Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my close friend of more than 30 years, Joe Edmiston, recipient of he Environmentalist of the Year Award at the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life of Southern California (COEJLSC)'s 7th Annual Awards Reception. COEJLSC could not have chosen a more deserving person to receive this honor.

Joe is a remarkable man whose accomplishments are legion and whose passion and commitment to the environment is unparalleled. He has literally and figuratively transformed the landscape of southern California for the better. He has also, through his infectious enthusiasm, his innovative work with professional associations and his formal academic teachings, helped change the way we think about environmental protection and stewardship. He epitomizes COEJLSC's guiding principles and his work is perfectly aligned with COEJLSC's mission and purpose.

I first met Joe in December 1976 when he interviewed for the position of executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Planning Commission, a State agency created by legislation that I authored as majority leader of the California State Assembly. He was then a young member of the conservation staff of the Sierra Club, but his ideas impressed everyone and ultimately Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., appointed him to the commission directorship.

His decision to implement the plan through the establishment of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy was an insightful--but risky-- decision to forego traditional approaches. I carried the legislation, and it was a tough fight. Looking back, it was pretty audacious of Joe to think that market forces could be used to control the market, and more audacious still to think that his band of planners and ecologists would be the ones to do it. But the gamble paid off. Now, 26 years later the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has expended close to $550,000,000 and acquired and preserved more than 55,000 acres of park and open space lands--much of it accessible and regularly enjoyed by the urban population that surrounds it.

Serving his fifth Governor, Joe is close to being the longest serving State agency head in modern history. For a plodding bureaucrat that would not be so remarkable an accomplishment, but he is anything but that. Dynamic, sometimes controversial, he has taken the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to the forefront of conservation leadership in California and the Nation by his innovative approaches and his impact has even been felt in other countries that are attempting to model his success.

I am proud to know Joe. He and his wife Pepper are great friends and they have a wonderful family. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Joe Edmiston and congratulating him for receiving COEJLSC's Environmentalist of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to commend Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos and their excellent staffs for their hard work on his legislation.

I'd like to offer special thanks for their efforts to ensure that the conference agreement retains a provision I suggested, which would halt nuclear cooperation if the Indian government exports sensitive technologies that violate the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime.

This conference agreement--and the underlying nuclear deal with India--are far from perfect. I believe the Administration could have and should have pressed for a much better deal.

But having said that, it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is a major improvement over the Administration's original legislative proposal.

That bill would have cut Congress out of the process and put the nuclear deal with India on auto-pilot.

Among other things, this agreement preserves the right of Congress to vote on the final nuclear cooperation agreement with India--which is still under negotiation--before it goes into effect.

While I wish this conference agreement included some stronger nonproliferation provisions--including an amendment on fissile material I offered on the floor--I intend to vote ``yes'' because I believe the U.S.-India relationship is extremely important, and rejecting the bill at this point would be a major setback.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Judea Pearl and Dr. Akbar Ahmed, co-recipients of the Purpose Prize. Drs. Pearl and Ahmed have been recognized for innovation and success in using their lifetime of experience for the greater good.

The Daniel Pearl Foundation, which Dr. Pearl founded following the tragic death of his son, Daniel, at the hands of terrorists in Pakistan, is dedicated to promoting cross-cultural tolerance and understanding through public dialogue and the training and support of journalists. Together with Dr. Ahmed, Pearl created the Daniel Pearl Dialogue for Muslim-Jewish Understanding, which holds dialogues around the world to frankly discuss contentious issues and provide different perspectives on the topics that are causing so much violence today.

The Purpose Prize was created in 2005 by Civic Ventures, a California-based non-profit organization dedicated to generating ideas and inventing programs to help society achieve the greatest return on experience. Over 1,200 adults age 60 and over competed for the five $100,000 cash prizes and the accompanying benefits of publicity and support for their projects. The Purpose Prize aims to stimulate, recognize and support the entrepreneurial efforts of older adults who use their passion, smarts and experience to address serious social challenges. Unlike lifetime achievement awards, it seeks to reward new and creative efforts by older persons from all walks of life. Ultimately, the Purpose Prize will contribute to the transformation of our society's view of aging and lead to investments in America's greatest untapped resource: experienced and engaged older adults.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to Drs. Pearl and Ahmed on receiving this prestigious award in its first year and I wish them continued success. I also commend Civic Ventures, The Atlantic Philanthropies, and The John Templeton Foundation, for their vision and generosity in creating this important stimulus for expanding citizen initiative for public good.

Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 2006, I was unable to cast a vote on H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, rollcall vote No. 178. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Brad Sherman (CA-27) to pay tribute to Spectrolab, a subsidiary of the Boeing Company, on its 50th anniversary and to celebrate the delivery of its two millionth solar cell. We are honored to represent many of Spectrolab's employees and are proud of their great accomplishments.

Spectrolab is the world's leading manufacturer of space solar cells and solar panels. Throughout the years, Spectrolab solar cells and solar panels have powered more than 500 satellites and interplanetary missions, including the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, which are still exploring the surface of Mars. Also, all of the solar panels on spacecraft on Mars are manufactured by Spectrolab.

In 1956, Spectrolab was founded by a group of engineers who began providing high-quality optical filters and mirrors for government systems. In 1958, Pioneer 1 carried the company's first body-mounted solar panels into space. Shortly thereafter, Explorer 6 was the first satellite to use Spectrolab' s solar arrays, and Spectrolab's first solar cell panel was placed on the moon by Apollo's mission in 1969. Galaxy 111C, the world's highest capacity satellite, launched on June 15, 2002 carrying the latest solar cell technology developed and manufactured at Spectrolab. Its contributions to the space industry cannot be overstated.

Spectrolab is well respected in its industry and has received a myriad of well deserved accolades. NASA's George M. Low Award for Supplier Quality and Excellence was given to Spectrolab in 2004. Also, Spectrolab's multi-junction cells were inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame by the United States Space Foundation that same year.

Currently, Spectrolab scientists are working to build and test solar cells for concentrator systems that may one day generate inexpensive and renewable electricity for America's cities and towns. Their expertise in space photovoltaic products earned Boeing the contract to build solar concentrator cells for a leading renewable energy company.

Spectrolab's product portfolio includes terrestrial concentrator solar cells and panels, searchlight systems, solar simulators and photodetector products. More than 90 percent of all law enforcement aircraft and helicopters worldwide use Spectrolab's Nightsun searchlights.

It is with pleasure and gratitude that we salute Spectrolab for its extraordinary accomplishments over the past fifty years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the body of what we have here. We have a bill with three sections, the first of which, in the chairman's own words, reinforms the authority of the local governments to do something that he apparently believes and we all accept that they would have the authority to do anyway.

I call that one the let's use the Iraq model for dealing with the issue of illegal immigration; subcontract large functions of it, but unlike in Iraq where we overpay the subcontractors, here tell the local law enforcement people we are giving up at the Federal level trying to deal with this problem, we are not going to give you a penny for more jail cells or a penny for more resources, we are not going to give you a single dime to do anything about it, but we are here to tell you if you want to, you have the authority to arrest and detain people who are in this country illegally without regard to whatever acts they may have committed.

The second section of the bill is alien smuggling. It has a bunch of findings, it has a sense of Congress, and then says we authorize, but no funding, 20 more people to do something about alien smuggling.

And the third one is designed to deal with catch and release, the practice whereby non-Mexicans who are caught in this country in the past have been released rather than returned immediately to the country they came from because Mexico is not the country that they are from.

According to the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, we are currently detaining all El Salvadorans, or virtually all, because we now have enough beds, and we have enough to significantly reduce the total number of non-Mexicans. Catch and release is over. This bill won't make it. It is over. No one should be under the illusion that we are doing anything about the program catch and release by this bill because that program has ended.

What this bill in the larger context is, it is another one-House bill. Let me quote from the September 21 Washington Post. ``With little more than a week left before the September 29 start of the Congress's scheduled recess, GOP leaders are considering appending some or all of the bills to must-pass spending measures before they leave town. But Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) appeared to close off that avenue last night, saying he will not add any legislative language onto the spending bills that could slow their progress in the final days before the coming recess.''

Another one-House bill. And then what will happen, a week from now we will recess, and the Republicans and the majority hope that the American people will be conned into thinking they have done something about one of the most serious national crises we have, and that is the crisis of inability to enforce our borders. There are 12 million people in this country using false identifiers, the absence of any employer verification system.

But in reality, none of that will have happened. The Republican Congress will have recessed for the elections with the mere hope that maybe when we come back with the lame duck, or maybe if you reelect us next year, we will get serious about this problem.

There is nothing in this bill or other bills that are being sent over to a House that will not take them up and not consider them that will make this crisis better.

And what do we have to do to do something serious? Back in June or July or in the beginning of September, a motion to go to conference on the two larger bills that the Senate and the House passed. This won't work. This bill is nothing. It doesn't do anything for anybody. It won't become law.

So you can have the meaningless gesture act that this bill represents. You can pass some of these other bills that are being brought up at the last minute to go into that vacuum on the other side; but one day I would like to understand how the majority explains the fact that they were not willing to make a motion to go to conference to reconcile the differences between the two bills, because in 1 week we will have done nothing to implement an employer verification system. We will have done nothing about 12 million people who are here under false identifiers, some portion of whom might be actual threats to our own national security. We will have done nothing to provide the meaningful, comprehensive approach, which is the only way to deal with the problem of illegal immigration in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

There is only one response to my friend the chairman. If the issue is about papers and the only reason we haven't gone to conference committee is because the papers haven't been delivered, I do have Senator Frist's phone number, and I am happy to provide it. I cannot conceive that it is a matter of paperwork and process that is keeping us from going to conference committee on one of the most serious domestic issues this country has faced.

Secondly, in response to the following speaker, the reason we cannot quite unite to do something here, apparently, is because we are not going to unite on a fool's errand. Everyone on your side of the aisle, from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to the chairman to others, has acknowledged over and over again we are not going to deport 12 million people. You are not going to have local law enforcement pick up the task for you of deporting 12 million people.

A meaningful response is border security, because there are people there who are national security issues and there are people who are aiming to hurt us who want to cross this border illegally, and dealing with 12 million people who are operating under false identifiers, some of whom are bad people, and finding some system to either isolate and narrow that group or have them come forward, and most important of all, to get an employer verification system in place. None of these bills does anything about it. We are going to leave here in a week doing nothing about it. I don't understand how you are going to explain to your constituents and the people who are understandably upset about this issue that this Congress has addressed a very serious, urgent issue in a serious and coherent fashion. We haven't.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Moshe and Lois Rothblum, a dynamic couple that has been involved in the Adat Ari El synagogue community for 35 years. Rabbi Rothblum is celebrating his retirement, and Lois Rothblum is receiving the Adat Ari El Humanitarian Award.

Rabbi Rothblum has long been a part of the Los Angeles community. He attended Fairfax High School and Los Angeles Hebrew High and graduated from UCLA. His parents instilled in him a love of music and musical theater, evident in his role as a counselor and music specialist at Camp Ramah. He went on to direct musical theater at Adat Ari El during his tenure as Rabbi, and his musical compositions for Shabbat and other occasions are still sung in synagogues all over the world. After his retirement, he will continue to stay involved in youth musical theater.

Moshe's love of music is only one of many amazing facets of his personality that he has showcased as Rabbi. He has been an eloquent advocate for Israel in the Jewish community and the larger southern California community. He is a quiet champion of social justice. He met with the late Cesar Chavez to discuss the plight of migrant farm workers. He broke precedent with the Conservative Jewish movement when, in 1985, he appointed Rabbi Leslie Alexander, the first woman to serve a large Conservative congregation. Rabbi Rothblum also met the late Pope John Paul II during his time as president of the Southern California Board of Rabbis. He is a renowned spiritual leader who has touched many lives.

Lois Rothblum is receiving the Adat Ari El Humanitarian Award. She attended New York University and Columbia University Teachers College. Lois was a religious school teacher for 9 years, and her passion and dedication caused her to become a leading Jewish educator. She currently serves as director of teacher education at the Fingerhut School of Education, University of Judaism.

Rabbi Moshe and Lois Rothblum have made lasting impressions on the Adat Ari El community, as well as the larger Los Angeles community. I am proud to call them friends and proud to be a member of their congregation. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and honoring Moshe and Lois for all that they have achieved.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the committee, both Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, and their staffs for their hard work on this legislation.

There is no question that this bill is a major improvement over the administration's legislative proposal, as Mr. Lantos mentioned. Because of the changes they have made, we will have an opportunity to decide whether or not to approve the nuclear cooperation agreement by a majority vote after the agreement is negotiated, after we see the IAEA safeguards agreement with India, and after the Nuclear Suppliers Group has reached a consensus.

Notwithstanding that, I do remain deeply concerned about this nuclear deal, because I fear that it will complicate our efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Not because I think India is going to be a major proliferator, but because once you change the long- established nonproliferation rules for the benefit of one country, even a friendly democracy like India, then it becomes much easier for the other countries to justify carve-outs for their special friends.

I would not be so concerned about setting a bad precedent if there was some compelling nonproliferation gain, but I just do not see it here. Later today, Representative Tauscher and I will offer an amendment to provide

that missing piece of the proposal. Our amendment, based on a proposal by former Senator Sam Nunn, would allow exports of nuclear reactors and other technology to India after a nuclear cooperation agreement has been approved by the Congress.

But it would restrict exports of uranium and other nuclear reactor fuel, until the President determines that India has halted the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we incentivize this.

Mr. Chairman, I come at this as someone who is unabashedly pro-India. I strongly support efforts to strengthen the U.S.-India strategic partnership. I also accept the fact that India has nuclear weapons, will never give up those weapons, and will probably never sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome civilian nuclear cooperation with India, as long as it is done in a responsible way that does not undermine our credibility as a leader in the fight against proliferation. I believe the Tauscher-Berman amendment will help to achieve that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my co-author of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first I point out that while this amendment was defeated decisively, it was not defeated overwhelming.

Secondly, and I say this with great respect both to Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos, who not only do great work here, but made this a significantly better bill by virtue of their efforts.

Let's review the bidding here. The U.S. went into this discussion saying, India, we want you to cut off fissile material production. India said no. The administration backed off its position.

I now offer an amendment that simply denies the fuel until such time as they cut off their fissile material production. The administration says it is a killer amendment. The language that they proposed in a weakened form now, they call a killer amendment.

Let's test the proposition here. Give a good vote to this amendment. As Mr. Sherman and Mr. Markey pointed out, we are incentivizing, if we provide the fuel, we are incentivizing a massive potential increases in India's nuclear weapon production.

What is China going to do? I am not that worried about India. But India has minimal deterrent capabilities against China right now. What is China going to do? China right now has halted its fissile material production. Will they continue to do that once this passes?

What will they do with Pakistan in the Nuclear Suppliers Group? At least, thank heavens, we will have a chance to see this agreement when it is finally negotiated after the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided.

But don't just accept the words it is a killer amendment. Give this a good vote. Let India know we are very serious about this. Reinforce the administration's commitment to this issue which wavered in the negotiation of India. This issue goes far beyond U.S.-India relationships. It goes on with what happens with the nuclear powers and with the spread of nuclear weapons. It will have ramifications far beyond the U.S.-India relationship.

This is a modest amendment. This is the amendment Sam Nunn proposes. This allows reactor technology and all of the other facets of a civilian nuclear cooperation to go ahead. It just says no fuel until you have decided to cut off fissile material production.

Well, I do. But it wasn't because we gave Libya civilian nuclear cooperation. But I wouldn't compare India and Libya. They are very different countries. And the gain for Libya was a great gain for nonproliferation, I agree. But now we are in a different situation. Think of China, think of Pakistan, think of Iran, think of North Korea.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

But the Nuclear Suppliers Group operates on a consensus. If this amendment is in the agreement, the United States will not support a consensus position that allows another country to send nuclear fuel to India

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

As the gentleman pointed out, the gentleman from Florida gave a very compelling argument for why it is appropriate to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, and therefore concludes that since he thinks that is in jeopardy, based on the court case now moving through the judicial system arguing for stripping away the jurisdiction of the court to decide that issue.

But the bill before us goes far beyond the issue of under God, and that is why I would like to ask if the majority whip, I would like to use my time to make sure that you and I have the same understanding of the purpose of this bill.

Let's say, for example, that a school board in West Virginia decides that every student in the school system must recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the school day. And a Jehovah's Witness family goes to court, to State court, after this bill is passed and says, it is a violation of our religious principles to pledge allegiance to anyone other than God. We are prepared to make all kinds of statements with respect to our regard for the country, but we cannot pledge allegiance to anyone but God.

And then that case goes to the State courts, and the West Virginia Supreme Court decides that, no, the school board is right. They have the right to compel every student in that school system to recite the pledge, even if it violates their religious principles. Or maybe it is telling an Orthodox Jewish child that they have to remove their skull cap for the recitation of the Pledge, and they say, no, if the West Virginia school board ruled that way, the individual's right to exercise their religious principles by keeping their skull cap on when they are outside and in this public arena is trumped by the school board's policy.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be able to take that case on appeal that compels a decision that a State court, that compels the recitation of the Pledge in a way that violates the fundamental free exercise of religion of a student? That is my question.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) 1 minute of the remaining time I have.

My assumption is this bill is now law.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Because under this bill, they can decide to violate that Supreme Court decision, and the West Virginia Supreme Court, now the final arbiter of it, says, we did not like that decision in the first place, and now the Supreme Court cannot take jurisdiction of this case, so they decide to reverse, for West Virginia purposes, the Barnette case that the Supreme Court decided in 1944, and this bill strips away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to say, you did not follow our precedent.

Reclaiming my time. If you had stripped away the right of the U.S. Supreme Court, of the Federal courts to decide whether segregated schools, whether the doctrine of separate and equal should stand or whether it violated the 14th amendment of the Constitution, there are many States in this country where every State court would have affirmed that separate is equal, is compliant with the 14th amendment, and in many of those States, the voters in those States would have been quite happy with that decision.

You have eliminated the Supreme Court's ability to review fundamental decisions involving first amendment rights.

And the voters of that State.

The first amendment was to protect the exercise of religion, even if the majority didn't like that religion.

Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment that there was a gang, an organization of Mexican nationals who believed zealously and fanatically that the Southwest of the United States had been stolen from them; and that this group of people committed to murdering in order to right that wrong, was funded and controlled by countries that were dedicated to the destruction of the United States; that this group had stockpiled thousands of offensive weapons that could be unleashed on our citizens with little or no warning; that it launched an unprovoked, cross-border attack from Baja, California, kidnapped two of our border patrol agents and killed several others. And it then unleashed a massive barrage of missiles on San Diego with the sole intent of killing innocent civilians. The American people would demand immediate and decisive action. The Congress would overwhelmingly approve a resolution authorizing the President to use force, just as we did after 9/11. And none of us would be satisfied with a cease-fire that allowed the terrorists to regroup and rebuild their weapons stockpile. For America at this point, this is just a fantasy. But for Israel, this is daily reality.

For years Israel has lived with Hezbollah's sword of Damocles hanging over its head, and it has shown extraordinary restraint in the face of repeated attacks. But this latest attack and the kidnapping of its two soldiers is a naked act of aggression. Israel did not seek this conflict, but it is compelled to take forceful action to defend itself, just as the United States or any other sovereign nation would do in this situation.

The loss of innocent lives on both sides is tragic. When I hear Mr. Rahall and Mr. LaHood and I watch the images on television, one cannot help but want to cry for the damage and the death and the carnage that that conflict brings. But there can't be any moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian loss, while Hezbollah deliberately targets the innocent.

When we talk of disproportionate response, I would like for someone to tell me what the proportionate response is in this particular situation.

Once again, what this does is highlight the central role played by Iran and Syria in promoting terrorism throughout the Middle East.

As Dennis Ross recently observed when Lebanon was withdrawn from, when Gaza was withdrawn from, what did Israel get? It wasn't land for peace, it was land for war.

I urge this body to speak strongly in support of expressing its solidarity with Israel in these difficult times, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of an outstanding individual, Ted Ryan. Mr. Ryan was one of amateur radio's most prolific teachers, instructing thousands from 1964 to 2000. He also pioneered the teaching of ham radio in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

He was born on March 15, 1929, in Detroit, Michigan. He served in World War II in Panama, and earned the Legion of Merit for his work on a gunnery system. He studied at the University of Southern California and California State University, Northridge.

Ted Ryan started his extensive amateur radio career in 1964, teaching free licensing classes at the San Fernando Amateur Radio Club, W6SD. The club grew to one of the largest and best run in the country because of his skill and competence. From 1970 to 1982, he taught electric shop and ham radio at John Burroughs Junior High School. After retiring from teaching full-time, he continued to teach at the Red Cross.

Mr. Ryan saw ham radio as more than just an interesting hobby. He told his students that, if they were drafted, a ham radio license could ``put a microphone instead of a rifle'' in their hands. He was fond of saying that amateur radio saved the lives of many of his students during the Vietnam War. Mr. Ryan also emphasized the importance of public service, and taught his students to be ready to go onto emergency power in the case of an emergency.

Ted Ryan is also remembered for his kindness and devotion to his students. He liked to be called ``Grandpa,'' and told his students ``Grandpa loves you.'' He always came to school early and stayed late, often inviting students to his house on Saturday mornings for tutoring sessions and extra help.

Mr. Ryan touched the lives of all he knew. I am proud to honor the memory of Ted Ryan, ham radio license number WB6JXY.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sondra Frohlich, who is celebrating her retirement from her position as executive director of the Sherman Oaks Chamber of Commerce. Sondra has overseen the Sherman Oaks Chamber since 1997 and has been an active leader in the community for over 40 years.

Sondra has been a dynamic force on the Sherman Oaks Chamber. During her tenure as executive director, the chamber experienced a 100-member net increase and expanded its involvement in business and community improvements. She was one of the founders of the Village at Sherman Oaks Business Improvement Districts, which has blossomed into one of the valley's most recognized destinations for shopping. She was also the incorporator of the Sherman Oaks Business Improvement District to the State of California.

Ms. Frohlich has enjoyed many other accomplishments in her position as executive director of the chamber. She was responsible for the expansion of the Sherman Oaks Street Fair through her engagement of professional management. She coordinated the chamber fight for business tax relief and worker's compensation reforms. She won national recognition for excellence of the chamber's website.

Outside of her work with the Sherman Oaks Chamber, Ms. Frohlich has been very involved in the larger San Fernando Valley community. A true leader, she has served as president of the San Fernando Valley Business and Professional Association, the Northridge Republican Women's Club, and twice has led the Rotary Club of Studio City-Sherman Oaks. She is currently the secretary of the Mid-Valley Community Police Council, a support group to the Van Nuys division of the Los Angeles Police Department, as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the Circle of Care Foundation.

Sondra Frohlich is an outstanding community leader and activist. Her commitment to the San Fernando Valley is impressive, and her leadership is evident. Even with her imminent

retirement, she will continue to make a difference. Ms. Frohlich may be retiring from the Chamber of Commerce, but she is not retiring from involvement in the life and growth of the valley.

Ms. Frohlich has been a distinguished leader, and I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and honoring her for all of her outstanding accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Cynthia Wong who recently passed away. Ms. Wong served as a Pacoima middle-school librarian since 1994 and was an active member and officer of several professional organizations, including the California School Library Association.

Ms. Wong possessed an enormous passion for books and through this passion inspired many students. The hard work she put in as a Pacoima librarian has paid many dividends to the community. She was known to engage students through her bookmark and reading

contests and would spend many hours of her own time planning and leading district workshops.

Ms. Wong's work has been so important to the community that her fellow staff members, along with her students, have decided to honor her through the dedication of a Professional Research Center and a Memorial Reading Garden. Both the center and the garden will be built next to the library that Ms. Wong loved for 12 years.

It is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Ms. Wong for her outstanding achievements. She was an amazing person and her memory will live on through the Cynthia Wong Research Center and Reading Garden and through the many lives she touched.

Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague Mary Bono in introducing ``The Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006'' (Perform Act) which we hope will be the first step in addressing the convergence of digital radio and distribution technology. This bill mirrors the PERFORM ACT introduced by my colleagues two weeks ago in the Senate. The purpose of the PERFORM Act is to address current inequities in the Section 114 compulsory license of the Copyright Act.

One of America's greatest treasures is its intellectual property. In cities and towns across the nation and in countries around the world, American music is heard throughout the streets. People are consuming more music than ever. Yet the music industry is in crisis. The total value for the music industry at retail declined from $14.5 billion in 1999 to $12.1 billion in 2004. In March 2005 alone, 243 million songs were downloaded from illicit peer-to-peer services (NPD Musicwatch).

Our Founding Fathers recognized that in order for America to be at the forefront of creativity they must support and incentivize musicians to pursue their art by providing necessary protection to these original works to produce a return on investment in those works.

In that vein, in 1995 Congress took a step forward and established a limited performance right for digital sound recordings. However, while with one hand Congress granted a right to creators when their music is performed digitally, with the other hand it took away by requiring that this new limited right be subject to a government compulsory license for radio-like services. Therefore, as we continue with

this debate we must remember that copyright owners cannot negotiate a fair market price for their works in the marketplace for digital radio, and cannot withhold access to their works as leverage in the marketplace to negotiate for necessary content protection on digital radio.

Cable, satellite, and Internet radio services are granted a compulsory license to broadcast (perform) music as long as they pay the statutorily defined fee (or another negotiated rate) and abide by the terms and conditions of the government license.

We are fortunate that with the evolution of new technologies there are many legal music distribution services currently available. Cable, Internet and satellite platform providers all compete to provide consumers their choice of music, anytime, in any place, in any format. While I am encouraged by the many options, I am concerned that certain features of the new devices turn radio, or performance services, into distribution services. This increased functionality may cause the unintended consequence of bypassing the typical marketplace distribution channels by allowing the consumer to turn broadcasts into downloads. This utility enables consumers to create an unlicensed music library without paying the artist.

However, just as consumers have certain expectations when it comes to radio usage, copyright owners have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for both the performance right (where a copy is listened to but not kept by the consumer such as a broadcast or concert) and the copying of their works into a library (such as a download or reproduction). This bill seeks the appropriate balance between promoting the creativity of music and fostering the innovation of technology.

Some say the legislation is unnecessary because they assert that current business models are technically legal. While I myself refrain from statutory interpretation, the question for Congress now is how to formulate the right policy to ensure that creators receive adequate compensation for their work and that fair rules apply evenly across all platforms of music that deliver similar services to consumers. Some say this legislation is lacking because it does not provide parity across all broadcasting platforms. While I believe there should be a full performance right for all digital transmissions, across all broadcasting platforms, the bill provides a step in the right direction.

We hope that with introduction of this companion bill in the House to the PERFORM Act in the Senate, Congress will act quickly to level the playing field between technologies and ensure rightful compensation to artists.

In order to level the playing field for those technologies currently covered by Section 114, this bill establishes parity in the rules and regulations covering service platforms (satellite, webcasters, cable) by ensuring that satellite, webcasters, and cable operators are required to operate under the same rate standard and content protection rules. Under the bill, the performance license will only be available for behavior that constitutes a performance, and will require a radio service that wants to engage in a distribution business model to get a distribution license in the free marketplace like its competitors.

For services coupled with new and proposed devices that permit subscribers to search for and keep permanent copies of songs included in the broadcaster's programming without ever listening to the program and where subscribers simply scroll through a list of songs and pick those they want to keep without ever buying the song or paying additional subscription fees a service will not be able to take advantage of the 114 license unless they get a necessary distribution license in the marketplace.

The ability to enable automatic, organized copying and storage of individual songs that replace the sale of downloads or subscriptions by competitive distribution services such as Napster, Rhapsody, and iTunes should not be allowed without similar rules and compensation requirements. If listeners are able to instantly make a free copy of the song they are listening to, they will have little reason to purchase it. The use of a performance license should not be a shield against providing the requisite payment for the reproduction or distribution.

Section 1 provides parity in the rate standard for the technologies currently covered under the section 114 license. All licenses under section 112 and 114 will have their rates set under the same standard, a fair market value standard, that would more closely replicate aggregate deals in the marketplace. Fair Market Value is a standard that is used hundreds of times in the laws of the United States and is one that replicates to the closest extent possible to free marketplace. Currently, the rate for satellite and cable music services are set under factors contained in Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act. The rate for Internet services is a ``willing buyer, willing seller'' standard that approximates what a particular willing buyer would pay a particular willing seller in the marketplace. The bill sets the standard at ``fair market value'' to provide broad-based market- influenced compensation to creators across all platforms.

Section 2 provides that the technologies which broadcast sound recordings provide adequate protection to the content. These provisions ensure that all licensees under section 114 have similar content protection requirements, which respond to marketplace developments but include recording for legitimate time shifting purposes.

The bill also requires that licensees use reasonably available technology to prevent copying of the transmission to prevent against third party ``stream-ripping''--the use of tools created by third parties that captures the stream, and then disaggregates the songs for storage in a manner that substitutes for a sale. However, any content protection system must allow for reasonable recording. Most notably the bill allows for all manual consumer recording to the extent such recording is consistent with fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.

Section 3 provides a placeholder for the Copyright Office to convene a meeting with interested stakeholders to discuss creation of a category of new interactive services. Currently, one of the most contested issues in the license is the definition of interactivity. The question is ``how much consumer influence is allowed before the experience has transitioned from a purely listening service to an interactive service?''. The definition of interactivity itself impacts whether one can take advantage of the compulsory license, and the share of the royalty to the artists, musicians and other vocalists. I am hopeful that the Copyright Office will be able to provide some guidance and recommendations for Congress.

Finally, while not included in the bill, I do believe at some point soon, Congress needs to take another look at the Audio Home Recording Act. I don't believe that the royalties provided by the AHRA were ever intended to substitute for the marketplace licenses afforded end-to-end transmission and distribution services. The AHRA was intended to protect music creators from serial copying using off-the-shelf consumer electronics devices, not to enable transmission services to transform themselves into distribution services that provide an unlicensed download that substitutes for record sales. The time has come to re- evaluate the act in light of new technologies and changing business models.

I do not want to suggest that this bill is a ``perfect'' solution. Thus, I remain open to suggestions for amending the language to improve its efficacy or rectify any unintended consequences.

This bill attempts to strike a balance between providing adequate protection to our musicians and continuing to support new innovative technologies. My goal is to preserve the legitimate marketplace by reserving downloading capability for those services that appropriately pay for it. I hope the parties can work together to reach further consensus on how to achieve parity between technologies and provide rightful compensation to our artists.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in recognition of Hal David on the occasion of his 85th birthday. Hal's philanthropic work in Los Angeles has made him a great asset to our community, and his professional career has touched the lives of countless people across the world.

You may not know his name, and you may not know his face, but you all know Hal David. Hal is the lyrical mastermind behind countless musical hits. His lyrics include hits like ``Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head,'' ``What the World Needs Now Is Love, Sweet Love,'' ``Always Something There to Remind Me,'' and ``Do You Know the Way to San Jose''. If you're not already humming along, I'm sure you will be soon. The words are simple but the songs are moving and memorable.

Hal says a lyricist must learn ``not to fall in love with his own lines.'' If that's true, then he's in a very small minority. Hal's lyrical genius is widely recognized by both music aficionados and amateurs like me. His talent has earned him countless awards: four Academy Award nominations, with an Oscar for ``Raindrops'' in the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; several Grammys, with three songs in the Grammy Hall of Fame; 20 gold records, the Grammy Trustees Award, and more. He has also been elected to the Songwriter's Hall of Fame, and currently serves as their Chairman of the Board.

His songs span genres and generations. He is the author of lyrics to the film scores of Alfie, What's New Pussycat, A House is not a Home, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and Moonraker. His songs also appear in countless other movies, from Forest Gump to Runaway Bride. Not limited to the screen, Hal's Broadway show Promises, Promises was nominated for a Tony Award and received a Grammy.

Aretha Franklin, the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Isaac Hayes, Patti LaBelle, Smoky Robinson, the Carpenters, Willie Nelson and Julio Iglesias are just some of the musical legends who have sung Hal David's lyrics. Hal's impact on the music world is truly immeasurable and his many accomplishments are too numerous to list in full.

Hal's notable achievements don't stop with his musical career. He also donates generously of his time and effort to charitable organizations. He and his wife are founders of the Los Angeles Music Center, which lists him as a ``Distinguished Patron of the Arts.'' He is also a member of the Cedars Sinai Medical Center Board of Governors in West Los Angeles and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, which he formerly served as President. There he is known for his work on intellectual property protection and preservation of artists' rights.

Please join me in wishing him a very happy birthday and many happy returns.