Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I also want to add that Mr. McCrery wanted to cosponsor H.R. 5252, but was unable to do so because the bill already had been reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I certainly appreciate his interest in cosponsoring the bill nonetheless.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, just to correct the

record, I was not a big supporter of this 6 percent from the beginning. And I can point the finger at others. I was not the instigator of this. However, it is part of the bill. And, in fact, a study was put out that, according to the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, indicates that competition and the rise in the number of cable providers will cause total cable industry revenues to go up such that the 5 percent franchise fee, along with the 1 percent increase for the PEG channels, will see revenues increase by as much as 30 percent.

Now, I might note, where does that 30 percent come from? It comes from us, the consumers. It is passed along. So the cities are going to actually increase revenue. They are going to still maintain the control of the right-of-way, as they should.

I don't know where the CBO came up with this study. I know that I am told that they conferred with our staff. They obviously didn't listen very well.

I look forward to cosponsoring the legislation along with Chairman Barton. I think that this does need to be addressed.

CBO, I think, in addition, made another major mistake on the transition to digital bill that the President signed into law earlier this year when they calculated that the sale of the spectrum, the analog spectrum, would bring in only $10 billion when, in fact, we saw some private studies that it might be as much as $20 billion.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support the Rules Committee and deny this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise not only as a Member, but also as the Chairman of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, and I first want to thank Chairman Dreier and Mr. Diaz-Balart for their work in crafting what I think is a fair rule in the debate we have today and perhaps tomorrow.

From the start, this has been, I think, a very fair and open process. And I must note that the Barton-Rush-Upton-Pickering bill, H.R. 5252, has been fair and open from the very start. In fact, I would note that when you look at the number of cosponsors, and this bill was filed after we completed the markup in full committee, H.R. 5252, and after we completed the markup, not beforehand but after, 15 Democrats from the Energy and Commerce Committee cosponsored the legislation. That perhaps is one of the reasons why it passed in subcommittee 27-4, overwhelming; and 42-12 before the full committee.

The process has been open. We have had lots of hearings, lots of discussions. We have had lots of viewpoints, lots of panels. We have heard from just about anyone with any interest at all in this legislation as it has moved through this process. We looked at a number of staff drafts, many of them with Member input. Some Members might want to decline to have Members' input, but in any case we had lots of debate and lots of issues that we looked at, starts and stops, and at the end of the day I think that the process, most Members would say, was very fair.

What was the intent of what we were trying to do? It is called deregulatory parity; that is that we are going to treat all of the providers of these services equally, whether they be a cable provider, whether it be telephone or voice provider, or whether they have broadband or high speed Internet access. All of those can provide these services. All of us consumers want those services in our homes and in our businesses, and yet under existing law it is not parity. It really is weighted towards one side and against the others. So the bottom line was we wanted it to be fair, and I think we achieved that result with this legislation.

What does it mean for the consumers? Well, for the consumers that have these services, it is probably going to mean about a $30 to $40 reduction per month. That comes out to about $400 per year that they will save with the enactment of this legislation.

Now, I hear a lot about the cities. We wanted to protect the cities. Let me tell you that the rights-of-way are protected. They are going to be able to govern whether the streets are torn up or where the wires are going to be strung. All of that the cities retain those rights. Look at the language in the bill. It is there.

The revenue stream, very important as well to the cities. Remember, that is us consumers that pay. Some would call it a hidden tax, but it is there. The revenue stream is protected. In fact, there are some studies that came out, we debated this a little earlier, perhaps a 30 percent increase to the cities revenues because you have got more providers coming into town and you are going to have more people that perhaps just have over-the-air and don't pay into that at all who are going to want these new services and it is going to be very beneficial. And we have the same standard, the same standard for accumulating those revenues that there is today.

So the bottom line is this: This was a bipartisan bill. We worked hard to see

it that way, and the proof is in the pudding. That is why a 27-4 vote in subcommittee, overwhelming, and then a 42-12 vote in the full committee brings this bill to the House floor.

Now, earlier this morning, I had a chance to talk to Chairman Stevens on the other side of the Capitol. They are looking forward to moving legislation. I hope it is fairly close to ours. A markup yet this month and on the floor as early as next month, so that we can get a bill to conference, work together, and get this bill to the President.

I am proud to say that the Barton-Rush-Upton-Pickering bill is gaining a lot of steam, a lot of momentum. This rule vote is very important. I would urge all my colleagues to support the rule, a fair rule. Let us get it done to get the consumers some money in their pockets.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a very valuable member of the subcommittee.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Rush, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Congressman Rush, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), an able member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I would yield on behalf of Mr. Rush 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Buckeye State, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley.

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

Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined: ``U.S. lags behind in high speed Internet access, ranking slips to 12th spot among 30 nations.''

Today telecommunication providers offer a host of services, whether it be voice, data, or video. And this legislation, should it be enacted later this year like I think it will, will jump-start, jump-start that competition, as it will provide more competition, it will lower prices, probably in the range of $30 to $40 per household per month, nearly $400 for the year, and I have to tell you that that is great for America.

Now, over the last year we have had plenty of hearings, lots of witnesses, input from almost every sector. It has been a fair and open process from the start. And I commend my chairman, Joe Barton. He has done a magnificent job pulling together folks from all sides of the aisle, all different sides of the issues, to put together a bipartisan bill that we debate tonight.

Now, the document that we marked up in my subcommittee and then in full committee changed. It changed because of amendments that were debated and offered and accepted and voted on. And I have to tell you that after each step of that process, the bill was better. It was stronger and it was better. And the proof was in the pudding.

We passed the bill in subcommittee 27-4. We passed the bill in full committee, changed, 42-12. And I would note that when we introduced H.R. 5252, after the full committee markup process was completed, there were 15 Democrats from the Energy and Commerce Committee that asked that their names be listed as cosponsors.

Now, in some debate tonight we have talked about the cities, a question about right-of-way. Well, let us read the language in the bill. Page 19 says this: ``Nothing in this act affects the authority of a State or local government to manage, on a reasonable, competitively neutral, and nondiscriminatory basis, the public rights-of-way and easements that have been dedicated for compatible use.

That protects the cities with rights-of-way. We protect the cities with a revenue stream. Most of them today have about a 5 percent revenue from the receipts that are collected. We add to that. It will be 6 percent, because we guarantee that that extra percent is going to go to the community access channels, what we call the PEG channels, the Public, Education, Government channels.

In fact, some of the studies that have come out show that the cities will gain revenues in the neighborhood of perhaps as much as 30 percent. We added an anti-redline provision that was offered by our friend, Mr. Rush from Chicago. It was a great provision. It made the bill better. It was accepted, as I recall, on a voice vote.

The bottom line is this: if you are happy with the status quo, please vote ``no'' tonight. If you like cable rates going up, if you like the regulations, vote ``no.'' But if you want change, please vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I live by an adage: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. No Internet service provider ought to be able to block access to your favorite Web sites or Internet applications, and I have to say that there are protections in this bill which preserve those rights. There is no evidence of any problem. And if they surface, we have some protections in here.

Let me read what they are. This bill, Barton-Rush bill, ensures that consumers are entitled to: one, access the lawful Internet content of their choice; two, run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; three, connect their choice of legal devices that do no harm to the network; and, four, competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

We give the FCC the explicit authority to enforce those principles, in fact, a fine for up to half a million dollars for every violation. We have a 90-day time clock to make sure that they are adjudicated properly and in a timely fashion.

The Internet has a great history of developing free of taxation and regulation. We want to keep it that way, and that is why we should vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be allowed to file a supplemental report on the bill (H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5126) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006, which was introduced by Chairman Barton and my friend Mr. Engel from New York. I also am a proud cosponsor, original sponsor, of the bill which was the subject of a legislative hearing in the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee and favorably reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 24, 2006.

This legislation protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive practice of manipulating, or spoofing, caller identification information. Caller ID spoofing occurs when a caller fakes his caller ID information, so that the numbers which appear on their caller ID screen is not the caller's actual phone number. In many cases, such spoofers are actually transmitting someone else's caller ID information instead of their own.

Apparently, some spoofers just do it to play a practical joke on their friends, but there have been reports of much more sinister uses of spoofing.

In some instances, spoofing is being used to trick people into thinking that the person on the other end of the phone is someone from a government agency or perhaps another trustworthy party. For example, in last month's AARP bulletin, there is a consumer alert describing a prevalent scam whereby spoofers get the local courthouse's phone number to pop up on peoples' caller ID screens and then tell the recipients of the calls that they are judicial officials in order to get unsuspecting victims to divulge personal information, whether it be Social Security numbers or driver's license numbers, who knows. Law enforcement officials are particularly concerned about senior citizens' susceptibility to such scams.

Another reported case involved a SWAT team surrounding an apartment building after police received a call from a woman who said that she was

being held hostage in an apartment; and as it turned out, it was a false alarm. Caller ID was spoofed to make it look like it was coming from the apartment. Apparently, it was somebody's idea of a bad prank.

In other instances, criminals are stealing credit card numbers, getting the phone number of the actual card holders, and then using those credit cards to get unauthorized wire transfers. In such cases, the criminals spoof their caller ID information so that the number which pops up on the wire transfer company operator's screen is that of the actual card holder, and because such caller ID information matches the actual card holder's phone number on record with the credit card company, the wire transfer company uses it to authorize the wire transfer. Thus, spoofing enables the crime to be consummated.

And, of course, many of us are familiar with our own credit card companies which may ask us to call from our home phones to authenticate and activate those new cards. If our new cards are stolen out of the mail, then criminals may be able to spoof our home phone numbers and authenticate and activate our new cards from the convenience of their own homes, hotel rooms, or wherever else they might call from.

While such spoofing has been technically possible for some time, it used to require specific phone connections and expensive equipment. However, with the advent of VoIP, voice over Internet protocol, over the computer it has become easier for callers to transmit any caller ID information that the caller might choose. Moreover, there are online companies which offer spoofing services for just a couple of bucks for anyone with any phone.

Unfortunately, nefarious uses of spoofing appear to be proliferating, and there is no law, no law, that protects the American public from it. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006 would make spoofing illegal.

More specifically, this legislation adds a new subsection (e) to section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934. New subsection (e)(1) makes it unlawful for any person within the United States in connection with any telecommunications service or VoIP service to cause any caller identification service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud or cause harm.

The carefully crafted language in this legislation ensures that other spoofing activities which are legitimate, such as the uses for domestic violence services or to route-enhanced 911 calls, are not prohibited. Additionally, the bill provides a savings clause to clarify that nothing in the act is intended to alter the obligations of telemarketers under the existing FCC do-not-call regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good strong piece of consumer protection legislation that clearly is bipartisan. I want to thank my friends on both sides of the aisle who have worked particularly hard to create this good bill, including Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, Ranking Member Markey and, of course, the sponsor of this bill, Congressman Engel from New York. I would urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), an original cosponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 193) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language.

Mr. Speaker, I again ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. 193 the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. This legislation is virtually identical to H.R. 3717, as introduced by my good friend, Mr. Markey, Chairman Barton, Mr. Dingell, and myself in the last Congress on January 21, 2004, which I would note was about a week and a half before the infamous Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Superbowl half-time show. That legislation was the predecessor of H.R. 310, which the House passed in this Congress on February 16, 2005 by a vote of 389-38.

While S. 193 omits a number of important provisions contained in H.R. 310, I believe that passage of this legislation will help us achieve our ultimate goal, which is to help ensure American families that broadcast television and radio programming will be free of indecency, obscenity, and profanity at times when their children are likely to

be tuning in, whether that be in the living room watching TV or in the car listening to the radio.

This is about protecting the public airwaves, and Congress has given the FCC the responsibility to help protect American families in that regard. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of our broadcast decency laws, although they have limited the FCC's enforcement to only that content which is aired between the hours of 6 in the morning and 10 at night, when children are most likely to be listening or viewing.

What compelled me to act on this, even before the infamous half-time show, was a review of the Notices of Apparent Liability issued by the FCC in but a few of its radio broadcast indecency cases. And, of course, each case had a transcript of the content that was at issue.

My friends, public decorum on this floor precludes me from reading those transcripts out loud, but what I will say is that what I read was disgusting, vile, and had no place on our public airwaves.

I was glad to see my colleagues, Mr. Markey, Mr. Barton, former Congressman Tauzin, and Mr. Dingell agreed with me as well. These cases included descriptions of people having sex in Saint Patrick's Cathedral, lewd scenes of a daughter having oral sex with her dad, and a case in which radio hosts interviewed high school girls about their sexual activities with crude reference to oral sex, with the sound effects to match, and I could go on and on and on.

More recently, on March 15, 2006, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability regarding a scene in a broadcast network program which graphically depicted teenage boys and girls in various stages of undress participating in a sexual orgy. Again, I will not describe everything that was said there, but I can say that the program aired at 9:00 P.M. in the central and mountain time zones and it drew a significant number of citizen complaints from across the country.

We have no place for that on the public airwaves. And while I am not a lawyer, I would hope it would be beyond dispute that such content is indecent under the law and does not belong on the public airwaves, particularly at times when children might be viewing or listening.

In many of those most egregious cases, the radio and TV stations are owned by huge media conglomerates, but the current statutory maximum fine which the FCC can impose upon them for indecency violations remains at $32,500. In the words of former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, he said this, ``Some of these fines are peanuts. They are peanuts because they haven't been touched in decades. They are just the cost of doing business to a lot of producers. And that has to change.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, this legislation in fact changes that. We have a chance to increase by tenfold the existing statutory maximum penalty for indecency violations. The bill would raise the cap per violation from $32,500 to $325,000.

I believe that broadcasters do have a special place in our society, given that they are stewards of the public airwaves. And with that stewardship comes the responsibility, including adherence to our Nation's indecency laws. Most broadcasters are responsible, and many recently have taken steps to redouble their commitment to keeping indecency off the public airwaves. But for those broadcasters who are less than responsible, the FCC needs to have the teeth to enforce the law, and this bill, S. 193, will give the FCC that teeth.

The bottom line is this: We do not change the standards that the courts have affirmed are permissible for the public airwaves, particularly when children might be listening. This bill simply raises the fine on the violators of the existing standards, and it needs to be passed tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentleman to clarify the rules. It is very important that broadcasters know precisely what the rules are. We can do a better job.

We are taking the Senate legislation as it was passed. I think we had some better language in the House. I look forward to working with you and other Members on both sides of the aisle to make this a bipartisan effort and lay those ground rules out so everyone, whether it is listeners or broadcasters, knows precisely the rules of the road and hopefully will not get into trouble for it. I thank the gentleman for his input all along in the process.

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

I would just like to make a couple of closing comments. Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his help on this from the start. It was in December 2003 I called him at his home in Massachusetts and asked if he would like to co-author this with me. With that support came the support of then-Chairman Tauzin and the gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

The four of us introduced this legislation. A week and a half before the Super Bowl, we had our first hearing, in fact, before the Super Bowl came about where it got a lot of publicity. I know all of us on the committee and subcommittee when we held hearings were absolutely disgusted with some of the trash that was said on the radio that was fined. I would like to use a different word than ``trash'' or ``stuff,'' but we would probably get fined for doing that on the House floor, and maybe our words would get taken down. I'm not sure. But it was awful, particularly knowing that kids were listening to that kind of talk.

It was a bipartisan effort. As I recall, I think we had a vote of 49- 1 to get that legislation through. I think the bipartisan spirit we have had from the beginning, and I think our House bill was a little better than what the Senate has here in S. 193, but we need to get it done. That is why I was glad to work with the Senators on both sides of the aisle. And I would note this, not a single Senator, not a single one from any State, opposed the legislation that we are going to pass with this bill, S. 193.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this when we take the vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the members of the International Fire Marshals Association (IFMA), who will be celebrating their 100th anniversary on June 6. I particularly would like to commend Ron Farr, Past President of IFMA and current Fire Chief and Fire Marshall for the Kalamazoo Township Fire Department. I applaud Ron and his courageous colleagues for their tireless efforts to keep our community safe.

Since it was formed in 1906, the men and women of the International Fire Marshals Association have dedicated themselves to saving the lives, homes, and properties of folks throughout our great Nation. Today, the Association has over 1,800 members representing over 20 nations and we are truly grateful for their service here in southwest Michigan.

There is nothing more important to us than the safety of our loved ones, and this organization has stood watch, protecting the public for the last 100 years. I would like to thank the International Fire Marshals Association and its membership for the continued quality service they provide our community and congratulate them once again on this milestone. We are truly fortunate to have folks like Ron Farr and his colleagues in southwest Michigan, dedicating their lives in the name of public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Ken Potts who is moving on after having served our community in Southwest Michigan as the director of the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport for 16 years. Ken has a strong bond with the Kalamazoo area as he also received his BS in Aviation Technology and Management and his MBA from Western Michigan University.

Ken's distinguished career began as an intern as at the Kalamazoo Municipal Airport, which would later become the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport. After two stints managing airports in North Carolina and Vermont, Ken returned home to direct the airport where his career started in Kalamazoo--he remained there for 16 years. His other career highlights include being an Accredited Airport Executive by the American Association of Airport Executives and serving as President of the Michigan Association of Airport Executives.

After so many years of great service, I want to be sure that proper recognition was given to Ken; his long career in the aviation field speaks for itself and I think that all of us in Southwest Michigan are quite lucky that we had him aboard for so many years. The presence of an airport in Kalamzoo not only makes travel convenient for our local folks, it also makes our corner of Michigan attractive to businesses that continue to view Southwest Michigan as an ideal place to run their business.

Ken leaves our airport better than he found it. We wish Ken and his family all of the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Dr. William K. Emery. Dr. Emery today will receive the Friend of Public Health Award from the Berrien County Health Department for his many decades of dedicated service.

A caring and compassionate third-generation physician, Dr. Emery served as a family practitioner and as medical director for Whirlpool Corporation for more than 30 years. Dr. Emery, his father and grandfather have provided more than a century of care to the residents of Southwest Michigan. After retiring from his practice, Dr. Emery continued to serve his community as a member of the Berrien County Board of Health.

Dr. Emery is a man of vision and leadership, and brought those skills to bear as a member of the Berrien County Board of Health. He believes that the key to good health is knowledge and prevention. Dr. Emery was the driving force behind the Health Department's mission of preventing disease, prolonging life, protecting the health of the community, and promoting a better quality of life for everyone.

A 1942 graduate of St. Joseph High School, Dr. Emery received his medical degree from the University of Michigan in 1949 and joined the family practice in 1951.

While his colleagues are recognizing him today for his years of service, Dr. Emery's exemplary service continues. He has been named the first Health Board Member emeritus by the Berrien County Board of Commissioners, and he is volunteering at a local health care facility library.

Southwest Michigan is a healthier and better place because of Dr. William K. Emery.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear Dr. Larry Hayward give our opening prayer this morning. For some 25 years, he has been preaching and teaching. His journey has taken him from Texas to Iowa to the D.C. area. Now he is the pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, a church that my wife and I attend when we are here in Washington.

He is a graduate of Union Seminary in New York. In his personal life, he certainly has a love and respect for history, government and sports, but it is also clear that the Lord comes first.

Mr. Chairman, as we work to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy today, I'd like to pay tribute to the work and dedication of Southwest Michigan's Regional Methamphetamine Taskforces. It is through their efforts that March is Methamphetamine Awareness Month in Southwest Michigan.

The unfortunate reality is that each and every one of our communities is vulnerable to the dangers of meth--it is a highly addictive drug that does not discriminate. However, the communities of Southwest Michigan are united in their fight against this epidemic. Regional meth taskforces consisting of dedicated law enforcement officials, pharmacists, firefighters, right down to the individual neighborhood watchman, are making headway in the fight against meth. This drug epidemic must be fought on the front lines, and the troops are assembled in Southwest Michigan.

I applaud the efforts of our dedicated Regional Meth Taskforce coordinators: Heidi Bertschinger of Allegan, Liz Lenz of Barry, Kim Palchak of Branch, Jennifer Lester of Cass, Tina Harbaugh of Kalamazoo, Mike Wilson of St. Joseph, and EJ. McAndrew of Van Buren. I would also like to commend Rick Shanley of Kalamazoo for increasing public awareness of the progress that the task forces are accomplishing.

These folks, and many others who follow their lead, have worked diligently to educate communities on the dangers of this drug. Among their many contributions to our region, the taskforces have trained community members to recognize the warning signs of the meth production and addiction, conducted research used by local treatment providers and educated school groups. Our communities are better off for the efforts of our regional taskforces.

Special thanks also goes out to all of our local law enforcement officials, they face the dangers associated with meth abuse each and every day. While March is Methamphetamine Awareness Month in Southwest Michigan, this is a problem that must be addressed each and every month of the year, until it has been conquered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the members of the 415th Civil Affairs Battalion from Kalamazoo, MI who have bravely served our Nation overseas in Iraq. This Sunday, March 5th, the entire Battalion will be honored for its distinguished service in Iraq, receiving the prestigious Meritorious Unit Commendation that is bestowed upon battalions that are particularly meritorious and exceptional in their services against an armed enemy during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In addition to the Battalion's group recognition, 100 members of the unit will also be personally awarded the Combat Action Badge, which provides special recognition to Soldiers who personally engage the enemy, or are engaged by the enemy during combat operations.

I am so proud of the 415th Battalion because they represent all of the many and diverse jobs that our troops have set out to accomplish in Iraq. For example, this Battalion has administered over 1000 reconstruction projects, implemented and managed 43 separate school reconstruction projects, provided medical screening to Iraqi citizens, even helped forge a relationship between Harvard University's medical school and Iraq's Tikrit University of Medicine.

The work of these men and women represents the positive progress that is actually going on in Iraq. The stories and accomplishments of the 415th Battalion are the ones that should truly be grabbing the headlines back home. Once again, I would like to congratulate the 415th Battalion for their much-deserved recognition and thank them on behalf of all the folks in Southwest Michigan for their great service. We are safer as a nation for your service--you make us all proud.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act.

This is common sense legislation that will benefit both consumers and businesses--and particularly small businesses.

Consumers will benefit from being able to rely on scientifically- based national food safety and warning standards, just as they now rely on national standards for nutrition labeling.

When we think of the food manufacturing industry, we may not realize that small manufacturers account for the bulk of the industry. Specifically, nearly 73 percent of food manufacturers have fewer than 20 employees. These smaller firms are especially burdened by having to comply with up to 50 different food safety and warning regimens if they are in or wish to enter interstate commerce.

I know many of us have heard from our governors about important state food safety and warning requirements that could be pre-empted by a national standard. But it is important to underscore that this bill provides for a 180-day period after enactment for states to petition the FDA and make their cases for either permitting a state requirement to remain in place or to make a state requirement a national standard. Further. the state requirements will remain in place until the FDA makes a determination on the state's petition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. George Weeks, a long-time political journalist for the Detroit News, who is set to retire from writing his weekly column. Mr. Weeks has had a long and illustrious career as a journalist--evidenced by his induction into the Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame in 1996. However, his accolades and accomplishments are by no means limited to the field of journalism.

Mr. Weeks not only reported political news, but helped make some of it himself. He served as press secretary and chief of staff for Governor William G. Milliken for 14 years. Mr. Weeks used the expertise he gained in Governor Milliken's office to earn the position of a Kennedy Fellow at Harvard University.

Mr. Weeks, a native of Traverse City, MI, is a true Michiganian--an expert, not only in Michigan politics, but in Michigan culture and history as well. I would like to extend my thanks to him for all of his good work and wish him well in his retirement. The Wolverine State is better off for the contributions of George Weeks.

Madam Speaker, I just would like to give a brief medical report on our friend and colleague, Joe Barton, who left last night rather suddenly to GW Hospital. He had three stents put in this morning.

I talked with him at length a little bit earlier this morning. He is doing quite well. He has a good sense of humor. Some of you might remember that our committee had a BCS hearing earlier this week on a playoff schedule, and I told him it had been resolved: Michigan would not be playing Nebraska, Michigan would be playing Southern California for the National Championship on January 4.

But he is in good humor, and he is doing well. His wife made it early this morning. He is expected to make a full recovery. In fact, he may be here later in the weekend to cast a vote or two if it is required.

He very much appreciates all the Members on both sides of the aisle inquiring about his health and wanted us to assure everyone that in fact he is the same Joe Barton that he was before; he is expected to make a full recovery, and we may see him again later on this weekend.