Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 503, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know that H.R. 503 is an emotional issue for many people. It is my hope that this debate will give us a chance to look beyond the emotion and actually explore the facts of the issue in this particular bill. It is important that this discussion be fair, that it be open; and to that end the committee that I chair, the Energy and Commerce Committee, held a hearing a month ago that included witnesses from both sides and was fair and balanced. We put together a completely balanced hearing; and at the end of that hearing, it was clear to me that the majority of the experts have spoken, and they have spoken that H.R. 503 is bad policy and that it is bad for horses.

It is not a secret that I am opposed to the bill in its current form. Despite what may have been said, it is not because I do not like horses. It is not because I had some bad experience when I was young. In fact, I had and continue to have very positive experiences with horses. My opposition to this bill stems from the simple fact that it comes with negative consequences that I believe are being overlooked.

Ever since the bill has been introduced, I have been bombarded by calls, letters, and meeting requests from people both in my district and all over the country on both sides of the issue. I have heard from ranchers and horse owners as well as the American Quarter Horse Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. The list goes on and on. I have also been approached by proponents of the bill that are very supportive and very emotionally and strongly attached to this particular bill. Unfortunately for those folks, I must say that I am opposed to the bill because the majority of the evidence is that it is a bad bill. In fact, over 200 national organizations oppose the bill. Yesterday, even the United States Department of Agriculture came out in opposition to the bill. These are groups that, frankly, I consider to be representative of rural America, and they have all said the same thing: H.R. 503 will lead to a miserable existence for thousands of horses and is an outright attack at animal agriculture.

The care and the overall health of the animals, and notably the rights of their owners, should always be the primary concern when taking up legislation of this nature. Processing unmanageable and unwanted horses provides a humane alternative to continuing a

life of discomfort, inadequate care, or possibly even abandonment for thousands of horses.

Mandatory United States Department of Agriculture inspection, which abides by strict laws monitoring the welfare of animals in the processing facility, assures that horses that are going to slaughter are treated humanely. It is also important to note that since last year's agriculture appropriations bill was enacted, the three American processing plants pay for those inspectors out of their own pockets. No expense to the taxpayer.

I might say on this note that the proponents of the bill have said repeatedly that the Cattlemen's Association gets $3 for every horse that is taken to slaughter. That is a true statement. But the reason that $3 is paid is because it is the Cattlemen's Association, at least in Texas, that is actually paying for the inspectors to inspect the horses that are brought to the slaughterhouse in Texas. So that is why you have the $3-per-horse fee. It is because in last year's agriculture appropriations bill, we said that those inspectors could not be paid for with Federal funds; therefore, an arrangement has been made between the slaughterhouses in Texas and the Cattlemen's Association that the inspectors will be paid for by providing this fee to the Cattlemen's Association that pays the inspectors.

H.R. 503 provides no alternative for thousands of horse owners for whom continued care of an animal is no longer economical or in some cases humane.

The other concern the bill raises for me is one of private property rights. While a majority of my constituents live in the Arlington/Fort Worth area down in Texas, the geography of the district that I represent is almost entirely rural. Animal agriculture is a large part of the economy for much of my district, and agriculture is already one of the most extensively regulated industries in the United States of America.

In the name of animal welfare, the United States Department of Agriculture right now tells owners how they can and cannot transport their animals. In the name of consumer safety, the United States Department of Agriculture right now tells them what they can and cannot feed their animals. This bill would tell producers to whom they can and cannot sell their horses. As a long-time proponent of limited government, I take issue with this last statement.

The horse owners in question have fed, housed, and cared for their animals, in some cases for decades, at great personal expense. When an animal reaches the point when he or she is no longer productive for the owner, who are we then to deny an owner the opportunity to recover some small portion of their costs that they have incurred in caring for the animal so far in its life? Why should they not be allowed to sell their animal to a legal, humane, and closely regulated processing facility?

Now, I understand that there are many groups that strongly support this particular bill and some of the thoroughbred associations are strongly in support of H.R. 503. If they have the money to pay for their horses, if they have the money to take care of their horses, that is fine. They do not have to take them to a slaughterhouse. That is freedom of choice. But for many ordinary Americans who do not have the resources that some of the more well-heeled thoroughbred associations and horse farms have, I think having a slaughterhouse option is a humane option.

Again, I understand that this is an emotional issue for many people. But I do not think Congress should vote purely on emotion. I think there should be common sense brought into the equation. And when you really look at the bill in that light, the obvious vote, at least for me, is a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4157.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the House today is going to consider H.R. 4157, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act of 2006. This legislation should help move our health care system into the modern era and the modern information age.

We all remember a time when e-mail was a dream and getting the legislative text from the House of Representatives Web site was impossible because it simply did not exist. As information systems have moved into the digital age, Congress and most of the private sector have embraced it. We have found that we could get information much more efficiently and quickly at much less cost.

The health care system, for whatever reason, has not done that. For all of its medical genius and astonishing technology in terms of surgery and orthopedics and diagnosis, American health care is still stuck back in the 19th century, with a paper record system that is inefficient, wasteful, error-prone and occasionally dangerous. The legislation before us today should change that.

With H.R. 4157, records that have been stuffed in a file cabinet and illegible prescriptions that nobody can read scrawled on pieces of paper will finally give way to digital medical records, electronic prescribing, and efficient coordination of care. Sick patients will get better and everybody should save money.

The bill before us sets out a framework for endorsing core interoperability guidelines and mandates compliance for a Federal information system within 3 years of endorsement of such guidelines. Of vital importance are provisions contained in the legislation that create safe harbors to the Stark and Anti-kickback laws for the provision of health information technology and services to better coordinate care between hospitals and providers. These changes are long overdue.

Hospitals and other health care entities that have invested in systems that are tested and work well should be able to share their experience and purchasing power with physicians. Current laws have prevented these reasonable steps to better coordinate patient care by not allowing the sharing of health information technology systems.

Also, I would like to express support for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to look at the list of entities that we make eligible for this safe harbor and to expand upon it, specifically, to include independent clinical laboratories which carry a great deal of health data that should be shared electronically.

These safe harbors will allow for economical sharing of health information technology to better coordinate care, reduce medical error, and improve patient outcomes.

Medical science in recent years has produced tremendous discoveries that have revolutionized how we treat disease and care for patients. Unfortunately, the medical record information technologies needed to take advantage of these discoveries remain locked in an era of paper and filing cabinets. We can do better, and the legislation before us today will do better.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, how is time going to be rotated? Do we do all the Energy and Commerce time and then the Ways and Means time; or do we rotate in sequence?

Okay. Congresswoman Johnson says the Energy and Commerce Committee goes first.

Okay. That is what Congresswoman Johnson also says. I was not informed of that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished physician member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Dr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds before I yield to Mr. Castle.

Under the current law, called HIPAA, we have very strict privacy protection guidelines. Those guidelines are currently under review. There have been over 50,000 comments filed with HHS for some proposed changes in those. Nothing in the Senate bill, that is a companion bill to this bill, deals with privacy.

Privacy is an important issue, but more important is that we get a health information system technology in place, and that is what this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the former Governor of the First State, the great State of Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who is also a medical physician, Dr. Burgess of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the Vice Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the brightest bloom to come out of Laurel, Mississippi, Chip Pickering.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished congressman from the Pelican State of Louisiana, who is a cardiovascular surgeon, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the distinguished majority whip from the Show-Me State of Missouri, the Honorable Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to Congressman Clay of Missouri, let me compliment Subcommittee Chairman Deal for his efforts on this bill. He cannot be here today because his mother is ill, but he worked very hard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished congressman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my good friends who have spoken on this motion to recommit. I know all three of the gentlemen, and they are fine fellows and fine public servants and believe passionately in what they speak of. If I were a doctor on this debate, I believe I would have to recommend they take a Valium and just calm down. We do not get this fixed if there is a problem.

Whatever the law is today on medical record privacy, the law is going to be tomorrow on medical record privacy. Nothing in this bill changes that. This is a health information technology bill. We are actually trying to get medical records in our country, the greatest Nation the world has ever known, to use technology that many other industries and many other groups have already incorporated into their daily business routine.

Now, there is an ongoing study at HHS on privacy. They have received over 50,000 public comments so far. This bill before us, if it becomes law, has an implementation period. There is going to be adequate time to come back, if we need to, with a specific medical technology privacy bill.

In past Congresses, Mr. Markey and I have been co-chairmen of the Privacy Caucus in the House, along with Senator Shelby and Senator Dodd in the Senate. I am as strong an advocate of protecting personal privacy as anybody in this body. I would say Mr. Markey and others share the passion just as strongly as I do.

The bill before us today is not a privacy bill. This motion to recommit is a privacy amendment. We should reject it and then move the underlying bill. And if and when we need to address medical privacy as a stand-alone issue, there will be adequate time and adequate resources devoted to that.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they are covered under adequate laws, and HIPAA is the medical privacy law.

Please vote against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the subcommittee chairman from the Ways and Means Committee, who has worked so tirelessly on this bill, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.

I know the rules. I'm supposed to be standing up. I apologize.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investment Act. I want more foreign investment in America, not less, but I do not want the kind that threatens our security. CFIUS exists to make the distinction, and we need to know that it's doing a good job.

We don't automatically fear foreign investors here in America. The money provided by foreign investors creates jobs, growth, and opportunity here at home. I just want to ensure the investment we attract does not jeopardize national security.

H.R. 5337 provides consistent criteria with appropriate discretion and will improve the review process without impairing our ability to attract significant and needed foreign investment.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee shares jurisdiction over this matter and we marked up the bill in my Committee with some changes. While the amended bill we are considering today contains some differences than the version my Committee reported, I support it. Importantly, it provides for mandatory review of foreign government- controlled transactions. Additionally, it provides clear and consistent review criteria for all other commercial investments, it adds the Secretary of Energy to the Committee, and it makes the Secretary of Commerce a co-vice chair of the Committee. Most important, it adds transparency in the process for Congressional oversight and establishes new reporting requirements many of us feel are essential to this process.

I support H.R. 5337 and urge my colleagues to approve the measure.

Mr. Speaker, although the legislation adds the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security as a co-Vice Chair of CFIUS, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from Chairman King of the Homeland Security Committee. The letter states that this designation does not affect, alter, or add to that Committee's jurisdiction.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2006.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oxley: I write in regard to H.R. 5337, Reform

of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments

Act.

I understand that nothing in H.R. 5337 or the amendments to

H.R. 5337 affects, alters, or adds to the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Homeland Security. Specifically, H.R. 5337's

designation of the Department of Homeland Security as a vice-

chairperson of CFIUS and the imposition of any additional

duties associated with the appointment of the Department of

Homeland Security as a vice-chairperson does not affect,

alter, or add to my Committee's jurisdiction.

I'm pleased that we can continue to move this bill forward,

and I look forward to working with you in that process.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, as a 22-year Congressman with a 100 percent prolife voting record, minus two votes, I rise in opposition of the Presidential veto and support the effort to override it.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 810 and overriding the President's earlier veto of this legislation. H.R. 810 would expand the number of sources of embryonic stem cell lines that may be used in federally funded scientific research. The bill would allow the limited use of human embryonic stem cells that are derived from embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics.

This is not an issue where everyone agrees. There are deeply held views on both sides of the difficult question before us, and I want to emphasize that every one of my colleagues should vote in accordance with their own conscience. I support the bill, and I want to say why.

Stem cells are cells that can differentiate into many different kinds of cells used in the body. They can come from several sources, such as adult stem cells, but many scientists believe that the most potential for productive research lies in embryonic stem cells, which could have the capacity to differentiate into any cell in the body. If researchers can find such a perfect stem cell that can differentiate into any other cell type, we may be able to unlock the cures to hundreds of diseases that afflict us today.

This is more than a sterile, academic matter to me. Diseases like Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, have stricken millions of Americans and continue to take a heavy toll on all of us. I can tell you that it is a living nightmare to watch a loved one suffer from a terrible illness and know that there is nothing that you can do but be by their side. That was the experience I had when my father died of complications of diabetes at the age of 71. It was also the experience I had when my younger brother, Jon Kevin Barton, died of liver cancer at the age of 44.

When my brother was diagnosed, we tried everything. They found his liver cancer when he was just 41 years old. He and his wife, Jennifer, had two children, Jack and Jace. He was a state district judge in Texas. After they told Jon he had liver cancer, we did everything we could, and, in fact, his cancer went into remission for a year. But it came back, and Jon died just three months short of his 44th birthday. That was 6 years ago. Every time I see Jace and Jack and their Mom, I think of Jon and wonder if stem cell research could have allowed him to be alive today.

I do not know for sure, but my heart tells me that stem cell research might have led to treatments that could have helped my brother and my father. We cannot be certain, but maybe the answers for finding cures for many of the diseases that afflict us lie in stem cell research. Many scientists believe that once we can identify a perfect, undifferentiated stem cell line, it will lead to significant scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases.

It is the hope of a cure for people suffering today and their families that led me to decide to support this legislation. I believe hope is what led President Bush to take the steps he did in August, 2001, when he permitted for the first time Federal taxpayer dollars to be spent on embryonic stem cell research. He recognized the profound benefits that were possible through embryonic research, and he wanted to let the research go forward in a way that respected life and the moral and ethical views of millions of Americans. The President's decision struck a delicate balance between respecting the life of human embryos and giving hope to the American families who are enduring the suffering and loss of debilitating diseases like diabetes and cancer.

But when the President made his announcement in 2001, it was believed that there were at least 60 viable lines of stem cells that could be used for this research. For a variety of reasons, this has turned out not to be the case; not all of these potential lines are now available for research. Currently, there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic stem cells that are available for federally funded research. None of those lines that are currently allowed for Federal research purposes have been shown to have that breakthrough stem cell--the one cell that can differentiate into all 220 cell types in the body.

The President's initial decision reflects the difficulty of this issue. However, when new facts arise on the one hand that tell us the embryonic stem cell lines already used for federal research do not hold the promise we once thought, it should require us to reevaluate that initial decision in light of the facts.

I continue to support the expansion of cord blood and bone marrow stem cell research, and perhaps the breakthrough we are all hoping for will come from adult stem cells. But at this point, we cannot know for sure where the breakthrough will come from, and it is my belief that we need to keep all of our options open while continuing to go forward in a moral and ethical way.

I fully understand that there are people of good conscience that will disagree with me. I completely respect their views and differences of opinion. Like many on the other side of this legislation, I am also strongly pro-life. For over two decades in the United States Congress, I have had a strong pro-life voting record. I remain pro-life, but for the reasons I have given, I intend to vote in favor of this legislation.

As my colleagues continue to debate the merits of this bill, I only ask that we try to respect one another's various points of view and that no one is ridiculed for their beliefs on either side of this complex and difficult issue.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3504) to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of this bill along with my good friend, Congresswoman DeGette of Colorado.

I rise today in the strongest possible support of S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. Every so often, we deal with a subject on this floor that is so ugly that the language almost is unable to qualify and quantify that ugliness. Today is one of those moments. When you know what fetus farming is, words like obnoxious and repugnant seem timid.

As we know, fetus farming is the gruesome idea of creating a human fetus purely for research to harvest its organs. This bill would ban that practice, and we cannot ban it, in my opinion, soon enough. Most scientists today share the belief that human life should not be created just for the purposes of experimentation, or for harvesting the organs of one person to be given to another. The vast majority of scientists in our Nation uphold the ethical and moral principles on which our country forever rests, the inalienable right to life and the inherent value of human life in whatever form it may take. These scientists are working tirelessly with the knowledge that their efforts are to benefit life, benefit humanity, not to benefit one person for profit at the detriment of another person.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have seen clear examples in other countries that some scientists see things somewhat differently.

It is towards these scientists that the pending legislation is directed. Rather than waiting for a horror story to appear on the front pages or allowing for the possibility of scientific advancement taking us down a slippery slope, this bill gives a clear signal that fetus farming in all of its forms will not be tolerated in the United States, nor will we allow human fetuses or embryos to be bought and sold for research like cattle.

This legislation will ensure that nobody gains financially when unborn children are exploited for fetal tissue research. This legislation sends the right message on the importance of human dignity and life at the right time.

Before the Pandora's box of fetus farming is opened and it is too late for us to do something about it, I will urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the First State, Delaware (Mr. Castle), the distinguished former Governor, to speak on this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the leaders in the pro-life community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are so happy the Senate is working today. It gives us something to do, but I only have one more speaker, the sponsor of the House companion bill, Dr. Weldon.

We only have one other speaker, so if you would like to close for your side.

Mr. Speaker, to close on this very important piece of legislation, I yield to the House sponsor of the companion bill, Dr. Dave Weldon of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2754) to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act. Now, that is a mouthful.

As an advocate of increased funding for health care research, I am eager to support legislation that would continue funding for this groundbreaking research that shows great promise for translating research into real cures for people who suffer from debilitating illnesses like diabetes and Parkinson's.

As I have said in the past on this floor, I feel strongly that Congress should do its best without delay to ensure that our American citizens benefit from the latest advancements in medical research. Great advancements are possible from research on adult stem cells and other pluripotent cells, and such research should be encouraged.

This legislation would provide valuable dollars to promote stem cell research into new and promising areas. And it should be recognized as an important compromise measure that addresses the many ethical issues deeply held by many Members in this body on both sides of the issue that are associated with the question of Federal funding for stem cell research.

With this legislation, the important research can continue to expand. With time, I am hopeful that we will see some of the miracle cures that all of us have been so fervently praying for for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will seize the opportunity to advance scientific and medical research in a morally ethical way by voting in favor of S. 2754.

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

Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 1876, the United States was still celebrating its centennial as Engine No. 20 rolled down the freshly laid tracks of the Texas and Pacific Railroad built to extend rail service west from Dallas. The railroad had hired frontier surveyor and Presbyterian minister Andrew Hayter to locate and lay out a 1- square-mile township as a wood and water stop midway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Entrepreneur James Ditto immediately established a general store in the center of the new town, which had quickly become a shipping point for local cotton farmers and merchants. Hayter and Ditto named the town Arlington in honor of General Robert E. Lee's home in Virginia, and Ditto became the town's first postmaster.

Today, Arlington is the 49th largest city in the United States with a population of more than 360,000 people. It is home to a major General Motors assembly plant, a National Semiconductor wafer plant, a number of Fortune 500 facilities, the fastest growing university in Texas--the University of Texas at Arlington--and an entertainment complex that is one of the top tourist destinations in the country. The original Six Flags amusement park, Hurricane Harbor water park, and the Texas Rangers Baseball Club are located there. And in 2009, when the new stadium is completed, it will become the new home of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

Arlington is and has always been one of the best places in Texas to live, work, and play, to get a quality education and to start a new business. Recent surveys tell us that Arlington is also one of the fittest cities of its size in the Nation, as well as one of the best educated.

As the representative to Congress from Arlington, TX, I want to join the citizens of this great city in celebrating its 130th birthday, recognize the city for its outstanding achievements over the past 130 years, and pray God's blessings on its people for the next 130 years.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. BARTON of Texas: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R.

5337. A bill to ensure national security while promoting

foreign investment and the creation and maintenance of jobs,

to reform the process by which such investments are examined

for any effect they may have on national security, to

establish the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United

States, and for other purposes, with an amendment; for a

period ending not later than July 17, 2006, (Rept. 109-523,

Pt. 2). Ordered to be printed.

I rise today in support of H. Res. 861 and our efforts in Iraq. Democracy's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. Democracy is the strongest form of government when the people and allied governments are united in a common goal. Because the United States worked hand-in-hand with Europe, we were able to defeat fascism in World War II and the totalitarian threat of Hitler and imperial Japan.

Conversely, democracy's weakness arises when the people do not wholeheartedly believe in the cause. For example, Vietnam included a hazy mission and the drafting of unwilling participants. Policy was diverted due to powerful public opinion.

We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan today because the President seeks for us to be. We are there because the public was outraged after the attacks of September 11, and rightly so. We were deliberately attacked by a terrorist regime seeking to cripple the United States. It was the dramatic escalation of decades of terrorist attacks. We felt these attacks deeply in our financial center of New York, at the Pentagon, and were almost hit at the heart of our Government, the Capitol building, were it not for the brave passengers of Flight 93.

But as a nation, we chose to not lie dormant anymore. We chose to show the resolve of America and defeat the enemy of terrorist regimes and the countries that harbor them. I support the policy of not giving in to totalitarianism or terrorist threats. And I support the military if force becomes the necessary method of resolution. Progress is being made in Iraq, and our troops will be successful in supporting this new democratic government. We are not propping up a dictatorial regime; we are working to help democracy take hold in the Middle East. And our efforts are paying off.

The idea that all people desire to be free is a powerful one. This idea is our single biggest weapon, and will ultimately bring success to this fight. The government that allows its citizens to steer their own course is undeniably stronger and more peaceful. I believe our troops are making incredible progress and so are the people in Iraq who are working for an inclusive, stable government. I remain committed to supporting all of their good works.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 12, 2006, I was unable to fly to Washington, D.C. for votes. As a result, I missed votes on this day and some votes before returning Tuesday, June 13, 2006. I would have voted on the following rollcall votes, had I been present.

Monday, June 12, 2006:

AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 362-1 (Roll Call 251). Recognizing the 17th anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes.

AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 362-1 (Roll Call 252). Condemning the unauthorized, inappropriate, and coerced ordination of Catholic bishops by the People's Republic of China.

AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 363-1 (Roll Call 253). Condemning the escalating levels of religious persecution in the People's Republic of China.

AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: 364-0 (Roll Call 254). Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the activities of Islamist terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere.

AYE: On Ordering the Previous Question: 204-165 (Roll Call 255). Waiving points of order against consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 409-0 (Roll Call 256). Commending the Government of Canada for its renewed commitment to the Global War on Terror.

AYE: On Agreeing to the Conference Report: 351-67 (Roll Call 257). Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

AYE: On Agreeing to the Resolution: 221-194 (Roll Call 258). Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: 415-1 (Roll Call 259). To provide for certain access to national crime information databases by schools and educational agencies for employment purposes, with respect to individuals who work with children.

AYE: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: 407-0 (Roll Call 260). Supporting responsible fatherhood, promoting marriage, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day.

Mr. Speaker, next week the President of the United States is expected to sign in the Oval Office or the Rose Garden a bill that increases fines for utterances of an obscene nature over the public airwaves. That is Chairman Upton's bill, and I am a sponsor and strong supporter of it.

If C-SPAN were over the public airways and not cable, I would probably be the first victim fined, the first violator of that bill because of my reaction, not to the gentlewoman's point of order, which is within the rules of the House, but because of the underlying premise that the Congressional Budget Office has propounded that there is an unfunded mandate in this bill. The thing that I can say that is printable is that is hogwash.

Now, we went down to the dictionary that is always here in the House of Representatives and looked up the word ``mandate.'' The number one definition, a command to act in a particular way on a public issue. That is the number one definition for mandate in that dictionary: a command to act in a particular way on a public issue.

Now, if the bill before us had told the cities that they had to provide cable service themselves to every citizen in their community and not compensated for it with Federal dollars, that would be a mandate.

If the bill had said that every Member of Congress in the House and the Senate had to be provided an office with a television studio by the cities, that would be a mandate; and it would be unfunded. It is not in this bill.

What is the Congressional Budget Office definition of an unfunded mandate? It is an Alice in Wonderland definition. It is a reverse definition. Here is what the bill actually does: it says every city that is currently collecting fees gets to continue to collect those fees, or it can negotiate a better deal if they want to. It says that every new entrant that wants to get the so-called national franchise, if they let the city know that they want to provide video services to that city, they have to pay that city up to 5 percent, plus an additional 1 percent for all of these PEG channels, public education and governmental channels, that the gentlewoman from Wisconsin was just talking about. It says these new entrants have to pay that.

There are studies out that says because of this provision that these new entrants are going to have to pay the cities additional revenue; that the cities, in total, may get up to 40 percent or more of additional revenues, more money not less money. That is not an unfunded mandate. That is what we in Texas call found money. Oh, here's another $150,000 for next year, or two million or whatever it is.

The bill before us allows the cities to charge an additional 1 percent. I didn't want to do that. I was opposed to that. But Mr. Upton and some of my friends on the Democratic side that were negotiating on the bill thought that was a fair thing to do. And so it is in the bill. If there is one thing that I am sure of, it is that there is no unfunded mandate in this bill.

Now, I will tell you how energized I am about this. I am going to go out and draft me a CBO reform bill and I am going to introduce it and I am going to get the committee of jurisdiction, which I think is the Budget Committee, to try to hold a hearing on it or move it or do something about it. I am tired of a CBO that looks like an Alice in Wonderland operation.

If there really were an unfunded mandate in this bill, I would oppose it. But there is not. And so I strongly, I respect the rights of the minority to use every parliamentary procedure they have, and the CBO did issue a report that does say there is an unfunded mandate. That is a true statement. But what the CBO calls an unfunded mandate is absolute hogwash.

So I oppose this point of order, and hope that we will sustain the underlying rule and move forward on the base bill and have an honest debate on the merits of the bill later this afternoon and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, let me just recapitulate. Under current law, if you are a satellite provider, you don't have to pay any franchise fee, any at all. Now, if you are a landlocked cable provider, you do have to pay some of these fees. They can be up to 5 percent, and they can charge some in-kind contribution for these pay channels. That is current law.

Under the pending bill, if it were to become law, you get the existing franchise fees that are paid by the incumbent cable provider, plus the city can charge a 1 percent fee to the incumbent plus these new entrants are going to be automatically assessed up to 5 percent plus an additional 1 percent unless the city makes a different deal. Okay?

Cities are going to have more money, more revenue sources. And the independent studies that have already come out say that, in most cases, city and local revenues are expected to grow as much as 30 percent. And I think they may be even higher than that.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is not an unfunded mandate. That is not an unfunded mandate. So I strongly oppose this point of order and hope that we sustain the base rule and move forward to debate the underlying bill.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5252 and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically bring the general debate for H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, to the floor of the House of Representatives. The process in getting the bill to this stage has been long, has been fruitful, and, in my opinion, it has been fair. It has involved more than a year of hearings, as well as staff and Member-level negotiations. That process has clearly borne, I think, positive fruit.

We come to the House today with a bill that has received overwhelming bipartisan support in both the subcommittee and the full committee. The bill passed the subcommittee by a margin of 27-4, with all Republicans voting for it and two-thirds of the Democrat minority party voting for it. In the full committee it was reported by a margin of 42-12, again all Republicans voting for it and a majority of the Democrats voting for it.

The primary focus of this legislation is to create a streamlined cable franchising process in order to increase the number of facilities-based providers for video, voice, and data services everywhere in our great Nation.

Today, there are thousands of local franchising authorities. Each may impose disparate restriction on the provision of cable service in its specific franchising area. The requirement to negotiate such local franchises and the patchwork of obligations that local franchising authorities impose are hindering the deployment of advanced broadband networks that will bring increasingly innovative and competitive services to all of our constituents.

The United States does not even rank in the top 10 of the nations of the world in broadband deployment. This bill should change that statistic.

H.R. 5252 seeks to address this concern and strike the right balance between national standards and local oversight. It would allow the negotiation of local franchises, but make available an alternative national franchise process.

Moreover, the national franchise preserves local franchise fees, municipal control over their rights-of-way, and support for their Public Education and Governmental channels that so many of our Members are strongly in favor of.

The bill also seeks to strike the right balance between ensuring the public Internet remains an open, vibrant marketplace, and ensuring Congress does not hand the FCC a blank check to regulate Internet services, an action that I believe would have a chilling effect on broadband deployment, especially broadband innovation. We need the FCC to stop the cheats without killing honest creativity. We don't need anybody to be the first Secretary of the Internet.

Finally, the bill addresses rules for voiceover Internet protocol services, or VoIP services, to ensure that the Internet voice services become a vibrant competitor to what we call plain old telephone service.

I want to thank Congressman Rush for his cosponsorship, Subcommittee Chairman Mr. Upton for his cosponsorship, Vice Chairman Chip Pickering of Mississippi for his leadership, and all the members of the committee and the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored this bipartisan legislation with me.

I would urge my colleagues to support this bill and look forward to a vigorous debate on the amendments that have been made in order by the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a strong supporter of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the full committee and the distinguished Chairman of the Veterans' Committee, Mr. Buyer of Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

I would like to yield 10 minutes to my Democrat sponsor, Mr. Rush, to control in the general debate in the Committee of the Whole. Is that possible, or how might I do that?

So I can't do it.

Mr. Chairman, in that case, I yield 2 minutes on behalf of Mr. Rush to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley, for his leadership and his statement that he just made. It is greatly appreciated and it I think enlightens the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Rush of Illinois, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

(Ms. BEAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to a gentleman from Mississippi who doesn't have a degree from Harvard Business School, but he does have a degree from Ole Miss, Chip Pickering, the vice chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), our subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my distinguished primary cosponsor on the Democrat side.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have continued to listen to the constructive comments from Members on both sides of the aisle as well as the comments of the cities and the affected stakeholders in this issue as the bill has moved from committee to discussion under the Rules Committee, and now to the floor

of the House of Representatives. We have tried to incorporate many of those constructive comments into the manager's amendment that is now before the House.

The amendment would do the following: It would clarify what constitutes a franchise area. This was a concern of Mr. Dingell in the full committee markup.

It would clarify that a person or group seeking authority to provide service under a national franchise must agree to comply with all requirements the FCC Commission would promulgate pursuant to the consumer protection and customer services provisions in the bill.

Further, it clarifies that pursuant to a colloquy that I had with Mr. Boucher at the full committee markup, the manager's amendment would clarify that anyone with a national franchise shall be subject to all the cable operator provisions of title 6 of the Communications Act, except for those ones specifically in the pending bill.

It would also clarify that nothing in the legislation that affects existing pole attachment law. This was another concern of Mr. Boucher and others at full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I urge a yes vote on the Barton manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from Houston for her leadership on this issue. I am somewhat unclear what her intentions are in terms of moving towards a vote. I will pledge to her to continue to work with her, if she were to withdraw the amendment, to reach a mutually acceptable resolution as we go to conference with the other body, but I am going to follow her yield or her wishes on the pending amendment.

If she calls it for a vote, I will vote yes on the amendment. If she wishes to withdraw it, I will work with her as we move forward in the normal channels of the legislative process.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is a good amendment. I am very supportive and urge a ``yes'' vote on the Wynn amendment.

Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I rise in opposition to the amendment; but I am not in opposition to the amendment.

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

First, let me say about the gentlewoman from Dallas, I support her amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think it adds to the bill, increasing the penalty by 50 percent from $500,000 to $750,000. It does increase the penalty for discrimination; and for that reason, I will be happy to support the amendment at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with a member of the committee, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Congressman Murphy, current law allows local authorities to assess a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable operator's gross revenue for the use of the public right-of-way for cable service. The Act before us would allow the localities to assess the exact same fee on holders of a national franchise.

In other words, localities may continue to collect the same rent for the use of the rights-of-way for cable service. The Act before us also preserves the locality's physical management of their right-of-way. Section 630(f) explicitly states that nothing in the Act affects the authority of the localities to manage their rights-of-way on a competitively neutral, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis.

Would you repeat the question?

For a specific period of time, the answer to that is yes.

I would always yield to my friend from Pittsburgh, a member of the committee, and the new manager of the Democrat baseball team, who is so overworking his team that they are complaining to me about how hard they are having to work, yes.

Reclaiming my time, nothing in the pending bill will change current law with regard to how the cities control their local rights-of-way, the physical access to that right-of-way. They would have access through the local court system, and I would assume, if they wished to, they could also go to the Federal Court system or the FCC. But they can certainly continue to use the remedies available under current law.

They have the option under the pending bill, if the gentleman were so kind to vote for it on final passage, and I know he is thinking about that, we would expand the potential remedies. They would have every remedy under existing law, plus they could also go to the Federal courts and to the FCC.

So far you have not tricked me, so I will continue to yield.

They have the option. They have the option. They have an expanded list of remedies that they currently don't have.

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

Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I do support the Rush amendment. I think it is an addition to the base bill, and it continues to show the excellent leadership that Mr. Rush is providing on this issue, and I would urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to support the amendment.

At this point in time, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Reichert.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this issue. We agree that as a matter of both public policy and public safety, American citizens should have access to basic 911 service.

I understand your perspective on this concern, as a former law enforcement officer who had to respond to 911 calls himself for many years. I will work in conference to address your concerns.

I can add that Mr. Gordon of Tennessee and Mr. Pickering of Mississippi, just to name two members of the committee, share your concerns and are working on this issue.

I have no other requests for time, urge a ``yes'' vote on the Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify some things with the author of the amendment. Does your amendment deal specifically with the complaint adjudication process with regards to antitrust laws and the jurisdiction of the courts to hear such cases?

With that understanding, I am going to change from opposition to support and encourage you for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I believe I probably still have 4 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I was opposed at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I respect Mr. Conyers. He is a good man. He is in serious opposition. I have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. I would be happy to yield those 4\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. Chairman, if I do, I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California. I want there to be a full debate on this.

How much time do I still have?

I would like to yield Ms. Lofgren 2\1/2\ minutes if she so wishes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the subcommittee and full committee, the gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman of the full committee hailing from the great Alamo City, birthplace of Texas democracy, Mr. Gonzalez.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the pride of New Providence, New Jersey, a member of the full committee, Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the pride of the entire State of Nebraska, Mr. Lee Terry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another member of the distinguished Energy and Commerce Committee who hails from Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

He is the pride of the entire State of Texas.

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

I yield myself the balance of the time.

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

MR. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great degree of respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts as he rose in defense of his amendment. And I agree that, if a consumer goes into that dealership and you could find a dealership that was selling a Ferrari alongside with a Ford Taurus, that the consumer has the right to choose which vehicle to purchase and he has the right to take that vehicle out on the highway and he has the right, subject to the laws of the State, to drive it as fast as he or she wishes. That is what the underlying base bill does.

We are debating a term of ``net neutrality'' that didn't exist 9 months ago. We are debating a term that, as Mr. Ferguson pointed out in his remarks, there wasn't even agreement among the experts exactly what it was when we had a hearing on this before the full committee. But we understand, just as Mr. Markey supports, we understand that, whatever net neutrality is, we want to preserve the open access nature of the Internet, number one.

Number two, we also want to bring the United States out of the undeveloped nations, so to speak, in terms of broadband deployment.

Now, the underlying purpose of this bill is to get the private entrepreneurs of this country to put the billions and billions and billions of dollars that are necessary to get the broadband deployment into the homes hopefully of every American home in this country, and then use that to unleash the creative entrepreneurship of our creative community to develop new services and new ways of providing those services so that all Americans can have access to some of these new services that are promised if we actually make this bill a reality.

What Mr. Markey's amendment really does, if we were to adopt it, is say you can't charge for any of that; you can't differentially price between the Taurus and the Ferrari, you have to charge everybody the same. And, if you do that, you are not going to get the deployment.

Now, the base bill says we are not sure what net neutrality is, but we agree it should be preserved, and we want the FCC to preserve it. And, we explicitly give the FCC the authority to punish a transgression once it is identified on a case-by-case basis and to do it within 90 days.

Now, if you really want to unleash the creative energy, if you really want this to be a jobs bill, if you really want the United States to go from twelfth in broadband deployment into hopefully number one, vote against Mr. Markey and for the underlying bill. That is real net neutrality.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gutknecht amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object strenuously to this amendment. I do want to make a couple of points. I think the universal service fund needs, at a minimum, to be significantly reformed. I do not think, as we hopefully deploy more technologies and more innovative ways of using those technologies, that we should saddle these new emerging technologies with attacks that, while well-intentioned, was originated in the 1920s and is in need of serious reform. So I do oppose the amendment, respectfully, but I understand those that support it, and am very respectful of the gentleman who offered it, because he has worked with us diligently on it.

I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Tennessee at this point in time.

I wish to acknowledge the important role that you have played in the process of developing this legislation. I also would like to commend you on your support for rural America, and would add that, if this bill becomes law, small rural telephone companies are going to benefit and enter the video business in communities like your community in your congressional district of McMinnville, Tennessee.

In response to the specific inquiry, you are correct, under the legislation if the telephone company identifies a portion of a cable franchise area that it intends to serve with video, there is no build- out obligation nor would there be a redlining violation as long as the telephone company did not refuse to serve a group of potential residential subscribers in that area because of the income of that group.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion for two principal reasons: The anti-redlining provisions of the motion are unnecessary because the underlying bill has language that has been carefully crafted with the leadership of such distinguished members of the full committee as Mr. Rush, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Towns, Mr. Gonzalez, and others. We worked on it for a number of months. We have perfected it, we have changed it, and so I think the bill more than adequately addresses that part of the motion to recommit.

On the second part of the motion to recommit, which deals with the concept called buildout, under existing law when you only have one franchise, only have one franchise, I think it is acceptable public policy to require there be a buildout provision because you have a monopoly. But the premise of this bill is to go from a monopoly situation to a market situation where you could have as many as four or five competitors in the same market. If that is the case, what Adam Smith, in that great book called The Wealth of Nations, called the hidden hand of the market is going to more than adequately take the place of a monopolistic model buildout requirement.

If you are a new entrant into the market and you have a national franchise and you go into Chicago or New York or Los Angeles, or a small community, like Ennis, Texas, or Arlington, Texas, you are not going to want to just serve a little bit, you are going to want to get market penetration. You are going to want to take away customers from an existing cable provider, so you are going to want to reach out to as many people as is possible and there is not going to be a need for a buildout provision.

I would also point out that these new entrants are going to be, in most cases, telephone companies that already have close to 100 percent of market penetration through their phone lines, or wireless providers that are coming into the market with their towers that, again, will have wide penetration. So there is really not a need for a buildout provision.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

To close out debate, I am going to yield the balance of my time to my distinguished sponsor, colleague of the full committee, the distinguished gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Rush).

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