Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) yielding me time and I appreciate the co-sponsors of this bill who have spoken for it so forcefully.

I first became aware a few months ago that there was going to be an attempt to wrest control of the Internet away from the United States, and I felt very strongly that that would be to the disadvantage of all the users of the Internet.

The United States, beginning back in the 60s, funded the research that led to what is now the Internet as we know it. And it is really one of the remarkable accomplishments, in my opinion, of humanity. It is something that has affected the lives of almost everyone. It is something that has promoted the free exchange of ideas around the world, the free exchange of goods and commerce around the world. It is something very precious to all of us that has really changed the way that we live.

We have an excellent record as the steward of the Internet. There is no one who has offered any evidence of any abuse whatsoever, and it is very disturbing to me some of the nations that are calling for taking this out of our hands are nations who have a poor record of human rights, who desire to regulate significantly what the content of speech can be. It is very troubling to me, for example, that one of the big proponents of getting this into the hands of the U.N. would be China, China which has a terrible record on freedom of speech and the Internet which is imprisoning people for making inquiries that are forbidden on the Internet.

For example, I indeed have an interesting list of forbidden words they have. This is based on research done by U.S. researchers examining China's record. Here are the words that trigger problems for you if you are in China putting into the computer: democracy, Christian, Falun Gong, human rights, multi-party, oppose corruption, underground church, overthrow, Taiwan independence, Tiananmen, and traitor.

Mr. Speaker, it would be a tragedy to let control of the Internet go to the United Nations. We have seen what they have done with the Oil- for-Food program, for example, and the billions of dollars of scandal involved there. There are people who want to tax the Internet. There are people who want to get control of it for their own purposes. The United States should remain the steward, not let the United Nations get its hands on it.

I am encouraged by what happened in Tunis last evening. It is not a guarantee. The United States Congress should vote for this resolution and speak with one voice that we intend to maintain the Internet as it has been governed heretofore, and I ask for support for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water Development rule/conference report on the floor today and urge my colleagues support it.

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 total $30.5 billion.

Title I of the bill provides $5.4 billion for the programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of $57 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $1.2 billion over the budget request.

Title II provides $1.07 billion for the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $113.9 million above the budget request. The committee recommended $1.03 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation.

Title III provides $24.2 billion for the Department of Energy, DOE, a decrease of $129 million from fiscal year 2005 and $76 million less than the budget request. All Department of Energy programs are funded within this bill. The committee funds new initiatives on the consolidation of special nuclear materials, the interim storage and integrated recycling of spent nuclear fuel, and on creating a sustainable nuclear stockpile and the DOE complex necessary to support that stockpile.

california specific funding

Over $300 million for Corps projects in California. These include flood control, water supply and navigation.

Over $200 million for Bureau of Reclamation projects in California. These include water supply, water reuse, and desalination.

$37 million for CALFED projects. The committee has redirected the funding for higher

priority projects that will support the implementation of the CALFED program. The funded projects will produce increased sources of water for the State of California, otherwise known as ``firm yield'' projects, improve drinking water quality, and improve water delivery flexibility.

$6 million for Sacramento Area water conservation projects.

$1 million for an economic analysis update for Auburn Dam.

$2 million for the American River Pump Station.

$1 million for the El Dorado Irrigation District Temperature Control Device.

$1 million for the Sacramento River diversion Study.

$40 million for the American River flood control projects, including $10 million for a permanent bridge below Folsom Dam.

The bill fully funded the President's request for the National Ignition Facility, the premier U.S. facility for inertial confinement fusion, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, a high energy physics lab. High energy physics is the cornerstone of our understanding of the physical universe. These two outstanding California facilities are on the cutting edge of research.

The bill also provides continued funding for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to continue basic science research and advanced scientific computing, which allows the U.S. to compete with the rest of the world in important scientific fields.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4176.

This bill involves public lands that cross our adjacent districts. The gentleman's name was added to the bill erroneously.

Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the schoolyard bully who pushed the smaller kids around and took their lunch money just because he was bigger and stronger. Bullying wasn't okay in elementary school and it isn't okay now, especially when it comes in the form of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court empowered the government to seize private property, including someone's own home or place of worship, and transfer it to another private owner as long as the transfer would provide an economic benefit to the community. Simply put, the Supreme Court has given government the broad power to seize private property for any use, so long as it generates tax revenue.

Tomorrow, the House will take up H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, in an attempt to prevent the abuses the Court has allowed by its decision in the Kelo case. The bill prohibits States and localities from receiving any Federal economic development funds if these entities abuse their power of eminent domain.

This action is an appropriate use of Congress' spending power and will prevent homeowners, churches, and small businesses from being forced to give up their private property simply because it is not generating the maximum possible tax revenue.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as I recall, it was the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) who thought this would be an appropriate procedure to bring it to the floor on suspension. So there was no abuse of power. This is strongly supported by both parties. I anticipate it will pass today. Otherwise, we will take a rule, and we will do it the regular way.

Mr. Speaker, I know the theme of the minority is the Republicans abuse power and they are corrupt; but I think this example is absolutely ludicrous, given that it was recommended by a prominent Democrat member of the House Administration Committee who happens to support the legislation.

And she prudently recommended it because at the time it seemed like it was a relatively noncontroversial idea, supported by most of us. I would venture to guess that the outcome will be just as she assumed, that it will pass by the two-thirds vote required.

I just cannot sit here and listen to this recitation when it is so unfair, given the facts of this particular case.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is clear, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to the contrary that, in this instance, in political speech Congress may abridge the freedom of speech and it may do so under the guise of preventing corruption or the appearance thereof in campaign activities. I disagree with that decision, but the Supreme Court has spoken for now, so we must live with it.

I am grateful to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who at least feel, as concerns the Internet, that there are compelling policy reasons why that should not be subject to this kind of regulation. Heaven help the average American if they fall under a regulation similar to what any candidate must now undergo for Federal office because that would basically mean that you would have to check with your accountant and check with your attorney before you engage in the Internet communication that might at all be perhaps close to whatever the line would be. In other words, it would have a chilling impact on people's exercise of what we believe should be their free speech rights.

This rise of the Internet is one of the greatest democratic, with a small d, trends the world has ever known. Anybody with access to a computer can communicate throughout the world his or her views. Why would we seek to regulate such an activity and to place this chilling impact out there?

I commend, by the way, the FEC. They correctly decided not to regulate the Internet. Unfortunately, the big government campaign reformers found that intolerable, filed suit in Federal court and were vindicated with the judge ruling that, indeed, the law required the FEC to regulate. In the absence of our passing this kind of legislation, the Internet will be regulated.

Mr. Speaker, we must put an end to this now before it spreads out of control. Please vote yes for the Hensarling bill. I am so grateful the gentleman introduced it, and I commend him for it. Please support freedom of speech. The Online Freedom of Speech Act is what this legislation is called.

Now is the time to draw a clean, clear, bright line and say if you are engaging in speech over the Internet you do not have to check with your lawyer or your accountant. You are a free American, and you have the opportunity to engage in free speech over the Internet. Vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. Con. Res. 61.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to express warm thanks and congratulations to Mr. Claude M. Rohwer, upon his retirement as Associate Dean of the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. After nearly four and a half decades of service as a professor, he now concludes a stellar career in academia.

A native of Dixon, California, Claude grew up raising pigs on his family's Sacramento Valley farm. He received his undergraduate education at the acclaimed University of California at Berkeley, following which he earned his Juris Doctorate degree from Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law in 1958. That same year, he began service to his country in the U.S. Air Force's Judge Advocate General's Corps.

From 1960 to 1961, Claude was a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California. Following this experience, he launched a career in private practice with the firm of Downey, Brand, Seymour and Rohwer in Sacramento. After a few years as an associate in what was then the largest practice in the city, he became a partner from 1965 to 1967.

Mr. Speaker, having taught at the McGeorge School of Law since 1961, Claude decided to leave private practice in 1967 to take a full-time position on the faculty as one of four charter professors. Generations of law students are grateful that he did, for he helped the school develop from a small, unknown entity into a proud institution.

Claude has specialized in international law during his career. From 1982 to 1986, he was the Associate Dean for Graduate and International Programs. And since 2003 he has filled duties as the Associate Dean for International Affairs. He has lectured and consulted all over the world. He has taught commercial and contract law courses in cities including Vienna, Salzburg, Edinburgh, Shanghai, and London. Most recently, he has consulted the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Trade to help rewrite that nation's civil code and commercial law respectively.

In addition to being an accomplished teacher, Claude has published many legal works. While much of his writing portfolio has an international emphasis, I benefited from his text ``Contracts in a Nutshell'' when I was his student at McGeorge.

Claude is a member in good standing of the California Bar Association, American Bar Association, and International Bar Association. Among his professional honors, Professor Rohwer belongs to the Order of the Coif, was named an Amicus Lex Scholar in 1982, and was the University of the Pacific Professor of the Year in 1981.

In retirement, Claude plans to write a history of McGeorge. In addition to spending time with his wife, children and grandchildren, he also intends to continue singing bass with the West Valley Chorale and pursuing the love of hunting he inherited from his own father.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in commending Professor Claude Rohwer for his outstanding service to our country as a member of the Armed Forces, an able attorney, and a career educator. After all that has been said about him, he is simply a good and decent man, and I am personally thankful for his guidance and instruction he has provided to me and countless other students of the law. May he enjoy this next phase of life with the satisfaction of knowing he has had a tremendous influence on the profession he loves.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the substitute and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, it has been represented that this legislation is going to cost billions of dollars potentially, and for that reason we should reject it in the fiscal crisis in which we currently live. I just say to you that the CBO, which makes the estimates on everything we do around here, the official word for the Congress to act, projects that the cost would be small over the 5 years. Indeed, and I quote, ``would likely total less than $10 million.'' That was the CBO cost estimate to

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to remember and honor an outstanding citizen, Mr. LeRoy E. Lyon, Jr., from Granite Bay, California. Following a lifetime of dedication to God, family, and community, he died of a heart attack in his home Sunday, July 17, 2005. He was 84 years old.

LeRoy was born on Dec. 4, 1920, in Anaheim, California. His father, LeRoy, Sr., was a respected orange grower who served on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. This heritage led him to a career in public service as well.

In 1942, he earned a bachelor's degree in geology at the University of Southern California, USC. He then went to work for the U.S. Geological Survey in Washington, DC, where he met the love of his life, the former Martha Seymour. In April 1944, they were married, beginning a journey together that lasted 61 years.

A month after their wedding, LeRoy joined the U.S. Navy as an officer. He served as an intelligence specialist in the Pacific during the final months of World War II. In early 1946, he was reassigned to Key West, and after his discharge, he returned to USC to study law. He received his juris doctorate degree in 1949. After passing the State Bar of California exam on his first try, he became a general practitioner in Santa Ana.

Mr. Speaker, after the Korean War began, LeRoy was recalled to active duty in 1951. In Korea, he served with Vice Admiral C. Turner Joy's staff for the initial truce talks. Interestingly, he was still on active duty as a Navy lieutenant at Miramar Naval Air Station in the San Diego area when he was elected to the California State Assembly in 1952. In the legislature, he championed right-to-work laws, believing it to be the way to increase dignity and empowerment for individual workers.

Following his brief tenure as a legislator, he applied his legal mind, legislative know-how, and professional contacts to advocate on behalf of the California Railroad Association. He represented the organization both in Washington and Sacramento, also serving as general counsel. After 20 years, he became a lobbyist representing several clients with the firm of A.E. Davis & Co. until his retirement in 1990.

Surpassing his contributions to his country through military and political service, LeRoy was known as a humble, caring father and husband. He upheld the tenants of his Christian faith with honor. In short, my friend LeRoy was a good man.

He is survived by his wife, Martha ``Marty'' Lyon of Granite Bay; daughters Sylvia Foster of Hillsboro, Ore., Janet White of Colfax and Rebekah Lawson of Forest Hill; a brother, the Rev. W. DeWitt Lyon of Fullerton; 11 grandchildren; and five great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by a son, Ted Lyon, in 2003.

Today, I join with LeRoy E. Lyon Jr.'s family, friends, and community to commemorate his life of committed service, good citizenship, and uncommon decency. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the legislation introduced by my colleague from Vermont which, understandably, enjoys bipartisan support.

Last, year, President Bush called for the majority of Americans to have electronic health records within 10 years and established the role of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to help realize this target. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act 2005 is a critical step toward this important goal and the nation's overall vision of providing safer, efficient healthcare for all Americans.

I am proud to report that a healthcare leader in my district is ahead of the curve in pursuit of this vision. In response to the need for leadership in the area of healthcare information technology, Adventist Health--a not-for-profit health care system headquartered in Roseville, California--made the decision to invest over $120,000,000 to implement a new state-of-the-art Clinical Information System for all their hospitals. Project IntelliCare is a ground-breaking, historical initiative and an important first step toward fulfilling patients' aspirations for safe, effective health care.

Long before the concept of healthcare information technology was being discussed nationally, Adventist Health committed to implementing this system-- one of the largest single capital investments the health care system has ever made. I think it is extremely important that we support this legislation today. By establishing the refining our goals in this area with legislation like this, we allow health care providers like Adventist Health to easily adapt programs and projects that support patient safety and quality.

It would be my hope--and good public policy--that officials at the Department of Health and Human Services reach out to Adventist Health officers and solicit their guidance. This guidance would be based on the experience of a half a decade of success and challenges. I am proud of what Adventist Health is accomplishing in California. I look forward working with secretary Leavitt and the Department of Health and Human Services to assist in the implementation of Health Information Technology on a national level.

Mr. Speaker, the inevitable insolvency of Social Security is not a new problem. Since the program began in 1935, the number of workers per retiree has slipped from 40 to just three today. And unless Congress acts, the system will be completely bankrupt by the year 2041.

In light of these facts Republicans have put forth a variety of proposals to make Social Security remain solvent for future generations. But up to this point, Democrats have chosen to oppose our good faith efforts and insist that indeed there is no problem. The minority party's only solution to saving Social Security is the same solution they have applied to this problem for the past 68 years, to raise your taxes. On 50 separate occasions when faced with critical decisions to shore up Social Security, Democrats have resorted to either raising the payroll tax rate or the minimum taxable wage. It is clear their tax hikes have done nothing more than mask Social Security's inadequacies and postpone real and lasting solutions.

Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 1953, Howard Gersten and Joy Slomonson met for the first time. This Sunday, July 24, 2005, they will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. In the time between, they have lived out their dreams together and created a family out of their own love, which continues to grow today.

Howard Gersten grew up in Forest Hills, NY while his future wife, Joy, was raised in Newark, NJ. In summer of 1953, they were both working in the same building when they met and arranged their first date: a day game at Yankee Stadium, which meant Joy would have to skip work. This was only appropriate, as she would make many sacrifices over the years to come in the name of sports.

Shortly after they met, Howard was drafted into the service and was deployed overseas to Germany. Before he left, they became engaged and agreed to marry upon his return. During his long journey abroad, they kept in contact by writing many letters that they still keep with them. Once his tour of duty was over, and Howard returned to the U.S., they immediately planned to wed. On July 24, 1955, Howard and Joy Gersten were married in a rabbi's study with a handful of guests present, and returned home to their apartment on Northfield Ave. in West Orange, NJ, to start their life together.

In 1957, their first son, Andrew, was born. He would be followed by Judith and Laurie. The children grew up with their parents in northern New Jersey. Howard had built a career as a marketing executive in New York City. Despite the benefit of lavish trips abroad, tickets to Knicks games at Madsion Square Garden (when they weren't given away to ``schmucks'') and generous expense accounts, the two always dreamed of a taking a different path in life.

One day, while reading the New York Times (presumably after finishing the crossword puzzle), Howard happened to notice an advertisement in the classified ads. A bookstore was for sale in the college town of Amherst, MA. This was an opportunity they had always talked about and so, even though the chances of going through with the purchase were slim, they packed their bags and went to take a look. While visiting Amherst, and considering the consequences of making such a life- altering change, mother nature weighed in by sending them a rainbow as a sign of things to come in Amherst. Never being ones to ignore good advice, they decided it was meant to be.

Soon after, they bought a house in the woods at 139 High Point Drive and moved to Amherst to become the proprietors of the Jeffrey Amherst Bookshop. Their work at the bookstore continues to this day, as they are always striving to improve business and provide better service to the community of which they are now such a vital part. With the opening of their second store, the Jeffrey Amherst College Store, they expanded their enterprises to take advantage of the rapidly growing market of textbook sales.

In 1980, their first grandchild, Evan Goitein was born. This was the start of something big as eight other grandchildren would follow: Daniel Goitein, Hannah Goitein, Leah Goitein, Ben Gersten, Sarah Gersten, Jonah Goitein, Emma Garrison and James Garrison. Their ``nuclear family,'' as they like to refer to, now includes 20 people. This makes for a lot of birthdays, little league games, school plays and--most importantly--matzah balls. Somehow they manage to always stay on top of what is going on in the lives of everyone in the family, which has earned them awards such as ``World's Best Grandpa'' and ``World's Greatest Grandma.''

These days, Joy and Bill enjoy a life that is easy to envy. They still work at the bookstore at least four days a week and are continuingly improving the business they have built. They regularly hold book signings for local authors, where Grandma's lemon squares steal the spotlight. They go to their local health club and take hikes for exercise. They are regulars at the weekly UMASS sports luncheon. They enjoy the area's fine restaurants frequently, often dining with their children and grandchildren.

At home, they stay very aware of current events, tuning in to C-SPAN to follow the events unfolding in our country and abroad. The day is not complete unless the New York Time crossword puzzle is done, or it is 7:30 at night--whichever comes first. For fun, they travel to visit their families in Hookset, Concord, Westfield and Washington, DC, as well as vacationing in Maine and Rhode Island. They visit museums, see plays and attend concerts, including an annual trip to Tanglewood.

Of all the many things that the Gerstens are--parents, grandparents, local business owners, community supporters, sports fans, friends, and so much more--the role that is most admired by those that know them is that of the foundation for a family who has followed their example and grown, with love, to improve their own lives and the lives of those around them. Their love for each other has become a benchmark that every person who knows them strives to reach, with the hope that one day we can all be as happy and deserving as they are in their lives, today and for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, in crafting Social Security legislation, we must offer workers the ability to own a portion of their retirement through personal accounts.

President Roosevelt, the author of Social Security, was the first to suggest that, in order to provide for the country's retirement needs, Social Security would need to be supplemented by personal savings accounts. Personal accounts would allow workers to set aside part of their payroll taxes in a nest egg that the government cannot take away and that can be passed on to children and grandchildren.

As Americans, we can choose where we work and live, what we drive, which insurance plan is best for us, so why can we not give workers a choice when it comes to their retirement?

President Bush has said, ``If you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country.''

Americans take pride in what they own. Establishing personal accounts within Social Security is an important part of encouraging an ownership society.

Mr. Speaker, we must stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize Viagra for sex offenders. It was recently revealed that almost 800 convicted sex offenders in 14 States have received Medicaid funded Viagra and other similar drugs. This practice is a disgusting abuse of taxpayer dollars and must be stopped now.

On today's calendar, an amendment in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to reimburse sex offenders for Viagra and similar drugs. This amendment does not just address Medicaid but it also prevents Medicare and any other public health service from reimbursing convicted sex offenders for these types of drugs. It is the responsibility of Congress to take action to close this loophole immediately which we in the House shall do today.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to discuss an amendment which I introduced and which was adopted by the Committee on Appropriations to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bill. The Committee on Appropriations adopted my amendment, which blocks convicted sex offenders from receiving federally funded medication such as Viagra and other similar medication.

As the chairman may know, more than 800 sex offenders in 14 States have been reimbursed for Viagra and similar medication. The sex offenders being tracked for these statistics are level three sex offenders, which are the most threatening and dangerous of all convicted sex offenders.

The amendment, already incorporated in the bill before us, will prohibit any Federal funds under this act to be used for reimbursement to convicted sex offenders for Viagra or similar medication. Since this is an appropriations bill, it means that the effect of these provisions will last only for 1 year. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) on the Committee on Ways and Means on legislation to stop this practice quickly and permanently.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank both these gentlemen and commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the author of the permanent legislation, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the primary committee with jurisdiction over this. This definitely needs to be made permanent. This is really just an interim step until that legislation can move.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.