations of human rights and breaches of

international humanitarian law in Lebanon.'' In Lebanon, without reference to provocations by Hezbollah. Talk about a ``human wrong commission.'' This is it.

So I am so gratified that this amendment has been accepted. I have a bill, H.R. 225, that outlines this amendment. I had an amendment last year on this subject in this appropriations process. We got 163 votes. But we lost. And I think a lot of people said, well, the U.N. is starting reforms in house. Let's give it a chance with its Human Rights Council. So we said, okay, we'll give it a chance. But, by all assessment it failed. In fact, the words of Peggy Hicks, the global advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, sums it up when she said: ``The new Human Rights Council must be more than the dysfunctional old commission by another name.''

So from that, to the comment of the Miami Herald when they wrote, ``Why should these wolves guard the hen house?''

I ask that we pass this amendment, and I thank my colleagues.

Take the so-called reforms to the membership of the council. The original proposal by the former Secretary General Annan (AH-NON) was to reduce membership to enable the council to be smaller and more agile in acting against human rights offenses. Indeed, the UN did reduce the number of members--from 53 down to 47. These 47 UN members are elected to three-year terms on the UNHRC. The new geographic quota system ensures a majority of membership slots for the world's least democratic regions. The African and Asian regional groups control a 55% majority-- even more than they did on the former commission. Governments that routinely violate fundamental freedoms in their own countries shouldn't be setting the standards for anyone else.

Under the new council, a country can be suspended from council membership due to continuing human rights abuses only if two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly agree to do so. That is the only protection against human rights abusers being elected to the council. However, in practice this provision is useless. Less than half of the General Assembly agreed that Sudan is guilty of any human rights violations. If the General Assembly cannot agree on such a blatantly clear cut case of human rights abuse, how can we expect them to agree on suspending membership of countries that are human rights? The answer is, we can't. Known abusers like Russia, China, Azerbaijan, Cuba, and Algeria were all elected members this last session.

Finally, let us look at their actions. Under a General Assembly resolution, the Council has responsibility for ``promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner'' and it must ``address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon.'' There have been several opportunities for the Council to act with numerous cases of human rights abuses around the world. In Darfur, there are 2.5 million people displaced by the violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two million dead in the 22 years of violence. But the Human Rights Council was unable to pass a resolution on Darfur. Neither did it act regarding the lack of civil and political rights across China, the 13 million women in Saudi Arabia who live in fear of beatings if they go anywhere alone, or the dire human-rights conditions of 23 million people in North Korea. It also failed to address the Iranian President's incitement to genocide or the fact that his country's legal system includes crucifixion, stoning and amputation as viable punishments.

Ambassador Bolton stated at the creation of the new council, ``We want a butterfly. We're not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and declare it a success.'' As a result, the Administration announced that it would not seek a seat on the council in 2006 but would continue financial support, and may seek membership in 2007 if the Council proves effective.

Mr. Speaker, past experiences in the United States and Europe clearly shows that amnesty legislation only encourages further illegal immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 required a criminal background check, payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, and a civics requirement. Now, despite all those measures, the law failed to curb the influx of illegal immigration.

The Senate's immigration reform legislation embodies the same flawed strategy as the 1986 law. Any measures to enhance border security or to improve immigration services would be overwhelmed by a continued flow of both illegal border crossing and individuals who entered legally, but remain in this country past the period authorized by their visa.

To stop further illegal immigration, Congress should not grant these illegal immigrants in the United States any form of legal status that does not require them to leave the United States voluntarily and undergo adequate criminal national security and health checks before seeking to return.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is a very simple amendment and perhaps the majority might want to just accept it, so let me just explain.

The generation IV nuclear energy systems program is the next far, far generation program. We have been waiting and working for the generation III program. This is about the generation IV after that, which is 2030. There is a lot of money in this that is going to be used to develop energy far into the future, and yet we have in the present nuclear power program of 2010, we have need for this money here and today.

I point this out to my colleagues, particularly on that side of the aisle, that if we don't get enough money to the nuclear power 2010 program, power plants across this country will be forced to build gas and coal-burning power plants to meet the ever-growing energy demands of this Nation.

So if you really want to reduce greenhouse gases, I think you should support my amendment because you are basically taking this money, $20 million, from the generation IV nuclear systems energy account which has been funded at almost $80 million above the President's budget request, and you are simply transferring it to the nuclear power 2010 account which is funded almost $34 million below the President's budget request.

If the other side is willing to accept my amendment, I am willing to stop talking and we can proceed. If you are concerned about global warming and coal- and gas-burning, this will help our Nation move forward by helping the nuclear power plants in the near, near future instead of the far, far future.

Let me talk about the nuclear power 2010 program. It is intended simply to encourage near-term orders for advanced versions of existing commercial nuclear plants. Frankly, it is an integral part of the goal of constructing new plants in the next decade.

Approximately two-thirds of the new reactors use a reactor technology that depends on nuclear power 2010. Nuclear power plants generate electricity without producing or emitting any greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Nuclear power plants generate 73 percent of all carbon-free electricity in America and are an essential mitigation tool for reducing greenhouse gases.

If we are serious about addressing the issue of global climate change, then nuclear power must be a critical component of any future energy and environmental strategy we have in this country.

With the additional funds in this amendment, the program for 2010, we could focus more on reducing the technical, regulatory and institutional barriers to the deployment of new nuclear power plants in the near term while still allowing a generous increase in funds for the generation IV program. So the money is already there for generation IV. So I am just asking a very modicum amount, taking from the generation IV and moving it to the near term, so that we can build these nuclear power plants.

I conclude by saying failure to meet the goals of the nuclear 2010 program could result in delays 1 year, 2 years, possibly 3 years, and create the possibility of an indefinite delay as companies attempt to meet the demand with other types of generation, including coal and natural gases.

I conclude and thank my colleagues for listening, but I think when you realize it is not very complicated, we are just taking $20 million from a generation IV nuclear research program that we have no results from and don't know anything about and moving them to a current program in 2010 and saying let's let the nuclear industry have this special advantage so we can combat global warming and we can make sure that we move forward with nuclear power generation in this country as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have that the distinguished gentleman from Ohio gave me?

If I might address the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, I have here the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. On page 68, it indicates that the Nuclear Power 2010, you provide about $80 million, a decrease of $34 million. So the question I have for you, if you support this program so much, why would you cut it $34 million, which is basically a huge percentage?

Then the other question is, in Generation IV, the nuclear energy system by which you increased it $80 million, it seems to me, and you might want to answer this question, here you have a program that is a fourth generation of nuclear research. We don't even have the results from the second and third generation nuclear research, yet you're increasing a huge amount of money for something well into the future when you have a system, the 2010 energy system, which could use this money today and would go towards improving global warming and put less demand on all these nuclear energy companies because they certainly can't meet the demand in the next 2 years without burning coal and gas.

So I ask the gentleman, why would he want to increase something that's a fourth generation when the second and third generation have not even been successful in providing anything for us?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 34: Page 17, line 14, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $20,000,000)(increased by

$20,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, the immigration problem has been a topic of contentious debate for years now, with few results. The influx, both legal and illegal, of immigrants from Mexico to North America numbers at a minimum about 500,000 people a year. It is clear that the majority of these immigrants are coming to our country for the better wages to provide for their families. And this is the heart of the problem. The Mexican economy is continually stunted in its growth by fiscal mismanagement, corruption, and a perpetual dependence upon foreign aid and remittances. Mexico must make tough decisions and get its economy in shape. Until then, Madam Speaker, we will continue to face massive immigration from the south.

While we are painfully aware of the problems illegal immigration is causing our society, consider what it is doing to Mexico in the long run. The massive immigration is draining many villages across Mexico of their important labor pool. Families are separated while the husbands and fathers choose to cross our borders to get better lives for themselves and for their families. Mexico is slow in reforming their economic policies, in part perhaps because of the influx of money from the remittances from the United States that enables them to continue their unhealthy policies.

Let me explain. The money sent in the form of remittances amounted to about $23 billion in 2006, according to the Bank of Mexico, the country's central bank. That amount is up almost sevenfold in a dozen years. As that number has grown, the fee for remitting money has dropped from an average of about 9.2 percent in 1999 to just about 3 percent this year, according to Bancomer, a Mexican bank.

Sending money back to Mexico has become cheaper partly because the amounts have become bigger. It was about $290 on average 8 years ago, and now is up to over $350. More importantly, according to the Bank of Mexico, over 90 percent of remittances are now sent by electronic wire transfer compared with only 50 percent in 1995. In rural poor communities in Mexico, even the 3 percent transaction fee is a huge chunk cut out of a remittance check. That is why the Bank of Mexico and America's Federal Reserve are running a program called Directo a Mexico, or FedACH International Mexico Service, to cut the cost further for these folks.

In this program, people receive an overnight transfer from an American bank account to a Mexican one. The two central banks act as middlemen, taking a cut of about 67 cents no matter what the size of the transaction. According to Elizabeth McQuerry of the Federal Reserve, banks then typically charge $2.50 to $5 to transfer about $350. In total, this new program cuts the costs of remittances by at least half. In America, 200 banks are now signed up for this service compared with just six that signed up when it was initiated in 2004. So far, the program is just beginning, handling about 27,000 transactions a month. However, another point of serious concern is that about 26,000 of which are Social Security payments made by the American government to beneficiaries in Mexico.

One kink in the program was that most of Mexico's poor, who are often the intended recipients of the funds, do not have bank accounts to pay them into. So to ensure that these funds can still get to Mexico, they developed another program, run by Bansefi, a Mexican government bank, that allows people in America to open bank accounts for their relatives in Mexico. Their relatives can then use these accounts to withdraw the money deposited through the remittance program.

Madam Speaker, another question is, do the legal and illegal immigrants themselves have accounts to send money from? Statistics indicate as many as 70 percent do, according to a recent report by the Bank of Mexico. This is largely because hundreds of American banks, eager for deposits, will happily open accounts for people carrying only a Mexican consular identity card, rather than requiring official United States Government identification. This allows people without officially sanctioned rights to be in this country to send money out of it. As a result, the Mexican bank has seen rapid growth, with 3.4 million accounts

now open, compared to just 850,000 in the year 2001.

If this trend continues, Madam Speaker, it will enable the Mexican government to continue to operate as it is today. Their economy will continue to stagnate, immigration will continue to bleed across our border, and the Mexican people will be caught in a downward spiral for generations to come.

Obviously another part of any immigration reform is making sure that U.S. banks only open accounts for persons who have legally sanctioned rights to be in this country and not illegal aliens.

I thank my distinguished ranking member and my good friend from Florida and also the chairwoman of the subcommittee. I appreciate your words that you said earlier, and I think you succinctly outlined why this resolution is so important, and I compliment you on your speech.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, if you heard the word ``Liechtenstein,'' and you didn't know anything about this resolution, and you were out on the street and you were talking to people,

and you said to them, what does the word Liechtenstein mean to you, there would probably be a number of things they would say. But I'll bet you one of the things they would say is it sounds like a word of integrity. It sounds like a word of independence. It sounds like a word of idealism. It sounds like a word of responsibility, and it sounds like a word of charm.

I have been there. It's a very charming country, it's a very responsible country, it's an independent country, and it's a country that represents idealism, much as the gentlelady from California has talked about when she mentioned that this country had been very responsible.

As mentioned, it's 34,000 people. It's a small nation, and accomplishes far more as mentioned earlier in social, political and financial influence than its small size would indicate. Nestled between Switzerland and Austria in the European Alps, Liechtenstein has established a stable and growing democracy, the type of government that we can all be proud of.

For over 200 years it has maintained a constitutional monarchy with a vibrant Parliament that employs a strong system, and this is what we believe in in a republic system of government checks and balances. Along with myself and other colleagues, we have had the privilege of visiting Liechtenstein. On several occasions I was introduced to its fascinating history and the people and its commitment to freedom during the last centuries.

The Liechtenstein family of Austria was given the rights to the land in 1713, and the area gained the status of an independent principality of the Holy Roman Empire in 1719 under the name Liechtenstein. When, in 1806, Napoleon defeated the Holy Roman Empire, the conquered Emperor made Liechtenstein a sovereign country.

Now, my colleagues, unfortunately, the people of Liechtenstein were not granted the full rights and liberties that come with this sovereignty. As under Napoleon, the French occupied the country for the next several years. However, in 1815, within the new German Confederation, Liechtenstein regained its full independence.

This country has a long history of diplomacy and peaceful relationships with its neighbors. In 1868, after the Confederation dissolved, Liechtenstein disbanded its army of 80 men and declared its permanent neutrality which, amazingly, was respected throughout both World War I and World War II. That is a feat of diplomacy.

In 1989, Prince Hans Adam II succeeded his father to the throne. Then 10 years ago, Prince Adam accomplished a diplomatic feat by settling a 60-year long dispute with Russia over the Liechtenstein's family archives, which had been confiscated during the Soviet occupation of Vienna in 1945 and later moved all to Russia, more specifically, to Moscow.

After World War II, Liechtenstein became increasingly important as a financial center. In 1978, this country became a member of the Council of Europe and joined the European Free Trade Association, the EFTA, in 1991. Liechtenstein has been a member of the European Economic Area since May of 1995, and is continuing to work to harmonize its economic policies more closely with the European Union every day.

One of Liechtenstein's most industrious resources is its people. It invested much effort in education, and this is something we can all be proud of and respect, they boast a literacy rate of 100 percent.

The United States and Liechtenstein have enjoyed a positive relationship for many, many years. In 2002, Liechtenstein and the U.S. signed a mutual legal assistance treaty which focused largely on jointly combating money laundering and other illegal banking activities. In addition, from the beginning of the global war on terror, this country took the initiative and has been a valuable and proactive partner in tracking down the finances of international terrorist groups.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the dangerous world we live in today. In the years following the dreadful attack of September 11, we have been honored by the support and compassion of our friends around the world. We appreciate that.

While it is necessary and just to condemn countries for the threat they pose, I believe it is equally important and vital to honor countries for the support that they provide to us. Liechtenstein is one of those countries whose contribution should be recognized. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to take a closer look at the unique nation of Liechtenstein and join with me this afternoon in honoring this wonderful country. And my hat's off to them, and I urge passage of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the sovereign nation of Liechtenstein is home to 34,000 people and is the size of Washington, DC. Yet this tiny nation accomplishes far more in social, political and financial influence than its size would indicate. Nestled between Switzerland and Austria in the European Alps, Liechtenstein has established a stable and growing democratic government. For over 200 years it has maintained a constitutional monarchy with a vibrant parliament that employs a strong system of checks and balances.

I, along with many of my colleagues, have had the privilege of visiting Liechtenstein on several occasions, and I was intrigued by its fascinating history and the people's commitment to freedom that has lasted for centuries. The Liechtenstein family of Austria were given the rights to the land in 1713, and the area gained the status of an independent principality of the Holy Roman Empire in 1719 under the name Liechtenstein. When, in 1806, Napoleon defeated the Holy Roman Empire, the conquered Emperor made Liechtenstein a sovereign country. Unfortunately, the people of Liechtenstein were not granted the full rights and liberties that come with sovereignty, as under Napoleon, the French occupied the country for the next few years. However, in 1815 within the new German Confederation, Liechtenstein regained its full independence.

Liechtenstein has a long history in diplomacy and peaceful relations with their neighbors. In 1868, after the Confederation dissolved, Liechtenstein disbanded its army of 80 men and declared its permanent neutrality, which amazingly was respected through both world wars. In 1989, Prince Hans Adam II succeeded his father to the throne. Ten years ago, Prince Adam accomplished a diplomatic feat by settling a 60-year- long dispute with Russia over the Liechtenstein family's archives, which had been confiscated during the Soviet occupation of Vienna in 1945 and later moved to Moscow.

After World War II, Liechtenstein became increasingly important as a financial center. In 1978, Liechtenstein became a member of the Council of Europe and joined the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1991. Liechtenstein has been a member of the European Economic Area since May 1995 and is continuing to work to harmonize its economic policies more closely with the European Union. One of Liechtenstein's most industrious resources is its people. Liechtenstein has invested much effort in education, and now boasts a literacy rate of 100 percent.

The United States and Liechtenstein have enjoyed a positive relationship for many years. In 2002, Liechtenstein and the U.S. signed a mutual legal assistance treaty, which focused largely on jointly combating money laundering and other illegal banking activities. In addition, from the beginning of the global war on terror, Liechtenstein took the initiative and has been a valuable and proactive partner in tracking down the finances of international terrorist groups.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the dangerous world we live in. In the years following

the dreadful attacks of September 11, we have been honored by the support and compassion of our friends around the world. While it is necessary and just to condemn countries for the threat they pose, I believe it is equally vital to honor countries for the support they provide. Liechtenstein is one of these countries whose contribution should be recognized. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to take a closer look at the unique nation of Liechtenstein and join me in honoring their great accomplishments.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi National Assembly plans to take its regularly scheduled 2-month summer recess starting in July. Taking such an extended break demonstrates a lack of urgency on their part and political will on the part of the Iraqi parliament.

Defense Secretary Gates told a Senate hearing last month, ``I'll be blunt: I told some of the Iraqis with whom I met that we are buying them time for political reconciliation, and that every day we buy it with American blood. For this group to go out for 2 months, it would, in my opinion, be unacceptable.''

Accordingly, I have introduced H. Res. 469, which expresses the sense of the House that the Iraqi National Assembly should cancel or postpone its 2-month recess and work towards meeting political, social and military benchmarks. I urge my colleagues to join with me in sending a message to the Iraqi parliament that they must work to fulfill their obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina and his comments and obviously thank our colleague from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for bringing this very important resolution to the House floor. I'm happy to rise in support of this resolution and emphasize, I believe, its important goals for my colleagues today.

As all of us know, the Internet is a wonderful tool for business, obviously for education, and for recreation. However, we have also learned the Internet can be a wonderful tool for not-so-wonderful different people. There are the general mischief makers, hackers seeking a cheap thrill, personal identity thieves that we know about and, most repugnant, stalkers and child predators.

But despite the plethora of information out there, many people are still unaware of the significant dangers the Internet poses to our children. Children themselves are often unaware of the danger, but are of a--well, you know, it won't happen to me--type of thinking.

That mindset can lead to trouble, and we've seen that in the NBC program, ``To Catch a Predator,'' in which

we've seen the insidious operations in which these child predators come in looking for the child, the teenager, and they're caught right on camera. So that camera has illustrated the problems that we have with the Internet and the dangers.

Not coincidentally, June is also the month many of our children leave school for 3 months of vacation and recreation. So we need to raise awareness of the danger to our children, to our parents, and that's why June is an appropriate time for National Internet Safety Month.

With less time in the classroom, these children spend more time obviously on computers. Parents are the first and most effective defense protecting our Nation's children. Most of us here in Congress are working parents. Our children are back in the district. We know we cannot look over them all the time, and perhaps the spouse is working also. So while we can't look over our children's shoulder every hour of the day, we certainly should put in place the software and the protection in our computer, as well as awareness of the child, of the insidious nature of the Internet and the evil people that are out there that are stalking our children.

So this resolution is meant to bring attention to the Internet dangers of cyberstalking, cyberbullying and cyberchild predators. In conjunction with our efforts, a number of organizations, both private and government, have launched public awareness campaigns with information related to National Internet Safety Month. I applaud the efforts of the multiple online safety organizations, industry-wide, and the Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service for their efforts, and I think the American public should be aware that the National Criminal Justice Reference Service is available through the Department of Justice, and you can go online to the Department of Justice to find out more about this service.

The dangers of the Internet exist year-round and require vigilance in our defense year-round. At the same time, it is important for us to send a strong reminder to parents and children of the very threats of the Internet as our children begin their summer vacations and have more free, often unsupervised, time to explore cyberspace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentlelady for her statistics that she brings forward. I think many of us, when you hear 1 in 25, that doesn't sound too bad, but that one person out of 25 could be your son or daughter, and it would be a tragedy. The statistics bring home to all of us, particularly people that have seen our children grow up and use the Internet.

I would also suggest that she make available to all Members a copy of that bookmark. I think that bookmark is a terrific idea, and I think a lot of Members who have young children certainly could use that bookmark back in their district. Again, I think what she is doing is very important.

In the committee that I am ranking member of, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, we have passed out of the subcommittee, the full committee, and in the House recently, the spyware bill, H.R. 964. This bill obviously is about spyware that's used to penetrate your computer and to find out different pieces of information about what you are doing that can be used for cyberstalking.

I want to applaud the House for voting overwhelmingly. I think it was over 360 Members voted for spyware. I urge the Senate to pass the spyware bill and bring it to conference, so that we can get it to the President's desk.

This would go also towards preventing the cyberstalking, some of the things we see here, and which we are seeking with Internet Safety Month.

Again, I thank the gentlelady for her efforts here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 251, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007. I thank my good friend, Mr. Engel of New York, for his work here; also the ranking member, Joe Barton of Texas, for his leadership on this very important piece of legislation.

My colleagues, millions of Americans use caller ID in order to secure greater privacy for their families. Yet, as new technologies continue to be developed, caller ID spoofing, as brought out by the gentleman from Massachusetts, has become a problem for both consumers and businesses.

This bill protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive manipulation of caller identification information, a practice which has been defined and is clearly delineated as ``spoofing,'' ``caller ID spoofing.''

Now, this occurs when a caller masquerades as someone else by falsifying a number that appears on the recipient's caller ID display. The most important point about this discussion is that caller ID spoofing can make a call appear to come from any phone number the caller wishes. The increasing use of VOIP, which is voice over Internet protocol, that we see in America and other Internet telephone services, has made it much easier for people to make any number appear on a caller ID system.

In addition, several Web sites have sprung up to provide caller ID spoofing services, eliminating the need for any special hardware to replicate this. Although these caller ID spoofing services promote themselves for use in prank calls or for simple entertainment purposes, and that's what they propose only, they say, such services can be easily accessed and used by criminals.

So Caller ID spoofing has emerged as a useful tool for identity thieves and other scam artists. In addition, my colleagues, many business functions, from credit card verification to automatic call routing, depend on caller ID for security purposes, which spoofing can render useless.

So this bill, H.R. 251, prohibits sending misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud or cause harm. The Energy and Commerce Committee drafted the language in this bill so carefully that it will go after the bad actors but, at the same time, preserve the ability to manipulate the caller ID information for legitimate purposes, such as the protection for victims of domestic violence.

A woman is calling, let's say, from a shelter and she wants to protect her ID, or she doesn't want to disclose, get the phone number disclosed where she is.

A single mother at home, she should have the opportunity to block her phone number so people can't recognize that number and call her, harass her or even use it in a way to bring harm to her.

So my colleagues, this is an important piece of bipartisan consumer protection legislation. I urge all of you to support H.R. 251, the Truth in Caller ID Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from New York mentioned about the harbinger of things to come, and I think that's what we are all worried about, so I think this is a great first step forward.

Just recently, my subcommittee, the Commerce Consumer Protection and Trade, which Mr. Rush chairs and I'm ranking member of, we did a do- not-call reauthorization, which is H.R. 2601. We dropped that bill last week. We urge the conference committee to mark that up and get that forward. It's part of the process here to protect consumers.

In fact, in the committee that I serve, we've done a lot of Internet consumer protection, so I'm very wholeheartedly in support of this, and I encourage some other bills. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts' Social Security bill, H.R. 948, is an excellent bill; as well as the Data Security bill, H.R. 958. So I think these are the types of bills we need to protect consumers, and I very wholeheartedly support them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is the ``pluripotency'' of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to grow into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique adaptability that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising than adult stem cells for treatment of human diseases. The truth however, is that embryonic stem cells have not produced a single viable human treatment for any disease; whereas, adult stem cells have produced numerous therapies that have been successfully administered.

Adult stem cells have provided human treatments, have a lower rate of immune rejection in patients, and show less likelihood of tumor formation. We should aggressively pursue this avenue of research. In seeking new treatments for the ills of humanity, let us also strive to protect the future of humanity. We too must uphold the first tenet of the Hippocratic oath--``First do no harm.''

Proponents also claim that the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world in embryonic stem cell research and that increased Federal funding would close the gap. The fact is the United States leads the world in embryonic stem cell research. A recent Nature Journal publication states that U.S. scientists contributed 46 percent of all stem cell publications since 1998. Germany comes far second, representing 10 percent of studies, and the remaining 44 percent derive from between 16 other countries.

I want to remind my colleagues that the current ban on embryonic research does not prevent private funding for embryonic stem cell research. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Newport Beach bond trader Bill Gross are among several private donors who have provided millions of dollars toward embryonic stem cell research. In fact the Federal Government has spent over $161 million on existing stem cell lines where the embryo had already been destroyed. The bill before us today advocates the further destruction of new life to expand human embryonic stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation and do no harm.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again, I have been here a number of times, to consider H.R. 964, the SPY Act, a bill which is important to fight Internet privacy. In the past and as we speak on the floor today, this has bipartisan support with bipartisan leadership. It has been offered by my colleague from California, Mary Bono, and my colleague from New York, Ed Towns. Both of them have worked dutifully to try to pass this bill. And, unfortunately, the last time we passed it overwhelmingly in the House, it did not get through the Senate; so we are back at it again.

I also want to thank the new chairman of the committee that I chaired last year, Mr. Rush, for his commitment to maintaining a bipartisan process in this, and that is why we are here on the floor today. If it hadn't been for the leadership of these individuals combined with what I think is a Federal Trade Commission commitment and the stakeholders in the community in this process, we would not have had a workable legislative solution.

So I think today that we have to realize that even at the last 11th hour we might have some people who don't totally agree, but I think the bill is a strong bill. It takes a firm and, I think, a fair on balance approach in balancing the need to address bad actors and the need to protect the functions of legitimate business tools.

Both at the committee level and on the floor, we have voted on this spyware before, as I mentioned, three times. Three times we have gone through the process of holding hearings, receiving testimony from many witnesses, listening to the horrors of spyware and how it can be a tool of identity thieves, and we know how identity theft is prevalent today, conducting negotiations, and we have asked for ways to improve the bill. So we have seen support across the board in industry for this bill. We asked what is the best way to improve this bill. So I think we have worked hard on this legislation.

And, my colleagues, I think it is time we move this to the Senate, and if there are any further problems with this bill, we certainly can handle these problems in the conference between the House and the Senate.

Now, you should realize that there are some in the business community who have raised a 11th hour concern about a specific provision that was added at the full committee markup. Not in our subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, but in our full committee. I have been through seven hearings on the question of privacy on the question of opt in and opt out. I am well aware of the feelings of Members dealing with opt in and opt out, depending upon how you view this process. So I share some of the concerns of the business community in their 11th hour attempt to bring this to our attention. But the responsibility of continuing to move this process forward, I think, is important. That is why I have decided to vote ``yes'' today to support this bill. And, hopefully, when the Senate has it, they can make the changes. If not, we can do it in conference. But to take a bill that has been in this long process and has had so many hearings for so many years and decide that it should not go forward is not the right process.

And we all in Congress here know that sometimes the enemy of the good is the perfect.

So we can solve this issue, I think, to satisfy all interested parties. It is a strong piece of legislation; and I cannot think of a reason why our Senate colleagues should not act on it, also.

So, in closing, the SPY Act is a solid consumer protection bill that returns control of personal computers and private information to where it belongs, and that is to the consumer.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 964.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Bono).

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

Mr. Speaker, the decision of British Prime Minister Tony Blair to resign on June 27th marks the end of an era in U.S.-British relationships. Blair's extraordinarily close alliance with President Bush has been a major force on the world stage since the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.

The Prime Minister has been an eloquent and passionate leader in confronting global terrorism. He deserves credit for his central role in the global war on terrorism and for having the courage to act on his convictions in the face of tremendous opposition within his own party and from other European governments.

His steadfast support for the United States in the 4 years since 2001 and his key role in building the international coalition of the willing demonstrated principled leadership as well as vision.

The strong U.S.-British relationship will certainly endure under Blair's successor. However, there is no doubt that this relationship was made better because of Tony Blair.

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to announce that the winner of the recent Preakness Stakes, along with those horses that placed and showed (came in second and third, respectively), all have strong ties to stables in my district.

Street Sense and Hard Spun, who placed second and third respectively, were both broken and received elementary training at Ocala training centers. As if this were not enough cause for celebration, Curlin, the victor of the Preakness Stakes, is partially owned by Padua Stable, also in Ocala. Satish Sanan, a computer CEO, founded Padua Stable in 1997, choosing the Ocala location for its pristine pastures and renowned reputation among horse enthusiasts.

Curlin's story is especially unique. Though entering the competition for the Kentucky Derby after only three career starts, Curlin was an unlikely early favorite due to his victory in the Arkansas Derby in which he crushed eight foes and won by 10\1/2\ lengths.

Shirley Cunningham, Jr., a lawyer hailing from Georgetown, is one of Curlin's former owners, and it is from his family history that the horse's name is derived. Cunningham's great-grandfather, Charlie Curlin, is a legend in the area in and around Trigg County, Kentucky due to his service on behalf of the U.S. Colored Troops battalion of the Union Army in 1864. Curlin, a freed slave, represented the hallmark American ideal of service to one's country, fighting nobly to make freedom a reality for all United States citizens. Thus, in winning the Preakness Stakes, and putting forth a gallant effort in the Kentucky Derby, Curlin the horse is carrying the family history, serving as a reminder to all of the benefits of perseverance and faith in one's cause.

Though Curlin, Street Sense, and Hard Spun are more prominent examples of success derived from Ocala stables, the city's strong reputation in equine breeding and training is by no means new or rare. Ocala, within Marion County, is considered the ``Horse Capital of the World'' by the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' and Owners' Association. In 1995, Ocala was named an All-America-City winner, due largely in part to its reputation for expansive and well-kept pastureland. More than 450 farms and training centers in the Marion County area are devoted to breeding, training, and showing breeds such as the thoroughbred, Arabian, quarter horses, and even draft horses. The USDA's Census of Agriculture reported that Marion led all U.S. counties in total number of horses and ponies in residence in 1997, cut-off year for the 5-year census. Furthermore, the county ranked third nationally (behind two counties in Kentucky) in total value of horses sold. Horses are big business in Marion County. Between 45 and 50 different breeds are represented in the area. Nearly 29,000 residents are employed in the county's thoroughbred industry alone. Florida thoroughbreds finish first in 20 percent of the foremost stakes races in the U.S. and are counted among Triple Crown, Breeders' Cup, Belmont Stakes, Preakness and Kentucky Derby winners. The thoroughbred industry's economic impact on the state is considered to be in excess of $1 billion dollars annually, and the exciting horse sales at the Ocala Breeder's Sales Complex run into the millions.

One cannot visit Marion County without becoming immediately aware of the impact the horse industry has on the area. This is currently evidenced by the enthusiasm exhibited by many of my constituents in having not one, but three horses sweep the top spots in the Preakness Stakes. I believe that this much-celebrated victory will serve to further illustrate the excellence of stables and breeders in Marion County and Ocala, and encourage others in the industry to consider the area as a future home for both their horses and their families.

Finally, I am honored to be the new cochair of the Congressional Horse Caucus, and I look forward to cochairing with Representative Ben Chandler of Kentucky. Many may not realize the magnitude of the equine industry and its importance to our national, state and local economies. It is a diverse industry, involving business, agriculture, sport, entertainment, gaming and recreation, and we hope Members will join the Caucus.

By the way: I have stood on this House Floor three times in the past year to herald national victories from the University of Florida in my district--twice for Men's Basketball championships, and January for the 2006 Bowl Championship in football. I suspect my colleagues will begin to find me immodest if I keep bragging and offering resolutions on my winning constituent athletes, both human and equine.