Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, until August of last year, broadband Internet providers were considered common carriers under the law, with a legal requirement to carry all traffic equally.

A series of FCC decisions and the Supreme Court's decision to them changed all that, turning broadband services into unregulated ``information services.''

Why is this important? In my district in Silicon Valley, everybody uses the Internet and knows that you have to have net neutrality. They cannot believe that we would even consider changing that rule.

So what does ``common carrier'' mean? For those of you who don't use the Internet a lot, common carrier is a concept that is quite old. What it really means in exchange for rights to use public ways: you agree to carry all passengers on the same terms. If you get on the bus, a common carrier, you are charged a fee; but the bus company cannot charge more to women than it can to men, and that is really the equivalent of what we are talking about here.

The phone company consolidations have meant that most Americans have one or at most two choices for their broadband service provider. What that means is that we are going to have a duopoly or a monopoly unless we have net neutrality rules that will stifle the Internet. It will turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV. That is not going to be good for innovation.

Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation that was founded in a dorm room by two Stanford students. They had an opportunity to be successful because they were not screened out at the very beginning by incumbents who paid for access. That is about to change unless this House adopts net neutrality rules.

Some of the phone companies have suggested that there is a free ride. What they have failed to point out is that the phone companies are paid an enormous amount of money, just like the bus company is, for use of their services. What the net neutrality rules say is you cannot differentiate.

I would just like to say we want to go on seeing the girl in the funny hat making lemonade. Don't make us watch Robin Williams's cousin making bacon juice instead.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Isn't it necessary to claim the time in opposition to actually be opposed, and the chairman of the committee is not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the Smith amendment does absolutely nothing. The amendment is to the Communications Act, not to the Clayton or Sherman antitrust acts; and whether or not we past this amendment, the current antitrust laws will continue to operate as before.

The savings clause neither creates new net neutrality protections nor takes them away. It is superfluous, it is nothing, and it is meant to encourage Members who actually are for net neutrality into thinking they can somehow get away with being for net neutrality but doing nothing.

The Trinko case contained a similar antitrust savings clause. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Trinko case basically held there were no antitrust remedies for anticompetitive conduct in areas regulated by the Telecommunications Act.

The whole issue is how the antitrust laws apply. I would point out that our committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, reported out by a vote of 20-13 a bill introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner and the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, that actually did provide antitrust remedies for these Internet provisions. Inexplicably, the real bill, the real amendment that the chairman of the committee and the ranking member crafted and that won a majority of support, bipartisan I would add, on the committee to be reported out, was not made in order for us to discuss today. Instead, this phony amendment was made in order.

I would like to say something else about this rhetoric about regulation. Antitrust law is not regulation. It sets the standard for what monopolies cannot do. It is not a regulatory approach. It is a set of laws that keep monopolies from squeezing the little guys, which is what is going to happen if we do not get real net neutrality in this bill.

The Markey amendment was put in order. We can vote for that, and I hope it passes. If it does not, we will end up with the dualopolies or the monopolies turning the Internet into a kind of cable television outfit.

When the public finds out what we are doing to their Internet, the dome is going to collapse with the uproar they create. For Members who have been here a long time and remember the vote that they took that allowed cable TV rates to go through the roof, that uproar is going to be nothing compared to what you hear if this measure goes forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Samantha Fang for her selection as a Presidential Scholar in the Arts for 2006, our Nation's highest honor for graduating high school artists.

Samantha was selected as one of the 20 Presidential Scholars in the Arts this year for her success and accomplishments as a classical pianist. She was selected for this honor by virtue of being a national Finalist in the NFAA Arts Recognition and Talent Search (ARTS) program, a program in which 6,524 high school students applied to in 2006. Samantha and her fellow Presidential Scholars in the performing arts will be featured in a showcase performance during the Salute to the Presidential Scholars at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Samantha, who will graduate as valedictorian of The Harker School in Sunnyvale this June, began her piano studies at the age of 5. Currently, she is enrolled in the Preparatory Division at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, where she was named an ``Honorary Distinction'' student, the highest award presented by the Preparatory Division. Additionally, Samantha was named the California state winner of the 2005 MTNA (Music Teachers National Association) Senior Piano Competition, has performed in the Weill Hall at Carnegie Hall as winner of the Russian-American International Festival and will be broadcast as a soloist on WQXR radio's Young Artist's Showcase this June.

I am proud to stand here today to recognize Samantha for her accomplishments as an exceptional artist and student. I urge Samantha to continue to take an interest in the performing arts, as artistic and creative innovation is a crucial component of America's cultural fabric, and I wish her the best of luck as she continues her education at Harvard this fall.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in gratitude to recognize the social services and social work practices of Mr. Ken Borelli so valued by the residents of Santa Clara County today. Mr. Borelli has worked with the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency for 36 years. I first met Ken over 25 years ago when I was a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors which had responsibility for funding the Department of Social Services and providing oversight for the Department. Ken was a standout then and he has remained so to this day. He began his career as a Social Work

Supervisor in the Food Stamps Unit and moved throughout the Social Services system to include: the Multicultural Child Welfare Unit, Basic Services, Adult Protective Services, Immigration, Social Work Coordinator, Voluntary Foster Home Intake and Coordinator of Special Projects.

Mr. Borelli developed the first Immigration Services Unit for Santa Clara County in 1974, where he worked closely with neighborhood youth groups. In fact, Ken is an expert and leader in the field of Immigration Services and has exhibited his accomplishments in many ways. He not only provided professional development training in the field of immigration, but also significantly contributed to the development of the 1990 Federal legislation which established ``Special Immigrant Juvenile Status'' laws to help immigrant children in the Child Welfare System across the country. Ken also was responsible for the development of an invaluable ``Immigration Resource and Practice Guide'' which helped so many families. Ken accomplished other written work in the field of Social work practice including topics such as: Child Welfare, International Social Services, and Domestic Violence. Mr. Borelli continues to remain involved in all levels of social service issues, including: child welfare abuse issues, dependency court investigations, AIDS research and fund-raising, immigration, and development and enhancement of our library systems. His participation in Committees and Advisory Boards included: the Multi-Disciplinary Interview Committee of the Child Abuse Council of Santa Clara County (20 years), the Alum Rock Library Committee, the County Library Commission, the Advisory Board of the Eastside Athletic Club, and the Board of Catholic Charities Immigration Services.

Mr. Borelli is a prominent leader in the community and continues to demonstrate his innovative contributions. He was a founding member and Chair for 20 years of the Social Service Agency's AIDS Services Committee. He is a supporter of the Opera San Jose and is being honored as ``2006 Volunteer of the Year'' by the Italian American Foundation. I hereby honor Ken Borelli, on the closure of this chapter of his life, but know he will continue to have a tremendous impact on social services in the county.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in gratitude to recognize the continued extraordinary achievements, community leadership and contributions of Christine Burroughs, Director of InnVision the Way Home. InnVision is a leading provider of services for homeless and low-income individuals and families in Santa Clara County.

Ms. Burroughs has successfully led InnVision the Way Home since 1991. During

her tenure, she has grown the organization from a small, grass-roots agency into a leading provider of housing and support services to over 16,000 homeless individuals and families in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. She managed a staff of 115 at 20 sites with an annual operating budget of $10 million and $17 million in assets. She spearheaded the development of many community partnerships and at least 12 capital projects including the building and/or rehabilitation of various shelters, transitional housing facilities, permanent affordable apartments and multi-service centers. Program development included: mental health services, alcohol/drug rehabilitation, job training and children's activities for all ages.

In 1997, Ms. Burroughs was honored as a ``Woman of Achievement'' by the San Jose Mercury News (Women's Fund) and received commendations from City and County officials, as well as the Management Center in San Francisco. In 2004 and 2005, San Jose Magazine heralded her as one of Silicon Valley's Power 100. Currently, as a member of the San Jose Rotary Club, she serves on 2 committees whose focus is youth development. She is also a long-time member of First Presbyterian Church of San Jose and has served in leadership roles on various local coalitions and boards advocating for the homeless. Christine is a new board member of the Children's Musical Theatre in San Jose.

Ms. Burroughs paved ``the way home'' for countless people in need of assistance so as to improve their struggle for independence, freedom and dignity. Hope is the mainstay of achieving success, and Ms. Burroughs provided that element of strength for so many individuals and families.

Ms. Burroughs portrayed a pillar of strength, solidarity and integrity, by which all who met her (service providers or beneficiaries of services) became transformed to reach a better plan in life. She has been a tireless advocate for those persons unable to share their voice for themselves or their families. I hereby honor Christine Burroughs, on this special day of her retirement and wish her all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, today and throughout the month of May, we celebrate the many contributions Asian Pacific Americans have made to the fabric of our communities and to this Nation as a whole.

More than 100 Members of Congress work together in the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus to promote Asian Pacific American issues and concerns, and I'm pleased that we are led by my long-time friend and colleague, Congressman Mike Honda.

Congressman Honda and I are proud to represent San Jose, California and surrounding areas, a community blessed with diversity and culture from around the world, including close to 350,000 Asian Pacific Americans.

Some notable Asian Pacific Americans from our area include Norman Mineta, the longest serving Secretary in the history of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the first Asian American mayor of a major U.S. city, and the first Asian American Cabinet member during the Clinton Administration.

San Jose Councilmember Madison Nguyen is another extraordinary Asian Pacific American. She is the first Vietnamese American woman elected to office in the State of California.

Another distinguished Asian Pacific American from the San Jose area is Dr. Allan Seid who founded Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI), the largest social services nonprofit organization serving the Asian Pacific American community in Santa Clara County.

Vinod Khosla has contributed immensely to Silicon Valley as a distinguished venture capitalist and a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, headquartered in Santa Clara, California, a company that has grown into one of the largest providers of computers, computer components, software, and information-technology services.

In this Congress, there are five Asian Pacific Americans serving our Nation and their communities as members of the House of Representatives, as well as one delegate from

American Samoa and two Asian Pacific Americans serving in the Senate. I am proud that the California Democratic Delegation includes two of these Representatives from the Asian Pacific American community.

In the field of science and technology, Asian Pacific Americans have long contributed to our country, from Ellison Onizuka, the first Asian- American in space, to Flossi Wong-Staal and Dr. David D. Ho, for their work on HIV and AIDS. Moreover, several Asian Pacific Americans have received Nobel Prizes for their accomplishments in science and technology.

Hundreds of thousands of Asian Pacific Americans have also loyally served our Nation in the military willing to give their life for the United States of America. Asian Pacific American veterans of the Armed Forces number 312,700.

In sports, Asian Pacific Americans have helped bring home Olympic gold medals for the United States, including the first woman to win gold medals in the ten and three meter diving events--Filipina American Victoria Manalo Draves.

Although it is important for us to celebrate Asian Pacific American heritage this month, we must not forget the plight that Asian Pacific Americans endure despite the community's many accomplishments.

The pitfalls of immigration law and the backlog of immigration applications continue to prevent many Asian Pacific American families from reuniting for several years.

We must also not forget that the APA community suffers from greater poverty than non-Hispanic Whites, especially in the Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese American communities.

We must work to ensure that Asian Pacific Americans are appropriately counted when our government collects data that will be used to understand the needs of the APA community.

We must make every effort to invite Asian Pacific Americans to participate in government to ensure that our government meets the needs of the APA community.

In commemoration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, I honor the contributions of millions of Asian Pacific Americans who have contributed to our nation and who I am sure will continue to contribute in the future. But while I celebrate this month, I also renew my pledge to address the issues affecting Asian Pacific Americans around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and commend Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards who is retiring in May after nearly 26 years on the bench.

Former Governor Jerry Brown first appointed Edwards to the bench after he had established himself in San Jose, California as a lawyer specializing in juvenile law and criminal defense.

Through the years, Edwards regularly ranked among the highest in local bar association surveys of the judges; and as his speeches and writings spread across the country, his reputation extended well beyond his chambers in San Jose.

In 2004, Judge Edwards received the prestigious William Rehnquist award from the National Center for State Courts, which heralded him as one of the ``most effective and progressive trial judges in America.'' This honor is especially hard won in a court system whose primary purpose lies with complex and emotionally-charged issues of homes in crisis, juvenile offenders and victims of abuse and violence.

While most judges choose to move as quickly as possible through the assignment of handling juvenile matters, Judge Edwards advocated innovative changes to the system. He fashioned new programs to unify families, deal with domestic violence, improve foster care and reform the approach to both dependents and delinquents in juvenile matters. Edwards is a judge who strongly promoted transparency in an otherwise secretive juvenile court system.

In 1999, Judge Edwards established one of the country's first dependency drug treatment courts. He also founded the Juvenile Court Judges Association of California and was co-founder of the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council.

Judge Edwards' innovations in juvenile justice made him an expert sought out by courts across the country. Although he is retiring from the bench, he will continue to focus on important social justice issues. Judge Edwards hopes to serve as a regular juvenile justice consultant for the California Administrative Office of the Courts and will continue to travel the country to provide expertise to juvenile courts elsewhere.

Judge Edwards is also the son of my predecessor in office, the longtime San Jose Democratic congressman Don Edwards. Former Congressman Don Edwards served San Jose honorably in Congress for three decades and was a true mentor to me when I worked for him prior to my election to the seat he occupied after his retirement. San Jose has been blessed by these two men who clearly served its citizenry well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and commend the Honorable James R. Grube upon his retirement from an almost 18-year career on the bench serving the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of California.

Judge Grube was appointed to the bench on August 12, 1988 after practice as an attorney specializing in bankruptcy and general insolvency matters. Prior to his practice of law, Judge Grube served in the United States Army as a Captain with the 11th Light Infantry Brigade in Vietnam. In 1987, shortly before his appointment to the bench, Jim was elected to the 500 Best Lawyers in America in recognition of the quality of his legal work in the field of bankruptcy.

During Judge Grube's tenure he has led the court in a number of areas to improve cost and delay reduction in the courts. In the mid 1990's, Judge Grube led the implementation of a telephonic hearing system that reduced the cost of litigation in the San Jose, California Court by approximately $300,000 per month. This system allows attorneys to make court appearances from their offices by telephone on all routine matters as well as other matters of their choosing. The system has become widely used by the bar and saved thousands of dollars in billable hours for clients.

Judge Grube is the author of numerous procedural and substantive guidelines adopted throughout the District and nationwide that provides guidance to counsel and reduce unnecessary legal expense. He is also recognized as an outstanding and frequent lecturer. In 2000 he spoke nationwide about the technology bankruptcies that are typical in Silicon Valley and because of the unique caseload of bankruptcy courts in Silicon Valley, he has authored many ground-breaking opinions in the intellectual property field.

As a strong advocate of education, Jim served on the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Education Committee. He has imparted his experience and wisdom by being a mentor to his law clerks and has stood as an example to other lawyers in methods to approach legal problems.

Judge Grube participated in establishing the Don Edwards Inn of Court and has promoted civility and professionalism in the community through his leadership. Judge Grube has also participated in both the San Jose Rotary Club and the Hollister Rotary Club.

I know I join many others in Santa Clara County in thanking Judge Grube for his contributions and wish him well upon his retirement from the bench.

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

This amendment would further weaken an already appallingly weak bill by striking the criminal penalties for corrupt lobbyists that knowingly violate disclosure requirements. The amendment would strike out provisions in the bill that were agreed to by the Judiciary Committee that would hold lobbyists criminally responsible for violating the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by failing to disclose their contacts with Members of Congress with criminal intent and replace them with finds.

The provision in the base text establishes criminal penalties for whoever knowingly and willfully or knowingly, willfully and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of the bill. I do not see why we should object to this. These new criminal penalties are to lobbyists who knowingly and willfully or knowingly, willfully and corruptly lie on their disclosure forms. Is the lobbyist who corruptly lies in his disclosure form not deserving of the criminal sanction? This amendment would strike those tough criminal penalties and instead replace them with monetary fines.

We know from reading in the newspaper that Mr. Jack Abramoff made $66 million defrauding Indian tribal clients alone. Does anyone think that a $100,000 fine would deter Mr. Abramoff from making his $66 million corruptly? It is a drop in the bucket. In fact, this amendment is worsened by the fact that it adds a requirement to the intent element of the civil penalty of the Lobbyist Act, corruptly and with intent to evade the law, which is an almost impossible standard for the prosecutor to meet.

The proponent of this amendment has argued that the language included in the current criminal provision is vague and undefined; we went through that in the committee. But I don't believe this argument is accurate. The term ``corruptly'' appears in title 18 at least 15 times, even appearing in the Federal Bribery Statute. Moreover, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the term ``corruptly'' means ``to act knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity of something.'' I do not think the definition can get any clearer than that.

This bill is already so weak and limited that it is virtually powerless to prevent future abuses. This amendment would remove one of the few tough deterrents in the bill. I would note that the provision for criminal penalties applies to lobbyists, not to Members of Congress, unless those lobbyists are former Members or acting in violation of the current rules on lobbying illegally.

So we do think that this amendment, although I am sure the gentleman is offering it with all good faith, is misguided, and we do oppose and urge our colleagues to oppose.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the bill puts in new disclosure requirements and also tough enforcement of those requirements, which the gentleman's amendment would essentially remove.

I was a little surprised to hear the argument that the penalty invites suborning perjury on the part of prosecutors. I have never heard that argument advanced in the situation of any other criminal penalty, bribery or drug cases or any other kind of criminal penalty. And I must say that I have yet in my many, many years as an attorney run into a case where a prosecutor suborned perjury in the way described by the gentleman. Maybe he has run into a different situation in his State. But I think to suggest that prosecutors are going to engage in misconduct is misleading, and also it is revealing that that concern is only expressed when it is to protect corrupt lobbyists.

Let us remember that the standard that is being outlined in this bill is corruption. Knowingly, willfully and corruptly is the standard, and that has to be proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that is the due process protection that we generally rely on in our great country.

I would just note in concluding that recently a Roll Call editorial described this bill as, ``This bill all but shouts to voters that the GOP is not serious about reform and that it values its ties to K Street more than the public's trust.''

I would say that the gentleman's amendment is an elevation of that concern for K Street that this House should reject rather soundly.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would note that laws already exist to prevent this activity and that to some extent this amendment is redundant and that the enforcement of current laws would solve the problem. And when it comes to lobbyists who are making the kind of money that Mr. Abramoff made, the $50,000 fine may well not be a deterrent.

Nevertheless, I think an additional deterrent to some lobbyists for violating the gift rules is useful. I would note that the primary responsibility falls upon Members of Congress for not accepting extravagant gifts. This amendment really looks to the gift giver instead of the guilty gift receiver.

Nevertheless, I think it is a useful component of a bill, and I do support it, and I believe that many on this side of the aisle do support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just, in closing, note that this is not a bipartisan amendment, unless either Mr. Castle or Mr. Gerlach has made a party decision that we don't yet know about. However, we don't oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment; and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our colleague, and one of the authors of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, section 502 of the underlying bill establishes mandatory ethics training for staff and voluntary training for Members. This amendment would not change the voluntary nature of Members' ethics training, but it would require the Ethics Committee to post the names of Members who have not taken the training.

I guess the purpose of this amendment is a worthy one. Members and staff should certainly know the ethics rules and should go back and refresh their memory of the ethics rules every couple of years. We all support that proposition, and in my opinion most Members are conscientious and know the ethics rule and do their best to follow them. But if posting Members' name on a Web site will make them more likely to go and get the training, then that is a good result.

But let us be honest here. A couple of new ethics seminars are not going to solve this problem. A Wall Street Journal-NBC poll released today found that almost 80 percent of the American people disapprove of the job Congress is doing. The public has watched this Congress bend and break the rules over the past few years, and I think they have had it. It is going to take more than ethics seminars to convince these people that we are interested in cleaning up Congress.

Even if this amendment is adopted, and I believe it will be, this bill is not going to change anybody's mind that the majority, who are running this House, are serious about cleaning up the mess that is here.

With that, I would note that although many of us go in person for classes, those of us who come from places like Silicon Valley really do our reading over the Internet. For those Members who have not visited the Ethics Committee site, there is a wealth of information online and available and very easy to access from home at any hour of the day or night, and that is a very good alternative for Members whose schedules are very pressed.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, at least until the ranking member of the House Administration Committee arrives.

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

I will support this amendment. I don't, frankly, know that this has ever been an issue that I have heard of or seen in the press that someone has converted a leadership PAC to personal use. It shouldn't happen and, therefore, I don't have a problem supporting the amendment.

To the extent that it is difficult for the FEC to make a judgment call on what is personal use and what is not, this doesn't compound it because they already have to make that judgment when it comes to re- election PACs.

I would just note that, like the rest of the bill before us, this is okay, but it really doesn't accomplish the real problem solving that the country is crying out for. I don't think that any of our Members on this side of the aisle oppose, but even approving this will not clean up the ethics swamp that the country is so very concerned about.

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

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

As I mentioned earlier, we are supporting this amendment, even though it solves a problem that apparently has not yet come into play.

But what this amendment and this bill fail to do is to fundamentally reform a culture of corruption. It does not end the practice of lobbyists giving gifts to Members of Congress and their staffs. It does not end the practice of Members using corporate jets, does not require disclosure of lobbyists bundling contributions to Members of Congress. It does not end the practice of leaving votes open to twist arms and lobby Members on the floor of the House. It does not do anything to close the revolving door from government service to personal gain. It does nothing to clean up our campaign finance system, to take special- interest money out of politics.

The bottom line is that, although we are supporting this amendment, it really doesn't actually reform the system that has the American people so concerned and rightly so.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, my colleague from California, the Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I do not object to this amendment, but like the underlying bill, I think it fails to seriously address the scandals that have made so many Americans distrustful of this Congress.

Requiring mandatory ethics training for registered lobbyists is probably a good idea. But I didn't think that classes for lobbyists were the major issue facing the country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Members should recognize that the amendment is redundant at best and really does not do anything to strengthen the lobby laws.

This amendment creates a redundancy in the U.S. Code by adding language that is already covered. Section 201(a)(3) already and currently prohibits receiving a personal benefit in exchange for ``any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy.'' This amendment would add to that language ``including an earmark as defined in section 501(d) of the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act,'' but

earmarks are already covered under the current code because it is already a decision or action, and thus the language in the amendment is unnecessary. But, as I told my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, I do not oppose redundancies in the committee or on the floor.

I would note, however, that if those across the aisle wanted real reform in the way of earmarks, they would support a measure that would prohibit Members from offering or withholding an earmark to influence how another Member votes. And if those across the aisle wanted real reform, they would require real disclosure of earmarks.

I would note further that, in proof of the redundancy comment I made at the start of my comments, our former colleague from the 50th Congressional District in California is living proof that the statute works. He is in prison today for bribery. And I have often thought, although he was convicted of bribery, he actually took money to sell out the military; and, as far as I am concerned, that is treason as well. Our military has the right to expect the very best that we can buy for them by way of intelligence, equipment. They deserve the very best. What they do not deserve is a Member of Congress selling them out for money, and that is what happened in that case.

I would note that there were discussions of having some kind of earmark reform in this bill, and it is a measure of how discombobulated the majority is. I believe that the appropriators were unable to come to agreement with the authorizers, and what we have ended up with actually is a bill where you can sneak those earmarks in in the dead of night. You can sneak them in; and although it is a bribe that we are talking about, the real reform, the transparency that would prevent that, is missing from this bill.

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

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

I would just note that we are today dealing with this rather small effort to do lobbying reform and missing, I guess, sort of ``the check is in the mail'' on earmark reform. I do not believe for a minute, and as a matter of fact, former Congressman Cunningham himself admitted that what he did was wrong, that he knew it was wrong. He sold his country. He sold his vote.

The fact is that he was convicted of bribery, and he is in prison today. We need to have greater transparency on these earmarks. That is really a very serious issue that is completely missing.

I don't oppose the Flake amendment. It doesn't really do anything, but I don't oppose it. We would really accomplish something if we were to publish the earmarks, if we were to make sure that earmarks could not be included in the dark of night; if we were to make sure that this mess was cleaned up, then we would actually be yielding something for the American people. I don't believe that we are.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to note it is the entire system that is a problem here. It is a culture that leads to corruption that we are trying to correct here. I don't think the gentleman's amendment succeeds in that, although I am sure he is sincere in offering it, and the underlying bill does not succeed in cleaning up that swamp.

Again, I do not object to the amendment, but I wish this whole bill were a lot more than it is.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish every employer in America was able to follow the lead of the County of Santa Clara, California. County employees who are on active military duty in direct connection with an armed conflict receive a salary augmentation which, in combination with their military pay, provides 100% of their base salary. Their employee benefits are also continued while they are deployed. Employees receive this salary augmentation and benefits for an indefinite period as long as they are involved in military service. The effort to support those in military service, guard and Reserves, doesn't end there.

The Veterans Service Office is a county funded agency established in 1946, assisting veterans and their families to obtain the benefits and services they have earned through their military services. The Veterans Service Office works closely with the Santa Clara County Employment Committee (VEC). The mission of the VEC is to promote the employment of veterans within the county by assisting local employers in recruiting veterans for job openings as well as providing employment-related assistance services for job-seeking veterans.

Each month, the California Department of Veterans Affairs forwards a list of returning veterans to the County VSO. This list includes on average the names of 50 to 100 veterans who have indicated an interest in receiving information on the services available for them from the county. Upon their return each veteran receives a letter from the VSO and a copy of the county's ``Welcome Home'' pamphlet, which includes information on veterans' services, health care, employment assistance and other benefits.

The Veterans Service Office, working in collaboration with the Peninsula Veterans Center, explores every opportunity to speak to returning veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. These talks occur as frequently as weekly, or whenever the officials are invited to address groups, such as new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees--veterans who have recently returned home.

I have heard from families that, even though there is understandable worry about a loved one in a combat zone, at least that worry is not joined by worry about financial disaster. For those deployed, the strain and stress of separation from family is not compounded by financial worries.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to draw attention to the efforts of the Government of Santa Clara County and its employees as they serve the needs of our returning veterans and those currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Many in our country disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but no American should disagree with the need to support our troops and their families while they serve and to assist veterans after their active service is complete.

Santa Clara County, like other local governments in California, faces a fiscal bind. State and Federal governments have shifted costs to local government but in California, local governments have no ability to raise taxes in response. That means fiscal crunch time.

Despite that, the people of Santa Clara County, led by its Board of Supervisors and professional staff know this: the time of deployment should not be fiscal crunch time for the service member and family.

Let all employers, both public and private, look to Santa Clara County as a model of employer behavior.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of efforts of the Government of Santa Clara County and its employees as they serve the needs of our returning veterans and those currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I am proud of the citizens and taxpayers of Santa Clara County who stand behind these fine efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and honor the 294,969 California grandparents as well as 2.4 million grandparents around the Nation who act as primary guardians to grandchildren that are unable to live with their parents. As a result of the service and efforts of these individuals, many children around California and the country are able to live with relatives and stay out of the foster care system.

According to the Census of 2000, 6.8 percent of California's children are living in grandparent-headed households as well as an additional 3.5 percent living in households headed by other non-parent relatives. I commend the efforts these relatives take in providing a safe and familiar living environment for these children.

However, now more than ever, I also recognize the financial hardships and personal sacrifices faced by these guardians. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3380, The Guardianship Assistance Promotion and Kinship Support Act, I am committed to working toward a solution that will help to alleviate these financial burdens placed on guardians and give them access to Federal funds that they deserve.

Today, on behalf of the constituents of the 16th District of California, I extend my deepest appreciation to these exceptional guardians. It is an honor to have many of these individuals in my own district whose care and commitment to vulnerable children help to build a better future for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my Santa Clara County colleagues Representatives Mike Honda and Anna Eshoo to acknowledge and honor Robert Sillen who is retiring after a noteworthy and successful career in public health serving the residents of Santa Clara County.

In June, 1993, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, on which Congress Members Lofgren and Honda served, created a full-service, integrated County health care system consisting of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Department of Public Health, Department of Mental Health, Department of Custody Health Services and the Department of Alcohol & Drug Services. The Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System is responsible for a full continuum of preventive intervention and treatment services throughout the County, both directly under County auspices and through contracts with the private sector. The system is comprised of over 6,200 employees and has an annual operating budget of nearly $1.4 billion.

Until very recently, Robert Sillen served as Executive Director and was responsible for all aspects of the system's operations, long range planning, private and public partnerships, community relations, and capital development and information systems. Mr. Sillen was fully accountable for the development of a cost effective, fully integrated system that is essential for the successful conversion to a full- service managed care delivery system in a highly competitive environment. In addition, he was responsible for designing and implementing a County-wide Medi-Cal Managed Care program in June 1996 as well as the Children's Health Initiative and Healthy Kids program in January, 2000.

Prior to his position with the Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System, Mr. Sillen was Executive Director of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, a 500-bed regional medical center with an operating budget of over $800 million and 4,500 full-time equivalent employees. Services range from community based primary care satellite clinics to regional services for treatment of bums, spinal cord injuries, head trauma, neonatal intensive care, poison control and trauma, the life flight helicopter and health services for those in jail custody.

Prior to his executive director positions with the Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System and the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Mr. Sillen worked at the University Hospital at the UC Medical Center in San Diego, the City Hospital Center at Elmhurst, New York and the U.S. Public Health Service in New York, New York. He earned his Bachelor's degree from the University of Denver, Colorado and his Master's degree in Public Health from Yale University.

Robert Sillen has acted as a guardian of the virtues and spirit behind the creation of the Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System. The initial challenges faced in establishing a foundation for a strong network of health providers with private, local, regional and national departments were dizzying, but achievable with Mr. Sillen at the helm. We sincerely thank him on behalf of the thousands of residents who have benefited from this system and wish him the very best upon his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, consumers are currently exposed to difficult cancellation policies for service subscriptions that are more costly and burdensome than continuing the service and paying the annual or monthly fee.

When consumers sign up for a service, they are often told that renewal occurs through automatic charges to their credit cards. When consumers decide to cancel, they run into difficulties, such as long distance phone calls with long hold times, all at the expense of the consumer.

To combat such abusive business practices, I have introduced the Consumer Cancellation Fairness Act.

My bill would require businesses to permit their customers to cancel subscription services in the same manner and by the same means they use to subscribe to such services.

If one click on a Web site or a toll-free call is all it takes to sign up for a service, then one click or a toll-free call should be enough to cancel.

I strongly urge this House to swiftly consider and pass the Consumer Cancellation Fairness Act to protect consumers from further abuse.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I believe it provides critical privacy protections to the more than 180 million Americans who use cell phones. It will also protect the privacy of more than 100 million American homes with wired telephones. And it will protect Voice over IP users, now more than 2 million Americans and rapidly rising.

I think we've heard too many stories of how easy it is to fraudulently obtain cell phone call records and even cell phone locations. We've heard of how one political blog bought Wesley Clark's cell phone records, but the fact is lots of ordinary Americans have reason to be concerned about the privacy of their phone records. Imagine what a criminal organization could do with the cell phone call records of an undercover law enforcement agent, or what an abuser could do with a spouse's cell phone location. No one should be able to get another person's phone records through fraud, and this bill makes it a crime to purchase or use phone records obtained through fraud.

I want to thank Chairman Smith of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and Ranking Member Conyers of the Judiciary Committee for their leadership in drafting this legislation, which I believe represents a sensible, bipartisan solution to a growing problem. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as in previous years, President Bush has proposed a budget that would harm women and girls across the country.

At a time when over two-thirds of low-income elderly people are women and 56 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are women, the President has proposed substantial cuts in Medicare, food stamps, and food delivery programs.

On top of the $22 billion cut in Medicare that was passed by this Republican-led Congress and the President in February, the Bush budget calls for $105 billion more in cuts over the next ten years.

The President's budget also would eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program which serves 420,000 seniors and 50,000 women and children with nutritious food packages, often delivered to their homes.

Replacing this home delivery food program with food stamps is not the solution, as most people on the program are elderly and in need of home delivered food to survive and maintain their health. Moreover, many people now on the food delivery program do not qualify for food stamps for various reasons. That does not mean they are not in need of home delivered food.

Even if we assumed food stamps were the answer for this group of seniors, women, and children, the Bush budget could cause 300,000 Americans to lose their food stamp benefits.

The problems with the Bush budget do not end with cuts in Medicare, food stamps, and food delivery programs. Bush also intends to cut programs that have helped women and girls succeed in education and the workforce.

In 1973, the Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) was introduced by a champion for women, the late Representative Patsy Mink. For more than 30 years, WEEA has funded hundreds of programs to expose girls to careers traditionally dominated by men, develop teaching strategies for math and science that engage girls, and to help schools comply with Title IX.

At a time when the President is touting the need for a greater emphasis on science and math education, his budget would eliminate WEEA, along with $664 million in Federal Perkins Loan funds, just 2 months after Congressional Republicans cut college aid by $12 billion.

This comes at a time when only 21 percent of master's degrees in engineering are awarded to women. The statistics are even worse for women of color. Of engineering master's degrees awarded to women, only 11 percent go to Asian-American women, 4 percent go to African-American women, and less than 4 percent go to Latinas. It seems that the President's ``competitiveness agenda'' does not apply to women.

Furthermore, instead of closing the wage gap, the Bush budget would increase the gap by eliminating Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations program (WANO), which provides grants to employers to help recruit, train and retrain women in non-traditional, well-paying jobs.

Statistics show that women in WANO were 47 percent more likely to enter a high-paying, technical occupation than women who were not a part of the program.

Bush would eliminate this program at a time when women still earn less than men--on average 76 cents to every dollar that a man earns. Moreover, in high-paying, high-technology jobs, women who hold Ph.D.s in computer science and engineering earn $9,000 less than men.

Women in the workforce faced with a wage gap and great need for child-care assistance would be turned away by the Bush budget.

Since the beginning of the Bush Administration, 250,000 children have lost their child-care assistance. Bush would continue that trend by freezing funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant for the fifth year in a row. At this rate, 400,000 more children will lose their child-care assistance in the next 5 years, creating a situation where 25 percent less children receive this assistance than did in 2000.

The Bush budget would also leave behind women who end up in violent situations, cutting $19.5 million in Violence Against Women programs and completely zeroing-out funding for new programs authorized by this Congress last year in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005.

From birth to old age and in their most vulnerable periods in life, the Bush budget would leave women and girls behind. I join my fellow members of the Women's Caucus today to call on Congress to reverse the harmful effects of the Bush's proposed budget on women and girls.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 320, a resolution that calls for the release of Dr. Pham Hong Son and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Vietnam.

Dr. Pham was imprisoned in 2002 for the simple act of translating a document posted on the U.S. Embassy's website entitled, ``What is Democracy?'' He has tirelessly worked in non-violent ways to promote democracy and freedom of speech, expression, and association in Vietnam.

But Dr. Pham is not alone. Thousands of peaceful activists have been harassed, imprisoned, or been placed under house arrest for calling for basic human rights in Vietnam. The State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and various Vietnamese-American groups have documented egregious violations of religious freedom, human rights, and free speech in the country.

For the past two years, the State Department has designated Vietnam a ``country of particular concern'' which means Vietnam has been engaged in systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. In company with Vietnam are such human rights violators as Sudan, Burma, China, Iran, and North Korea.

In its 2005 report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom states, ``the government of Vietnam continues to commit systematic and egregious violations of religious freedom by harassing, detaining, imprisoning, and discriminating against leaders and practitioners from all of Vietnam's religious communities. Religious freedom conditions in Vietnam remain poor, and the overall human rights situation has deteriorated in the past two years.''

The Committee to Protect Journalists says, ``Press conditions in Vietnam largely stagnated in 2005, despite efforts by the country's leaders to project an image of greater openness. Three writers remained imprisoned on antistate charges for material distributed online; print and broadcast media continued to work under the supervision of the government; and attacks on journalists were common.''

For the past year, Vietnam has sought a new relationship with the United States. Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and several other high- level members of the Vietnamese government visited the U.S. in 2005. But if the Vietnamese government expects to cultivate this new relationship, it must start by respecting basic human rights of all citizens of Vietnam.

I hope this Congress will show strong support for change in Vietnam by unanimously passing House Concurrent Resolution 320 today.