Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, trademark law is relevant to the life of every consumer in America. Trademarks give consumers assurance that the goods or services they are buying are the product that the trademark represents.

If a customer has purchased items in the past from a specific company that bears a specific mark or logo, the customer has an impression of that company and the goods or services it produces. So trademark law empowers consumers by giving them information that is often critical to their purchasing decisions.

Dilution alters the public perception of a trademarked product or service by diminishing its uniqueness over time. The idea of protecting famous trademarks from dilution surfaced in the

1920s. Since then, roughly half of the States have enacted dilution statutes, and Congress passed the Federal Trade Dilution Act nearly a decade ago.

As Chairman Sensenbrenner noted, the Federal dilution statute is being amended for two main reasons: first, a 2003 Supreme Court decision involving Victoria's Secret ruled that the standard of harm in dilution cases is actual harm. Based on testimony taken at our two hearings, this is contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the dilution statute and is at odds with the concept itself of dilution. Diluting needs to be stopped at the outset. Once it occurs, the goodwill of a mark cannot be restored.

Second, the regional circuits have split as to the meaning of what constitutes a ``famous'' mark, ``distinctiveness,'' ``blurring,'' and ``tarnishment.'' This bill more clearly defines these terms. This will clarify rights and eliminate unnecessary litigation, an outcome that especially benefits smaller businesses that cannot afford to have a misunderstanding of what is permissible under the Federal dilution statute.

Finally, amendments developed by the subcommittee and the other body will more clearly protect traditional first amendment uses, such as parody and criticism. These amendments provide balance to the law by strengthening traditional fair-use defenses.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 683 clarifies a muddied legal landscape and enables the Federal Trademark Dilution Act to operate as Congress intended.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act of 2006, will fix a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has inadvertently put us in danger.

The bill allows the Federal Government to detain illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes for 6-month periods beyond their incarceration, as long as at the end of each 6-month period the detention is renewed by the Department of Justice.

Current law states that if a convicted illegal immigrant is ordered deported, but can't be deported because their home country refuses to take them back, the U.S. Government can only detain them for a 6-month period.

After that, the Government is forced to release the criminal immigrant knowing they may be a danger to the community.

We have a responsibility to make sure the laws of this land protect Americans rather than endanger them.

Under this bill convicted illegal immigrants will be detained until arrangements can be made to have them deported.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.

It's important to Americans that local law enforcement officials are doing everything possible to arrest and prosecute criminals.

And it's important that law enforcement officials know under exactly what circumstances they can lawfully arrest or detain a suspected criminal.

Take for instance the situation in which a police officer has reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and finds out that individual is in the United States in violation of our immigration laws. It's contrary to common sense that the police officer would not be able to arrest that person simply because immigration is a Federal responsibility. But this is the argument of those who oppose this bill.

H.R. 6095 affirms the authority of State and local law enforcement officials to investigate, apprehend, and arrest illegal immigrants.

Several Federal Courts of Appeals, including the Tenth and Fifth Circuits, have agreed that State and local law enforcement officials have the authority to do so.

Unfortunately, opponents of this legislation believe that if a police officer comes in contact with a suspected criminal who has violated immigration law, they should simply let the person go.

This situation was addressed in the 1996 immigration legislation that I authored. Because of that law, the Immigration and Nationality Act contains section 287(g), which allows the Attorney General to enter into written agreements with States and localities to set out provisions under which State and local law enforcement officers can help enforce Federal immigration laws.

But the law does not mean that just because there is no such written agreement, the police don't have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants.

Law enforcement officers should arrest anyone who breaks the law. This bill is necessary to settle the debate once and for all.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, H.R. 6095. It will not protect United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on H.R. 6095 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis, we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed.

H.R. 6095 presents a sense of Congress that the Attorney General should adopt, not later than three months after the date of the enactment, uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses to be followed by each United States attorney in the United States. It also requires the hiring of additional personnel for prosecuting alien smuggling cases. For each year from FY2008 through FY2013, subject to the availability of appropriations, the Justice Department would be required to increase by not less than 20 the number of attorneys in the offices of United States attorneys employed to prosecute alien smuggling cases.

I find nothing objectionable about these provisions, but I do not believe that they will substantially improve our ability to deal with the alien smuggling problem. It would be more productive to consider an alien smuggling bill that I introduced a few years ago, the Commercial Alien Smuggling Elimination Act of 2003, the CASE Act. It would establish a three-point program that was drafted with assistance from government officials who are involved in the investigation, disruption, and prosecution of commercial alien smugglers.

H.R. 6095 would give State and local police officers the authority to enforce civil immigration laws. I do not want local police forces to enforce immigration law. Immigration violations are different from the typical criminal offenses that police officers normally face. The typical law enforcement activities of local police officers involve crimes such as murders, assaults, narcotics, robberies, burglaries, domestic violence, and traffic violations. It would require extensive training to prepare them to enforce civil immigration provisions.

If police act as immigration agents, undocumented immigrants are likely to be afraid to contact the police when a crime has been committed. If they as victims, witnesses, or concerned residents contact the police, they or their family members could risk deportation. Experience shows that this fear would extend not only to contact with local police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, and the public school system.

H.R. 6095 also would undermine local police's role in enhancing national security. National security experts and State and local law enforcement officers agree that good intelligence and strong community relationships are the keys to keeping our Nation and our streets safe. Undocumented immigrants who might otherwise be helpful to security investigators would be reluctant to come forward for fear of immigration consequences.

H.R. 6095 has an ``Ending Catch and Release Act of 2006,'' title, but the provisions under that title deal with injunctions in federal immigration litigation. ``Catch and release'' is a reference to the practice of apprehending aliens in the vicinity of the border and then releasing them pending removal proceedings. Apparently, the connection is the permanent injunction in Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzalez, No. 82- 1107KN (C.D.Cal. 1982). Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has claimed that the Orantes injunction interferes with efforts to end the catch and release practice.

I am not aware of any provision in the Orantes injunction that would interfere with efforts to end the catch and release practice. In issuing the injunction, the court found that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had engaged in a pattern and practice of coercing and otherwise improperly encouraging Salvadorans to waive their rights to a deportation hearing and to seek asylum as a defense to deportation.

H.R. 6095 appears to be an attempt to terminate the Orantes injunction through legislation, but its reach goes beyond the injunction. Among other things, a judge would not be permitted to provide relief in any immigration case without attaching a written explanation of the impact the relief would have on national security, border security, immigration administration and enforcement, and public safety. It also would impose arbitrary, unreasonable time limits on courts attempting to provide prospective relief.

DHS has filed a motion to dissolve the injunction. Wilfredo v. Gonzales, No. CV 82-1107MM (C.D.Cal. 2005).

I urge you to vote against the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.

August 14, 2006.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security, Sub-Committee on Immigration,

Washington, DC.

Dear Sub-Committee Members: I am writing to respond to your

invitation to testify before your sub-committee hearing on

Wednesday, August 16th, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the Civil

Courthouse 201 Caroline St., Houston Texas. First let me say

as Chief of the Houston Police Department (HPD) and also as

President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC) that I

appreciate and wish to thank you for the honor and privilege

of putting into the official congressional record Law

Enforcement's comments and concerns on Immigration prior to

the full enactment of any legislation on this important

subject. I will be submitting as an attachment to my

testimony today the MCC's Immigration Committee

Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local

Police Agencies (chaired by my Deputy Director Craig E.

Ferrell, Jr.), which were adopted on June 7th by the MCC for

inclusion in the official congressional record. I also have

additional attachments for the sub-committee members, but due

to their length I have been told they can not be part of the

written record.

Let me begin by giving my reaction to a recent federal

legislative amendment aimed at eliminating federal law

enforcement funding to local police. In short, both myself

and chiefs of major cities across the country are dismayed by

any legislative action aimed at excluding the City of Houston

and/or other local jurisdictions from receiving needed

federal law enforcement funds. These funds are needed to put

more officers on the streets of Houston, protect our

neighborhoods, investigate and prevent murders, rapes,

assaults, robberies, burglaries, and provide for homeland

security efforts. It seems clear that some in Congress and

the public fervently believe local police should become

involved in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. Given

these strong beliefs, we are left to wonder why the recent

legislative amendments were not written to provide increased

federal funding to local police to support such enforcement.

Instead the amendments have sought to eliminate funding and

penalize not only the City of Houston, but also Harris

County, and other local and national jurisdictions, which

will be negatively effected by this amendment. The end result

of any law enforcement funding exclusion amendment, if it is

applied to Houston and

other communities like Houston would be to make our local

communities less safe. In other words these amendments would

have the opposite effect of their purported purpose.

Illegal immigration is being hotly debated in Congress and

in our local communities. Opinions on how to address this

complex issue differ greatly and emotions run high. Extremes

exist on either side of the debate as represented by the

recent mass demonstrations by immigrant groups and their

supporters and the funding exclusion amendment and the

referendum effort of the group Protect Our Citizens in

Houston. Both myself and chiefs of police in MCC representing

first responders to over fifty (50) million residents

respectfully disagree with any effort to eliminate federal

law enforcement funding and in effort to create an unfunded

mandate. Illegal immigration is an issue that effects our

nation as a whole and any solution should begin first at the

federal level with securing the borders and increasing

enforcement by federal agencies.

Local enforcement of immigration laws raises complex legal,

logistical and resource issues for local communities and

their police agencies. The City of Houston's policies and

those of most major cities across America reflect the

challenges and realities faced by a City and police agency

that is responsible for protecting and serving a diverse

community comprised of citizens, non-citizens, legal

residents, visitors and undocumented immigrants. The City's

policies seek to best protect and serve this diverse

community as a whole, while taking into account: the reality

that the City does not have unlimited resources; its officers

are prohibited by state law from racial profiling and

arresting persons without warrants and without well

established probable cause; is subject to civil liability for

violating such laws; and has the clear need to foster

assistance and cooperation from the public including those

persons who may be undocumented immigrants. In an effort to

clarify the City's reasoned and model approach to this issue

I have provided the following statements regarding the City's

policy and why we oppose the positions represented by the

federal fund exclusion amendment and Protect Our Citizens'

referendum.

City does not have a sanctuary policy

Currently, the police department is operating under General

Order 500-5 [See attached Exhibit 1]. General Order 500-5 was

implemented in 1992 by then Chief Nuchia, who is currently

serving as a Justice in the Texas Judiciary's First Court of

Appeals. The General Order includes the following provisions:

Houston police officers may not stop or apprehend

individuals solely on the belief that they are in this

country illegally.

Officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship

status of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest

persons solely on the belief that they are in the country

illegally.

Officers will contact the [Federal Immigration Authorities]

regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a

separate criminal charge (other than Class C misdemeanor) and

the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.''

The department has issued clarifications of our

``immigration'' policies and implemented changes to the

department's enforcement policies to increase cooperation

between the department and federal agencies on immigration

matters that are criminal in nature. [Exhibit 2] In the

summer of 2005, I directed Executive Assistant Chief Thaler,

Assistant Chief Perales and Deputy Director/General Counsel

Craig Ferrell to meet jointly with representatives of the

U.S. Attorney's office and I.C.E. to discuss the department's

response to immigration detainers. Based on those

discussions, the department developed procedures to accept

and act upon criminal immigration detainers issued by I.C.E.

The police department further clarified that our officers are

allowed to take into custody any person who the federal

authorities state is a criminal suspect and for whom they

will authorize detention directly into a federal detention

facility. In addition, whenever the department has a person

in custody on other criminal charges, the department will not

release the person from custody for up to 24 hours after we

have received formal notice from federal authorities that

they are wanted for criminal violations.

The City is committed to assisting I.C.E and any other

federal agency wherever possible and reasonable to enforce

against criminal violations and address criminal matters. The

Houston Police Department has always acted to enforce laws

relative to criminal violations and criminal matters,

accepted criminal warrants and criminal detainers and

assisted in criminal investigations, regardless of whether

they emanated from other jurisdictions or arose out of

federal or state laws. Our officers are currently involved in

various federal task forces addressing criminal matters

including violent criminal gangs. Because we have and will

continue to enforce laws relative to criminal violations

against any and all persons, regardless of their immigration

status, the department and thus the City does not have a

``sanctuary policy'' as opponents of our policies have

alleged. This is not only the City's or the police

department's opinion but also that of Robert Rutt the Deputy

Special Agent in Charge for Immigration and Customs

Enforcement [I.C.E]. In a recent Houston Chronicle article he

stated that ``Houston is not a sanctuary City . . .'' In the

same article he further acknowledged the police department's

significant cooperation with I.C.E. [Exhibit 3]

Concerns with local enforcement of federal immigration law

Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many

daunting and complex legal, logistical and resource issues

for the City of Houston and the diverse community it serves.

Like other jurisdictions our policy in this area must

recognize the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers and negative

consequences to local policing that would be caused by

immigration enforcement at the local level.

* * * * *

were detained by the police were later determined to be

either citizens or legal immigrants with permission to be in

the country. The Katy police department faced suits from

these individuals and eventually settled their claims out of

court.

Because local police officers currently lack clear

authority to enforce immigration laws, are limited in their

ability to arrest without a warrant, are prohibited from

racial profiling and lack the training and experience to

enforce complex federal immigration laws, it is more likely

the City/police department will face the risk of civil

liability and litigation if we actively enforced federal

immigration laws.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and appreciate Chairman King's leadership on this issue.

There is perhaps no more important issue than national security. And border security is national security.

So I am pleased that the House Leadership has chosen to bring this bill to a vote. And because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol say they want to secure the borders, I am hopeful this bill will soon be signed by the President.

The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to prevent illegal entry into the United States within 18 months of enactment by using technological and physical infrastructures. Many of us have been calling for this for years.

In fact, another provision of H.R. 6061 builds on a concept included in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which I authored as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. In that bill we required fencing to be built near San Diego, California, because of the large number of illegal border crossings.

That fencing was built and it was effective--the number of illegal immigrants crossing in that area fell drastically.

And now illegal immigrants cross the border in places with no barriers or that have only vehicle barriers that are easy to climb.

Over one million people were apprehended crossing the border illegally last year; millions of others crossed illegally but were not apprehended. It is clear that Congress and the Administration need to do everything possible to secure the border.

Anything less leaves our country more vulnerable to terrorist attack and leaves our citizens and legal immigrants paying the welfare, education, healthcare and other costs associated with illegal immigration.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution to reform the earmark process in Congress.

Not all spending requests are bad. Many of them fund legitimate public projects.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and Members of Congress are often in a better position to determine the priorities of their districts than government employees in Washington.

However, the often secret process that has been used in recent years to fund earmarks has led to wasteful and unnecessary spending.

The earmark process needs more sunshine on it, and this new rule provides for that.

This bill will bring greater transparency to the legislative process, ensuring that Members of Congress are held accountable for their requests.

By requiring a list of earmarks and their sponsors to accompany every bill and conference report considered by the House we will deter wrongful behavior and give the public a better view of what their elected officials are doing in Washington.

Full disclosure will enable our constituents to decide whether spending requests are justified and whether they serve the public interest.

I have long advocated for this important reform and I am glad the House is acting on it.

Republicans in the House have a strong record of implementing ethics reform. This rule change governing earmarks represents a great improvement over the current system and is another example of our party's leadership on ethics reform.

At this time, I request unanimous consent to place in the Record an op-ed I wrote on the subject.

I am hopeful that we will continue to implement additional reforms, including greater public disclosure of lobbying activities, and continue to uphold the integrity of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this resolution has been brought to the floor and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives has an opportunity to support the U.S. intellectual property industries by approving the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

The agreement is supported by both the International Intellectual Property Association, which is comprised of seven copyright-based trade associations representing over 1,900 different companies, and the Information Technology Industry Council, representing 35 leading high- tech industries, because it will raise the level of intellectual property protection in Oman in a number of ways.

The agreement implements the WIPO Internet Treaties, which provide standards for digital copyrighted material; it protects copyrighted works for extended terms, including 95 years for sound recordings and performances; and it ensures that copyright owners will have the exclusive right to make their works available online.

The agreement will also strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights in Oman by including agreed upon criminal standards for copyright infringement with stronger remedies and penalties and by criminalizing end user piracy. These provisions will provide a strong deterrence against piracy and counterfeiting.

Finally, Oman has committed to zero tariffs on all software, movies, music, consumer products, books and magazines exported into the country and to zero tariffs on technology products used to access the Internet.

I urge my colleagues to support this important sector of the U.S. economy and vote in favor of the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. It protects families and upholds the rule of law.

Any gambling not currently regulated by the states is illegal in this country. To avoid such regulation, gambling organizations have established themselves offshore and have put their businesses on the World Wide Web.

And the Internet has given anyone who knows how to use a computer-- including children--access to unlimited gambling.

Unfortunately, illegal gambling businesses are rarely prosecuted. These 24-hour-a-day businesses entice children and adults and can lead to addiction, criminal behavior, financial troubles, and worse.

What these Internet sites do impacts every American. Also, officials from the FBI recently testified that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities by terrorists.

The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act simply updates current law to make sure that all methods of gambling, even those done using the latest and ever-changing technologies, are covered under the established law known as the Wire Act.

The bill does this while at the same time ensuring that a State has the right to regulate gambling that happens solely within that State's borders.

And H.R. 4411 marginalizes organized gambling by banning those businesses from taking checks, wire transfers, and credit cards in payment for illegal gambling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Leach for offering this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Ninety-Nines, Inc. the International Organization of Women Pilots, which was founded by Amelia Earhart in 1929, is holding their International Conference in Washington, DC, July 5 through July 9, 2006.

Many of their members served as WASPS during World War II, ferrying airplanes throughout the United States and Europe. Today, their members are commercial airline pilots for major airlines, general aviation pilots and pilots in the Armed Forces serving all over the world.

The Ninety-Nines mission in the fields of aviation and aerospace is primarily educational and charitable. They have sponsored aerospace workshops for teachers, airport tours for school children, fear-of- flying clinics for airline passengers and flight revalidation seminars.

More than 75 percent of the Federal Aviation Administration pilot safety programs in the United States are sponsored by the Ninety-Nines.

Their visit to Washington during the Fourth of July is a special celebration and will allow them to honor women in aviation in this very special city that speaks to the heart of each of their members.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this global war on terror resolution. The war on terror is being fought on two fronts, both abroad and here at home. We applaud the diplomatic and military achievements overseas, but we also need to remain vigilant here in our own country.

Until the terrorists are defeated, Americans will continue to be their targets as long as we stand for freedom and democracy.

One of our weapons in the war on terror is the USA PATRIOT Act. That bill, which originated in the Judiciary Committee, gives law enforcement officials and intelligence officials the ability to cooperate during investigations.

More than 250 people in the United States have been charged with crimes tied to international terrorist investigations and have been convicted or have pled guilty because of the USA PATRIOT Act.

In response to the events of September 11, 2001, we also passed legislation that created a Director of National Intelligence so that all of our intelligence capabilities would be coordinated by one official.

We passed the REAL ID Act which contains several antiterrorism provisions, including one that makes certain foreign nationals deportable because of their ties to terrorism.

We must continue to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for terrorists to enter the United States. That means enacting meaningful border security legislation like the bill that the House passed last December.

Those who would do us harm, Mr. Speaker, respect no borders. Potential terrorists and thousands of others continue to enter our country illegally every day.

In America, we are blessed to have the freedom that others only dream about, but freedom is never free. It must be nurtured and protected, sometimes at great cost in lives; but we will not surrender to terrorists. That only empowers them. We will fight them today so we can enjoy a better tomorrow. Any other course only resigns us to an uncertain future.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the brave men and women of the 21st Congressional District of Texas who are fighting this war overseas. The most difficult action I have ever taken as an elected official is to call the families of the 14 servicemembers from my district who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families' patriotism and love of country is almost indescribable. Their faith is great because they know our cause is great.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this resolution has been brought to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the ``Solar Utilization Now (SUN) Demonstration Act of 2006.''

The ``SUN Act'' encourages state governments and private industry to team up to apply for federal grants. This will enable them to buy solar energy panels at nearly half the cost.

This bill is good for our energy security, national security and environmental security.

The answer to much of our energy needs comes up every morning. Solar power is clean, plentiful and has zero emissions and zero waste.

All states are eligible to participate and are required to contribute at least 10 percent of the funding. The federal government matches the grant at a maximum of 40 percent. The rest of the money comes from utilities or private industry.

Congress has a responsibility to help promote this new technology and I am pleased that this bill already has significant bipartisan support.

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.

The Internet has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, in large part, because the government has not tried to regulate its growth. I sympathize with the concerns of those who want to regulate the Internet, but we do not want to destroy the wonderful tool the Internet has become in order to save it. Frankly, I do not think we have the ability to perceive how the Internet will grow or to direct that growth.

I am more comfortable leaving these matters to the antitrust courts and the FCC to decide on a case-by-case basis in the context of specific factual situations, and that is what this amendment would do. It is a simple antitrust savings clause. It makes clear that the language in the bill that gives the FCC exclusive jurisdiction of network neutrality complaints does not displace the antitrust laws or the jurisdiction of the courts to hear antitrust cases in this area. These cases would be heard under existing antitrust standards.

Look at what the Internet was 10 years ago and look at what it is now. It would not be anything like what it is today if we had tried to regulate it then. The courts and the FCC are sometimes slow, but they are much better equipped to work through the complicated fact situations that these issues present. We can always come back and legislate in the future if they fail in their task.

This amendment makes sure that broadband service providers are subject to antitrust lawsuits. In my experience, most people would consider that to be a pretty heavy burden. If those broadband service providers lose such a suit, they are subject to the whole range of antitrust remedies, including treble damages, injunctions, and attorneys' fees. The people who are for the various provisions designed to ensure network neutrality are the same people who usually push these kinds of antitrust remedies.

Some will argue you should skip over this amendment and vote for the Markey amendment. It is true that the Markey amendment includes an antitrust savings clause, and I appreciate Mr. Markey's desire to keep the Judiciary Committee involved in this area. The problem with his amendment is that it is a package deal. Not only do you get an antitrust savings clause, you also get to impose his vision of how he and the government would regulate the Internet. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, anyone is qualified to dictate how the government should control the Internet. The Internet has done pretty well on its own without any interference from any of us.

So the choice is this: Do we let the Internet grow on its own, as it has for the last 10 years; or do we tie its future to government regulation? To me, that is an easy choice, and that is why I offer this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the Markey amendment.

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

If my friend will yield, the answer is yes, that is correct.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say again that I sympathize with the concerns of those who would oppose this amendment. I want a vibrant Internet just like they do. Our disagreement is over how best to achieve that. I say let entrepreneurs develop it freely. They say let the government dictate it. It is an honest difference of opinion, but I think we have a 10-year track record and the entrepreneurs have got us to where we are today.

My amendment deals only with antitrust, so I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet. Vote for the Smith amendment and against the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006, H.R. 5538. This bill will help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil by promoting plug-in vehicles and advancing new vehicle technologies. It also establishes a partnership between private and public entities to focus on electric drive technology.

Americans are concerned about high gas prices, our dependence on foreign oil, and global warming. These cars have the potential to alleviate all three problems. The Federal Government needs to ensure that the research and development of alternative energy vehicles continues. Congress has a responsibility to help promote this new technology, and I am pleased that this bill already has significant bipartisan support.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act is being considered today.

Accountability and transparency with respect to the lobbying profession is necessary to ensure public confidence in how Members and staff of this House interact with the outside world.

And I further believe that this legislation will help brighten the lines for Members and staff in terms of what is permissible behavior and what is not.

Consistent with this need to have such bright line, I want to make certain that some of the language in the bill is understood to mean what it says and nothing more.

Under Section 105(7), lobbyists would be required to disclose ``the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed by the registrant or an employee listed as a lobbyist by the registrant under paragraph (2)(C); (A) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a covered legislative branch official, or to a person or entity in recognition of such official; or (B) to an entity established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a covered legislative official.''

Members have a longstanding history, and one that I respect, of raising money for and being otherwise involved with charitable organizations.

This provision would apply to charities when such charity is named for a covered legislative branch official, or when a charity recognizes a covered legislative official.

It would also apply to a charity that is established, financed, maintained or controlled by a covered legislative official. It would not apply in any other circumstance.

It would not apply, for instance, when the spouse of a Member engages in such activity independent of his or her spouse's official position.

Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation.

The Republican record is long, and it is strong on the issue of lobbying reform.

Republicans have delivered on ethics reform time and time again.

In 1989, we enacted a Bush Administration proposal that included numerous ethics reforms.

We cleaned up the House banking and post office scandals.

When we became the majority in 1995, we instituted more reforms, including the first significant lobbying disclosure bill.

And remember it is a Republican Justice Department that is prosecuting the cases that have led to this legislation.

This reform package represents a great improvement over the current system.

It will deter wrongful behavior by giving the public a better view of what their elected officials are doing in Washington.

These reforms will shine a light on Congress by making lobbying disclosure reports more frequent, accurate and accessible to the public.

This legislation is a welcome change in the rules governing lobbying and ethics.

I thank Chairman Dreier and the Congressional leadership for their worthwhile efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation.

We all know that port security has been news across the United States in recent weeks, and it should be.

The U.S. ports are on the front lines of homeland security. My home state of Texas has several major seaports, including Galveston, Brownsville and Houston, that offer potential routes for dangerous cargo and terrorist weapons.

This bill, the SAFE Ports Act of 2005, will help ensure that Americans feel confident that the U.S. Government is protecting them from yet another threat.

It does so by imposing security requirements on overseas shippers and ports where cargo starts its journey to the United States, on cargo transportation while enroute to the United States, and at the ports within the United States--the last staging area before cargo makes its way into the country.

Also, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to employ standards for sealing all containers entering the Unites States within two years of enactment. It also requires the Secretary to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems at 22 U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal year 2007.

These are good ways to ensure port security, and there are many more included in the bill.

I thank Chairman King of Iowa, Chairman Daniel E. Lungren of California, and ranking member Harman for their work on much-needed legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the Rule.

Madam Speaker, since I introduced this legislation, I rise in strong support of the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006, the TRAPP Act. And I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and continuing support of this bicameral and bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, few things are more personal and potentially more revealing than our telephone records. Who we call can reveal much about our business and personal lives, including intimate details about one's medical or financial condition. Calling records can even be used to identify a caller's location. In some cases the unauthorized release of personal information like a phone record can lead to a tragic result.

Unfortunately, existing Federal statutes that could be used to target data thieves are inadequate. These statutes have clearly not deterred data burglars from treating confidential phone record information as a commodity to be bought and sold over the Internet without the consent of consumers, sometimes for as little as $100.

The underlying bill targets companies and individuals who traffic in fraudulently obtained confidential phone records and provides new protections for the privacy of calling logs themselves. It establishes a new section, 1039, in title 18 of the United States Code, that will provide explicit penalties for those who use fraud to obtain confidential phone records.

Madam Speaker, the bill imposes a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $500,000 on any person who, in interstate commerce, sells, transfers, purchases or receives confidential phone records of a telephone company without the prior consent of the consumer.

The bill includes enhanced penalties for cases where the information is used in furtherance of crimes of domestic violence or a threat to law enforcement officials or their families.

We need to pass this bill to demonstrate that we take seriously the obligation to protect the confidentiality of consumer telephone records and to make clear to data thieves that their conduct will result in a felony conviction.

This legislation supports crime victims, prosecutors, and companies and individuals who have been the targets of this fraud. A companion measure is expected to be introduced soon in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, since I introduced this legislation, I rise in strong support of the ``Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006 (the TRAPP Act).''

And I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and continuing support of this bicameral and bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, few things are more personal and potentially more revealing than our phone records.

Who we call can reveal much about our business and personal lives, including intimate details about one's medical or financial condition.

Calling records can even be used to identify a caller's location.

In some cases, the unauthorized release of personal information like a phone record can lead to a tragic result.

Unfortunately, existing Federal statutes that could be used to target data thieves are inadequate.

These statutes have clearly not deterred data burglars from treating confidential phone records information as a commodity, to be bought and sold on the Internet, without the consent of consumers, for about $100.

The underlying bill targets companies and individuals who traffic in fraudulently obtained confidential phone records and provides new protections for the privacy of calling logs.

It establishes a new section 1039 in Title 18 of the United States Code that will provide explicit penalties for those who use fraud to obtain confidential phone records.

The bill imposes a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $500,000 on any person who in interstate commerce sells, transfers, purchases or receives confidential phone records of a telephone company without the prior consent of the customer.

The bill includes enhanced penalties for cases where the information is used in furtherance of crimes of domestic violence or threat to law enforcement officers or their families.

We need to pass this bill to demonstrate that we take seriously the obligation to protect the confidentiality of consumer telephone records and to make clear to data thieves that their conduct will result in a felony conviction.

This legislation supports crime victims, prosecutors, and companies and individuals who have been the targets of this fraud.

A companion measure is expected to be introduced soon in the Senate.