Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I cast my last vote in this august Chamber, and today I spend my last day with my colleagues here with nearly 25 years of service on behalf of the third congressional district and the great people who live there in Louisiana, and I wanted to take a minute to say good-bye and to say a few words of thanks.

First, I want to thank the good Lord for giving me this week. Were it not for this lame duck session following a year of illness with cancer, I might not have had the chance to come back and spend this week with you where I could renew friendships and thank all of you on a personal level for the many acts of kindness and the extraordinary times we have had together over the last 25 years.

Secondly, I want to thank all of you on both sides of the aisle for the amazing amounts of friendship.

One of our esteemed colleagues who we lost to a brain tumor, Mr. Mike Sarne of Oklahoma, one of my dearest friends, once said the only reason he kept running for reelection was the immense honor and privilege of serving with such an amazing group of men and women who come to this great capital and serve their country and their individual districts and the honor and privilege of getting to know them and to work side by side with them, and I feel that today after this nearly 25-year term of service.

I have served the people of the 3rd district of Louisiana longer than any other Congressman has served, and I have that enormous privilege, and I want to thank them in Louisiana who have shown such patience and such amazing amount of tolerance to put up with the likes of me for the last 25 years.

I have served them 15 years as a Democrat and almost 10 years now as a Republican. I do not know if any other district in America would tolerate a Congressman making those sorts of shifts and turns in a political career as well as the folks in Louisiana have tolerated me, but it has given me some insight, and I want to quickly share them with my colleagues.

Like few people in this Chamber, I have come to know the Members of this side of the aisle for over 15 years, not as partisan enemies, but as friends; and I have come to know now the people on this side of the aisle for the last 10 years, not as partisan enemies but as friends. I wish that all of my colleagues had that opportunity in this House. I wish they could somehow cross this aisle and get to know one another the way we used to know one another in this Chamber.

The politics and personal attacks and personal destruction have almost taken hold in this place in a way that we cannot reverse it, and we need to reverse it soon if this Nation and this institution are to survive.

This institution is a place for diversity, for great clashes of ideas, for great principles to come together and in a great crush of public debate so that it might redefine itself on a regular basis. It is not a place we ought to be constantly attacking each other and questioning one another's motives, but we have somehow gotten there.

I plead with my colleagues as I leave this place, this place that has been so important to me and the folks of Louisiana who have put their faith and trust in me in the last 25 years, please end this system and go back to a time and place where we can begin debating one another and recognizing we all come over here as patriots, as Americans first and as party members second.

I leave with a great fondness for my colleagues, a great amount of appreciation for all the days I have spent with you, and I want to say a fond farewell on behalf of the 650,000 people of Louisiana who have allowed me the chance to work with you. I want to wish you well in the upcoming sessions. I will try to be in touch and to stay close to you as we go forward. You have made for me a home in this Chamber that I shall not forget, and you have given me a most extraordinary honor and privilege of being a part of the greatest democratic institution on the face of the Earth, and I thank you for that and bid you farewell.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and, on a very bipartisan note, let me first thank the Members of this House and of the Senate, and particularly my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for the great success we had in passing the Public Health Security Act and the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act.

As my colleagues will recall, right after 9-11 it became clear to us as a Nation that we were under serious threat of attacks from agents like anthrax or perhaps even such horrible agents as botulism toxin or ebola or other similar viruses and that we were so unprepared in this country for that kind of attack that we got together, in a bipartisan fashion, and immediately passed an act to bolster the competence and the ability of the Center for Disease Control and of agents across the country to better respond to an attack of that nature.

Since the passage of those two very important actions that have better armed our country for this danger that we face perhaps even more increasingly as years go by, it has come to our attention that there were some holes even in that great act. The most important hole which this act seeks to fill is the concern we have that when it comes to some of these agents, whether they be a botulism toxin agent, ebola, or whether it is a radioactive type of attack we have to deal with in this country, that we have not done enough research and development into the antidotes, the vaccines, the treatments that victims of these attacks might find are critically necessary to save lives and prevent injury.

I do not have to tell my colleagues that this House and the Senate recently received another briefing on national security threats. The concern levels are up about an attack that might occur in this country from al Qaeda or other enemies of this country. As we fight them overseas, they are thinking about planning an attack on us here at home again. We know that. We know the attack may come in a place we do not know, in a place we are unprepared for, and it might involve radiological materials or it might involve some horrible virus or some agent the likes of which we are unprepared to deal with.

This bill seeks to make sure that the private sector does the work along with government to find the antidotes, the treatment for these kinds of agents that might be used in such an attack which might not otherwise be developed in the private sector.

What is the incentive today to develop a vaccine for ebola or for the plague when there is no real market for such a vaccine in this country? This bill and the appropriations we have already provided in the advance funds, some $5.6 billion, is designed to make sure that that research and development occurs and that those vaccines and those treatments are indeed available to our country in case the worst happens and we are subject to that kind of an attack by al Qaeda or other enemies of this country within our borders as we saw on 9-11.

Secondly, the bill tries to do something else, and that is to say we are going to change our law a little bit when it comes to the government's approval of treatment and/or it might be

a vaccine or some treatment that has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but yet has a greater ability to cure and help people than the risk involved with allowing it to be used. In other words, we are streamlining the law to make sure, if we do come under attack, if there is some vaccine, some treatment under study that has a lot of promise but has not yet been approved, that we are not forbidden to use it to help people who might be hurt or in need of that kind of treatment.

In short, this Bioshield Act, an incredibly important new step in protecting our country at a time when we are increasingly learning of the hatred and evil that exists out there that wants to inflict more damage on our country, this new act, passed again in, I hope, a very strong bipartisan way, reaching the President's desk for his signature very soon, I hope, will add this new element of protection for our country that Senator Kennedy and I tried to provide in the first bioterrorism act for our Nation following 9-11.

This is an important step in protecting our country at a time when we are under, as you know, this increasing warning that these evil individuals are thinking about planning and trying to figure out how they might hurt us again. It is a critical two-step process in making sure that we have the protective vaccines and treatments in place when the worst might happen to our people. So I urge its adoption.

I want to congratulate all of those who have worked on completing the conference on this bill with the Senate. I want to thank the other body for its cooperation. The sooner this reaches the President's desk, the sooner all of us can feel a little better this country is becoming safer as fast as we can from the threat of these kind of agents, and I urge its final approval by this House.

Mr. Speaker, my State, Louisiana, is suffering the worst national ecological disaster in the history of this country. Every year we lose up to 35 square miles of the most precious wetlands in America. The comprehensive energy bill we passed yesterday on this House floor and sent to the other body contains money, for the first time, billions of dollars, to address that national economic disaster.

Louisiana contributes over $5 billion a year from offshore development. We get less than 1 percent back. That bill we sent to the other body contains billions to begin to restore and protect those vanishing wetlands, the biggest environmental program, bigger than the Chesapeake Bay, bigger than the Everglades.

I cannot speak about the other body and how they vote, but let me issue a warning: No one in this Congress who votes against that comprehensive energy bill and that environmental package, no one in this Congress better show their face in south Louisiana if they vote against that comprehensive energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the gentleman on the great job he is doing in heading the Committee on Energy and Commerce and on bringing this bill to the floor.

I rise in strong support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, 178 Members of this body yesterday voted against a comprehensive energy bill that would provide conservation, fuels, and incredible new incentives to produce energy for our country. Mr. Speaker, 186 Members of this House yesterday voted against a bill to do nothing more than incentivize clean, green, renewable energy plants for America. It is amazing.

I want to put that in perspective for those Members who voted yesterday against these energy initiatives and who are probably going to vote against this bill today.

Twenty-five years ago, the last refinery that we built in America was built in my district, the Marathon Refinery. Twenty-five years ago, we stopped building refineries in America. Refineries are what make gasoline. Refineries are what make diesel fuel. They make jet fuel. They make home heating fuel to keep homes warm in the winter. They make the fuel to drive the cars and the trucks across the roads of America and to heat and warm the homes of our country and to provide, in many cases, electricity for those homes. They provide the jet fuel for the airlines to fly the airways of our country.

Now, in 25 years we have not stopped building airplanes, we have not stopped building roads, we have not stopped building houses, we have not stopped building factories that need this energy. In fact, we built 751 million new vehicles in America, just built in this country, not counting imports. And what do we do to build plants to supply them with the energy they need? Zero. We have shut down half of the refineries that were built previous to 25 years ago, and we have stopped building refineries.

So guess what is happening to America? We are not only importing now twice as much oil as we used to import at the Arab oil embargo when 30 percent of our oil came from foreign sources, now 60 percent comes from foreign sources; but more and more, we are importing refined products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and home heating oil. So more and more we are becoming dependent, not just on oil, but now we are becoming more and more dependent on unreliable sources for gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel.

So more and more, we have to think about sending our sons and daughters in uniform to go defend some refinery in some other country that we cannot really depend upon anymore. More and more, we are saying the lives of our young folks are less valuable to us than building a new refinery in America. Now, there is something illogical about that; there is something crazy about that. We need to change that logic.

This bill says, let us think about building a few new refineries in this country.

When the gasoline prices started skyrocketing in America, do we know what the response of those who are voting against these energy bills was? Let us open up a Strategic Oil Program. Let us get some oil out of the ground that we are saving for the time we get embargoed again. Where would you refine that oil? The refineries in America are operating at near 100 percent. If you took some oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you would have to ship it overseas to get it refined into gasoline for us.

That is how ridiculous the energy policy of this country has been and remains to this date. We need to change that policy.

We need to finally pass a comprehensive energy bill that we have now sent to the other body twice this Congress, and we need to literally put it on the President's desk for signature, and we need to pass this bill.

This bill does not change any environmental laws. It simply encourages, through coordination of effort, through all the processes of getting a new refinery permitted and built in America. To do what? To make some diesel fuel, to make some gasoline, to make some heating oil, to make some jet fuel, so airline prices are not as high, so heating oil prices are not so terrible that people freeze to death in the winter in this country, so gasoline can be affordable again, so diesel fuel can be affordable again, so we can fill the tanks of the 751 million new cars we built without building a new refinery, so we do not have a crisis in California, so we do not have blackouts, brownouts, and disasters for the American consumer.

Look, we cannot do much for the American consumer before the election date rolls around in November. Time is short. You can do this. You can help them build a refinery to bring down prices. We ought to do this today.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to thank all of the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle for so many expressions of love and support, and most importantly, their prayers in the last several months. They have meant a great deal to me. I am so happy to be back working for the salary and doing my job for the people of Louisiana.

It is a particular pleasure to join Members in a week we are taking up energy, which has been so much of the subject of my congressional career in the past 24 years; and I am pleased to join the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the other Members who are rising in support of this very worthwhile bill.

This is about common sense. The one thing we have lacked in energy policy in America is common sense. We passed an amazingly complex energy bill, and we will vote on that conference report again this week, and ask our colleagues in the other body to please take it up for the sake of our country, at a time when we are experiencing outrageous gasoline prices and there are blackouts in Arizona and New Mexico which are having problems with their grids, and as we are experiencing large blackouts in the northeast which could be repeated because the energy bill we passed has not been signed into law and will do something to put in place standards for conduct on those electric grids that are going to keep them sound and stable in the future.

While we sit and play party politics and silly arguments about legal constraints of one kind or another, our country suffers from a dearth of energy, and yet we continue to consume it at alarming rates and become more and more dependent upon people we cannot depend upon to send us energy.

We have not built a refinery in this country in 25 years, and yet in the last 25 years we have built 751 million new automobiles and trucks to ply our highways. Where do Members think it comes from if we are not going to produce it at home? We had great debates about a bill that contained not only conservation provisions but new initiatives to produce new oil and gas and coal and other energy in this country, and great provisions for renewable energy. But what stands in the way to get renewable energy on board in this country is all of the laws which have been passed to stop the other energy projects.

What our chairman has brought to us is a bill of commons sense which says if renewable energy projects are a priority in America, if Members really believe that, if that is what really is behind their energy policy in all of the debates this House has had, and the Senate ought to have real soon if we are going to pass an energy bill for our country, if renewable energy is really our best option, then we need to make sure it does not get tied up in legal knots.

It says that when a renewable energy project is offered under NEPA, that you have got two choices: You either find out that the site chosen is a good site and it ought to be built here or you do not build it there. Public comments and local government involvement is still permitted, in fact encouraged in that process. Nobody says you have to build a renewable facility under this bill. It simply says you have got two choices: Build it or do not build it. But do not tie it up in legal knots.

What legal knots are we talking about? NEPA was constructed to make sure that if an oil and gas refinery was going to ever be built in this country, that before it was built the Environmental Protection Agency had to look at every other possible site it could be built at and rule them all out before you could build it here. If you take that view with every renewable facility, every energy project that was designed to produce energy from clean, green, renewable energy, then you are giving those people who do not want to see anything built the option of tying it up in legal knots.

What the chairman is offering you is a bill that says for this priority energy, good, clean, green energy for America, at least do not tie that up in legal knots. Either build it where it is proposed to be built or decide after public comments are published and listened to and digested that the site is wrong and you should not build it at all and then go look for another site. It does not cut off public comment. It does not cut off total environmental review for health and safety reasons. It does not cut out

total assessment of the site chosen. It simply says, do not tie it up in legal knots. At least move these energy projects forward so that we do not have to depend so much on foreign oil and on countries we cannot depend upon.

It comes down to this, folks. We either start doing some things like this in this country or we are still going to have to keep sending our sons and daughters to die in some other country protecting an oil field or refinery located in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or somewhere else. Think about it that way. Is it not time we in America value our own sons and daughters a little better than that? Would you not like to see the 35,000 people who are working in Saudi Arabia today who have been ordered home because there have been threats for their lives, would you not rather see them working in America building a wind farm or a renewable energy project? This bill says you can come home. You can work in America. We are going to start building some projects that are clean and green and good for this country.

Those who vote against it are saying, We don't want to build anything. We would rather keep sending our sons and our daughters into treacherous lands in the uniform of our country to die to defend somebody else's oil field, somebody else's refinery. This is commonsense stuff. Whatever we disagreed about before, we ought not disagree on this one. Let us build some good green energy facilities in America. If you do not like where they are sited, shut them down, go build them somewhere else, but let us speed this process along. That is all that Chairman Pombo wants. That is all this country ought to at least get out of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the second time the House votes on this identical conference report. We have already passed another energy bill in a previous Congress that never made it to final passage out of the Congress, it was not yet signed into law. This is the second time now this body will vote on the comprehensive energy conference report following the passage in the House and the Senate of the energy bills.

A conference report came out of the conference committee between the House and the Senate. It was chaired by Senator Domenici. The last time this House voted on the conference report, 246 of my colleagues voted for it, 180 voted against it. I suspect we will get something like the same vote today, and I want to commend the House for doing what the other body has not yet done, for taking final action on comprehensive energy for our country.

This Nation is suffering. We are in dire need of a policy that tells the energy future traders on Wall Street to quit running the prices up and to begin thinking about a future where we are producing more energy at home for our own people instead of constantly fighting over battlefields to defend other people's energy supplies that we depend upon.

When the last Arab oil embargo hit, we were 30 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, we are 60 percent dependent, and that number continues to rise. The last refinery built in America was built in my district 25 years ago. We have not stopped building roads, we have not stopped building automobiles, we have not stopped building houses or factories in the country. We just stopped building the factories that produce the energy for the country.

My colleagues wonder why we are so dependent, have so much at risk, why this Nation depends upon people we cannot depend upon anymore, just to keep the lights on anymore? That is our fault.

I want to commend this House. Whatever my colleagues might agree or disagree about, this hugely important energy bill that contains conservation, alternative measures, good incentives to produce energy here at home, bills to make sure our grids are more reliable, we avoid the catastrophe California went through and the Northeast went through, the blackouts provisions that make sure we change the energy future by incentivizing a new freedom initiative; whatever my colleagues felt about it, I thank them for passing it before. Pass it again. Let us continue to do what the other body so far refuses to do and help consumers in America for a change.

Mr. Speaker, I share your grief at the passing of former President Ronald Reagan and join you in remembering his remarkable service to our country.

I was fortunate to have served as a Member of Congress during President Reagan's eight year tenure. At the time, I was a member of the democratic Boll Weevils, a group frequently called upon to help President Reagan with his legislative agenda. I can attest to what some of you know and what others have read or heard about him--he was among the greatest of our nation's presidents. He was permanently grounded in principle, so much that no one who worked for him had any doubt about what was expected of him.

President Reagan is rooted in the essence of our nation's character. He appealed to our better instincts and was unyielding in his devotion to our country. I was always amazed at the way he appealed to young people. I think it was because they could see the truth in him. Like a grandfather who had seen it all and abandoned the notion of judging us, he preferred to see the goodness in us all. We, in turn, could imagine that goodness leading us to that shining ``city on the hill.'' Those who came later missed the opportunity to encounter true greatness. Those who experienced him will never forget it.

Thank you for your compassionate support in honoring the legacy of our former President Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation to protect America's national security. My bill prohibits foreign governments from controlling or owning U.S. communications networks. This is not a new concept. It has been the law for more than fifty years, but the Federal Communications Commission has failed to enforce it in recent years.

Let me be clear from the onset--this bill places ownership and control restrictions on foreign governments, not on companies, which simply happen to be foreign. This distinction is important, and we must recognize the realities of the world we live in. Foreign government interests are not always our own, just as our interests will, at times, vary from theirs. If we do not protect our interests, no one else will either--which leaves a massive security vulnerability when it comes to communications.

For example, most people are not aware that nearly half of the U.S. video distribution runs over a satellite network controlled by a foreign government, Luxembourg. That same government opposed the U.S. led coalition in Iraq and was one of the few nations which wanted to throw NATO out of Europe. So I ask, is it really a good idea to put those satellite links under foreign government control, especially when those very links are used to distribute our nation's news? Whether it is the recent blackout or 9-11, we all know the panic created when we are cut off--no information coming in, and no information going out. We are an information-based society, and when access to information is compromised, our security is compromised.

Another concern is the vast amount of U.S. military communications in the Gulf region, which rely upon satellite networks controlled by foreign government. The Wall Street Journal reported on September 9, 2003, that Eutelsat, and I quote, ``snared much of the extra business to help U.S. forces conduct surveillance and battlefield operations in Iraq.'' The article went on to say ``Some company officials say the deal is a big reason Eutelsat's financial results have been stronger than those of its competitors, accounting for nearly 10 percent of total revenues.''

For those not familiar with Eutelsat, it is a conglomeration of multiple government-owned phone companies, with its headquarters in Paris. Some of Eutelsat's government owners have been some of our closest allies for decades, yet when it came to Iraq, we parted ways. It seems to me that it is not prudent policy to allow our lines of communications to be controlled by even our closest friends, because even the closest friends may, at times, have differing opinions and interests. Furthermore, the satellite market is in tough shape right now. I find it difficult to understand why we support a corporation that is controlled by a foreign government to the detriment of U.S. providers.

For several years, I have expressed serious reservations about the Federal Communications Commission's enforcement of foreign government ownership restrictions under Section 310 of the Communications Act. I repeatedly pointed out that companies controlled by foreign governments are too often controlled by considerations other than those of the competitive marketplace. Notwithstanding my concerns, the Commission has repeatedly approved foreign government acquisitions of U.S. licenses.

In view of the clear differences between the Congress and members of the Commission about the meaning and application of Section 310, I requested that the Commission conduct a ``vigorous review'' of the proposed acquisition of GE Americom by SES-Astra. In the end, the acquisition was treated as such a routine matter that it was approved at the staff level. We have laws on our books which restrict such acquisitions, yet a merger involving a foreign government is more easily approved, and with fewer conditions, than most U.S. mergers. After approving the application, the Commission staff subsequently ``found'' SES-Astra had not divulged the full extent of foreign control in the company. Even then, the Commission still allowed the staff approval to stand.

Accordingly, I am introducing this legislation to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that foreign governments, directly or indirectly, are specifically prohibited from owning or controlling U.S. communications networks. This legislation does not break new ground. It simply preserves and clarifies current law, stating that we will never place our lines of communications in a position where they can be compromised by foreign governments.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to offer my congratulations to the Hahnville High School Tigers football team of Boutte, Louisiana for winning the Louisiana 5A Football Championship game on December 13, 2003 in the New Orleans Superdome.

Led by their head coach, Lou Valdin, the Hahnville Tigers capped off a fairytale season when they defeated the Evangel Eagles 41-35. This year's win marks the school's sixth state championship title, the most recent in 1994, and seals off their perfect 15-0 season. It also gives Lou Valdin his first state title as a head coach.

On their march to this year's championship, the Tigers defeated Fountainebleu, Barbe, Higgins, and Carencro in the playoffs before meeting Evangel in finals. The championship game was a great effort by both teams, but in the end the Hahnville Tigers came away the victors.

I am proud to report that during the championship game the Tigers compiled over 450 total yards on offense on an Evangel defense that had only allowed just over 230 yards per game this season. I would especially like to note the efforts of three key offensive players: Darius Reynaud, Bryant Lee and Craig Turner. Reynaud and Lee both tied 5A Prep Classic records and Reynaud was named the Player of the Game by the media. Reynaud rushed for 184 yards on 31 carries and two touchdowns. He also led the Tigers in receiving yards with 86 on three receptions and a touchdown. Those three touchdowns tied a 5A Prep Classic record for most touchdowns and most points scored. This championship game was monumental in so many ways for both teams. The two teams broke or tied 27 5A Prep Classic records, including most points scored by two teams.

The whole effort was aided by Principal Barbara Fuselier, and all of the students, staff and parents of Hahnville High School who have shown their support for the players and coaches. It was truly a community effort that accomplished this great victory. I would like to commend all of the players and coaches who have shown true dedication to their sport, and I am extremely proud of their accomplishment. It is with great pride that we congratulate and wish them luck in all their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important resolution, because it recognizes a most unusual event in our Nation's sports history, when two college teams in the same town, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, not a big metropolitan town like Los Angeles or New York or what have you, but a small southern capital city, when two universities in that town achieve the ranking of number one in the Nation, national championships, both the Black College National Championship with Southern and the NCAA championship with the LSU Tigers, that is a remarkable event.

I missed the LSU game, by the way. My friend from Crowley should know the fact I spent the night in Crowley Hospital in fact attending to a problem I was having that night and missed the game, and my wife had to tell me who won the next morning.

But I did watch the replay, and the gentleman is absolutely right, it was an amazing game. Unfortunately, I stayed there with my two tickets, knocked out for the evening, and did not see the game. But when I saw the replay, I realized how tough a game it was.

Oklahoma was a great team. The Oklahoma Sooners were supposed to be the ``team of the century'' as they began their season, stumbled with Kansas State, and again faced an incredibly improving LSU team under Nick Saban. Coach Richardson with the Southern team had an amazing run of great victories to a national championship as well. What an outstanding year Baton Rouge, Louisiana, had and our State of Louisiana had in these two national championships.

The most remarkable thing, of course, is the way these two coaches have brought these players along. If you watched the season of these two teams, you saw coaches really working with young men and bringing them along, both athletically and in many other ways, making great men of them as they proceeded through their schedule. When the end of the season came, they were all much better than when they started, both academically, athletically and in so many other ways.

I should also tell you one of my best friends in this world is a former Member, Bill Brewster. You should know that last Friday Bill Brewster went through open heart surgery here in Washington, D.C. He had five bypasses, and he is back at his desk today. He is doing great; he has recovered.

But I called him up when I knew he was going into that surgery, since he is from Oklahoma and he was a Congressman from Oklahoma, to offer him some LSU surgeons, since we had learned to cut up on Oklahoma pretty good in the stadium in New Orleans. He had a good laugh and said, ``You are going to break my stitches. Don't do that, please.''

The bottom line is we had a great year. The coaches and players at LSU, my son is an LSU senior right now, as you and I, all of us are LSU graduates, he is a senior now at LSU, and the thrill of those students, I know at LSU and Southern, to watch their team achieve such great heights is an inspiration for all those young people. They are going to be better students. They are going to be better people because they went through a great year, and they saw what hard work, determination and just gutting it out means in terms of winning a great victory the way the teams won those victories.

So, again, our great congratulations to the LSU Tigers and the Southern Jaguars, our great appreciation to the coaches and their staffs and the students and those folks who run those two great institutions, and our congratulations to the fans of our great State, who stuck with our teams through some hard times until this great year we experienced.

So, again, thank you for bringing this resolution forward, Richard, and again congratulations at Mardi Gras time to the State of Louisiana.

``Laissez les bon temps rouler,'' let the good times roll.

Mr. Speaker, this statement represents my views as well as the views of the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, John Dingell, on S. 877, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (``the Act''). The House passed S. 877 by unanimous consent on December 8, 2003, and the President signed S. 877 into law on December 16th 2003 (Public Law 108-187). These views are in addition to those included in the November 21, 2003 and December 16, 2003, floor debate on S. 877.

The purpose of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 is to prohibit certain predatory and abusive practices used to send commercial e-mail, provide consumers with the ability to more easily identify and opt-out of receiving other unwanted commercial e-mail, and to give such opt-outs the force of law. The legislation provides enforcement tools to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), other Federal regulators, States' Attorneys General and bona fide Internet service providers (ISPs) to enforce compliance with the Act.

The Act's scope provides extensive jurisdiction over commercial e- mail by, among other things, cross-referencing definitions of terms such as ``protected computer'' as that term is used in Section 1037(e) of Title 18, United States Code. This jurisdiction may be interpreted to extend extraterritorially. It is the intent of the Act to broadly assert jurisdiction over commercial e-mails--from any source--that are sent to U.S. recipients or that use protected computers in the U.S. to affect any of the deceptive spamming activities prohibited in Section 1037 of Title 18 or Section 5(a)(1) of the Act's civil provisions, as well as jurisdiction over computers and computer servers engaged in communication with the United States which are used to send such commercial e-mails that otherwise cause harm to commerce in the United States. However, the managers also recognize that because of the nature of the Internet, commercial e-mail which is in no way falsified may transit the United States as a matter of routine conveyance without the knowledge of the initiator or sender, without being received by any U.S. consumers and with minimal impact here. For example, a travel agency located in Spain using computers that are sometimes in communication with the United States might send unfalsified commercial e-mail promoting travel specials exclusively to consumers in Chile but those e-mails would be routed as a matter of course through computer servers located in California without the knowledge of the initiator or sender. The Act is not intended to regulate the contents of such legitimate commercial e-mail messages (by, for instance, imposing the Act's required inclusions and opt-out regime) merely because they transit the United States or are sent from computers in communication with the United States, provided such commercial e-mails are not falsified in a manner prohibited by Section 1037 of Title 18, or Section 5(a)(1) or directed to or received by U.S. consumers and do not otherwise cause harm here.

Section 1 of the legislation sets forth the short title, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

Section 2 of the legislation sets forth various Congressional findings and determinations. Such findings and determinations are in addition to those in this statement.

Section 3 sets forth definitions.

The term ``Commercial electronic mail message'' is defined as any e- mail message, the primary purpose of which is commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service. The definition of commercial electronic mail message does not include transactional e- mail. The purpose of this provision and its relationship to the definition of ``transactional or relationship message'' is to exclude from most of the requirements of the legislation, e-mail messages that are pursuant to existing transactional relationships between a consumer and an e-mail sender.

The term ``Electronic mail message'' is intended to capture e-mail messages sent to a unique electronic mail address as that term is commonly understood and should be read to include messages sent to a unique electronic mail address where the reference to the Internet domain or ``domain part'' in the message is implicit and does not appear or is not displayed explicitly. This is not intended to expand or contract the commonly understood

concept of ``Electronic mail message'' and ``Electronic mail address'' but to ensure the bill covers those e-mail messages where either the domain part is implicit or is added upon transmission or delivery of the message to a recipient by the owner of the Internet domain to facilitate delivery of the message.

Section 4 sets forth civil and criminal penalties for fraudulent, abusive and predatory commercial e-mail.

The section provides that intentionally sending multiple commercial e-mail messages from a protected computer without authorization is subject to the penalties set forth in subsection (b) of section 4. The purpose of this provision is to prevent fraudulent use of third party's computer for purposes of sending commercial e-mail.

The section also provides that materially falsifying header information in multiple commercial e-mails is subject to the penalties set forth in subsection (b) of section 4. The purpose of this provision is to prevent fraudulent practices that disguise the route or source of a commercial e-mail message.

The section also provides that using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant for five or more e-mail accounts or online user accounts, or two or more domain names, and intentionally sending commercial e-mail messages from any combination of such addresses or accounts is a violation of this Act and subject to the penalties set forth in subparagraph (b) of section 4. The term ``online user accounts'' is meant to include registration for an account on a website that facilitates sending of e-mail messages to other users of such website. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the fraudulent establishment of e-mail accounts, online user accounts, web addresses or domain names from or through which unwanted commercial e-mail messages are intentionally sent or routed.

The section also provides that one who falsely represents one's self to be the registrant or bona fide successor in interest to the registrant of five or more Internet protocol addresses and intentionally sends multiple commercial e-mails from such addresses is subject to the penalties set forth in subsection (b) of section 4.

Subsection (b) of section 4 sets forth criminal penalties under the legislation. An offense as defined in section 4 is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of not more than five years or both if the offense is committed in furtherance of a felony (other than one defined in this Act), or the defendant has previously been convicted of a criminal offense under this Act or under the laws of any State, for conduct involving the sending of multiple unlawful commercial e-mail messages or unauthorized access to a computer system. Other violations under section (b) are punishable by a fine or imprisonment of not more than three years, or both.

Section 4 (in newly created 18 U.S.C. 1037(d)(2)) and Section 5(a)(6) contain definitions of ``materially'' that apply to certain falsification violations of the Act's criminal and civil provisions. The phrase ``identify, locate, or respond'' as used in this definition is intended to be interpreted broadly to encompass all methods of technical falsification that impede the ability of the recipient, an ISP, the FTC or appropriate Federal regulator, the DOJ, or a State Attorney General either to identify the source of the e-mail or whether the e-mail comes from an approved or known sender, to locate or bring enforcement action against an initiator of the e-mail, or to respond by taking countermeasures against or transmitting the e-mail message back to the initiator. Materially falsifying may also include, for example, falsifying certificates or similar sender authentication mechanisms used by a recipient or an Internet access service to identify the source of an e-mail message.

Section 5 of the legislation sets up a regulatory regime for sending commercial e-mail messages.

The section prohibits the sending of commercial e-mail messages or transactional or relationship messages with headings that are materially false or materially misleading. The section also prohibits knowingly sending commercial e-mail messages with deceptive subject headings.

The section requires a person sending commercial e-mail messages to conspicuously identify such messages as a solicitation or advertisement and provide to each recipient a conspicuous means of opting-out from receiving subsequent commercial e-mail messages. The term ``clear and conspicuous'' as it applies to the requirements of Section 5(a) is intended to be consistent with the meaning of that term as set forth in FTC guidance documents (e.g. ``Dot-Com Disclosures'' available via online publications at http://www.ftc.gov). It is intended that a required inclusion can meet the ``clear and conspicuous'' standard in a number of ways. The Act does not authorize the FTC to require the notice to be placed in a specific location such as the subject line or body of a commercial e-mail. The FTC is required by this Act to conduct a study of required labels in the subject line of commercial e-mail messages but cannot prescribe an inclusion of such label or notices in the subject line without further Congressional action. In addition, the sender of the commercial e-mail message must provide a reply e-mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, such as a clear and conspicuous link to an opt-out form, on a website that will enable recipients to reject further commercial communications within the scope of the opt-out from the sender. In addition, the sender must ensure the return e-mail address or other form of Internet-based communication is capable of receiving opt-outs for not less than 30 days from the transmission of each commercial e-mail message. We intend that senders of commercial e-mail provide a convenient, clear and simple way for consumers to opt-out of commercial e-mail. We also intend that senders of commercial e-mail devote sufficient resources to monitoring and maintaining records of consumer opt-outs so that giving effect to these consumers' opt-outs will be prompt and permanent.

The section expressly provides that senders of commercial e-mail may provide recipients with a menu of options of commercial e-mail messages that the recipient may or may not wish to receive. Such a menu must include the option of receiving no additional commercial e-mail messages. An opt-out menu gives consumers the option to continue to receive a sub-group of defined communications from a sender, if the consumer so desires.

The section provides that senders must give effect to customer opt- outs within ten business days of receiving such opt-outs. This time period is subject to regulatory modification by the FTC as described below. It further provides that subsequent affirmative consent by a consumer (an opt-in) will allow a sender lawfully to send commercial e- mail to a consumer so consenting. The burden of proving subsequent affirmative consent should be on the sender in any dispute between a sender and a recipient of commercial e-mail.

This provision prohibits the sender, or any other person who knows that the recipient has made an opt-out request, from selling, leasing, exchanging or otherwise transferring or releasing the e-mail address of the recipient other than for purposes of compliance with this Act or any other law.

Subparagraph (5) of section 5(a) sets forth specific required inclusions in commercial e-mail. These include clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or a solicitation; a clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity to opt-out of receipt of subsequent commercial e-mail messages; and a valid physical postal address of the sender.

Subsection (b) of section 5 provides that harvesting e-mail addresses or generating e-mail addresses by means of a dictionary attack constitutes an aggravating factor for illegal transmission of commercial e-mail under subsection (a) of section 5. Use of automated means to generate e-mail addresses, or gathering e-mail addresses is not by itself illegal, unless the commercial e-mail messages sent to the generated or harvested addresses as a result of such activity do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a).

Subpart (2) makes reference to online user accounts. As in section 4, the term online user accounts is meant to include registration for an account on a website that facilitates sending of e-mail to other users of such website or any other protected computer not affiliated with the website.

Subsection (c) of section 5 requires the FTC to conduct a rulemaking on the 10-day period required for e-mail senders to comply with customers' opt-out requests. As technology allows, we hope that that period will be shortened.

Subsection (d) sets forth additional requirements for transmission of commercial e-mail messages containing sexually explicit material. In particular, such e-mail messages must alert recipients in the subject heading of the e-mail that the message contains sexually explicit material. Additionally, the sender must provide a means of opting-out from receipt of such messages in a manner that does not involve viewing sexually explicit images.

My views, as well as those of Ranking Member John Dingell, regarding Sections six through 16 of the Act are continued in the Statement of John Dingell submitted contemporaneously with this statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation to Chairman Duncan Hunter of the House Armed Services Committee for his successful efforts to reauthorize the Maritime Security Program (MSP) in the recently-passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The vitally important MSP program will ensure that militarily-useful, United States flag commercial vessels crewed by American citizens are available for this Nation's military and national security needs.

In the MSP program reauthorization, the Congress has ensured that no unreasonable impediments stand in the way of obtaining U.S.-flag roll- on/roll-off, container and other militarily-useful MSP vessels for the transport of military vehicles, supplies and other materiel in support of U.S. military operations around the world. Chairman Hunter's support was vital to our efforts to clarify the original intent of certain vessel equipment provisions in the Maritime Security Act of 1996 that first created the MSP program. Specifically, it is now clear that existing vessels built to international standards may be documented under the United States flag for inclusion in the MSP program when the telecommunications and other electronic equipment on such vessels meets internationally accepted standards.

As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and with my dear colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Vitter, we worked closely with Chairman Hunter to ensure that appropriate telecommunications and other electronic equipment standards are applied to MSP vessels. When the MSP program was originally enacted, the law provided that a vessel that meets internationally accepted construction and equipment standards may be reflagged under the United States flag for operation in the MSP. That provision was intended to apply to all vessel equipment, including telecommunication and other electronic equipment. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 now clarifies that matter.

Accordingly, it is now clear that a vessel may be added to the U.S.- flag commercial fleet for operation in the MSP program if it is built to international standards, and the telecommunications and other radio equipment aboard the vessels comply with applicable international Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention requirements. This is in keeping with the elimination of financial and other burdens that the Congress specifically sought to remove through the establishment of the Maritime Security Program. I would like to again thank Chairman Hunter and his staff for working closely with us on this matter of critical importance to the military and national security of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of an historic moment in the 108th Congress as we move to pass a significant revision of our Nation's energy policy. But indeed, this is also a sad time for us and for everyone in the energy community. I have learned and announce with regret, the passing of Mr. Barry McNutt, a distinguished energy policy analyst and outstanding public servant who served at the United States Department of Energy since its inception. Many of us who have been close to energy policy issues over the years will recognize Barry's mark on this energy legislation because he was a strong advocate for increasing domestic energy supplies and improving energy efficiency. While we may have disagreed with Barry's analysis at times, we always respected it because we knew it was coming from a man with great intellectual gifts and unblemished integrity.

Barry McNutt was only interested in good policy not politics, but he recognized that good policy happens through the legislative process. He worked tirelessly to formulate policy options that informed and enlightened the process. He always knew his role as a Federal employee and he understood the important part he played in forming policy. Barry often told his colleagues that the most important thing is to produce solid analysis that will stand the test of time and he did that with talent and great care. Barry was 57 years old when he died on Sunday, November 16 at his home in Arlington, Virginia, after a long and courageous battle with cancer. He leaves behind a beloved wife Andrea and a brother, and many colleagues who will miss him, but he also leaves behind a legacy of outstanding public service that should inspire us all throughout our years of service to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to an authorization provision contained in the conference report we are considering today. This provision--inserted in the eleventh hour--would limit a television broadcaster's potential national audience reach to 39 percent. Not only is this bad public policy, but this provision is more susceptible to a First Amendment challenge than the FCC restriction it replaces. The DC Circuit rule in its 2002 Fox Television decision that the FCC failed to justify its old limitation. The court made it clear that any broadcast ownership limit is subject to at least rational-basis scrutiny under the First Amendment. Consequently, the FCC conducted an exhaustive study and developed a comprehensive record which concluded that a 45-percent limit was supportable. This bill ignores the FCC's findings, as well as the Fox decision, and plucks a 39-percent figure out of thin air. An act of Congress is afforded more deference than an FCC rulemaking, but it is still subject to First Amendment scrutiny. With absolutely no record to support this limit, the provision might very well not withstand judicial review, potentially leaving us with no restriction whatsoever.

The bill's ownership provision is also rooted in a misunderstanding of the FCC's new rule, current levels of concentration, and the state of competition. The FCC's rule measures potential audience reach, not the number of television stations an entity owns. No broadcaster owns anywhere near 45 percent of the nation's more than 1,700 full-power, commercial and non-commercial television stations. In fact CBS and FOX only own approximately 2 percent--the ruling by the FCC's would allow them to purchase only a handful more stations--while NBC owns less than 2 percent, and ABC owns less than 1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the FCC rule limits a broadcaster to owning television stations whose signals, in the aggregate, serve areas encompassing no more than 45 percent of the nation's television households. This does not mean that viewers are watching the broadcaster's stations, only that the stations' signals are potentially available in the viewers' areas. No broadcaster's actual audience share is close to 45 percent. Even CBS, which currently leads the ratings race, only garners about a 14-percent audience share during primetime. And in fact, the vast majority of the stations carrying CBS programming are independent affiliates not owned by CBS. In terms of actual viewership, no major broadcast network owns stations that, in the aggregate, exceed 3.4 percent of the national viewing audience.

To win viewers, each network still must compete with many other broadcasters, each of which would also theoretically own stations with signals available to 45 percent of the country. Indeed, there are now seven major broadcast networks--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, WB, and PAX-- as well as foreign-language networks, and many independent broadcasters. Moreover, 85 percent of television households now subscribe to cable or satellite service with access to both broadcast and non-broadcast programming, and entities other than ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX own approximately 75 percent of the more than 100 channels of programming received in the average home. Also, keep in mind that the FCC's

local ownership rules still protect localism and diversity by requiring a minimum number of independent voices in each market. In this context, the drummed-up fear over the FCC's rule is almost as ludicrous as would be the fear over the national availability of Starbucks. Starbucks, it sometimes appears, can be found on every corner. But Starbucks' seemingly ubiquitous presence does not mean that consumers can't drink other brands of coffee, or forgo coffee altogether in favor of tea, juice, soda, or any other beverage.

The FCC granted broadcasters the added flexibility to help preserve free, over-the-air television, which is losing ground to cable and satellite service. Since 2002, cable programming has had more primetime viewers than broadcast programming, and its lead is increasing. This is particularly significant because broadcasters depend exclusively on advertising, while cable and satellite providers benefit not only from rapidly increasing advertising revenue, but subscription revenue, as well. By preventing broadcasters from making limited and reasonable acquisitions to improve their economies of scale and operating efficiencies, we jeopardize the continued viability of free television broadcasting.

Adding insult to injury, this bill will forbid the FCC from raising or lowering the 39 percent limit as market conditions continue to change. In fact, the bill eliminates the FCC's authority to periodically review even ``rules relating to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation.'' Eliminating the FCC's discretion over the national audience-reach limit in this manner is unwise. Congress created the FCC to avoid having to pass legislation every time conditions change. By requiring Congress to act whenever fine-tuning becomes necessary is not only impractical, but it stifles the media marketplace. Moreover, the rush to judgment is not even necessary here, as the Third Circuit has prevented the FCC's rule from taking effect while the court considers it on appeal. Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, the provision contained in this bill may just be yet another nail in the coffin of free, over-the-air television, as broadcasters find it increasingly difficult to grow when faced with the tightened broadcast ownership cap, and as business models continue to turn toward cable and satellite service.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time; and, Mr. Speaker, let me first say that this has been a multiyear process. When we began our work in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we entitled it Patients First, because essentially we wanted to make sure everything we did in the health care agenda thought about patients and did what we could to make patients' lives better in this country.

I recall when we got to the point where we began drafting and working on the Medicare prescription drug bill, when we talked across the aisle, as we often do in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, about whether we could build a consensus bill at the committee level or not, it was pretty clear that we could not; that there was a great difference of opinion as to how to shape Medicare reform and prescription drug legislation. And because there was this huge great difference of opinion, the ranking Democrat, my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I agreed we would have a great debate, and we did. We had many, many hours of debate. We had a 23-hour markup; 23 hours of markup and amendments that went on for a huge amount of time. And that literally, finally produced the Medicare bill that came to the floor along with the Committee on Ways and Means effort that became part of the conference report that we voted on.

This was not a one-night effort. This was not a 3\1/2\ hour effort in the middle of the evening. This was a multiyear, very greatly debated issue from top to bottom where we were deeply separated on approach. And I think my mother summed it up best when I talked to her about it after we passed the bill. The approach that we took, that we understand some of the other side did not agree with, and that is a legitimate difference of opinion, the approach we took was that we ought to empower seniors to make choices for themselves about how they got prescription drug coverage; to make choices for themselves about how the health care that they would need in their senior years would be delivered to them and how they would take this new benefit.

There were those on the other side who thought there ought to be one choice only, the Medicare choice. There were those on this side, on our side of the aisle, who believed that Medicare choice ought to be available, and we made sure that it is available, but other choices ought to come.

Now, that is what happened. We can argue about process and procedure all we want. The bottom line is we were separated by a great division, it was settled, and the American public are better for it.