Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, this is an unfortunate day. Today, here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we are witnessing a blatant disregard for sound policy, fiscal restraint, and due process by the Majority Leadership. The Farm Bill that we are debating today is not the bill that was reported out of the Committee on Agriculture. It is a product of a late night raid by Leadership on the rules process to insert yet another tax increase.

Farm programs have always had their champions and their detractors, but in the 22 years that I have served in this body, it has never been a partisan issue. I have voted in favor of almost every Farm Bill that has come before me, but I cannot vote for this one. I have consistently supported the hard working farmers and ranchers in my district, and I will continue to do so. But I cannot support this tax increase that has been added without debate, and without relevant committee input.

Over the past year, I have had the chance to visit with producers from across my district. Practically every single one of them has told me that the Farm Bill we passed in 2002 has proven to be a sound safety net for their various enterprises. The bill that was reported out of the Agriculture Committee continued those proven principals. Unfortunately, this is not that bill.

As ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am also concerned that

this bill, which has an entire title (Title 9) devoted to energy, was never seen by our committee. Beyond that, it seems that the left hand of our Majority in this body does not know what its right hand is doing. As the year began, I was a little surprised that the Majority seemed disinclined to work with me or other Members of the Minority in preparing energy legislation. But now I realize that they do not even consult with each other.

Take a look at the energy provisions of the Farm Bill. They overlap and duplicate provisions in the legislation reported a few weeks ago by the Committee on Energy & Commerce.

The Farm Bill has incentives for increased ethanol production; grants for consumer education on ethanol; a biomass fuel production section, etc.

Meanwhile, the Energy & Commerce Committee has provisions to do these and similar things in its bill. Energy & Commerce has grants for cellulosic ethanol production, consumer education for flexible fuel vehicles, a study of ethanol blended gasoline, and others.

If the Majority would like, I'll be happy to offer my services to help them sort out and reconcile these provisions among the two bills.

Of course, if the Agriculture Committee's bill had been referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee as it should have been, we could have accomplished that reconciliation before the Farm Bill ever got to the floor, avoiding this confusion, conflict, and redundancy. That is why we have rules in this body on jurisdiction and that's why we should go back to following those rules.

Mr. Speaker, today, we honor the memory and celebrate the life of former First Lady, Claudia Taylor (Lady Bird) Johnson, and the contributions she has given to the people of a country she so dearly loved. I had the privilege of knowing Lady Bird through the White House Fellows program and as anyone who knew her as an individual would agree, she was a person of grace, charm, and an absolute delight to know. As a native Texan, a wife, a mother, a businesswoman, and First Lady, she emitted beauty through her presence and through her actions leaving a legacy that will not soon be forgotten.

Lady Bird met Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1934 and in seven short months, had captured his heart as he asked for her hand in marriage. Mrs. Johnson stood by her husband and supported his endeavors with a perseverance and tenacity that one rarely finds. When LBJ volunteered for naval service during World War II, Lady Bird stepped in and kept his congressional office running and except for voting, served the need of every constituent. She again came to the rescue in 1955 helping staff keep things under control when her husband suffered a severe heart attack while serving as Senate Majority Leader. The former President once remarked that voters ``would happily have elected her over me.''

In 1960 Mrs. Johnson traveled over thirty-five thousand miles of campaign trail as she pushed LBJ towards a successful bid for the Vice- Presidency. During this tenure, she visited thirty-three foreign countries as an ambassador of goodwill. Lady Bird again stood by and supported her husband as he became the thirty-sixth President of the United States and helped console the hearts and minds of an entire country as they mourned the loss of President John F. Kennedy.

As First Lady, Mrs. Johnson was highly involved in the President's initiatives supporting education and working to alleviate poverty. Under her own ambition, she created a First Lady's Committee for a More Beautiful Capital which later expanded to include an entire nation. Lady Bird was also the inspiration behind the Beautification Act of 1965 which transformed the landscape of our national highways. Never tiring in her life's work, at the age of 70, Mrs. Johnson founded the National Wildflower Research Center which is dedicated to the preservation and re-establishment of native plants in natural and planned landscapes.

Lady Bird Johnson should be remembered by all as a person with elegance, grace and a tireless work ethic. She dedicated her life in service to others and gave so much of herself in support of her husband, family, and country. Today, as we celebrate the life of Lady Bird Johnson, we honor her contributions to the people of the United States and recognize that we have lost a great American that will be dearly missed.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, one of the things I am most proud of in my service in the Congress was the reauthorization on a bipartisan basis of the National Institutes of Health in the last Congress. It is the first time the NIH has been reauthorized in over 13 years. It is the stellar institution for health care research in this country.

As a part of that reauthorization, I promised the stakeholder community that I would support increased funding for NIH this year, and I have done the best I can to follow through on that commitment. Unfortunately, because of the press of funding that this particular appropriation bill has, the NIH increase in H.R. 3043 is only 1.6 percent. I am glad that it is that much. I wish it were more.

The amendment before the body at this point in time would make sure that all of that money actually goes to the NIH. Sadly, a lot of the increase in NIH is going to be immediately siphoned off to two different funds. One is a global AIDS fund, which will take $300 million. The other is called a ``tap,'' which takes about $600 million to another line item outside of NIH. So what this Barton amendment would do was keep that $600 million that would be siphoned off for the tap fund and keep it in the NIH.

I am not opposed to the amount that the appropriators have increased it. I wish it were more. But at least I want to keep as much of that money that has been increased within the NIH. That is what this amendment would do.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute in rebuttal.

First of all, we are not talking about a small amount of money. The 2.4 percent tap transfer is almost $700 million. That is a lot of money when you are only increasing the NIH 1.6 percent, or $750 million. It doesn't make any sense to me to then take $700 million of that and give to other programs that have their own line items.

One of the programs that the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about has $329 million in its own line item. So we are saying if you are going to increase the NIH, congratulations. We are for it. Let's keep the money in the NIH.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Am I the only one who has time?

Who has the right to close?

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Madam Chairman, I am going to yield the balance of my time to the former sheriff from the great State of Washington, Mr. Reichert.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 556. As I have previously stated on this subject, more foreign investment in America, rather than less, is good for the country. But I share the belief we must have a robust review process to screen the few investments that threaten our security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--CFIUS--was established to ensure such transactions that require greater scrutiny are evaluated in light of these concerns. I believe it is our responsibility to make sure the review process is working as intended and make changes where appropriate to enhance this process.

There is no denying the benefits of foreign investment. Our culture of innovation and risk taking has positioned many of our industries at the forefront of global innovation. Foreign investors recognize potential in U.S. companies and risk their capital on companies because our country welcomes foreign investment. When domestic investment bypasses U.S.-based companies, we should be grateful the gap is often filled by foreign investment. The money provided by foreign investors creates jobs, growth and opportunity here at home, and we will only benefit by encouraging more investment. Shutting off foreign investment will hurt us more than it helps us.

But we must be sure that the need to attract investments is balanced with our obligation to ensure they will not pose a danger or national security threat to our Nation. The foreign investment review process is not new, but the highly publicized proposed transactions involving CNOOC and Dubai Ports last year highlighted to Congress, and the public, a process in dire need of review. Many observed this process by which our government sorts out good investment from bad can be rather opaque. Congress and the relevant Committees--including the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has original jurisdiction dating back to the Exon-Florio Amendment--need to be aware of the criteria used to evaluate the transactions and which transactions should be subject to more rigorous review.

Last Congress we acted on the need to clarify the review process and improve transparency. Through the Congressional process, the House passed legislation, but the Senate did not act. I am pleased the Senate has acted this Congress and we will pass this legislation to become law, but I am disappointed in several changes made to the original House-passed version.

Regardless of the imperfections, this will be an improvement over current law. The legislation will provide consistent criteria with appropriate discretion for foreign investment reviews. The triggers for mandatory reviews will also improve the process without impairing our ability to attract significant and needed foreign investment. The legislation also expands the membership of the review board and will now include additional expertise, including the Secretary of Energy, which can only benefit the review process.

Finally, I am pleased the reporting requirements will provide meaningful information to Congress. More robust information will provide a better understanding of the transactions and the criteria CFIUS evaluated to reach their decisions.

I support the legislation because these changes collectively improve the process for foreign investment reviews and increase the transparency of the process.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I am willing to not speak at all if Mr. Obey is willing to take my amendment without me talking about it.

I was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the last Congress, and one of the things that I am most proud of was that in the late stages of that Congress we passed the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act of 2006. It's a 3-year reauthorization act. It was a bipartisan, bicameral compromise.

Some of the House Members that worked on it included Congresswoman Mary Bono on the Republican side, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo on the Democrat side, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, Congressman Dingell, of course myself, and many, many others.

One of the cornerstones of that reauthorization was a formula change in the dispensation of HIV/AIDS funding to more reflect where the epidemic is actually still in play in this country. Under the old formula you had one-half of funds based on a formula based on population, things like this, and then you had one-half of the funds based on a discretionary fund.

Under the reauthorization we changed that to two-thirds formula and one-third discretionary. But because we were changing the formula, we did put in a hold-harmless provision for the formula funding.

What we were trying to do was make more funds available to those areas of the country where the epidemic was still prevalent and growing, and less funds on a discretionary basis where the epidemic had once been centered but was now thankfully not as prevalent. The pending bill before us changes that formula.

Now, normally, that would be considered legislation on an appropriations act, and a point of order would have been reserved by Chairman Dingell of the committee, and all we would have to do is make a point of order, and it would be sustained. Chairman Dingell did not reserve that point of order, so I have to rise to try to strike it.

My amendment does not change the amount of funding for HIV/AIDS. It does prevent this reversion of the formula so that we would keep the bipartisan, bicameral agreement, that we would have two-thirds of funds based on a traditional formula and one-third of the funding based on discretionary.

Now, the effect of the pending legislation that I am attempting to strike, if we don't strike it, two cities will benefit, Newark, New Jersey, and San Francisco, California. Every other city that currently receives AIDS funding and HIV funding will be disproportionately disadvantaged.

So I hope that the House will accept my amendment, and we will keep the formula that was agreed to after intense negotiations where we have a two-thirds and one-third split based on formula and discretionary, and a hold-harmless on the formula side but not a hold-harmless on the discretionary side.

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

In the reauthorization bill that was carefully negotiated on both sides of the aisle and the Senate, we maintained a hold-harmless provision for the formula funding under the bill, but we did not put that hold-harmless provision to the discretionary funding in the bill.

Discretionary funds are based on actual active case counts, how many HIV/AIDS patients you have. There is a methodology to determine how many of those individuals there are, and then the discretionary funds are distributed based on need.

In the legislation that's pending in the appropriations bill, the hold-harmless provision, which in the authorization bill we had on the formula side, is also applied to the discretionary side. The effect of that would be that an area that at one time had a large number of HIV/ AIDS patients, but those patients had either passed away or been cured or moved out of the area, they wouldn't get to use the old patient count for their discretionary request. They could only count for discretionary purposes the number of active cases that they currently had in their area.

Under the old law, the funding was based one- half on a formula and one-half on discretionary, and the discretionary counted active cases and also cumulatively, I believe, cases of individuals who had expired because of the infection. Under the new formula that we passed in the reauthorization bill, we changed the formula to two-thirds instead of one-half, and we reduced the discretionary from one-half to one-third.

We did put a hold harmless provision in on the formula side, but we did not apply that hold harmless to the discretionary side. So we also had a specific hold harmless for the first year of the

new authorization which we are currently in.

The effect of the language that is in the pending bill basically puts hold harmless not only on the formula funding, which we increase from one-half to two-thirds, but it also puts it on the discretionary side, the effect of which would be areas which don't have as large a patient count as they once did would get more discretionary funding; conversely, those areas that 5 or 6 years ago, perhaps, didn't have much of an HIV/AIDS epidemic would be shortchanged.

Madam Chairman, I want to point out in the brief time that the gentleman from California still has, the Barton amendment doesn't lessen funding for this; it doesn't change the total amount of dollars at all. It simply protects the agreed-upon compromise that the stakeholders, the House, and the Senate on both sides of the aisle agreed to in the last Congress. And what the compromise was is, we moved more to a formula funding mechanism, two-thirds, and one-third for discretionary. And on the discretionary side, that is totally based on active HIV/AIDS case counts. It does not include people who have passed away from AIDS.

And the gentlelady that spoke earlier about the number of people in San Francisco that have contracted the disease and have passed away is totally right that those people, unfortunately, are no longer here. They should not be counted for the discretionary funding because you can't help them now.

We want the funding from the discretionary side to go to those that actually still have the infection.

Madam Chairman, I don't want to belabor this, but I do want people to understand what the compromise was. Those that represent, as has been characterized, the epicenter of the original contagion on AIDS/HIV, are protected in the compromise.

Two-thirds of the funding is based on a formula that advantages those areas where the epidemic started. And we hold that formula harmless. You can't have, on the formula funding, more than a 5 percent cut the first year. That's this year. Then next year you get 100 percent of what you got this year, and the third year you get 100 percent of what you got the second

year. So there's no drastic, there are some reductions because on the discretionary side the population centers are changing. And on the discretionary side, the compromise was not to have a hold-harmless, but to base those on actual active HIV/AIDS counts.

Now, if you accept the base bill and reject the Barton amendment, you're going to have two areas, primarily, I'm told San Francisco and Newark, that get more funding, and every other area in the country gets less.

And since all the AIDS groups supported the bipartisan compromise, and both Chambers did, I don't think it's fair to change that by putting something in a base text that there were no hearings on, there were no amendments on, it wasn't debated in the subcommittee or the full committee, the appropriations, it was just put in, and our only opportunity is to try to amend that bill right now.

And again, if a point of order had been raised against it, all we'd have to do is make the point of order, but it wasn't reserved. So I think what the compromise was in the last Congress is eminently fair, and was carefully crafted and, as Mr. Burgess has pointed out, worked out with everybody having input, and that the Barton amendment, which just reverts it back to that base compromise should be supported.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the dean of the delegation for yielding to me.

On behalf of the minority Republicans from Texas, simply let us say that we join in our best wishes to Lady Bird's family. I knew Lady Bird through the White House Fellows program. For those of us that were privileged to know her as an individual, she was gracious and charming and an absolute delight to know.

We hope we will do a Special Order tomorrow, but we all join our colleagues wishing the Lyndon Johnson

and Lady Bird Johnson family our sincerest sympathies.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that we just had that point of order offered by my good friend, Mr. Dicks. Under the Armey rule, the former majority leader, the chairmen of the authorizing committees could send letters to the Rules Committee on appropriation bills and any part of the appropriation bill that was actually legislating on an appropriation bill, there was a standing point of order made in order that you could strike it.

So we wouldn't have had the Sullivan amendment and we would not have the amendment that I am about to offer if the current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, had sent such a letter to the Rules Committee asking to reserve the point of order on this section 501. But Chairman Dingell didn't do that, and so it is in the bill and Mr. Dicks can make a point of order that an amendment to it should be struck because it is legislating on an appropriation bill. What a great place this body is that we work in.

So what my amendment does is pretty straightforward. It strikes section 501. That cannot be ruled out of order. It can be voted down, and we will have a vote on this. But the Davis amendment that I am offering on his behalf can't be struck on a point of order.

What is it about this section 501 that is so onerous? Let me briefly synthesize what it says. I think it says some things that are factually incorrect.

It says that the Congress finds that greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability. I think that a factually incorrect statement. It is a true statement that the temperature apparently is rising compared to what it was 150 years ago. In the late 1840s and early 1850s, temperature averages at most places that kept temperature records at that time were 1 to 2 degrees cooler than they are now. And the temperature appears to be going up. That is a true statement.

But I don't think that it is true that the temperature rate increase is outside the range of natural variability. The one thing about climate that is constant is that it is constantly changing.

The second incorrect statement is subparagraph 2 where it says there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation.

Now I think it is indisputable that as we burn many of the hydrocarbons, obviously they are releasing CO2 which is a greenhouse gas and that is accumulating in the atmosphere. That is a true statement. But whether that is a substantial cause is yet to be determined.

I would point out that the largest greenhouse gas by far is H2O, water vapor. When you see a cloud in the sky, you are seeing a greenhouse gas accumulation in the sky. And water vapor is over 90 percent of all greenhouse gases. CO2, carbon dioxide, is less than \3/10\ of 1 percent. So how could something that is such a small percentage be the cause of this temperature increase? It is an interesting theory, but it is yet to be proven.

In any event, because of these first two paragraphs, we get to the meat of the issue in section 501, and that is mandatory steps are required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Mandatory. Coercive. You have to do it whether you want to or not. You have to do it whether it makes sense or not.

We are far from a place, in my opinion, where we need to begin to legislate mandatory approaches, and that's what is so bad about this section 501. Now you may argue it is a sense of the Congress what is it going to do. It is just to show where we are. Well, I would point out that in the late 1970s, early 1980s, you begin to have these temporary 1-year moratoriums on drilling off the coast of various parts of our country. They seemed relatively harmless at the time. What could be wrong with that?

That has grown into such a significant part that it's almost impossible right now to drill anywhere in the United States that we haven't already been drilling for the last hundred years. There's a limit to how many holes we can drill in Texas. We've drilled over 2 million since 1901. We've found a lot of oil and gas, but at some point in time, we've got to drill where we haven't drilled before. In any event, section 501 is bad public policy and this amendment would strike it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to comment briefly on what Chairman Dicks said about this being in the bill last year. He is factually correct. We reserved a point of order on it last year. And the member of the committee that I chaired at the time who was supposed to make the point of order was caught in the cloakroom eating a candy bar, and the crafty appropriators closed the title before we could make the point of order. So it was in the bill last year only because we were asleep at the switch when it was our turn to raise the point of order. At least I'm not asleep at the switch this year.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I tell my dear friend from Pennsylvania that the subject is the object before me, the coveted Roll Call congressional baseball trophy.

I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania.

Last night at RFK Stadium we had the 46th Annual Congressional Charity baseball game. The beneficiaries are the Washington Literacy Council and the Washington D.C. Boys and Girls Club. Those two groups will receive in the neighborhood of $90,000 thanks to the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

It was a hard-fought game. There were excellent plays on both sides, but when the dust had cleared, for the seventh time in a row, the Republican team, playing on a level playing field with fair rules won a hard-fought 5-2 victory.

John Shimkus and Chip Pickering were our MVPs, but the entire Republican team, every member of the Republican team got into the game through pitching, batting or running. Some did better than others in those endeavors, but we had a good time and nobody was hurt.

I would like to yield to my good friend, Mike Doyle, the distinguished manager of the Democratic team.

We thank you very much for that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Gentleman. I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my good friends from Michigan and New York in support of this amendment. Nuclear power must be a part of our future energy supply. Companies that are planning to build new nuclear plants estimate that they will request a loan of $20 to $25 billion in FY '08. The companies expect to complete loan guarantee agreements in FY '08 because they must have financing in place in order to maintain their current schedules. Without loan guarantees for new nuclear plants, we risk a delay in bringing more safe and emission free nuclear plants online at a time when we are trying to diversify our supplies of power as quickly as possible. I thank the Gentleman for yielding me this time and I yield back.

I move to strike the last word.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring a little bit of

openness to this debate and this process. Those of us on the minority side are not concerned about the overall scope of the Homeland Security bill.

Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, I think, have done an outstanding job on the substance of the bill. But we are very concerned about the lack of openness and transparency on what are called ``earmarks,'' because the majority party campaigned specifically for openness and transparency on this particular issue, and this is the first appropriation bill, and there is no openness and transparency on earmarks.

So I am going to start a precedent at least for the Sixth Congressional District, which is the district that I represent. I am going to put my earmarks in the Record on this bill. I have two of them.

The first one is for the City of Arlington, Texas. It is a request for $10 million to replace all of the radio equipment and communication equipment for the City of Arlington Police Department so they meet the new Project 25 interoperability requirement. So that is my first earmark. The second earmark is also for the City of Arlington, Texas. It is a $2 million request for the Narcotics Task Force.

Now, my very first congressional earmark, way back in 1985, or maybe 1986, was to set up the first anti-drug Narcotics Task Force in Tarrant County.

I went to Jamie Whiten, who was the powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I went to that corner office right off the floor and on trembling knees asked Mr. Whiten for $1 million to have the first anti-drug task force in Tarrant County, Texas, with the main city being Fort Worth in Arlington, Texas, and, lo and behold, I got it. So this request for $2 million is in a sense a continuation, an expansion. That task force has obviously expanded since the mid-1980s, but this is a $2 million request for the Narcotics Task Force.

I have also signed a delegation letter. I won't list every Member who signed it, but in Congressman Edwards' district down in College Station, Texas, Texas A&M is the home of a National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center. I have asked, along with a number of other Members, for an additional $13 million for that national center.

Those are all my earmark requests. Under the new rules, I have to sign a letter, like every other Member, to Mr. Price and to Mr. Rogers stating what my earmark request is, and then I certify that neither myself nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

So I want to put these earmark requests in the record so that at least one Member of Congress is being open and transparent in the process.

I want to say something about the process. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make earmark requests open. But it is disingenuous, to say the least, to campaign on openness and transparency and then not deliver. I happen to think Chairman Obey is doing an outstanding job. It is a tough job being chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Just ask former Chairman Lewis. But to have one Member of Congress responsible for vetting every earmark request, and apparently this year the number is 32,000, which is an average of about 80 per Member, which is an average of about 7 per appropriations bill, that is an impossible task.

Let's come up with some system to put the earmarks in the bills as they come to the floor. Let there be a debate. Some would fall out, some would shift around, but the American people would know what the process is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I include my earmark requests for the Record.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 15, 2007.

Hon. David Price,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,

House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.

Hon. Harold Rogers,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House

Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers: I am

requesting funding for the Interoperable Law Enforcement

Communications System in fiscal year 2008. The entity to

receive funding for this project is the City of Arlington,

located at 101 W. Abram Street, P.O. Box 90231, MS 01-0310,

Arlington, TX 76004.

The funding would be used for replacing the Arlington

Police Department's local radio system with new equipment

which will allow Arlington Police officers to communicate

with other agencies.

I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial

interest in this project.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Member of Congress.

I am pleased to offer my support of H. Res. 455 offered by my colleague, Representative Melissa Bean.

The power of the Internet has revolutionized communications and affected the lives of people in every comer of the planet. It does more good than most of us can imagine. It's also no secret that the Internet also can be dangerous, especially for trusting children who go online without parents or teachers looking over their shoulders.

Studies say that more than a billion people use the Internet, and none of us need a study to know that some of them are wretched predators. In the United States, 35,000,000 children in kindergarten through 12th grade have Internet access. Of those students, 61 percent admit to using the Internet unsafely or inappropriately. As many as 47 percent of parents feel unable to fully monitor and shelter their children from inappropriate material.

We on the Energy and Commerce Committee are acutely aware of the Internet's value to commerce and communication, but we have also seen the evil that people can do when they use the Internet to attract and abuse children. And yet many parents and children are simply unaware of hazards that exist only one click away.

We want our children to feel safe at home, and they do, but that sense of safety can also cause them to let down their guard with the strangers they meet by computer. The consequences can range from unhappy experiences with cyber-bullying to tragic involvement in kiddy porn.

June is National Internet Safety Month, a time used to promote education and awareness of these issues and stress their preventability through an ad campaign. The campaign focuses on advice to parents in educating their children on the dangers of the Internet along with true stories of children succumbing to predators. It also provides important links and information on how to report an offender.

H. Res. 455, promoting National Internet Safety Month, commends national and community organizations for promoting awareness of the dangers of the Internet and providing information and training that develops critical thinking and decision making skills that are necessary in order to safely utilize the Internet. The House also recognizes the continued involvement of parents, educators, law enforcement, and community leaders as vital to the online safety of America's children.

Designating June as National Internet Safety Month reminds us that we should always be on guard to protect our children from potential online threats.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 251, the ``Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007,'' which I co-authored with my friend, Representative Engel from New York. This bill protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive manipulation of caller identification information--a practice is known as caller ID ``spoofing.''

Caller ID technology is an invaluable tool. Millions of people rely daily on the caller identification information that appears when their phones ring. Unfortunately, criminals are using ``spoofing'' to perpetrate fraud. ``Spoofing'' occurs when a caller masquerades as someone else by falsifying the name or number that appears on the recipient's caller ID display. Those who answer the phone and see the number of a legitimate company or charity are far more likely to fall victim to an illegitimate request for money or personal information.

Even worse, the Internet has made ``spoofing'' easy. Numerous websites sell simple web interfaces to caller ID systems that allow criminals to appear to be calling from any number they choose. Some of these services boast that they do not maintain logs or provide any contact information of their customers. Some even offer voice scrambling services to enable a caller to sound like someone of the opposite sex.

H.R. 251 prohibits sending misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud or cause harm. The bill is drafted so that it will go after bad actors, but at the same time preserve the ability to mask or block caller ID information for legitimate purposes.

This is an important piece of bipartisan consumer protection legislation.

I urge you to support H.R. 251, the ``Truth in Caller ID Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished physician from Denton and Flower Mound, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the committee.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished congressman from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), home of the Allentown Canaries.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Westminster, South Carolina, which is near the home of the Fighting Clemson Tigers, the starting catcher on the Republican charity baseball team, Mr. Gresham Barrett.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Trenton, New Jersey, the Honorable Chris Smith, who is generally acknowledged as the pro-life leader in the House since Henry Hyde retired.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Golden State of California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former Attorney General of California.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the gentleman

from Lubbock, Texas, home of the Texas Tech Red Raiders (Mr. Neugebauer) for 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished congresswoman from Cincinnati, Ohio, Congresswoman Schmidt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe Pitts.

I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the former Governor of the first State of our great Nation, the State of Delaware, to the Republican sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Castle.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire on the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Congressman from Melbourne, Florida, which is known as the Space Coast and home of Cape Kennedy, Mr. Weldon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Congressman from the Peach State of Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska, home of the world famous Nebraska Cornhuskers, Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jeb Hensarling, who is a graduate of that great university in our home State, Texas A&M, the fighting Texas Aggies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, from Williamson County, Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a close personal friend of the Country Hall of Fame music legend Eddie Arnold.

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

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate before, so I am going to refer people to the Congressional Record at the appropriate place for my basic remarks on the underlying issue. I simply want to clarify why we are having this particular debate today.

We passed this early in this Congress, this particular piece of legislation. It passed the Senate, and it went to the President, and the President vetoed the bill. Many of those who support embryonic stem cell research think that we ought to be able to find a little finer middle ground, that we might yet get the President to support a version of the bill. So the sponsors, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, have added the Senate language from the last Congress that Mr. Specter and Mr. Santorum passed as a stand-alone bill that I think passed the other body 100-0, which is a very strong vote. It has been added to this bill.

I might add that, apparently, the motion to recommit is going to be something like that language that Mr. Gingrey has offered to the motion to recommit.

So what we are trying to do here today is slice the cheese a little bit finer so that those in the pro-life community like myself who have a 100 percent pro-life voting record, over 23 years except for this one vote, can vote for it, those that believe that we should fund a broader array of embryonic stem cell research can vote for it, and the President can accept it. That is what this particular bill is all about.

I plan to vote for it. I plan to vote against the motion to recommit not because I am opposed to the policy on the motion to recommit, but if we were to accept the motion to recommit, that would send the bill back to the Energy and Commerce Committee and require further consideration, which may or may not result in the bill's coming back to the floor.

So Members have voted on this in this body this year already once. Those of us that served in the last Congress got to vote on it in the last Congress. So there are not too many undecideds. But we are hoping the addition of this Specter-Santorum language, which is also sponsored in the House by Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Gingrey, will result in a little bit finer slice of the cheese, that we will yet get a bill through the House and through the Senate that the President will accept. So that is what this is about.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill and a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, stem cell legislation has been well debated on this floor, and I support it. This bill has again been brought to the floor with no committee process. When I was chairman we handled this important issue with full consultation with our minority. That is the preferable way to legislate.

This bill is designed to create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow basic scientific research to move forward. Most of the scientific community has articulated that once we can identify a perfect, undifferentiated stem cell, it will lead to significant scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases.

For numerous reasons, not all of the potential stem cell lines that were thought to be available for research when the President announced his policy in August 2001 are actually viable for research purposes. The number of stem cell lines available for scientific research is actually well below the estimated number of stem cell lines that were thought to exist in August of 2001.

We will also eventually need additional embryonic stem cell lines to make further scientific advances. In order to produce clinical therapies, it is likely that researchers will also need more embryonic stem cell lines, of different genetic variations, than are presently eligible to receive Federal support.

Understandably, this is not a simple vote for anyone on this floor. There is no ideological cloak under which we can take cover. This is a vote of conscience for all members. In the 109th Congress, similar legislation was agreed to by a vote of 238 to 194 in the House and later passed the Senate by a vote of 63 to 37.

S. 5 before us today is actually an improvement over previous iterations of legislation on this issue. I strongly support the additional language that will examine methods of obtaining stem cells from alternative sources. I believe in this area we should be looking at different options that can lead to the medical breakthroughs necessary to save lives.

My position as an ardent supporter of the need to defend human life has never wavered. As my record will dictate, I have been opposed to all forms of abortion. I extend this principle to respecting the need for scientific research to protect and improve existing human lives. My decision to support this legislation is the product of much personal contemplation.

I would urge my colleagues to understand the great thought that goes into a vote of this nature and ask that we respect one another and their beliefs.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today-- the Towns-Bono SPY Act--is an important piece of legislation to me. We've been working on this bill for 4 years now, before many of us ever heard the term ``spyware.'' I applaud the bipartisan sponsors for their unwavering commitment to pass this legislation.

The surreptitious installation of spyware on your computer without your knowledge and without your consent is a little like sneaking into your home and planting a bug: it is an invasion of your privacy and it is clearly wrong. This bill prohibits all the nefarious conduct that is used to harm consumers. The legislation provides the FTC a strong mandate to go after bad actors and their destructive behavior.

There are many important and legitimate business functions of the Internet, and I have no problem with businesses trying to compete and sell their goods and services. And I recognize advertising is a part of commerce. But I feel strongly that there is a line that should not be crossed regarding the sharing of my personal information without first obtaining my consent. Consumers have the right to know if they are being profiled, if their personal information is going to be shared, and with whom it might be shared. My computer and my personal information are my property. This legislation will ensure I have control over both.

This bill strikes a fair balance between the need to protect the functions of legitimate business tools and punishing bad actors.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Rush, Chairman Dingell, and Ranking Member Stearns for moving the bill through the Committee. I commend Mary Bono and Ed Towns for their tireless efforts to address this insidious activity.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this important piece of legislation and hope that our Senate colleagues will do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I don't normally come to the floor to talk on suspension bills because normally, suspension bills have been cleared by the majority with the minority and they are bills that we have if not unanimous agreement on, we have general agreement on. But I feel very strongly about this particular bill and the way it is being done.

The gentlelady, who is the chief sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) is a good friend of mine. When I was chairman, I helped her and Mr. Castle bring to the floor the stem cell bill which was very controversial and which the President ultimately vetoed. I voted for that bill, and spoke for the bill on the floor. We had an arrangement between Mr. Dingell and myself about how we were going to bring that bill to the floor. Ms. DeGette and Mr. Castle were part of that discussion.

This bill was introduced after 7 p.m. last night. John Dingell didn't call me. Diane DeGette didn't call me. We can't find anybody from the majority who called anybody on the minority. There have been no hearings on the bill. There has been no markup of the bill. We just basically take the gentlelady's word that it is what it is.

We know that cloning is controversial. We know that most of us in this body are opposed to human cloning, for whatever purpose. There is a good chance if we had a legislative hearing, we had a markup, we could probably come to a consensus on a bill that Mr. Weldon could support and Mr. Smith could support and Ms. DeGette could support; but not this bill. Not this process.

A bill is introduced at 7:30 one night and is on the floor of the suspension calendar the next day, there have been no hearings, no process, and you can't amend it because it is under suspension of the rules. I think that is a subversion of the process.

It is a way to give some Members a vote for political cover because tomorrow when the main stem cell bill comes up, which was noticed last week, the last time the stem cell bill was on the floor, the minority who has the right to offer a motion to recommit, part of the motion to recommit dealt with cloning, and some of the Members in the majority voted for it.

So this is a way for the majority to give some Members of their party a way to vote for a cloning bill so they can vote against the motion to recommit tomorrow, if that's what it is. So I understand the political strategy, but I don't understand the process of ignoring the Energy and Commerce Committee repeatedly, and I don't understand a bill as controversial as this being brought under suspension with no hearings and a bill that wasn't even introduced until after dark last night.

That's wrong. I hope we vote ``no,'' N-O, ``no.''