Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 137 is a bipartisan effort by the Judiciary Committee, led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) as the chief sponsor and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) as the lead Democratic sponsor. Both have worked long and hard on this issue. I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Forbes for their leadership and support in moving this matter forward, and also the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Coble, who is with us today.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 addresses the growing problem of staged animal fighting in this country. It increases the penalties under the current Federal law for transporting animals in interstate commerce for the purpose of fighting and for interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting.

Specifically, H.R. 137 makes violations of the law a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Currently, these offenses are limited to misdemeanor treatment with the possibility of a fine and up to 1 year of imprisonment. Most States make all staged animal fighting illegal. Just one State currently allows cockfighting to occur legally.

The transport of game birds for the purpose of animal fighting and the implements of cockfighting are already prohibited by Federal law, though the current law only allows, as I have indicated, the misdemeanor treatment. In 1976 Congress amended title 7, U.S. Code, section 2156, the Animal Welfare Act, to make it illegal to knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive a dog or other animal in interstate or foreign commerce for the purposes of participation in an animal fighting venture or knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in a fighting venture if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act contained a loophole, however, that allowed shipments of birds across State lines for fighting purposes if the destination State allowed cockfighting.

While Congress did amend section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act to close this

loophole in 2002, the penalty section and other provisions of the act have not been updated since their original enactment in 1976. This bill is designed to address those shortfalls to more effectively cover modern problems associated with animal fighting ventures.

As I have already mentioned, the legislation increases current penalties to provide a meaningful deterrent. One of the primary reasons for enacting the increased penalties under title 18 is the reluctance of U.S. Attorneys to pursue animal fighting cases under the current misdemeanor provisions because they view the penalties as ineffective against an animal fighting industry, which has continued unabated nationwide.

H.R. 137 further makes it a felony to transport cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These implements take the form of razor-sharp knives, known as slashers; or gaffs, instruments shaped in the form of curved ice picks that are attached to birds' legs for fighting. Proponents of these implements within the game fowl community apparently contend that they inflict cleaner wounds upon the birds which are then quicker and easier to heal.

Since penalties against animal fighting were codified in 1976, Federal authorities have pursued less than half a dozen animal fighting cases, despite the fact that the USDA has received numerous tips from informants and requests to assist with State and local prosecutions.

In addition, despite the fact that all 50 States have banned dog fighting and all but one State has banned cockfighting, the animal fighting industry continues to thrive within the United States. Numerous nationally circulated animal fighting magazines advertise fighting animals, and paid lobbyists continue to advocate for animal fighters' interests. Thankfully, H.R. 137 will seek to bring an end to these practices.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill affects matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and the Judiciary Committee. Both committees have worked closely together to ensure that all matters are dealt with appropriately. We appreciate their assistance in bringing this bill expeditiously to the floor, and I will insert into the Congressional Record at this point an exchange of letters between Chairman Peterson of the Agriculture Committee and Chairman Conyers of Judiciary.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.

Hon. Collin C. Peterson,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter

regarding the Agriculture Committee's jurisdictional interest

in H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement

Act of 2007,'' which the Committee on the Judiciary reported

by voice vote. As ordered reported, the bill establishes

criminal penalties for violations of Federal prohibitions on

animal fighting.

I appreciate your willingness to discharge the bill from

further consideration by your Committee, in order to expedite

its floor consideration. I understand and agree that this is

without prejudice to your Committee's jurisdictional

interests in this or similar legislation in the future. In

the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar

legislation is convened, I would support your request for an

appropriate number of conferees.

I will include a copy of your letter and this response as

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the

legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your

cooperation as we work towards enactment of H.R. 137.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the lead Democratic sponsor of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan legislation. We have listened to all of the people who have worked long and hard on this legislation. I hope it will be the pleasure of the House to pass the bill.

Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the PHONE Act is a strong bill that has gained bipartisan support. Members on both sides of the aisle have agreed that we need urgent reforms to protect privacy rights and to crack down on identity theft. With over 10 million Americans affected by some form of identity theft each year, we need to tackle this issue at every possible level.

Spoofing is one form of identity theft in which criminals coax victims into giving up their most sensitive personal information by making it appear that a call is coming from a legitimate institution such as a bank. Misleading caller ID information also allows a spoofer to cause a victim to accept a call they otherwise might have avoided, leading to harassment and further privacy intrusions. Advances in technology such as Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol have made caller ID spoofing easy and readily available.

H.R. 740 includes a number of important provisions to fight spoofing. The legislation creates a new Federal crime to prohibit using or providing false caller ID information with the intent to wrongfully obtain something of value. The section also prohibits using or providing the caller ID for information of an actual person without his or her consent and with the intent to deceive the recipient. It correctly targets spoofing done to perpetuate financial fraud, and reserves harsh punishment for such crimes, including felony penalties of up to 5 years in prison.

In addition, the bill significantly improves the tools available to law enforcement to fight noncommercial spoofing while preserving the legitimate uses of the technology. For example, women's shelters may use misleading caller ID numbers, and many businesses do if they are calling from one of many lines. They may want the caller ID information to just reflect the main line. The bill does not infringe on these instances because the caller would not possess the requisite intent to defraud or deceive.

Finally, the bill is narrowly tailored to permit caller ID blocking in which one prevents one's number from being known at all. Caller ID blocking is not used to mislead because a person knows he is not getting any number and it has been a standard telephone device for many years.

In sum, the PHONE Act will deter telephone fraud, protect consumers from harassment, and will enhance protection of sensitive personal information.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this started as bipartisan legislation and has continued. The information was brought to us when the chief Republican counsel on the committee, Phil Kiko, received such harassment because his number had been used by somebody else making annoying calls. He got called back because his number was appearing as the caller ID.

Mr. Murphy introduced the bill last year and we have worked to improve the bill and have made significant improvements since last year. Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Ranking Member Forbes, we all worked very closely together to make sure that we could have the best product possible. I urge my colleagues to join together and pass the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 182) commending and congratulating Virginia State University on the occasion of its 125th anniversary, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 182 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 182 is a resolution commending and congratulating Virginia State University on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. H. Res. 182 was introduced by my colleague from Virginia from the Fourth Congressional District of Virginia, Mr. Forbes.

Virginia State University was founded on March 6, 1882, as the Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute, making it the first fully State-supported 4-year institution of higher learning for African Americans. Today, it is one of Virginia's two land-grant institutions.

The first president of Virginia State University was John Mercer Langston who upon his election to Congress in 1890 was the first African American elected to Congress and, until my election in 1992, had been the only African American elected from Virginia.

In 1935, Virginia State University founded a 2-year satellite school at Norfolk, Virginia. That school today is known as Norfolk State University.

Today, Virginia State has an enrollment of nearly 5,000 students who live and learn on a 236-acre main campus overlooking the Appomattox River in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The school also has a 416-acre agricultural research facility.

The University's academic programs include the ``Bridges to Baccalaureate'' program for students transferring from 2-year colleges who want to major in science, as well as the Honda Campus All-Star Challenge and the Ronald E. McNair Scholars Program for students planning to pursue doctoral degrees.

Virginia State has helped set the standard for minority-serving institutions in Virginia and across the Nation by providing quality higher education opportunities for 125 years.

My family has a proud Trojan tradition. My mother attended Virginia State, my older brother is a graduate of Virginia State, and I am honored to have an honorary degree from Virginia State.

So I congratulate Virginia State University on its 125th anniversary and wish them another successful 125 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, 125 years ago, Virginia State University was founded. I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for his leadership in introducing this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before we respond to the President's call for an additional 20,000 troops in Iraq, we must put his call in the context of the history of the war, beginning with the discussion of what the current 130,000 troops are doing there now.

The original reasons we were provided with the rationale for going to war, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraqi leaders were connected with the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, all turned out not to be true. Saddam Hussein was captured and recently hanged, al-Zarqawi is dead, and Iraq held democratic elections over a year ago, and yet we are still in Iraq.

Throughout the war, the President has attempted to associate our presence in Iraq with a so-called war on terrorism. The truth is that our presence in Iraq has actually increased our risk to terrorism.

Furthermore, the term ``war on terrorism'' is a rhetorical term without any relationship to reality. Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. The enemy is al Qaeda. We attacked Afghanistan because al Qaeda was there, not in Iraq.

The President is now saying he is laying out a new mission in Iraq, thereby clearly acknowledging that, whatever the old mission was, it was not working. But there is still no clearly defined end goal and no clearly defined explanation of how failure or success can be measured.

If our mission now is to stabilize Baghdad, many military experts have already said that an additional force of 20,000 troops is woefully insufficient to

accomplish that goal. The fact is that the administration has already increased troop levels on several occasions during this war. None of the previous surges in troop levels have had any lasting effect on the war, and there is no credible evidence to believe that this surge will be any different.

And how can we have confidence in predictions of success? Before our invasion in Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld predicted that the war in Iraq would last ``6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' Vice President Cheney predicted we would be greeted as liberators.

Almost 4 years ago, the President stood before a sign that said ``Mission Accomplished'' and proclaimed major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

A year and a half ago Vice President Cheney said the Iraqis were ``in the last throes'' of the insurgency. And yet here we are discussing an increase, not a decrease, in troop levels.

At the outset of this war, the administration predicted that the cost of the war would be so minuscule that it advised the House Committee on the Budget not even to include the cost of the war in the Federal budget. The administration official who suggested that the cost of the war might exceed $100 billion was fired. To date we have appropriated nearly $400 billion, and the President has already formally requested another $200 billion more, with no end in sight.

Over 3,100 courageous Americans and countless Iraqis have already lost their lives. How many more will die if this strategy falls as far from the predicted result as the original length of time and cost estimates of the war?

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as part of developing a mission and strategy, it is imperative that we ask where these additional troops are going to come from. Many will undoubtedly come from the National Guard and Reserves, but they have already been in Iraq for longer-than- average deployments and many have already completed multiple tours of duty. Other troops must be redeployed from other assignments; so we must ask what moving these troops will mean to our global national security.

Last November the American people sent a powerful message. They want a change in Iraq, not more of the same. They expect an honest explanation of why we entered Iraq in the first place, what the present situation is, what goal do we expect to achieve, and what the strategy will be to accomplish it. Only then can we intelligently discuss the troop levels necessary to accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, all we have gotten from this administration is essentially ``Don't worry, be happy, success is around the corner; and if you don't believe that, then you are not patriotic and you are not supporting the troops.''

For my colleagues who say that failure is not an option, I ask what will happen if the President's so-called ``New Way Forward'' fails, as many experts predict it will? Are we then required to further escalate the war, further strain our military, sending thousands more of our troops to Iraq? How many more of our young men and women must die before the administration acknowledges what was in the National Intelligence Estimate? And I quote, ``The term `civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict.' ''

Mr. Speaker, although the resolution before us is technically nonbinding, it gives the House an opportunity to call upon the President to work cooperatively with Congress to develop an effective strategy to bring our troops home. The American people and our courageous men and women on the front lines deserve a clearly articulated and sensible approach to ending the war. This resolution puts the House on record as saying that an escalation of military forces is a step in the wrong direction.

I therefore urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise to congratulate the NAACP on its 98th Anniversary. As the Nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP has for 98 years fought to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all persons, so that all may share and participate in this country's great Democracy.

The NAACP was founded by a multiracial group of activists who answered ``The Call'' for a national conference to discuss the civil and political rights of African Americans. This conference was in response to the race riots that took place in Springfield, Illinois in the summer of 1908. Since that time, the NAACP has sought to ensure equal rights for all citizens and to eliminate race prejudice in the United States by working to improve the democratic process and by seeking the enactment and enforcement of laws that secure civil rights. The NAACP also acts as a watchdog and informs the public of the adverse effects of discrimination. The NAACP also educates the public about their constitutional rights, and when necessary, undertakes court cases to enforce and secure those rights.

The NAACP has a long and impressive history of activism and has contributed greatly to shaping America as we know it today. One of its first legislative initiatives was an anti-lynching campaign in the early 1900s. In the 1940s, the NAACP was influential in President Roosevelt's decision to issue an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in contracts with the Department of Defense and in President Truman's decision to issue an Executive Order ending discrimination in the military. In the 1950s, the NAACP worked to bring an end to segregation in public schools; that work culminated in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. In the 1960s, the NAACP worked to raise support for the passage of the Civil Rights Act. In the 1970s, it helped expand voter participation through voter registration efforts. And the list goes on.

Today, the NAACP continues to eliminate race prejudice whenever it rears its ugly head. It continues to act as a watchdog to protect the civil rights of all people. And it educates the public about civil rights so that future generations will know tolerance and equality as the norm, rather than the exception.

I am proud to be a Diamond Life Member of the NAACP and to have served as a Branch President of the Newport News Chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the NAACP on 98 years of service to our great country and its people, and I wish them another successful 98 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for organizing this Special Order so that we could pay appropriate tribute to Father Drinan.

I rise today to honor the memory of our former colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Robert Drinan. Father Drinan was elected to this body in 1970 on a platform that advocated progressive ideals, basic human rights for all, and ending our involvement in Vietnam.

During his tenure in the House, Father Drinan was a powerful voice for the poor and disadvantaged; and as a man of faith, he clearly understood morality in its true sense. Just 2 years ago on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Father Drinan eloquently stated:

There's a common core of moral and religious beliefs, and

frankly, we are in total violation of that. We are supposed

to be good to the poor; we have more poor children in America

than any other industrialized nation. We're supposed to love

prisoners and help them; we have 2.1 million people in

prison, the largest of any country on the Earth. We also

allow 11 children to be killed every day. All of the

religions are opposed to that. That's violence. Why don't we

organize on that?

Father Drinan spent his life advocating to change these realities. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Father Drinan strived to reform our still broken criminal justice system; and as the new chairman of that subcommittee, I hope to carry on Father Drinan's legacy in that regard.

Father Drinan's compassion for the disadvantaged did not end with his tenure in Congress. After leaving Congress, Father Drinan continued to advocate for basic rights with his service with the International League of Human Rights, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the International Labor Rights Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. He also spent the last 26 years as a law professor at Georgetown University.

I did not have the personal privilege of serving alongside Father Drinan in this Chamber, but I first encountered Father Drinan's commitment to equality during my senior year in college. At that time, Father Drinan was dean of the Boston College Law School, and he went out of his way to open opportunities for minorities at the law school. This motivated me to apply to Boston College Law School, and today, I am a proud graduate of the class of 1973.

Mr. Speaker, this evening we pay final tribute to one who dedicated his life to improving the lives of others and making the American Dream accessible to all. A Jesuit priest who, even as a Member of Congress, lived in a small room in the Jesuit community at Georgetown, Father Drinan helped make better the lives of countless millions of Americans of all religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds. Our great Nation will certainly feel the loss of this courageous and compassionate humanitarian.

I thank you for yielding to me and thank you for the opportunity to pay tribute to Father Drinan.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 62) congratulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers for winning the 2006 NCAA Division II Football National Championship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 62.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for introducing this resolution that salutes Grand Valley State for their recent victory over the Northwest Missouri State Bearcats in the NCAA Division II national football championship in December.

Grand Valley State was led by quarterback Cullen Finnerty, who completed 15 of 33 passes for 225 yards and rushed for 115 yards on 22 carries for 340 yards of total offense, becoming the first quarterback in the history of the NCAA Division II national football

championship to pass for more than 200 yards and rush for more than 100 yards.

The game also saw tremendous plays by Bill Brechin, who made two first quarter interceptions.

I would also point out that Northwest Missouri State University also played an excellent game, and I congratulate them for their effort.

The Lakers are no strangers to this championship, having won in 2002, 2003 and 2005. It is also the second year that the Lakers have defeated the Bearcats in a championship game.

Much is due to the coaching of Chuck Martin, who was named Division II Coach of the Year for the second year. Clearly, the Lakers deserve to be recognized by the House for their outstanding accomplishments on the football field, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, before we can even consider sending more of our young men and women into harm's way, we must first determine what our mission is in Iraq. Only then will it be possible to intelligently discuss the number of troops necessary to meet that mission. But 4 years after going to war in Iraq, the administration has yet to clearly articulate a mission. Without a mission and a strategy with a credible chance of success, we should not even be discussing an increase in troop levels.

Mr. Speaker, before we respond to the President's call for an escalation of the war in Iraq, we must first put his speech in the context of the history of the war in Iraq. We need to begin with a discussion of what the current 130,000 troops are doing in Iraq now before we can discuss what 20,000 additional troops might do.

The original reasons which were provided as the rationale for going to war, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi leaders were connected with the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, all turned out not to be true.

We have found no weapons of mass destruction, and we know that Iraqi leaders were not connected with the 9/11 attacks. And we were told before the invasion into Iraq that, in the opinion of the CIA, Iraq posed no imminent terrorist threat to the United States. In fact, a letter from the Director of the CIA to the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, dated October 7, 2002, specifically stated that the CIA believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not pose a terrorist threat to the United States and would not be expected to pose such a threat unless we attacked Iraq.

Last night, the President once again attempted to associate our presence in Iraq with the so-called war on terrorism. The truth is that our presence in Iraq has actually increased our risk to terrorism. Furthermore, the term ``war on terrorism'' is a rhetorical term without any relationship to reality. ``Terrorism'' is not an enemy; it is a tactic. The enemy is al Qaeda. We attacked Afghanistan because al Qaeda was there.

But after the initial reasons turned out to be false, we have been subjected to a series of excuses for being in Iraq, such as the need to capture Saddam Hussein, the need to capture al-Zarqawi and the need to establish a democracy.

Well, Saddam Hussein was in jail for almost 2 years before he was recently hanged. Al-Zarqawi was killed over 6 months ago, and Iraq held Democratic elections over a year ago. Yet we remain in Iraq, with no apparent end in sight. And here we are talking about increasing, not decreasing, troop levels.

So what are we doing in Iraq? Why did we go in? What do we expect to accomplish? And what will our strategy be for getting out? After we receive truthful answers to these questions, we can intelligently discuss appropriate troop levels.

Last night, the President said he was laying out a new mission for Iraq, thereby clearly acknowledging that whatever the old mission was, it wasn't working. But there is still no clearly defined end goal and clearly defined explanation of how failure or success can be measured. So we remain where we were before the speech, which is on an unclear, undefined path, while continuing to put more troops in harm's way.

If our mission is to stabilize Baghdad, military experts have already said that an additional 20,000 troops is woefully insufficient, so sending these troops will not accomplish that goal. And what happens if Iraq fails to meet its responsibilities, or Baghdad remains unstable and the price is more American deaths? Will we send even more troops? Or will we just cut and run?

And how will we know the new initiative will work? Before our invasion into Iraq, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld predicted that the war would last, and I quote, ``six days, six weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' It has been almost 4 years, and we are still in Iraq with no end in sight.

At the outset of the war, the administration advised the House Budget Committee that it expected the cost of

the war to be so minuscule that it advised the committee not to include the cost of the war in the Federal budget, and the administration official who suggested that the cost of the war might exceed $100 billion was fired.

To date, the cost of the war to the United States is over $375 billion, with no end in sight. Over 3,000 courageous Americans have already lost their lives. How many more will die if this new strategy falls as far from the predicted result as the original time and cost estimates? We need to be honest in clearly stating the likelihood that this initiative might fail.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as far as developing a new mission and strategy, it is imperative that we ask where these additional troops will come from. Many will have to come from the National Guard and Reserve, and the escalation will mean longer and multiple deployments. But our troops already in Iraq have served for above-average deployments, and many have already completed multiple tours. Other troops may be redeployed from other assignments. So we must ask what moving these troops will mean to our global national security. We cannot assess the wisdom of an escalation without first answering these critical questions.

We need to develop a coherent plan for Iraq, and that can only begin with truthfully acknowledging our situation there. Unfortunately, all we have gotten from this administration is essentially ``Don't worry, be happy. Success is around the corner. And if you don't believe that, then you are not patriotic.''

Last November, the American people sent a powerful message that they wanted a real change in Iraq, not more of the same. This Congress needs to hold substantive hearings on why we entered Iraq in the first place, what the present situation is, what we can now expect to accomplish and what the strategy is to accomplish it, and only then can we intelligently discuss the troop levels necessary to accomplish that goal.

It is absurd to discuss troop levels first before we have answers to these critical questions. The American people and our courageous men and women on the front lines deserve a clear, articulated and sensible approach to ending the war in Iraq. Starting with an escalation of military forces is a step in the wrong direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of a citizen of the City of Hampton, who has dedicated her life to making her city and the Commonwealth of Virginia a better place to live and learn. I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of retired Delegate Dr. Mary T. Christian.

In 1955, Dr. Christian graduated with highest honors from Hampton Institute, now Hampton University, with a B.S. in Elementary Education. From there she received a Master's Degree from Columbia University in

1960, and her Ph.D. from Michigan State University in 1967.

Dr. Christian began her civic service as a teacher at Aberdeen Elementary School in 1960 and held this position for 6 years before moving on to Hampton University. At Hampton, she started as an Instructor in the Education Department before becoming a Professor, then rose to Chair the Education Department in 1970, followed by becoming Dean of the School of Education in 1980, and in 1987 she became Professor Emeritus. Dr. Christian has been appointed to several committees with the Virginia Department of Education throughout her career.

Dr. Christian's educational career alone is worthy of celebration. But outside of the classroom, Dr. Christian was an effective state legislator, representing the 92nd District in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1986-2004. She served ably on the Appropriations, Education, and Rules Standing Committees, and was the Co-chair of the Militia and Police Committee. Dr. Christian was also selected to be a member of various General Assembly Commissions including the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, the Hampton Roads Third Crossing Bridge Tunnel Commission, and the Commission on Access and Diversity. Before I came to Congress, I had the pleasure to serve with Dr. Christian in the General Assembly and I know her to be a skilled public servant who keeps the needs of her constituents paramount in her mind while making decisions in Richmond.

Dr. Christian has received many awards and accolades throughout her career. She has been inducted into the Alpha Kappa Mu, Kappa Delta Pi, and Phi Beta Theta honor societies. She is an Honorary Board Member of the National Patient Advocate Foundation. She has received both the Merit Award for Community Service and the Award for Service to Youth from the NAACP. In 2002, Thomas Nelson Community College named the Mary T. Christian Auditorium after her. Dr. Christian is a member of First Baptist Church of Hampton and its Fellowship Choir, and is also a member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., as well as a life member of the NAACP.

Locally, Dr. Christian was founder and leader of several civic and community organizations: Groups Representing Organizations United for Progress (GROUP); Leadership Development Caucus (LDC); Coalition for Community Pride and Progress (CCPP); Association for Restoration of Historic Cemeteries (ARHC); and Co-Chair of the Coalition for Preservation of the Virginia School for the Deaf, Blind and Multi- Disabled at Hampton.

On January 14, 2007, the Hampton Roads Community will come together and pay tribute to Dr. Christian for her many years of service. Proceeds from this tribute event will be used to establish the Dr. Mary T. Christian Scholarship Fund at Hampton University. I would like to congratulate Dr. Christian on her distinguished career of service to the citizens of Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia and wish her well in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The Reading Clerk has read the title of the bill. Does that mean it is the originally introduced bill without amendments?

We have looked around the House for a bill, and we have been unable to find a bill in the Speaker's lobby or on the Speaker's desk, other than the introduced bill. Could someone explain to us what we are now considering?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for introducing the bill that addresses an important issue. People should be prohibited from defrauding, harassing others using this technology. A misleading caller ID can enable criminals to get information that they couldn't otherwise get. It will enable people to harass. There may be, however, legitimate uses for this technology, and that is why I have to oppose the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill at this point.

There are a lot of people for whom it should be illegal. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for them handing me a bill as the debate started. We have been negotiating the information in the bill.

We had a hearing and we found that there are a lot of legitimate uses for this. For example, women's shelters use misleading caller ID numbers. Businesses may use a misleading caller ID number if they are calling from one line of many lines. If they want people to call back on their main line, they want to use that caller ID.

When we had our hearing we heard that we may want to differentiate from defrauding and harassing with a criminal intent for criminal gain as opposed to just harassing. Maybe we might not have a 5-year felony, you might want to have a misdemeanor.

So I was under the impression earlier today that we were going to continue negotiating this and work on it and get a decent bill next year.

Also I heard, Mr. Speaker, that the FBI has made recommendations on the bill. We don't have that information yet because the recommendations have not been cleared by OMB. I would ask the chief sponsor or the proponents of the legislation why it is so important to pass the legislation before the Bush administration's Federal Bureau of Investigation comments can be considered?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this was earlier identified as bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that is supported in principle by both sides. However, I would point out that as of this morning, there were no Democratic cosponsors. But it is important legislation, because of the examples cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and the bill is still a work in progress.

It is an improved bill. In fact, it includes many amendments that have been discussed. One, it limits the application of the bill to cases where there is harassment or defrauding, not just misleading. I think that is an important improvement. And there is language offered by this side that addressed the case we heard where someone else's caller ID number was being used, people were making insulting phone calls, they would look at their caller ID and then call the person whose caller ID number was there. He didn't know anything about it and he was getting all of these complaining phone calls. Both of these are good improvements.

But I would still be interested in knowing what the FBI might have to say about it. They have to enforce the law. They might have some important suggestions that would be important to include in the bill.

I would ask the proponents of the bill again why it is so important to consider the legislation before the FBI has had an opportunity to be heard? We don't have to adopt their ideas, but it seems to me that since they are going to enforce it, we ought to at least listen to what they have to say.

We had indicated to the other side that we would bring it up as one of the first bills next year if we could get the FBI consideration, continue negotiating the little details and have a bill that we could be proud of.

However, Mr. Speaker, we are having it today, a work in progress, where this side just gets handed the legislation as the debate starts, which is I think insulting, and I think we have heard references to what happens in the middle of the night. Hopefully we can get the answer about the FBI from the other side.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when the FBI testified on the bill, they indicated they had some concerns. I assume I will get the concerns after we finish considering the bill. We had to beg for a copy of the legislation so we would know what we are debating. Now, I guess, would it hurt your feelings to let me know what the FBI had to say about it? They had concerns when they testified on the bill. Let me just say that. I will just wait over here until I can get a copy of their comments so I know what they said.

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

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

Actually I would say to the gentleman from Utah, I haven't gotten any letter from the Justice Department yet. I assume it is in transit. It is a long way from that side of the aisle to this side of the aisle. I don't know what kind of communication method we are using, but I haven't gotten it yet.

I would point out, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has indicated, when we make calls out of our offices in Congress, the caller ID number that shows up on someone's caller ID machine is some nonworking switchboard number.

Mr. Speaker, having just been handed the letter and gone through it very quickly, I would just point out that the last sentence on the first page says, ``The department has a number of recommendations (described below) to clarify the bill and to make it even more effective.''

They suggest, just briefly going through it, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, J, K, improvements needed for the bill.

I do not know if this is a copy or original or what, but I hope everybody reads the letter that was entered previously in the Record so they will know that we are taking this action before we have had any time to consider the recommendations of the FBI which will have the responsibility of enforcing the bill, if it ever becomes law at the end of this session.

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

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

A, the bill could be made more effective by creating a more graduated series of offenses and then details.

B, the bill could be made more effective by prohibiting attempts, then a description.

C, a new provision should be numbered 18 U.S.C. 1039 and a description.

D, the drafters may wish to include a clear statement of jurisdiction.

E, the bill could be made more effective by prohibiting, generating, and transmitting misleading caller identification information in addition to modifying such information, on and on and on.

These are substantive recommendations that we are just going to ignore by taking this bill up in the middle of the night right here at the end of the session with a bill that has been handed to this side at the last minute, with the FBI recommendations that have been hiding the ball right up until I demanded it, and then they finally let it go.

This is a ridiculous way to put things in the Criminal Code, and I would hope we would defeat the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the bill in its present form. I think we can put a bill together if we are given time. Since we have little time, we got through E. F is the bill can be made more effective by prohibiting caller ID spoofing with the intent to mislead any other person.

G, the bill could be made more effective by clarifying the definition of ``caller ID information.''

H, the bill can be made more effective by focusing the definition of ``telephone call'' on the service used to receive calls rather than the service used to make calls.

I, the bill can be made more effective by expanding the definition of ``VOIP service.''

Then one, they could go through what the VOIP service details.

The bill can be made more effective by including a forfeiture provision.

The bill can be made more effective by giving prosecutors tools to combat money laundering of illegal proceeds of violations of the PHONE Act and the CAN-SPAM Act.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that we were not going to get this until I demanded it time and time again and they finally produced it, and now we find out that the information from the FBI is very critical of the bill, suggesting that it needs a lot of work, and we can do the work. We could sit down and hammer it out. I think everybody agrees that something needs to be done about this situation. It is a work in progress.

I notice in here an amendment that was suggested this afternoon is, in fact, in the bill in a slightly different wording and I think better wording in the

bill than the original suggestion. So it is a work in progress.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we ought to be legislating. We can do better than this, and I think we ought to defeat the bill now, bring it up early in the next session, and have a product that everybody can be proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an institution in the City of Richmond, VA. This year, Trinity Baptist Church is celebrating its centennial and I would like to take some time to recognize its history of service as a house of worship in Richmond during the last 100 years.

The church that we know as Trinity Baptist began in 1906 as the Sixth Mount Zion Sunday School class, which met at the home of Marcellus Waller, Sr., and Nannie Waller at 1007 West Leigh Street in Richmond. As this faith community grew, the idea was put forth to formally organize a church, and Brother Charles Thompkin suggested they call it Trinity. After a consultation with a representative from the Baptist Churches, Trinity Baptist Church was established on August 6, 1906, with Rev. James Williams as its first Pastor.

Under Pastor George Carrington, who led Trinity from 1915-1919, a new sanctuary was built at 1630 Rose Avenue. In 1960, Trinity had again outgrown its building, and Pastor King David Turner appointed a Planning Committee to find a new home for the church. Pastor Turner's work was continued by Pastor Welford David Adkins, who led the church through the purchase of land and construction of a new 1,000 seat sanctuary in 1972.

For the last 26 years, Trinity Baptist has been ably led by Rev. A. Lincoln James. Under his stewardship, Trinity has increased its staff to include Ministers of Fine Arts, Economic Development, Christian Education, and Children and Youth. Trinity's daily bag lunch feeding program and clothes closet literally feed the hungry and clothe the poor. The church's work with Caritas Charities Prose Ministry helps the homeless, and its Angel Tree program ministers to prisoners. Rev. James has also licensed or ordained over 60 sons and daughters of Trinity into the gospel ministry, and he oversaw the ordination of the church's first female deacons in 2004.

I would like to once again congratulate Rev. James and the members of Trinity Baptist on their centennial and wish them another century of continued service to their community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are all saddened by the death of a police officer cut down in the line of duty, and our hearts go out to his family, friends, and coworkers. We all want to see justice for victims and for society for such a tragic loss. Yet, we must leave the search for justice to our courts to apply our constitutional system of administering justice.

There have been advocates and interested parties on both sides of the issue of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case from the beginning. Regardless of one's views of the merits or the lack of merits of this case, the contentions in the pending case, the Congress of the United States is not the proper forum to debate or determine the merits of this case. The existing appealable issues in the case are now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Congress should not attempt to wield the court's gavel or presuppose its decision. And this is not an automatic go-through-the-motions appeal. The Federal District Court upheld the conviction, though it did overturn the death penalty in the case. Abu-Jamal is appealing the part of the case upholding the conviction; the State is appealing the part overturning the death sentence. So there are clearly judicial issues on both sides, and Congress should not interject itself on a matter pending before a court of law established to resolve the merits of legal issues.

I thought we had learned from the Terry Schiavo case why Congress should not seek to serve as a judicial appeal arena on emotionally charged issues. Of course, the recent record reflects issues to strip Federal courts of jurisdiction to even hear cases related to emotion- laden issues, which would suggest that we have not learned our lesson. But I do remain hopeful. Let the judiciary do its job. Any suggestion that the legislative branch can or should fix or have a say in a pending case before the courts not only demeans the judicial branch, but it diminishes respect for the law.

Nor should Congress seek to respond to or otherwise address the actions of a municipality in a foreign sovereign nation, and certainly not in the matter contemplating holding the nation accountable for the ministerial actions of its subordinate jurisdictions, as this resolution attempts to do. We should not expect the United States to be urged by a foreign legislative body, as the resolution says, to take appropriate action against one of our municipalities when the foreign government disagrees with the action taken by one of those cities.

There are many advocates for overturning the death sentence in this case, here in the United States as well as other countries. I understand some of those advocates are planning a rally in Philadelphia on December 9, the anniversary of his arrest. The city of Philadelphia will undoubtedly approve a permit for that rally. Now, are we going to pass a resolution condemning the city of Philadelphia for approving a rally in favor of Abu-Jamal, or should we take Federal action appropriate against the city for taking that action?

We also know that the city of San Francisco has made Abu-Jamal an honorary citizen. Are we going to take Federal action against San Francisco because of that action?

And what standard are we setting by this resolution? Municipalities around the world and right here in the United

States take actions that many of us may disagree with. You would think that some in Congress would agree or disagree with many of the resolutions passed by municipalities expressing their opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act or their opposition to the war in Iraq. Are we going to urge the United States to take appropriate action against those cities for criticizing the United States and its military actions? And do we create the opposite effect of the apparent attempt of the resolution by calling even more attention to the otherwise obscure event that is the subject of this resolution? Frankly, I had never heard of the action of the city of St. Denis before I saw this resolution, and I suspect few people in the United States or anywhere else had ever heard of this action. By complaining about those giving attention to the case and the issues through this resolution, we are simply giving more attention to it.

The death penalty is a controversial issue in this country and around the world. It is an issue of conscience by many here as well as abroad, regardless of how heinous a crime for which someone may have been sentenced to death. The United States is one of few major countries in the world where the death penalty is still applied. Amnesty International and other human rights groups criticize the United States policies on the death penalty as inhumane and inconsistent with international human rights standards, and we encounter many difficulties in getting international cooperation because of it. When we try to have a captured capital crime defendant extradited from another country back to the United States, we routinely face opposition from countries of origin and other countries because we have the death penalty. In fact, a letter from St. Denis has mentioned their opposition to the death penalty as one of the reasons for their action.

And so we should not be shocked by those who are facing death penalties when they are designated as martyrs of what some consider to be a barbaric and archaic practice. Mr. Speaker, because we should not, as the resolution says, urge the Government of France to take appropriate action against the city of St. Denis, when we haven't even done the same against cities right here in the United States, and because this case is pending in the Third Circuit, we should reject this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter provided by the French Embassy from the city of St. Denis from their mayor.

November 7, 2006.

Martin Bozmarov,

Attorney,

Issy-Les-Moulineaux,

Dear Mr. Bozmarov: On behalf of the Philadelphia City

Council, you informed me that a delegation from that council,

headed by its chairman, will be coming to Saint-Denis to ask

the City of Saint-Denis to reconsider naming one of our

streets ``Mumia Abu-Jamal.'' You also informed me that the

delegation would like to address the Saint-Denis City Council

meeting of November 30.

This request calls for an explanation of the reasons

underlying the city's decision to name one of its streets

after Mumia Abu-Jamal.

As you know, Mumia Abu-Jamal has proclaimed his innocence

for nearly a quarter century. He has always denied firing the

shots that resulted in the death of police officer Daniel

Faulkner on December 9, 1981. His defenders, as well as the

movements and associations that have rallied on his behalf,

have accumulated a considerable number of elements that

justify his request for a new trial.

These have largely highlighted the unfair nature of the

investigation: the lack of ballistics tests, the failure to

take fingerprints, the failure to secure the area and perform

other tests. It seems that important witnesses were bribed,

excluded or intimidated. Several police reports were

contradictory. And the American press itself asserted that

Judge Sabo had exerted pressure in demanding the death

penalty against Mr. Abu-Jamal on July 3, 1982.

Even more troubling, a man who acknowledged he was Mr.

Faulkner's killer never testified in court, on the pretext

that his confession did not come within the deadline for the

proceedings.

All of these aspects largely justify the doubts that exist

with respect to Mr. Abu-Jamal's guilt and the growing

movement supporting him, to which we wanted to contribute.

Our action also expresses our total opposition to the death

penalty, which threatens Mr. Abu-Jamal each day. For even

now, despite all the international agreements on human

rights, the death penalty continues to be handed down in a

majority of American states.

Several dozen American prisoners are on death row. There

are more than 60 in Texas alone. Executions are still taking

place, and it takes the courageous mobilization of a part of

U.S. public opinion to rescue certain convicts from this

barbarous practice.

It is in this context that Mumia Abu-Jamal has become one

of the emblematic figures in the fight for justice and for

the abolition of the death penalty in the United States and

throughout the world. And it is precisely this fight that we

wanted to support in naming one of our city streets after

him.

In this movement, the town of Saint-Denis is not alone. You

are aware that committees supporting this prisoner from

Philadelphia have been formed in many communities of France

and other European countries. You also know that Mumia Abu-

Jamal has been made an honorary citizen of Paris, that French

parliamentarians have visited him regularly in prison, and

that each year, concerts, demonstrations, marches and

assemblies are organized in his support.

In fact, this is not the first time that international

public opinion has rallied in support of American citizens

who appear to be unjustly accused in their own country. That

was the case for Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti between

1920 and 1927, for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were

executed by electric chair in 1953, and in 1973 for Angela

Davis, who was initially convicted of murder before being

fully acquitted.

In these circumstances, we are happy that the inauguration

of a Rue Mumia Abu-Jamal in Saint-Denis lends additional

support to this fight. We are proud of this act and have no

intention of reversing it.

As for the City Council session of November 30, I would

like to remind you that it is public and therefore open to

anyone who would like to attend. However, only members of the

City Council are authorized to take the floor.

Finally, I would like to mention that quite recently,

during a mission to the United States in the course of which

he met with Mumia Abu-Jamal, our deputy Patrick Braouezec was

not received by the mayor of Philadelphia, even though he had

an appointment.

Sincerely,

Didier Paillard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an institution in my hometown of Newport News. On December 1, 2006, the members of Ivy Baptist Church celebrated their 100th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to highlight the rich history of this church and its contribution to our community.

In 1906, Rev. James Carr, along with Shaddy Clark and J.B. Peyton founded the first ancestor of the Ivy Baptist Church of today. It was called the First Baptist Church Dawson City. First Baptist Dawson was a blessing in a community plagued by crime in a city nicknamed ``Blood Field.'' In 1915, under the leadership of Reverend Carr, the First Baptist Church Dawson City building was purchased for $350 in cash.

Rev. Samuel Brown, the second pastor, moved the church to the 500 block of 18th Street in Newport News and renamed it the 18th Street Baptist Church.

In 1923, the church elected its third pastor, Rev. James M. Bray. After 27 years of growth, witnessing and fellowship under Reverend Bray, the church sold its building at 18th Street, and a new church was built at 1612 Ivy Avenue at the cost of $60,000. Based on this change of location, the church was renamed Ivy Avenue Baptist Church in 1952.

In 1958, the Reverend D.L. Charity became the fourth pastor of Ivy Avenue Baptist Church. The church continued to experience substantial growth with new programs implemented by Reverend Charity, who served for 8 years.

On February 4, 1968, Rev. Dr. W. Henry Maxwell was selected as the fifth pastor of Ivy Avenue Baptist Church. Three years later, a new house of worship located at 50 Maple Avenue was purchased, and the first worship service was conducted there in February 1972. In order to maintain the heritage of the church, but to reflect the church's location change, the name was shortened from Ivy Avenue Baptist, to the Ivy Baptist we know today.

Under Reverend Maxwell, Ivy Baptist continued to flourish. A church day care center was established in 1974, and a multipurpose annex named the W. Henry Maxwell Family Life Center was opened in 1999. After 36 years of faithful service to Ivy Baptist Church, Reverend Maxwell retired.

After a year-long search, Rev. Kevin G. Swann was elected the sixth pastor of Ivy Baptist Church. The church has already experienced significant growth in membership under Reverend Swann, and I believe he will live up to the legacy left to him. Over these 100 years, pastors at Ivy have licensed nine other pastors, and ordained nine pastors to the ministry. The day care program is popular throughout the community, and the Family Life Center is a community asset under constant demand as a venue for various church, civic and social programs.

I would like to once again congratulate Reverend Swann and the members of Ivy Baptist on their centennial and I wish them another century of continued service to their community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5466. Next year the Commonwealth of Virginia and our great Nation will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first English permanent settlement in North America. Designating the Captain John Smith National Chesapeake Historical Trail is an important component of this historic celebration.

The trail traces the route of Captain John Smith on his exploration voyage of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Captain Smith and his crew of just one dozen men traveled nearly 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay, and it was Captain John Smith's 1612 map which was the first accurate depiction of the Chesapeake Bay region.

Next year the entire world will help us celebrate this historic anniversary, and Virginia is preparing a year-long celebration. The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will highlight the Chesapeake Bay, and the passage of the bill prior to the 400th anniversary celebration is extremely important.

I would like to thank the bill's sponsor, my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) for her distinguished leadership in this effort. I would also like to thank the House leadership and committee leadership on both sides of the aisle for working to bring this important bill to the floor before the House adjourns.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 3880 is a companion bill to H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. It reflects a compromise bill arrived at after considerable effort of a bipartisan group involving both House and Senate Judiciary Committee staff over several months.

From hearings in the House and from other reports, we have learned that current Federal law designed to protect animal enterprises have been proven to be reasonably effective in protecting animal enterprises. However, serious gaps and loopholes have been identified in current law with respect to protecting employees and associates of animal enterprises. Present law protects employees of an animal enterprise, but we have found that employees, board members and family members of businesses and nonprofits affiliated with or doing business with such enterprises are complaining that they are now being stalked, harassed, intimidated or threatened, with some individuals even being physically assaulted, and had their homes, businesses or cars vandalized. Since the Animal Enterprise Terrorism law was enacted in 1992, there have been some 1,100 complaints of such incidents, with property losses reported of being more than $120 million. Those complaining include farmers, scientists, biomedical and biotechnology industries, research universities, teaching hospitals, financial institutions, magazines, newspapers and other advertising groups and others who are viewed as assisting or enabling targeted animal enterprises.

The evidence is that in many instances extremist elements among the animal rights groups are taking advantage of the fact that the animal enterprise laws do not cover affiliates and associates by using threats, harassment, intimidation and fear and other extreme tactics to pressure them into severing their activities with such enterprises.

S. 3880 is designed to cover these gaps or loopholes by providing to employees, businesses and associates of animal enterprises similar protections to those already covered. In other words, the bill prevents a person from doing indirectly to an animal enterprise what they are prohibited to do directly.

Now, citizens engaging in legitimate animal enterprise activities and anyone associated with them are entitled to be protected from criminal acts and to be able to go about their daily activities free from threats to their person or property and that of their family and associates. State laws are generally good at providing those protections. However, the interstate nature of the planning and execution of the criminal harassment tactics used by some individuals or groups skilled at exploiting gaps or weaknesses in the laws have made it difficult for States to get at problems effectively. That is why this bill is deemed necessary.

While we must protect those engaged in animal enterprises, we must also protect the right of those engaged in first amendment freedoms of expression regarding such enterprises. It goes without saying that first amendment freedoms of expression cannot be defeated by statute. However, to reassure anyone concerned with the intent of this legislation, we have added in the bill assurances that it is not intended as a restraint on freedoms of expression such as lawful boycotting, picketing or otherwise engaging in lawful advocacy for animals.

In addition, we also wanted to recognize that there are some who conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest the operation of animal enterprises to the extent of engaging in civil disobedience. If a group's intention were to stage a sit-in or lie-down or to block traffic to a targeted facility, they certainly run the risk of arrest for whatever traffic, trespass or other laws they may be breaking. But they should not be held more accountable for business losses due to causes such as delivery trucks being delayed any more than a boycott or protest against any other business.

To violate the provision of the bill, one must travel or otherwise engage in interstate activity with the intent to cause damage or loss to an animal enterprise. While the losses of profits, lab experiments or other intangible losses are included, it must be proved that such losses were specifically intended for the law to be applied. If there is no damage or economic loss, or damage or loss is less than $10,000, the offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

This bill does not satisfy everyone, but it does represent a reasonable compromise in protecting employees and associates of animal enterprises while avoiding violation of first amendment freedoms.

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

MR. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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