Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Representative John Conyers, and I introduce ``the National Film Preservation Act of 2003.'' Senator Patrick Leahy joins us by introducing identical legislation in the Senate.

This legislation reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Board (NFPB) and the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF) for ten years. The NFPF is an independent, nonprofit organization established in 1996 with bipartisan Congresssional support to help save America's film heritage. The NFPF is the charitable affiliate of the NFPB of the Library of Congress, which was also established in 1996.

This legislation also increases the authorized appropriations for the NFPF from $500,000 in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 up to $1,000,000 in fiscal years 2006 through 2013. It authorizes additional appropriations not to exceed $1,000,000 for cooperative film preservation and access initiatives by the NFPF for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2013. All authorized appropriations are only to be made available to match private contributions to the NFPF.

The excellent work and strong track record of the NFPB and NFPF justify both the reauthorization and increased authorization of appropriations provided by this bill. Working with archives and others in the film preservation community, the NFPF supports activities that save films for future generations, improve film access for education and exhibition, and increase public commitment to preserving film as a cultural resource, art form, and historical record. In essence, its mission is to save America's ``orphan films''--newsreels, silent films, documentaries, avant-garde works, and other independent films that are not preserved by commercial interests.

Over the past seven years, the NFPF has done great work in furtherance of this goal. Working with more than 80 organizations, it has helped preserve approximately 600 films and collections. Through its preservation efforts, the NFPF has made it possible for organizations in 34 states and the District of Columbia to use these films in education and research. Many of the films preserved provide unique windows into American history and culture. For instance, films preserved through NFPF efforts include social dramas from Thomas Edison's studio, the earliest ``talkie'' of an American president, and home movies clandestinely shot by Japanese Americans in World War II detention camps.

As authorization for the NFPB and NFPF expired on September 30, 2003, Congress must act quickly on this legislation. We cannot allow the important work of these organizations to lapse. Over 50% of the films made before 1950 have disintegrated, and only 10% of the movies produced in the United States before 1929 still exist. We must act to stem further losses of this rich cultural heritage. No art form is more uniquely American than film, but unfortunately, few art forms are more susceptible to degradation through passage of time and poor preservation.

All parties interested in preservation and expansion of the public domain, whether for research, education, or further commercial exploitation, must join Representative Conyers, Senator Leahy, and myself in securing passage of this legislation. While it may be intellectually stimulating to debate radical copyright revisions as mechanisms to expand the public domain, these debates should not detract from the pursuit of proven methods, like NFPF projects, to preserve and expand the public domain. The tight fiscal picture for the U.S. government indicates that this legislation will be very difficult to pass, thus all public domain advocates should focus their full attention on this effort.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sherman and I rise today to pay tribute to our good friend, Simha Lainer who will be celebrating his 100th birthday at a dinner and reception hosted by the New Community Jewish High School on Sunday, December 14, 2003. Simha has been a cornerstone of the Jewish community in Los Angeles for many years, and he continues to play an active role in the promotion of Jewish education and many other worthy causes.

Simha was born in the Ukraine. As a young man, he spent time in the Middle East, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and Mexico. He immigrated to the United States with his family in 1951. Although he worked in the textile industry, and later in real estate, his passion has always been education.

Simha, along with his wife Sara(z''l) and his three remarkable sons Mark, Nahum and Luis, who in their own right have supported so many worthy causes, have pioneered efforts to make a Jewish education available to as many children as possible. In 1989, Simha and his family established the Simha and Sara Lainer Fund for Jewish Education. As a result of this fund, the Los Angeles Bureau of Jewish Education has provided financial aid to many students that otherwise would have been unable to study the Torah. The fund has also provided Simha and his family an opportunity to honor religious schoolteachers and early childhood educators for their hard work and dedication.

Simha has also provided critical leadership to promote upper levels of Jewish education. For example, he served on the Board of Directors at the University of Judaism, the Board of Trustees of the Jewish Community Foundation, and the Board of the West Coast Friends of Bar Ilan University. Simha is also the founder of the Western Region of American Friends of the Hebrew University.

In addition to his many educational achievements here in the United States, Simha has also displayed an unwavering commitment to the establishment and maintenance of Israeli institutions of education. Thanks to his leadership and vision, thousands of Israeli and American children will be prepared to lead productive lives and promote religious and cultural tolerance.

Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Simha for all of his outstanding contributions and to wish him a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind comments.

I rise in support of the proposal. I opposed the House bill that went through in part because I had concerns about what was in section 3 of the bill allowing data to be shared with State and local governments. That is no longer in the bill that has come over from the Senate. The expansion of the program is conditioned on some additional studies to make sure it is working right, and the fundamental principle is a legitimate principle. Employers who want to do the right thing should be able to access accurate information about status given the state of the Federal law at this time on who they should and should not hire.

So I always supported the principle of the pilot program. We just want to make sure it provides accurate information about the employee so that people who are eligible to work are not denied employment as a result of utilizing that system, and I congratulate the majority and the minority for pushing what I think is a more reasonable approach through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1720 and I ask my colleagues to support the bill as well. It is a narrow bill, but a necessary one. It is identical to the provisions of the Federal Courts Improvement Act currently before the Committee on the Judiciary, and to legislation which has I think several times passed the House.

The purpose of the bill is to allow for Federal court proceedings and an additional courthouse in Plano, Texas. As a result, the bill will remedy a critical problem hindering the efficient judicial administration of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The existing courthouse is in Sherman, Texas and is overburdened by its increasing caseload. Filings over the past 5 years have grown by 100 percent. This situation mandates a solution. S. 1720 designates Plano as an additional place of holding court to help address this expanded workload.

The one substantive concern about the bill, how cases will be distributed between the two courthouses, has been resolved. As I understand it, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has agreed to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Texas in which it will become clear that S. 1720 is intended to relieve the overflow of filings in the Sherman courthouse, but not do away with the Sherman courthouse. I think the chairman has already made that clear, that that is his intention.

Furthermore, there is agreement from the Senate sponsor, the junior Senator from Texas, that the civil and criminal case filings for the Sherman division will be split 50-50 between the Plano and Sherman courthouses. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has adopted a resolution memorializing this agreement, and the Judicial Conference of the United States has sent a letter to the same effect. Finally, the Committee on the Judiciary Report on the Federal Courts Improvement Act, which currently contains identical provisions, will reflect this understanding. Through these measures, we can rest assured that the addition of this courthouse will have no negative impact on the Sherman courthouse.

I appreciate the efforts that my colleagues have made to address the concerns of those in Sherman, and I am confident that there is general agreement that the judicial business of the Sherman and Plano divisions will be shared equally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support S. 1720.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3349 and ask that my colleagues support it as well. This legislation gives Federal judges a 2.2 percent cost-of-living pay adjustment for 2004. Members of the Federal judiciary deserve this raise. The hardworking men and women of the Federal bench are a critical, if sometimes underappreciated, part of our constitutional democracy. We should do everything we can to ensure that we attract and retain the highest quality judges.

While judges are predominantly called to service by a sense of duty and honor, financial considerations can be a powerful deterrent to service. Judges already make far less than they could earn in private firms. While this pay disparity will always exist, Congress should at the least ensure that judicial pay does not effectively shrink. The failure to give judges a COLA would constitute just such a reduction in pay.

Unfortunately, Congress has failed several times in the past decade to give Federal judges a COLA pay adjustment.

Thus, over time, the pay of Federal judges has effectively shrunk. We should pass this legislation today to ensure this inequity is not increased further.

I want to make clear to my colleagues that this legislation in no way decouples judicial pay from the pay of Members of Congress and senior executive service. While I personally would not oppose such a decoupling, I know some of my colleagues, perhaps the gentleman who just spoke, would oppose it.

This legislation simply ensures that Federal judges can receive the same COLA increase that Members of Congress and senior executive service officials are already slated to receive for fiscal year 2004. Members of Congress and SES officials receive automatic COLA pay adjustments each year unless Congress specifically prohibits it. Federal judges, on the other hand, do not receive such COLAs unless Congress provides specific statutory authorization each year.

Congress typically provides this authorization in the annual commerce-justice-state appropriations legislation. Unfortunately, Congress has lately had some difficulty in passing the CJS appropriations bill by the start of the calendar year, let alone the fiscal year. The fiscal year 2003 CJS bill did not pass until 2003 was well under way, and now it looks like the fiscal year 2004 CJS bill will not be enacted until sometime in 2004. Such congressional action should not be allowed to imperil the COLA that Federal judges are rightfully do.

I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for taking swift action to remedy the situation both earlier this year and now. In January of this year, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary ensured that virtually the first action of the 108th Congress was to pass H.R. 16, which authorized COLAs for 2003. He exhibits great forethought by bringing H.R. 3349 before the House before 2004 is upon us. I applaud him for taking swift action to make sure that judges will not be denied their COLAs through congressional inaction.

Of course, if future Congresses continue to have trouble moving the CJS appropriations bill in a timely fashion, the chairman may want to consider a different approach. A simple repeal of section 140 of Public Law 97-92 would dispense with the need to engage in this annual exercise. I commend this approach for the chairman's consideration and will not use this time to argue about whether or not it makes sense to pay judges more than third-year lawyers in excellent law firms. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2359. I think it is important to point out a few facts. First of all, the people on this side of the aisle would be speaking in favor of this bill if it were simply to extend the sunset date on this pilot program to allow the pilot program to continue to work out the weaknesses and deficiencies that the INS study found in the program.

But this program does far more than that. This program goes from a pilot program in 5 States to a nationwide program. While my friend from California, the sponsor of the bill, may be correct, although I am not quite sure how he knows where 80 percent of the illegal immigrants are located, but let us assume that for a second the fact is 80 percent of the employers are not located in those 5 States. This is a massive expansion of the pilot program.

In 1996, we created the pilot program. In the law in 1996 we told the INS to get people to study how the program was working. The INS went and did that. They commissioned two different groups, organizations, to study the program and what was happening with those employers who were voluntarily participating. The study came back. What did the study say? The study said, based on the evaluation findings, the basic pilot program should not be expanded to a mandatory program, and this does not do that, or a large-scale program. I would suggest that opening it up to every employer in America on a voluntary basis constitutes that kind of large-scale expansion which the study commissioned by the INS and required by the Congress said we should not do.

Why did they say that? They talked about the problems and the deficiencies in this program. It would have been nice if the Immigration Subcommittee of Judiciary had had a hearing on this bill where the authors of the study could have come forward and answered questions and developed it; but we had no hearing, we had no markup, the bill was taken directly to a markup in the full committee and put on the floor, not with a rule to allow amendments to address specific deficiencies in the operation of this pilot program, not with a rule that allowed any kind of amendments, but on suspension where no amendments can be made.

What the study found about the program, I think, is very important. The program was hindered by inaccuracies, inaccuracies and outdated information in the INS databases. The program did not consistently provide timely immigration status data which delayed the confirmation of a worker's employment authorization in one-third of the cases. The employer has decided to hire somebody. He participates in this program. He asks Social Security and INS to verify that person. In one-third of the cases he does not get an answer and then does not hire that person but goes to another person. A person who was fully authorized to work, who was in this country legally, is denied a job because of inaccuracies and a slow-to-respond operation from the INS and the Social Security Administration.

A sizable number of workers who were not confirmed, who were rejected, it turned out were work authorized, but there was something wrong in the processing of their papers. There was a mistake in the database. When they went out and checked who these people were, it turned out well over 42 percent of the sample that they used were work- authorized, but were told by the people operating the pilot program that they were not. Forty-two percent of that sample did not get a job. In some cases, the employer did not follow the rules and the guidelines of the pilot program. In other words, the program was riddled with deficiencies.

Theoretically, I have to say, if we could get an accurate, quick employee identification system where employers could know they were getting accurate information and workers who were authorized to work in this country, who were here legally, who had a right to work could get the right answer, then I would say let us talk about expansion and let us pursue that by continuing this program. But I urge this body to reject an effort to expand this nationwide to add not simply employers but State, local and Federal Government agencies to the list of people who will be using a program when that program by the INS's own study was riddled with deficiencies and weaknesses which

delayed responses, which kept people who are here legally from getting jobs or rights they would otherwise get, or be entitled to get simply because of inaccuracies in the database. This is not the kind of a program to expand at this time.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act.

I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education, for including in the bill section 6, providing for the establishment of the International Higher Education Advisory Board.

This seven-member independent board will be empowered to review and comment upon the selection criteria for title VI grants, monitor and evaluate the activities of grantees based upon the purposes of title VI, and make recommendations regarding how to improve the programs to better reflect national needs, among other functions. Section 6 makes clear that the purpose of the Board's recommendations is to foster the ``growth and development of international education programs at the postsecondary level that encourage diverse perspectives . . .''

I am encouraged that the creation of this Advisory Board will help redress a problem which is a great concern of mine, namely, the lack of balance, and indeed the anti-American bias that pervades title VI- funded Middle East studies programs in particular. To the extent that it advances the national interest to commit taxpayer funds to institutions of higher education for the purpose of fostering expertise with regard to key regions of the world--and I would emphatically affirm that it does--then surely it is troubling when evidence suggests that many of the Middle East regional studies grantees are committed to a narrow point of view at odds with our national interest, a point of view that questions the validity of advancing American ideals of democracy and the rule of law around the world, and in the Middle East in particular.

The Advisory Board's oversight function does not impinge on the academic freedom that is and must be enjoyed by our institutions of higher education. In establishing the board, we are doing no more than exercising our responsibility to ensure that the Federal funds we authorize and appropriate are expended properly.

I commend the Committee on Education and the Workforce for addressing this issue, and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my warmest wishes to the Taiwanese people as they celebrate their National Day on October 10. This special day gives us the opportunity to reflect on Taiwan's numerous achievements.

Taiwan is one of the most amazing success stories in Asia, if not the entire world. Less than 20 years ago, Taiwan was ruled by an authoritarian dictatorship under martial law. Today, it is a flourishing, multiparty democracy that holds competitive elections, respects human rights and upholds the rule of law. This remarkable political evolution proves beyond any doubt that the notion of ``Asian values''--often used to justify one man rule--is a fallacy.

While Taiwan has established a robust democracy, a number of political challenges still remain. We must work to ensure that Taiwan's status and global contributions are properly respected and appreciated by the international community. This can be accomplished, in part, through Taiwanese participation in the World Health Organization and other appropriate international organizations. Taiwan's security is also a high priority. I have no doubt that Taiwan will meet these challenges and play an increasingly important role in world affairs.

Taiwan and the United States share a common commitment to the ideals of democracy, freedom and human rights. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which forms the official basis for friendship and cooperation between the United States and Taiwan, continues to provide a strong foundation for the bond between the people of both countries. That bond is made stronger each day by the Taiwanese-American community, which has made important contributions to American social, economic and political life.

Best wishes and congratulations to President Chen Shui-bien, Tecro Representative C.J. Chen and all of the citizens of Taiwan on the occasion of its National Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my good friends, Ira and Kathy Gribin, who are being honored by the Hope Through Housing Foundation with the prestigious Founder's Award. Their commitment to providing affordable housing for low-income families in Southern California has earned them this recognition.

I have had the privilege of working with Ira for many years and know first-hand of his strong work ethic and legendary accomplishments. Ira has been a leader in the real estate business since 1946 and has been an active member of numerous national and local realtor associations for many years. He served as President of the National Association of Realtors, the Realtors National Marketing Institute, the California Association of Realtors and the San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors. Additionally, he has served as a board member of many real estate and non-profit organizations and is co-founder of Gribin von Dyl, Realtors.

Ira's vast knowledge on issues related to real estate, financing and management has helped him become a renowned and sought after authority in these fields. He has taught at the University of Southern California and California State University Northridge, and has also served on the University of California President's Advisory Committee. The demand for Ira's talents has transcended the private sector into the public service arena as well. He served as Commissioner of Transportation and Commissioner of the Housing Authority for the City of Los Angeles.

I have known Kathy for many years, and can attest to her invaluable service and outstanding contributions to the Hope Through Housing Foundation. Prior to her arrival in California, she enjoyed a fruitful career as a school teacher. Once in California, she became a successful real estate broker. In 1992, she expanded her career, earning an M.A. in Marriage, Family and Child Counseling. Her education and experience made her keenly aware of the acute need for affordable housing in Southern California and prompted her to dedicate time, energy and resources to creating affordable housing for low-income children, seniors and families. She used her business acumen and extensive knowledge of the industry to positively impact numerous low-income families. Kathy is currently President of Desert Horizons Women's Club, a member of the Board of Directors of Desert Horizons Owners Association and an avid golfer.

On a personal note, both Ira and Kathy are wonderful human beings, delightful to be with and deeply committed to humanitarian ideals. I think it's particularly noteworthy that Ira--as a leader in the California Association of Realtors 39 years ago--played a decisive and public role in fighting an initiative designed to repeal California's Fair Housing law. It took great courage to take a view not widely held by his professional colleagues at that time, and he put himself into considerable potential risk to his business endeavors, but Ira nonetheless steadfastly affirmed his opposition to racism and his commitment to the American dream of affordable housing for all people.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating and thanking Ira and Kathy Gribin for their many outstanding contributions and to wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of naming a post office for Bob Hope near his hometown of Toluca Lake. This is a small tribute for a man who has given so much to our country.

Bob Hope was a man who knew no boundaries. He certainly did not heed geographic borders, performing for soldiers in all corners of the world. Starting in 1941, he headlined USO shows in the South Pacific, Africa, Europe and the Middle East, entertaining millions of soldiers and bringing laughter to the most desolate places on Earth.

Bob Hope did not recognize boundaries of time, charming audiences of civilians and soldiers for over sixty years. His first ``last Christmas tour'' was in 1972, yet into the 1990's he could be found performing for troops in Saudi Arabia during ``Operation Desert Storm.'' No other entertainer has given so much for so long.

Bob Hope's life also eclipsed the boundaries of entertainment. His career covered every field of entertainment, from vaudeville to Broadway, radio to television and film to stand-up. His signature song ``Thanks for the Memories'' won an Academy Award. Although he never won an Oscar himself, Bob Hope hosted the Oscars a record 18 times and was awarded two honorary Oscars.

On May 29, 2003, America mourned Bob Hope's death at the age of 100. Although he starred in more than fifty films, he may be most remembered for his role as an honorary veteran. This honor, the only one ever awarded, was bestowed on him for his commitment to our armed services. While America could never repay Bob Hope for his service to our country, H.R. 3011 will continue a fine tradition of honoring an exemplary citizen. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and an outstanding humanitarian, Harry Coleman. After ten years of service, Harry will be stepping down as President of the North Hills Community Coordinating Council (CCC).

Harry's leadership has been crucial to the success of the North Hills Community Coordinating Council. Under his guidance, the North Hills CCC successfully fought for the removal of barricades around the Columbus Street area that protected drug trafficking. Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Harry led the CCC in working with elected officials and government officials to expedite the repair of dilapidated and high crime areas; his diligence and steadfast determination helped turn post-earthquake ghost towns into thriving, safe communities. After considerable effort, Harry and the North Hills CCC persuaded the city of Los Angeles to purchase land that ultimately became North Hills Community Park.

Although Harry was born in Rochester, New York, he made Southern California his home early in life and has done much for our community ever since. For example, he has served on the Committee for Patient Education at Sepulveda's Veterans' hospital, applying his unique knowledge of hospital bureaucracy from his days as Vice President of Sales at General Hospital and his personal experience as a veteran.

Harry's hard work was instrumental in the ultimate construction of the Therapeutic Fitness Center, a veteran's gym. Harry monitored every detail of the project with tenacious vigilance, inspired other veterans to stand up for themselves, and was the leading voice in the struggle for its rehabilitation. This gym is an important place where camaraderie, friendship, and healing thrive for those who have given so much for our country. He and I worked very closely together to make this happen, and it is clear that without Harry the gym might never have been reconstructed.

Harry was the Chairman for Lowman-Miller Schools Fund Raising Committee for Handicapped Children, a member of the Community Policy Advisory Committee, and he served in leadership positions in countless other organizations. He genuinely cares about people and has dedicated himself to public service ever since he ``retired'' at the early age of 34.

Even during his leisure hours, Harry has shared his knowledge and talents with the rest of the world. Harry is listed in the Guinness Book of Worlds Records for taking the longest trip in history, traveling around the world in a VW camper for a total of 143,776 miles, visiting 113 countries, and meeting with 14 heads of state in two years. He shared his journey with all of us by filming and producing a two-hour documentary, ``Around the World on Wheels.'' He revealed his travel secrets in his book, ``Camping Out With Your Van or Minibus.'' Closer to home, Harry has also been involved in over 150 chili cookoffs, organizing competitions whenever he can, and sharing his award winning recipes.

Harry's great effectiveness as a community advocate was at least doubled upon his marriage to our former colleague in the House of

Representatives, former Congresswoman Bobbi Fiedler. The two of them are a formidable force. I am proud to count both Harry and Bobbi among my friends and I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this wonderful man as Harry concludes his service as President of the North Hills Community Coordinating Council.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) with this amendment declares war on Los Angeles and a number of other cities

throughout this country. He takes a city that is desperately trying to increase the size of the police force, using its own resources and utilizing State and Federal resources where they are available, to expand, to remove itself from the distinction of being one of the most under-policed cities in the country and says, You are no longer eligible for the Byrne program. You are no longer eligible for local law enforcement assistance block grants. You are no longer eligible for more than a billion dollars of funds appropriated by this bill to help local law enforcement around the country.

Why? Well, the gentleman would have you believe it is because the City of Los Angeles and other jurisdictions, State and local, around this country, have chosen to try to promote and protect undocumented immigrants who have come to this country. But the truth is very far from that.

The problem is, there are millions and millions of undocumented people in this country, and if they are going to report when they are the victims of rapes and robberies and assaults and other violent crimes that their immigration status will be referred to the INS, they are not going to report those crimes. And where witnesses know that if they come forward to report what they have observed in terms of violent crime, their names are going to be referred to the INS, they are not going to come forward. And local law enforcement in many jurisdictions has concluded that their mission of trying to deter and apprehend violent criminals and incarcerate them is going to be seriously impeded by the policy the gentleman seeks to advocate. They have undertaken their own policies to try to encourage people to come forward.

Now, to tell those cities and States and counties around this country that because they have undertaken those policies, they are ineligible for one dollar of any of the Federal grant programs to help local law enforcement to build up their ranks, provide the bulletproof vests, provide the technology and the crime labs to deal with any of these very important missions, they are ineligible.

This is a reckless and unfortunate amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I know I opposed the bill that came out of the conference committee.

I am telling you how I voted.

I opposed the bill that came out of the conference committee.

Reclaiming my time, I not only have a right, but I have a duty to try and protect the jurisdiction that I represent in this body from a Draconian, harsh, unjustified amendment which seeks to cut off all funding.

If the gentleman wants to promote this policy, let him introduce a bill. Let it go through the Committee on the Judiciary. Let it go through the regular process. But do not render L.A. and a number of other jurisdictions throughout this country ineligible for local law enforcement assistance in order to promote his very narrow and, I think, self-defeating ideological agenda.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just my final comment on this, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Policies are initiated not about philosophical positions on the question of how to deal with undocumented people in this country or illegal immigrants in this country. The question is how best for law enforcement to serve their local missions; and to have this body come in and seek to intrude on that process by shutting off the means that we have decided are worthy to help local law enforcement have the manpower and the technology and the resources to apprehend violent criminals, I think is just crazy; and I urge this body to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today, I join Representative John Conyers, Jr. in introducing ``The Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003'' (ACCOPS Act).

The ACCOPS Act addresses the growing scourge of illegal activity on the Internet. Illegal activities online run the gamut from identity theft, distribution of child pornography, and unlicensed drug sales to stalking, fraud, trademark counterfeiting, and financial crimes.

Online copyright piracy, in particular, has gotten out of control. At any given moment, more than 4 million people are logged onto the single biggest peer to peer (P2P) file-swapping network, where they illegally traffic in over 850 million mostly-infringing files. P2P infringement of copyrighted music has garnered the most attention, but many other works, such as the latest Harry Potter book, are also widely infringed on P2P networks. On a daily basis, new web sites, with names such as Puretunes or Listen4ever, pop up offering

unauthorized downloads of copyrighted works. Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels and File Transfer Protocol (FTP) sites remain havens for theft of the newest software or pre-release movies. Chat rooms and other e- groups designed for needlework hobbyists have morphed into unrepentant sources of copyrighted needlework infringement, with one Yahoo!-run group alone hosting almost 50,000 pages of copyright-infringing needlework designs.

It might be argued that the breadth of illegal activity online merely reflects that found in the physical world. While that may be true, the online world presents unique challenges. The relative anonymity of the Internet, the technological savvy of some malefactors, and the sheer number of scams collectively make it difficult to investigate and prosecute many online illegalities. Further, current law does not, in some instances, adequately address the nature of these online illegalities, or take into account the novel techniques used in their commission.

Law enforcement authorities need additional resources and statutory authority to effectively deal with this rash of online scams, crimes, and illegalities. Together with H.R. 2517, which Representative Conyers and I joined Representative Lamar Smith in introducing, the ACCOPS Act will go a long way to providing law enforcement with the tools they need.

Title I of the ACCOPS Act is directed at providing law enforcement agencies with adequate resources and coordination authority to enforce the criminal copyright laws. Section 101 authorizes the appropriation of not less than $15 million for criminal copyright enforcement for fiscal year 2004. Section 102 requires the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC) to develop guidelines to ensure that its component members share amongst themselves law enforcement information related to infringement of U.S. copyrighted works. Section 103 enables Congress to better monitor the success of law enforcement efforts by requiring the Attorney General to submit biannual, instead of annual, reports on criminal copyright cases.

Title 11 addresses the unique law enforcement challenges posed by the transnational character of online copyright infringement. With increasing frequency, investigators of online infringements find that the infringers are located outside the United States. Section 201 is designed to ensure that federal law enforcement agencies do everything in their power to pursue even foreign infringers. Section 201 requires the Attorney General to provide to a foreign authority evidence to assist such authority in determining whether a person has violated any of the copyright laws administered or enforced by the foreign authority, or in enforcing such foreign copyright laws. By ensuring the appropriate foreign authority will receive all relevant information and possible assistance on the case, Section 201 increases the likelihood that the foreign infringer will be prosecuted.

Title III of the ACCOPS Act clarifies the application of criminal copyright laws in the online world, and creates a number of new federal offenses to deter a broad range of illegal activity online.

Section 301 clarifies that the uploading of a single copyrighted work to a publicly accessible computer network meets the 10 copy, $2,500 threshold for felonious copyright infringement. Section 301 simply brings the law into accord with the reality that uploading a copyrighted work to a place from which millions can download it is equivalent to the distribution of 10 or more copies having a value of $2,500 or more. This clarification is necessary because some prosecutors appear skeptical that they can successfully pursue cases against many uploaders of copyrighted works. Even though uploaders are the real culprits in the illegal distribution of copyrighted works, it is downloaders who make the vast majority of copies of the uploaded work.

While Section 301 ensures that a public upload meets the felony threshold, the uploader will still only have criminal liability if he actually infringed the copyright in the uploaded work. More importantly, uploaders will only have criminal liability if they have infringed willfully. The standard for proving willfulness is quite high--requiring proving both knowledge and intent on behalf of the infringer--thus there is no threat that Section 301 will subject relatively innocent infringers to criminal liability.

Section 302 addresses the problem of hackers, spammers, unscrupulous P2P software developers, and other online scam artists who have been known to ``hijack'' the personal computers (PCs) of the unsuspecting, and use those computers to engage in a variety of illegal or unauthorized activities. A July 12, 2003 New York Times article described how some PCs have been hijacked to distribute pornography. Several recent hearings in both the House and Senate detailed how popular peer-to-peer (P2P) software programs sometimes allow 3rd parties to ``hijack'' PCs to distribute child pornography and copyright-infringing material, come bundled with ``spyware,'' and otherwise jeopardize the privacy and security of PC owners.

To address these problems, Section 302 requires that PC owners receive clear and conspicuous notice, and provide consent, prior to downloading software that would allow third parties to store material on the PC, or use that PC to search for material on other computers. Section 302 strikes a careful balance between ensuring that computer owners are fully informed, and empowered to deal with, the privacy and security risks inherent in some software, and preserving the freedom of software developers to innovate.

Section 303 addresses another technique frequently used to facilitate Internet scams and illegal activities. Web sites are often used to undertake a variety of illegal activities. Web sites may pose as legitimate payment processors in order to steal financial information, offer copyright-infringing material for download, or sell non-FDA approved drugs. In an effort to escape detection, the operators of these sites often provide false or misleading contact information when registering the domain name of the web site. Over the past several Congresses, hearings before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property have highlighted this problem. Law enforcement agencies, the Federal Trade Commission, privacy protection organizations, and intellectual property rights holders have all documented the extent to which false domain name registration information substantially inhibited law enforcement investigations, consumer protection initiatives, privacy protection missions, and the exercise of intellectual property rights.

Section 303 will address this problem by making it a federal offense to provide false contact information when registering a domain name. Section 303 makes it a Federal criminal offense to knowingly and with intent to defraud provide material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name. The penalty is a fine, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

Section 304 deals with the growing phenomenon of copyright thieves who use portable, digital video recorders to record movies off the screen in theaters. While not of pristine quality, once one ``camcorded'' movie appears on the Internet, it quickly proliferates onto the P2P networks and back onto the street in the form of unprotected DVDs. Thus, even one camcorded movie can effectively defeat the best efforts of movie owners to protect their multimillion dollar investments against illegal distribution.

Section 304 makes it a Federal criminal offense to, without authorization, camcord a movie in a theater. Section 304 mirrors legislation in several states, but will be far more effective by having a national impact.

Section 305 is related to Section 303. When setting up web sites through which to infringe copyrighted works, the operators of those web sites often provide false domain name registration information. If their web site attract the attention of law enforcement or rights holders, the operators can then disconnect it without much fear of being caught, and pop up elsewhere under another domain name with different contact information.

Section 305 directs courts to consider the knowing and intentional provision of material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name as evidence of willfulness with regard to copyright infringements committed by the domain name registrant through the use of that domain name. While a prosecutor is already likely to proffer false domain registration information as indicative of willfulness, enactment of Section 305 will ensure that courts accord this evidence appropriate weight.

In conclusion, I believe the ACCOPS Act, in combination with the previously-introduced H.R. 2517, will go a long way to stimulating and facilitating more effective investigation and prosecution of many online illegalities, most particularly criminal copyright infringements. I do not, however, claim that the ACCOPS Act is a perfect creation, nor that it contains every salutary proposal in this area. It may be that some further provisions need to be added, or some stricken. I do believe that it represents a positive step in the right direction, and will strongly advocate for its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. With great reluctance, I disagree on one of those rare occasions with my friend from Arizona, the author of the amendment.

The beauty of the Millennium Challenge Account is that it is not about neighbors and it is not about friends and it is not about how much you voted with us in the U.N. and it is not what your position was on Iraq. It is about helping, committing a portion of our foreign assistance to the poorest of the poor where the people of those countries have undertaken steps in terms of governance to promote democracy, human rights in terms of respect, and economic progress and concern for public health and education; and where they have made those internal changes and reforms, to try and establish what we think is fundamental principles that apply to all people all around the world, where they have made those decisions without regard to political reasons, interests of neighbors versus others but simply based on their poverty. We are going to devote a portion of our political resources to helping the poorest of the poor.

Unfortunately, when you make that decision, if you raise the eligibility standard earlier than it otherwise would be raised, you will therefore have less money to help the poorest of the poor. It is just automatic simple logic and math. In the lower-middle-income countries, you have countries like Turkey and Russia and Colombia as the fourth-largest recipient. I would urge we keep consistent with the intent of the bill and the administration's proposal, help the poorest of the poor and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. I have to say to the chairman of the committee, if this amendment were to pass, there will be no such card and the issue of finding out where the undocumented people are and who they are will not be enhanced one bit because no one who is here in undocumented status will give their accurate address if they know it is going to be turned over to the administration for enforcement. So the amendment totally undermines the goal of the chairman of the committee in his comments.

I have 20 seconds. Can I take it on the gentleman's time?

Mr. Chairman, that is where I believe where a card which truly reflects the identity of the person who is getting it, which this card does, helps the police. It helps banks know to open checking accounts, to stop loan sharks who are trying to put incredible surcharges on remittances.

Most of all, it is the sanction of this amendment where they have the gall to say that if the Mexican or any other government refuses to comply with the State Department's guidelines, we will penalize any employer in the United States who wanted to get specialized H-1B visa for a Mexican national, anyone who has stayed in Mexico and waited in line for 8 years, no nonimmigrant visas, no immigrant visas. What an outrageous sanction for people who are abiding by the law, for American employers and American families who are trying to reunite. The sanction has no relationship whatsoever to the conduct the author of the amendment is seeking to address.

I strongly urge the body to vote no.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

In recent weeks we have held a number of hearings on the issue of identity cards issued by foreign states to their nationals in the United States. In these hearings, representatives of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State have testified that they are participating in an interagency working group that is studying the issuance of these cards and developing a policy on their use. I look forward to seeing the result of their work.

In the meantime, we have been presented with this very troublesome amendment.

There are three very important reasons to oppose this amendment:

It will encourage fraud. This amendment lays out a policy for the State Department to implement and part of that policy would be require foreign states issuing these identity cards to provide the name and address of every cardholder to the State Department. Knowing as we do that many of these cards are held by undocumented aliens in the United States, we can be sure that if the cardholders know that their address is being sent to the United States government they will be less likely to provide an accurate address.

This would totally undermine the benefits of these cards to state and local law enforcement. We have to solve the problem of undocumented aliens in this country, but in the meantime, undocumented aliens are living in our states and cities.

Police Departments across the country have decided to accept this card when other identification is not available. Having some form of ID is better than having none.

This amendment tells the State Department to implement a policy on these cards and then requires State to order another sovereign nation to stop issuing cards to its own nationals if that foreign government does not comply with the policy. While it is certainly our business to decide what forms of identification we accept from foreign nationals, it is not the business of our government to order another government to stop issuing identification to its citizens.

Finally, under the Hostettler amendment, a foreign state's refusal to comply with a State Department order to stop issuing identification to its citizens would result in the State Department instituting a ban on visas for the offending country. This makes absolutely no sense. Under this logic, we would punish nationals of a country, refuse them visas for which they qualify--for family reunification or to accept a job. We would punish these lawful immigrants, their families, and U.S. employers because some nationals of their country might have a meaningless ID. This publishes those who follow the rule because there are some who might not.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is bad for foreign policy; it is bad for domestic policy; and we should reject it.