Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. One of the things that happened in committee, and it is unfortunate because of a misunderstanding, all of a sudden we are restricting these free credit reports.

One of the big deals about passing this bill was that everyone got a free credit report. The Frank amendment allows all consumers to obtain a free annual credit report from any nationwide consumer reporting agency. It eliminates the provision in the bill that restricts consumers to getting their free annual credit report from just three national consumer reporting agencies. The amendment also restores the right of consumers who are unemployed or on public assistance or believe they have been a victim of fraud to obtain a free credit report from any consumer reporting agency. Right now they can get that from all of the major credit reporting agencies. Under this bill, as it is currently written without this amendment, they will be restricted. They will only be able to get these free reports from local or regional consumer reporting agencies.

I believe I speak for both sides of the aisle when I say it was never the intention of the Committee on Financial Services to strip away these rights that these disadvantaged groups have under current law, and these groups are already entitled to a free credit report from the national agencies. We should not be restricting access to credit reports for the disadvantaged, while at the same time, giving the rest of the Nation's consumers even more access to their credit information. This amendment will restore the additional access to credit information that these disadvantaged groups currently enjoy, and this amendment should have been part of Fair Credit Transaction Act from day one.

Again, one of the primary intentions of this legislation was to increase access to information for all Americans, and by supporting the Frank amendment, we will be doing just that. I urge Members to vote yes on the Frank amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in times of war our veterans and their families make sacrifices. The prisoners of war during WWII made great sacrifices, and were not always shown the gratitude they deserve. These American heroes, lost through the passage of time, have been denied the pay that their rank entitled them to for more than 50 years. It is time to stamp ``paid in full'' on this forgotten debt.

I would especially like to honor Dr. David Kliewer, a veteran from Corvallis, OR, who brought this issue to my attention. Dr. Kliewer is a remarkable man who voluntarily joined the Marines in 1939 as a Marine Corps Aviator. He was a POW in the South Pacific, and was promoted to the rank of Major while held in a Japanese POW camp. While imprisoned, he applied and was accepted to Harvard Medical School.

This bill would allow certain forgotten Navy and Marine Corps veterans who were POWs during World War II to collect back pay related to their promotions. These veterans were selected for advancement during their internment, but were unable to receive their promotion or the increase in pay that they were due. This bill corrects this oversight, and ensures that these brave soldiers, sailors, and airmen receive the full amount of back pay they deserve, in dollars adjusted for inflation.

This bill is of considerable importance not just to the surviving veterans, but to the widows who survived their husbands as well. These women, many of whom may not be in a position to meet their needs, have earned and deserve the benefit of this legislation. We must make up this inequity and keep our promise to our Nation's veterans.

I am proud to have introduced this bill in the House of Representatives, and urge my colleagues to join me in correcting this injustice in full. To do otherwise not only devalues the service of these veterans of so long ago, but shows a callous disregard for the men and women of our Armed Forces currently in harm's way in Iraq. I hope that both houses can quickly pass this legislation, and look forward to watching President Bush sign this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and could go a long ways towards increasing the security of our States' drivers licenses, which are the primary means of photo identification in this country. These documents are too easily forged, counterfeited, stolen, or improperly distributed. In fact, the Inspector General for the Department of Transportation recently stated that a Maryland DMV employee had pleaded guilty to falsifying driver licenses for 10 people. How many of these could have ended up in the hands of terrorists or criminals seeking to steal the identity of law-abiding citizens?

Drivers licenses are literally the keys to the country's security. With a driver's license, when you show your identity, you can write a check. When you show your driver's license, you can get on a plane; when you show your driver's license, you can take a tour of the White House. In Oregon, a local woman is serving an 11-year sentence in prison because she was finally caught producing counterfeit drivers licenses right out of her home.

State DMVs must do a better job of securing our primary piece of identity, and this $500,000 in funding will allow the Secretary to direct the Department of Transportation to study and present recommendations on how we can better secure these crucial documents. I believe this study should have three major goals.

Number one, the study should determine the best practices that States can use to secure their drivers licenses from fraud and theft. Our government has already conducted a great deal of research on security measures such as biometrics and digital watermarks and other technology that could increase the security of state-issued photo identification. In fact, we think the technology is already there.

Second, the study should determine how best to encourage the States to put these measures into place. I understand the issuance of license and photo identification is the responsibility of the State, and I do not want to infringe on that right. However, given the increasing reliance on all levels of government and businesses on these documents, I believe we must act to ensure that false documents are not used by terrorists, criminals, or others who would normally be unable to obtain these credentials.

Finally, the study should determine the approximate cost for States to initiate these security features so we can determine the impact this would have on State budgets and the feasibility of various approaches from a cost perspective.

As a matter of national security, we must take steps to protect our primary source of identification both to protect our homeland from terrorist threats and to stem the growing tide of identity theft. This amendment would provide the necessary knowledge to accomplish this mission. The additional funding for the study is offset by a reduction of $500,000 out of the administrative account of the Office of Management and Budget. The CPO has scored this amendment as revenue neutral.

Again, this bill deals with drivers licenses. It looks at the best practices States can use to secure those drivers licenses, it looks at how we encourage States to put this in place, and it determines a cost. This is an antiterrorist amendment. This is an anti-identity theft amendment. I urge my colleagues to protect our citizens and our national security by supporting this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Hooley

Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 8, after the first dollar

amount insert the following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.

Page 83, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert the

following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, protecting the security of our communities requires that we have an adequate number of first responders, who form our first line of response to any terrorist attacks. But right now, there are law enforcement agencies all over the country who are being forced to turn back federal grants to hire additional law enforcement officers because they do not have the money to cover the local requirement.

During a time when our nation seems its most vulnerable and under its greatest threat, we have the responsibility to ensure that everyday Americans are safe and secure. We must protect and defend our cities at home during these troubling times by investing in first responders and providing local law enforcement with adequate manpower and resources to prevent any future attacks.

The Universal Hiring Program (UHP) is one of several programs developed by COPS to increase the number of officers on the beat. This program enables interested agencies to supplement their current sworn forces through three-year federal grants. Under current law, these grants cover up to 75 percent of the approved entry-level salary and benefits of each newly hired additional officer position over three years. There is a maximum of $75,000 per officer over the three-year grant period. A minimum 25 percent local match is required.

Although current law does allow for waivers of the local matching requirement may be requested under UHP due to extreme fiscal hardship, these waivers are rarely granted. One city in my district, Salem, Oregon, has had to decline four COPS Universal Hiring Program grants this year because they were unable to come up with the matching funds required by the program. Considering the budget crisis is resulting in police layoffs, this money is needed now more than ever to ensure that police agencies have the first responders needed to keep our communities safe and protect our homeland.

I am introducing legislation that would provide for a temporary two- year waiver of the local matching requirement for the Universal Hiring Program COPS grants. The maximum contribution of the federal government would also be raised to $150,000 over the three-year grant program. Finally, my legislation would waive the retention requirement during this two year waiver, so that law enforcement jurisdictions can hire officers without worrying about how they will pay them once the money runs out.

This legislation would provide law enforcement agencies with the resources they need to meet federal homeland security mandates during this time of increased threats and budget crises. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the First Responders Enhancement Act.

Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, America has been a country committed to justice. In the wake of an 1837 mob lynching of an abolitionist newspaper editor, our great leader Abraham Lincoln urged his fellow Americans to ``let reverence for the laws . . . become the political religion of the nation,'' to let legislatures and judges chosen by the people, rather than lynch-mobs motivated by passion and hatred, decide important issues. In the end, Lincoln's philosophy was vindicated. Our nation remains united, and we are committed to the rule of law.

But there is a minority of Americans who refuse to abide by this covenant. They believe the rule of law does not apply to them, and in the forests and communities of Oregon and the Western United States, their actions are a rapidly growing problem.

Oregon has seen a growing number of incidents of environmental terrorism. I have traveled to the site of one of these, a Boise Cascade building that was burned down by the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) on Christmas day a couple of years ago.

While environmental terrorists claim that they don't want to harm people, they need to sit down with the volunteer firefighters who were roused from their beds early on Christmas morning to fight the blaze they started.

You see, the way incendiary devices used in arsons work, the buildings targeted by environmental terrorists often fall in very quickly, and we are extremely lucky that none of the brave women and men who fight fires have been seriously hurt or killed in one of these blazes.

In 2001, poplar trees involved in a research project at Oregon State University were destroyed by a group expressing concern about genetically modified organisms. The ironic thing about this is that the trees were involved in research designed to prevent genetically modified organisms from spreading into the wild--a goal which the saboteurs probably support.

Unfortunately, neither side in the battle over the environment has a monopoly on the use of violence--both environmentalists and those who oppose increased protections of our natural resources have resorted to illegal tactics to advance their causes.

Federal land managers have been harassed, intimidated, and threatened by those who are opposed to environmental protections. For example, in 1997 ranchers in New Mexico threatened to kill Forest Service employees enforcing protections for endangered species.

Let me be clear: using violence or intimidation in the name of a political cause is wrong. In a democracy, we fight for change at the ballot box and in the halls of our legislatures, not with pipe bombs and incendiary devices.

I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to ensure that our local, state, and federal law enforcement officials are effectively upholding the law. That said, environmental terrorism poses additional challenges for the law enforcement community.

It is a well-know fact that very few environmental terrorists have been caught. These groups have no formal organization, and they act in small terrorist cells, which are autonomous from one another.

Because these crimes are investigated with limited resources and manpower, local law enforcement officials have little success in successfully closing these cases.

For the second Congress, I am attempting to reverse the current situation by sponsoring the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Act. This bill would provide federal assistance where it is needed most, at the local level.

This legislation would require the Attorney General to establish a national clearinghouse

for information on incidents of ecoterrorism, with the hope that investigators stay ahead of the curve in preventing additional acts of terror.

In addition, it would establish the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Program in the Department of Justice. This program would authorize the Attorney General to designate any area as a high intensity environmental terrorism area. After making such a designation local law enforcement agencies could access federal funding to assist them in solving and preventing these types of crimes in the future.

This program is similar to the Department of Justice's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program (HIDTA), which has been extraordinarily useful in Oregon and other states in helping make our communities better places to live.

I ask my colleagues to join me in this goal, and to support the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, our veterans have made great personal sacrifices, and members of Congress have a responsibility to serve our retired military personnel, just as they served our country. But the needs of our veterans are not being met. Funding for medical care per veteran has steadily declined in constant dollars over the past decade while the number of veterans seeking health care has increased.

This bill includes a $1.4 billion increase for veterans' health care from last year. Yet even this increase is woefully inadequate. This bill is still $1.8 billion less than the amount promised in the House budget resolution and will do little to improve timely access to much- needed medical care.

In Oregon, the cost of medical care rose 7 percent last year, and the number of veterans seeking VA services rose 17 percent. And the number of veterans using the VA will only continue to increase. We must provide VA with the funds they need to provide veterans with the health care they deserve. This bill does not keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled. It is plain that the VA-HUD Appropriations bill will not meet veterans needs.

Without adequate funds for the VA, our veterans will continue to wait in long lines at overburdened facilities.

The Portland VA Medical Center in Oregon currently has a waiting list of over 6000 veterans who want to see a primary care physician and it takes about 6 monthsh for even high priority veterans to see a physician. Last year, to make up a $19 million budget shortfall, the Portland VA began reducing services and laid off about 10 percent of their personnel. The VA cannot provide quality health care to our veterans when they are forced to cut physicians while their caseload is increasing by 17%. Our veterans deserve better.

We must ensure that our promise to provide health care for all veterans is kept. We made that promise, we need to keep that promise.

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, a dear boy in Salem named Tyler Benton Bales lost his battle with a rare genetic disease called Hurler Syndrome.

Although I never had the pleasure of knowing him, Tyler was somewhat of a celebrity in Salem. In fact, he was the subject of a front page article in the Salem Statesmen Journal in December of 2001, when a silent auction was held to raise money to offset the cost of an expensive bone marrow transplant that was his only chance to beat Hurlers Syndrome.

Unfortunately, Tyler's heart was not strong enough to survive the rigors of his transplant and chemotherapy. This sweet boy was only sixteen months old when he passed away.

The heartache of Tyler's loss did not ease for his parents.

As if it were not hard enough to lose your sixteen month old child, the Bales later learned--courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service--that someone was claiming Tyler as a dependent on their 2000 income tax return.

As disturbing as that was, the story got worse.

Because of disclosure issues, the IRS would not give out the name of the identity thief to the Salem Police Department, even though identity theft is a felony offense in Oregon. To date, two and one half years later, the Bales still do not know the identity of this thief. Because of current laws, the Bales and Salem Police Department will never know who stole their son's personal information.

Mr. Speaker, we can't even begin to imagine the anguish this family went through.

Tyler Benton Bales was so much more than a name, a date of birth, and a Social Security number--he was a little boy who was surrounded by love during his brief time with us. His parents--and the countless number of other people who loved him--should not see his memory dishonored by a common thief whose identity could not legally be disclosed by the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am reintroducing the ``ID Theft Loophole Closure Bill.'' This legislation simply changes the law to allow the IRS to furnish the name, Social Security number and address of a suspected identity thief to state and local law enforcement agencies for the exclusive purpose of locating the individual.

Just last Thursday the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security conducted hearings on the use and misuse of social security numbers. It is my hope that this legislation will be forwarded to the subcommittee as they seek to address ways to curb fraud and the theft of social security numbers.

Identity theft is not a victimless crime, although thieves don't put a gun to your head. We must cut through red tape that is preventing thieves from being prosecuted for their crimes, and I believe this legislation is the right tool for the job. I urge my colleagues to support the ``ID Theft Loophole Closure Act,'' and yield the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and make what I hope will be my last statement on the House floor on H.R. 733, the McLoughlin House National Historic Site Act. I have been working on this bill for 3 years; and I want to thank my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman; the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the House Committee on Resources; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the chairman; and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the ranking member of that committee's Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands. Without their willingness to work with me on this bill, we would not be passing it today.

In Oregon, this legislation would not have happened without the tireless work of John Williams, former mayor of Oregon City, who came to me with this idea many years ago, and John Salisbury, who has shown his passion for this project by serving as the chairman of the board of the McLoughlin House, and the current mayor of Oregon City, Mayor Alice Norris.

My legislation would do what should have been done 60 years ago, include Dr. John McLoughlin's house in Oregon City as part of the National Park System. Rather than creating a new unit of the National Park System, this legislation simply adds this historic treasure to the existing Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, which is already administered as part of the National Park System. I believe this addition will preserve in perpetuity the cultural, educational and historical benefits of this historic site for future generations.

I am very happy that we are taking action in this House today and look forward to the day when the President signs this bill and the house of Oregon's Founding Father is preserved for our children and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, our previous speaker talked about bipartisan effort to not pass this amendment. Let me state that last year there was a bipartisan effort to get this amendment in the bill, and it passed both the House and the Senate. It is also interesting when the gentleman says, well, you can just slap that sticker on a piece of meat or whatever. Well, guess what, we require that we know where our clothing is made, where our shoes are made. I think consumers need to know the meat, the produce they put in their mouths, where it comes from, where it is raised, and if it is safe.

I agree with the statements made by my colleague from Montana and thank him for the leadership on this issue. Over the past several days I received letters of support from the Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association thanking me for helping to bring this amendment forward today.

Our amendment is supported by farmers in my district and across the country, which is why it is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union. Consumers Federation supports this as well as other consumer groups. Our farmers grow the best produce and raise the best livestock in the world, and American consumers know this. Studies have shown that Americans want to buy American commodities and are even willing to pay a premium to do so.

Yet while a consumer could go into a department store and know that their shirt is made in this country, they cannot go into the grocery store and have the same certainty about the food they are going to serve their families.

U.S. producers need mandatory labeling in order to compete in the marketplace. Product differentiation is the only way consumers can exercise their choice between purchasing either domestic beef or beef produced by foreign competitors.

In fact, according to a 2003 Colorado State University survey, 69 percent of consumers participating were willing to pay for more steaks clearly labeled ``USA Guaranteed: Born and Raised in the United States'' than for those without origin labels. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers produce the best and safest commodities in the world, and our Nation's consumers deserve the chance to determine where their food is born, raised and processed.

Recent events have also shown that the country of origin labeling is necessary for U.S. farmers to compete in international markets, and we keep talking about trade in international markets. Our number one beef importers, Japan and Korea, have both demanded assurances that beef they are buying is actually American beef.

For these reasons, we had country of origin labeling provisions added to the farm bill last Congress. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is formulating the rules to implement these provisions right now.

What the provision in the Agriculture appropriation bill would do would be to prevent the USDA from putting these rules together, short- circuiting a process that is currently in place, a process that Members of this body and the Senate voted to have in there last time.

Opponents of this amendment contend that the costs for industry, including retailers, to comply with country of origin labeling are too great, and the price of products will rise as a result. This is simply untrue. We already have a test case in place.

The fourth most populous State in this country, Florida, has had a country of origin labeling requirement for over 20 years. The Florida Department of Agriculture has estimated the annual cost of its mandatory produce labeling law is just a couple of pennies for a bag of groceries.

Country of origin labeling is good for American farmers, good for American consumers. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up today for their constituents and vote for the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

Online gambling has a huge impact on individuals and families. But I am not supporting the rule because we have not been able to bring up the child tax credit. I went to the Rose Garden today for the celebration of Leave No Child Behind. And they were celebrating all of the States having plans and about what they were going to do about education and how they were going to move forward. And I supported that plan.

But today we are leaving children behind, 12 million children. These are children whose parents earn $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, $11, $12 an hour. These are people that get up every morning, every noon, every afternoon, whatever their shift is. They go out and work hard, and yet they were denied the child tax credit.

It is time that we change that. The time is now. When I saw the quote from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that said there are a lot of other things that are more important than that, referring to the child tax credit, I wanted to say to the gentleman, say it isn't so, say it isn't so. We need to pass this and get on with our business.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2143, the unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for all of the hard work he has done on this particular piece of legislation, for working with me and the rest of the subcommittee.

This bill is really about enforcing what is already illegal activity. I have had several people come up to me and say, well, what does this bill really do? What this bill really does, it takes what is already illegal, it makes nothing more illegal or nothing less illegal, it takes what is already illegal and tries to enforce that law.

Furthermore, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, for the opportunity to manage the debate for the Democratic Caucus. He and I do not see eye to eye on this legislation, but I appreciate and respect the fact that we agreed to disagree, and I welcome healthy debate on the topic of illegal Internet gambling.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2143, which was reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services in March. Actions taken recently by the Committee on the Judiciary served to weaken this bill in such a way as to throw into question whether the bill would still adequately preserve the Federal law and protect States rights when it comes to regulating Internet gambling. Today's legislation will reduce that uncertainty by moving forward with the financial services-related provisions of H.R. 2143, which would serve as a core purpose of the bill to shut off that financial spigot to the illegal offshore casino sites.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a minute about what that financial spigot looks like. It is currently around $6 billion a year. None of that contributes to the United States economy. There are between 1,500 and 2,000 offshore Internet gambling sites. Unlawful Internet gambling is a scourge of our society. It not only leads to crime, but in many cases it is run by criminal enterprises. By shutting off the funding flow, we will go a long ways toward shutting down these elicit enterprises.

The Committee on Financial Services and all of the members, the ranking member and the chair, have worked diligently over the last few years with industry groups and civic organizations to strengthen the measure and to build support for its enactment. We consulted with financial services companies to improve the bill, recognizing current industry practices and protecting firms from liability for refusing to honor restricted transactions.

The policy rationale for this legislation is very simple: Offshore Internet gambling is already deemed illegal. By continuing to allow the financing of illegal Internet gambling, we are stating that we are not serious about enforcing the law. Worse, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State have all stated that Internet gambling can be exploited to launder money for such groups as drug dealers, organized crime and terrorist organizations.

Now is the time to close the loophole that allows illegal Internet gambling to still exist in the United States.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member.

Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the comments of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). I think she gave a really good argument why we should pass this bill. It may not do everything that we want it to do, but right now offshore gambling is illegal.

What we are trying to do in this bill is very simple. It is to shut off the financial spigot. Will it stop it totally? Probably not. Will it make a dent? I certainly hope so. But unless we can shut off that financial spigot, nothing will happen, and it will just continue to grow and take that money out of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas, (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, how many more speakers does the gentleman have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman through with his speakers?

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to remind people this is not about legal gambling. This is about illegal gambling. This is about offshore casinos. This is about illegal Internet gambling.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. And I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for all of the hard work, and it has taken more than 1 year that they have worked on this.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to turn this debate into an oversimplification, but I want to remind this entire Chamber that this bill does not in any way prohibit Internet gambling. The bill does not make Internet gambling illegal. This bill quite simply takes Internet gambling that is already illegal, such as offshore gambling, and prohibits financial institutions from funding those transactions. The best way to put it is that this bill will actually enforce existing law, which is something I believe that we all agree on is in this country's best interest.

Finally, I would like to share a couple of quick facts that sum up my support for this legislation. First, a study released by the American Psychiatric Association concluded that about 20 percent of children- oriented online game sites featured Internet gambling advertisements, 20 percent. Does that make any sense? Offshore illegal Internet gambling sites are advertising to our children and we are not shutting down these offshore illegal Internet gambling sites? That does not make sense to me.

Second, the FBI and the Department of Justice have linked, without question, offshore Internet gambling to organized crime, money laundering and identity theft. Offshore illegal Internet gambling has been linked to organized crime and terrorism and we are not going to shut it down? That does not make sense to me.

It is time to enact legislation that empowers our law enforcement officers to become tough on the existing laws and to put illegal Internet gambling sites out of business once and for all.

Please support H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.

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

I am supportive of the gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. Kelly) amendment. I think it is a great idea that she came up with to make very clear what this bill does and does not do.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about an issue that is very important in my home state and in my congressional district--hazardous fuels reduction. Oregon has been hit hard by wildfires in recent years, and there is no question that we must take steps to make up for years of neglect of our federal forests.

First of all, I want to praise Mr. Walden and Mr. DeFazio for their tireless work and passion on this issue. Both of these fine Congressmen have spent countless hours over the past several years working together to address this very real problem, and I appreciate their hard work. Last Congress, I was pleased at the progress they were making, and was disappointed that, because of the lateness in the year, they did not have the opportunity to complete negotiations and bring the fruits of their efforts on fire prevention to the floor. Had they had time to do so I would have supported their legislation.

While I appreciate the efforts that Mr. Walden has put forward, and while I agree 100 percent with his goals of creating healthier forests and preventing fires, I have concerns about the legislation, H.R. 1904, which we are considering on the floor today.

I am first and foremost concerned about the fact that this legislation does not provide any additional funds to undertake the projects necessary for healthy forests. The legislation being discussed last year included funding, and today's DeFazio substitute also includes the money important to protect our forests. Without money we face an impossible task. The best intentions are well and good, but we need money to fight this battle against fire and insect infestation.

Second, I am concerned that this legislation, in the name of reducing ``red tape,'' gives complete authority to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture. Regardless of which party is in power, I am concerned about allowing the Secretaries to set their own rules, regardless of congressional intent and public opinion.

I have reasons for these concerns. Last Congress I led a bipartisan charge with Republican Congresswoman Mary Bono to require Country of Origin Labeling on agricultural products. This proposal was strongly supported by farmers in my home district, and passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly. My proposal was signed into law last Congress. Despite this overwhelming support in my district, and despite the voice of the Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture has repeatedly blocked implementation of Country of Origin Labeling. I have other examples as well, and I do not feel comfortable giving the

Secretaries this much leeway in determining our national priorities. The public needs to be involved in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I am urging swift consideration of fuels reduction legislation in the Senate as we have a huge problem in the Pacific Northwest that must be addressed before the heat of summer. This is a real problem and we need a real solution with money to match the talk. I hope that when the Senate considers this legislation they will provide funding to address the need for fuels reduction in our national forests. I also hope that they will allow local participation in fuels reduction proposals, and will not give such total authority to the Secretaries.

In closing, I would urge the Senate to work quickly to send the House hazardous fuels reduction legislation that many of us from timber communities can support.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Mother's Day weekend, I rise today to remember the mothers of missing children, or mothers whose children's lives have tragically ended in violence. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Most of you remember the story of the two Oregon City girls who disappeared on their way to school last year: Ashley Pond in January and Miranda Gaddis in March.

Months later after a lengthy search by law enforcement and the community, the entire Nation was horrified as the FBI and Oregon City Police dug up the backyard of a home neighboring their apartment complex to discover the girls' bodies.

Ashley and Miranda were just 13 years old when their precious young lives ended in violence. I think of them often.

Throughout the last year, my staff and I have gotten to know Michelle Duffey, the mother of Miranda. She has survived horrors unimaginable except to those who have lived through this kind of terrible tragedy themselves. Less than 1 year after learning of her daughter's fate, Michelle is trying to rebuild a life for herself and her family.

Just consider for a moment, that throughout her grieving process, Michelle has been recognized in the grocery store and on the street. She continues to be called upon for numerous media interviews. This sort of notoriety must be very, very hard for her and her family to endure. And yet Michelle has taken that attention, gained some strength from the community's support, and has used that courageously to advocate on behalf of missing children and their families. I admire her fortitude. And I greatly appreciate her public service.

I will continue to stand by Michelle Duffey in her efforts to prevent this type of tragedy from happening to someone else's child.

Each year, nearly 800,000 children are reported missing according to the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This includes children who run away, who are abducted by family members and the most serious and deadly kidnappings, those by strangers. I am proud to be a member of the Missing Children's Caucus that supported the passage of the national AMBER Alert plan, that takes important steps to prevent such tragedies as happened in Oregon City. No legislation will ever prevent 100 percent of the atrocious crimes perpetrated against our Nation's children, but it is up to us to try. Michelle Duffey has been one of its strongest and best advocates.

This Sunday, I will remember Miranda and Ashley's mothers in my thoughts as we honor our Nation's mothers. I ask you to keep in mind all the mothers across America who are missing their children at this time, and to offer your thoughts and prayers for them and their children.

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

Right now Oregon has 7.6 percent unemployment, the highest in the Nation. In March of this year food and transportation lost manufacturing jobs, 800 jobs. These hardworking men and women are not statistics. They are real people with real lives and families, and right now they are facing the prospects of not having enough money to put food on the table, and they lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

We should not cut the very initiatives that help them retain these new jobs that will pay them decent wages and offer them health benefits.

The Dislocated Worker Program of the Workforce Investment Act is critical to making sure our States have the resources to keep dislocated workers from falling through the cracks, and it is imperative that we make sure it remains a separate program because it is a training program and its needs are very different from the other two programs with which it is being combined.

I have put forth an amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that would have addressed this issue and ensure that those who are laid off can get the assistance they need to get back into the workforce. Yet the Committee on Rules refused to give the Members a chance to vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.