Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a proud alumni and as a former athlete of Wake Forest University, it is my privilege to bring before this House this resolution. On November 23, 2003, the Wake Forest University field hockey team won the NCAA Division I-A field hockey championship by a score of 3 to 1 over the Duke Blue Devils. Having also won the 2002 championship, the Lady Deacons became only the third school in Division I history to have won back-to-back championships. The team was led by 2002 and 2003 Coach of the Year, Jennifer Averill, and 2003 All-Americans Kelly Dostal, Kelly Doton, Katie Ridd, and Lucy Shaw. The Deacons started and finished the season ranked number one by the National Field Hockey Coaches Association. They outscored their opponents 96 to 13, and they finished the year with a record of 22 and 1. The seniors finished their careers with an overall 88 and 12 record, 2 NCAA championships, 4 final-4 appearances, and 2 ACC championships. The team won the 2003 ACC regular season, ACC tournament, and the NCAA tournament, only the second time any athletic team at Wake Forest has achieved such an accomplishment. The only other team in school history that shares its distinction with last year's field hockey team was in fact the famous golf team of Jay Haas, Curtis Strange, and Lanny Wadkins who won back-to-back NCAA championships for Wake Forest. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is but one of many awards and accolades these young ladies will receive this year. As true student athletes, though, they will all receive the most valuable award after completing their studies: a degree from one of the most prestigious and respected universities in the country. I want to also congratulate the athletic director, Ron Wellman, and the school president, Tom Hearn, and the entire Wake Forest community and wish the field hockey team the best of luck as they seek their third consecutive title next fall. Mr. Speaker, before I relinquish my time, since we will in a few minutes acknowledge the great success of the New England Patriots and their victory in the Super Bowl, let me take this opportunity to say as a football fan and as a Carolina Panthers fan that I congratulate the Patriots, and I also think that for football fans across this country, regardless of their allegiance, it was one of, if not the best, Super Bowls in history.

Mr. BURR. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 877--the CAN SPAM Act of 2003--and urge my colleagues to accept the technical changes made by the Senate. I also rise in an effort to provide clarification for our nation's professional, trade, and non profit associations who may be unintentional victims of the Congress's efforts to control the fraudulent and abusive practices of spam email through the CAN-SPAM Act. Trade associations have long provided representation for most of America's industries such as telecommunications, insurance, banking, realty, and transportation, just to name a few. Individuals or businesses that opt to join these associations do so in large part because of the outstanding benefits afforded to them, including reduced professional insurance premiums, continuing education opportunities, legislative awareness seminars, and conventions. While most of these opportunities are offered at a price, the cost is set at a greatly reduced rate than might otherwise be offered to non-members, primarily to offset operating costs, but also as a means of contribution to the furtherance of the association's non-profit status. As a matter of expediency, trade associations often communicate with their membership through email, as this method is the fastest, most convenient, and most cost-effective process for both the associations themselves and the members with whom the associations communicate. These emails are a valuable element of membership privileges agreed to by the member upon joining, as they keep the member apprised of upcoming events, industry-related products, and legislative alerts. These emails are restricted to circulation within the membership only, and excluding the general public. It is my belief that association members have essentially opted-in to the receipt of these emails by virtue of their membership, and that these emails would fall under the definition of ``transactional emails'' that S. 877 contains. Therefore, email between a professional or trade association and its members should be a protected and mutually agreed-to line of communication and is hence not included in the definition of spam in the CAN SPAM Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to call attention to Section 5(a)(3)(C), which provides an exception for not being able to receive the commonly-referred-to ``unsubscribe messages'' from commercial email recipients in circumstances where there are technical problems beyond the control of the sender. Although I'm sure that legitimate commercial email senders will make every effort to fully comply with the stipulations of this bill and receive unsubscribe emails whenever they are sent, I believe that the authors of this legislation understand that there may be short periods of time during which the sender is unable to receive unsubscribe messages because of necessary technical maintenance to the email systems receiving such unsubscribe messages. Additionally, where Section 7(b) of the bill provides that banking agencies have enforcement authority over their respective financial services providers, it is my hope that the Federal Trade Commission will coordinate with the various regulators of banking agencies in its efforts to implement the rules called for in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the important bill we have before us today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this consumer protection and anti-fraud bill, and to quickly send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, North Carolina lost a great friend today. For 36 years, the Old North State's agricultural interests were overseen with care, love, and passion by Jim Graham. For 36 years, Jim Graham served as Commissioner of Agriculture for my State, and he was probably the most beloved figure in public life in 20th century North Carolina. Anyone who met the Commissioner--whether they met him once, or knew him for all of his 82 years--knew the same Jim Graham. He was affable, kind, and passionate. Mr. Graham grew up in Rowan county, was educated at State College (now North Carolina State University), and held several agriculture-related jobs before he entered public service, including managing the Dixie Classic fair in my home town of Winston- Salem. He was appointed Commissioner of Agriculture in the summer of 1964, was elected to the position that fall, and held it until his retirement in 2001. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner was a passionate member of the other political party. So passionate, in fact, that when introduced at political rallies, he would let out the loudest donkey bray you have ever heard. But while he brayed loudly for his party, he never spoke louder, or with more passion, than he did when preaching for the betterment of the North Carolina farmer. He always held the land, and the people who worked the land, in the highest esteem. With all the changes that have occurred in North Carolina agriculture in the last 30 years, it is a good thing that we had Jim Graham looking out for us. When he was looking out, he was looking forward. He took the Tar Heel State from near-total dependence on the golden leaf of tobacco, to today, when tobacco income is complemented by hogs, poultry, winegrapes, soybeans, sweet potatoes, and more. He was a positive voice for the future of North Carolina, and just as he would never forget your name, not soon will many forget his ever- present cigar and cowboy hat, his kind manner and love for his state. No farmer anywhere had a better friend than Jim Graham. No State in the Union had a better public servant than Jim Graham. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process. Aside from our own Nation's ongoing military operations in the war against terrorism, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is one of the most important foreign policy issues being discussed and debated by my constituents. Clearly, there is a wide range of points of view on this critically important issue, and they cover the range of the political spectrum. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to outline some of my own thoughts on some of these subjects. I should state at the outset that I believe Israel has a right to defend herself against the actions of Palestinian extremists. It would be the height of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, for our own country--engaged in its own fight against terrorists bent our destruction--to deny Israel the right to pursue those bent on her destruction. Since obtaining independence in 1948, Israel has been engaged in a near- constant struggle for survival. The current violence, and Israel's military response to it, is a reflection and continuation of that struggle. There are some on the Palestinian side, many of whom have close ties--if not direct connections--to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, who desire nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel. These are the very groups sending young Palestinians to detonate suicide bombs on buses, in pizza parlors, in sidewalk cafes, and even at Jewish religious celebrations. On that basis alone, Israel has no choice but to continue efforts to round up those responsible. Even prior to the eruption of the latest violence more than two years ago, Arafat refused to do so. He refuses to do so to this day. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that Arafat has abdicated his position as a responsible negotiator and representative of the best interests of the Palestinian people. On too many occasions, he has walked away from the peace table and given tacit approval to renewed violence by Palestinian extremists. Arafat remains--for better or worse--the ``chosen'' representative of the Palestinian people. For real progress to occur, however, the Palestinian people need a prime minister with real authority--the authority to go after the extremists, the authority to negotiate with the government of Israel, and the authority to make decisions that will not be overturned at Arafat's whim. If a lasting peace in the Middle East is the ultimate goal, and I firmly believe that it must be, the Palestinian people must have a capable, effective prime minister. I am hopeful that Ahmed Qureia, sworn in as the Palestinian prime minister earlier this month, will be permitted to take the steps necessary to end the terror attacks against Israel and return the Palestinians to the peace table. I am not opposed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Neither, for that matter, are the people and government of Israel. That state, however, can only be established if it and the larger Arab world in turn recognize Israel's right to exist. Without that recognition, there can be no lasting peace. If Israel were to accept the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that maintained its opposition to Israel's existence, the country would only be ensuring its own destruction. I firmly believe that our country should continue providing financial and military assistance to the Israeli people. As long as the nations surrounding Israel continue to provide assistance to those trying to destroy the country, the United States should continue its efforts to support her. As the region's only democratically elected government, Israel deserves our support. Our Nation has an important role to play in the peace process, Mr. Speaker, and we should continue to do so. We can and should continue diplomatic efforts to bring a lasting peace to the region. It remains to be seen if the Arab states, which have called on us to play a more active role, will actually respect that role. I do not believe, however, that our involvement should extend to the deployment of U.S. troops to ``police'' any final peace agreement. Any agreement that requires peacekeepers to be deployed is flawed to begin with--it means neither side actually expects the other to abide by the agreement's provisions. We must pursue a comprehensive agreement that both sides accept. Having accepted Israel's right to defend herself, I also believe there must come a time for negotiations and a legitimate peace process. Israel should make every effort to limit incursions into Palestinian- controlled areas. There must be recognition, both in this country and around the world, that both sides must be willing to talk. The Israelis have shown that willingness in the past, and have made significant proposals aimed at achieving a lasting peace. What remains, however, is the need for a serious commitment on the part of the Palestinians to return to the table and actively work with the Israelis. In order for that to happen, though, the new Palestinian leadership must denounce terrorism once and for all and make a firm commitment to restrain, arrest, detain, and destroy those militant elements in Palestinian areas that want the violence to continue. After all, there are groups who have stated that they will never accept cease-fire, nor respect any peace agreement. More than a firm commitment, however, the Palestinians must take firm action--or empower a prime minister to take firm action on their behalf. In crisis, Mr. Speaker, there is opportunity. The only thing that remains is for both sides to accept the challenge, and take advantage of the opportunity. Peace in the region is long overdue, but it will take the active participation of both sides to achieve it.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to get rid of unwanted sexually explicit e-mail, but we are also here to protect those individuals who want to use e-mail as a commercial tool in a responsible way based upon the rules, and the challenge for us was to design something that allowed commerce to take place but that got at the heart of what all of us wanted to do, and that is to get the smut off of our screen, to make sure that the ones that were unsolicited and that we did not want to see again, that we had the opportunity to get rid of them. And I am going to tell the Members it was tough, I think we would all agree, trying to find the right language, the right word in some cases, to make sure that the right penalty was in place but it did not go too far. And I think it is safe to say today that there is no single piece of legislation that will ultimately solve the spam problem. It is my hope that this bill is an excellent first start. I believe that it is appropriate to praise the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member, and Gregg Rothschild and David Cavicke and many other committee staff and personal staffs that worked tirelessly to try to come up with a solution to the problem that we had. The FTC's own estimates estimate that 20 percent of all spam contains advertising of pornography. That is not counting the spam that we received that has deceptive content and fraudulent content. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we think we found the right blueprint. We think those businesses that are reputable can continue, and they can live within the framework, and they can live by the rules, and, hopefully, this will help to chase those that intended not to live by the rules out of the system and off our screen. I want to praise once again both committees, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the staffs and the members, and urge support for this bill.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) as well as the time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for the 36 million contact lens wearers across the United States. Today, Republicans and Democrats have come together to help contact lens wearers by improving their access to the competitive contact lens marketplace in granting them the right to their contact lens prescriptions. People who wear glasses may not recognize the importance of this legislation because, unlike contact lens wearers, they have had these rights since 1978. Now, 25 years later, contact lens wearers have the same rights to their prescriptions, without having to ask for them, and the ability to buy their lenses from any seller, be it an eye doctor, a discount club, or an Internet company. I appreciate the support of the American Optometric Association, especially my optometrist in Winston Salem, North Carolina, Dr. Burke, who read through these drafts. He helped us as we put the bill together. He improved the legislation and put us where we are today. Not only is this bill great for contact lens wearers, but it is, in my opinion, also good for eye doctors. I want them to listen. For the first time in Federal legislation, patients are told they must go back regularly to their eye doctors and get their contact lens prescriptions renewed. If patients try to buy contact lenses with expired prescriptions, sellers by law cannot fill their orders. This is a big deal, Mr. Speaker; and I am sure most physicians across this country would love Congress to pass legislation that required patients to come back to them on a regular basis. We do that in this legislation. Additionally, H.R. 3140 will make it very hard for unlawful contact lens sellers to even stay in business. Right now, many contact lens sellers do not ask for physicians' contact information because the sellers have no intention of verifying the prescriptions. Multiple provisions in this bill will make this behavior illegal. Contact lens sellers will now be required to get all pertinent information from patients and call eye doctors' offices to verify that information. With the FTC enforcing this law, eye doctors should be assured that they will only have to do business with honest contact lens sellers. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for first introducing this legislation 8 years ago during the 104th Congress. They were the initial leaders on this issue, and I appreciate their efforts and the subsequent support on this legislation. I also want to thank the dean of our House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and his staff for the excellent help in drafting this compromise piece of legislation that benefits all parties involved in the contact lens marketplace. Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full committee chairman, and their staffs who shepherded this bill through the Committee on Energy and Commerce in record time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to once again reiterate that this is a tremendous bipartisan effort that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said, is well overdue, but this legislation is ripe today. I urge my colleagues to support it unanimously. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3140) to provide for availability of contact lens prescriptions to patients, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the conference report on H.R. 1588 today, we have taken a great step forward in the defense of our homeland and the support of our military forces. Not only are we equipping our military with the tools and resources they need to carry out their missions today, we are also providing for the research and development necessary to meet future threats. I am particularly pleased to see that the House and Senate have seen fit to include a long-awaited agreement regarding concurrent receipt for our disabled veterans. While I regret that we could not provide the full benefits for all of our disabled military veterans, I am encouraged that we are providing full receipt of both retirement and disability pay to more veterans than have ever been previously allowed by law. This Congress has achieved something that hasn't been seen in any previous Congress. I am hopeful that in the coming years we can expand this important benefit for our veterans. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to see that the benefits of TRICARE have been extended to our National Guardsmen and Reservists and their families. All too often, many of these families are unable to meet their premium payments for private insurance when a family member is called away to serve his or her country. With this provision, we will be providing the health care that our soldiers' families need. I am pleased to see that reform of the procurement and acquisitions process to the benefit of small businesses is also included in the conference report. It is certainly my desire to see our military receive only the best equipment and services, but not without allowing our nation's small businesses the chance to compete and to offer quality services or innovative products. Mr. Speaker, our safety and freedom ultimately relies on our troops. I am glad that this legislation provides a strong across the board pay raise and other important provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families. I am deeply grateful for the sacrifices our troops make every day in the name of freedom, and am pleased the House was able to pass it today. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the vote on this conference report due to a visit to my district by President Bush. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the end of an era in motorsports. Sunday's race at Homestead, Miami marked the last NASCAR race that will be run under R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's sponsorship and the Winston banner. Winston Cup and NASCAR have been synonymous for 33 years. Under R.J. Reynolds sponsorship, stock car racing has grown from a regional sport with little national exposure to one with a loyal and global following of millions of fans. More than six million fans attended 39 Winston Cup events this year in 19 states; millions more followed the races, practices, and qualifying sessions on television, radio, and the Internet. One of the best places to look for examples of the astronomical growth in the sport over the years is in driving winnings: in 1971, Richard Petty won 21 races and took home roughly $300,000. The last Winston Cup Champion, Matt Kenseth, won one race this year--and will take home more than $8 million. Those numbers tell only part of the tale, however. Since its initial involvement with NASCAR, Winston has contributed more than $100 million in point fund money, with $32 million earmarked for the Cup Champions. And perhaps no one can measure the contribution the company's sponsorship has made to the families and communities associated with the sport and its tremendous growth. Names like Petty, Jarrett, Waltrip, Yarborough, Allison, and Earnhardt. Towns like Bristol, Darlington, Rockingham, and Talladega. Some carried the sport until Winston came along; others owned it while Winston was there; and still others will carry the Winston tradition into the future. The sport under the Winston banner had its heroes, and its heartaches. Some occupy both categories. Fans everywhere will carry their memories of the Winston Cup with them for years to come. On behalf of NASCAR fans everywhere, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my thanks to the men and women of R.J. Reynolds for everything they have done for the sport over the last three decades. It truly was a family affair, and the drivers, the teams, and the fans will miss their love for and commitment to the sport. Time, however, marches on. NASCAR existed before Winston's sponsorship, and it will continue next year with a new Cup Series sponsor. In the eyes of this Member, though, and countless fans across the country, it will always be the Winston Cup.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly address the electricity transmission and reliability provision that is included in this conference report. Both the Clinton and the Bush administrations cited the need to attract new investment in the transmission sector as an integral component for modernizing our electricity delivery system. The evolution of our system demands an electricity grid that is reliable, secure and robust, all qualities that are essential in a 21st-century economy. However, our electricity transmission system today remains overburdened, outdated, and underfunded. According to industry observer Eric Hurst, transmission investment over the past 25 years has declined at a rate of $115 million per year. Hurst further indicates that there needs to be an investment of at least $56 billion in the transmission sector to upgrade existing lines and add additional capacity in order to meet existing peak electricity demands. In its current projection, however, the industry will only spend $3 billion each year during the next decade on upgrades. Working with my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), we drafted the Interstate Transmission Act of 2003, which would require FERC to adopt transmission rules to promote capital investment in the system, improve the operating system, and allow for returns to investors reflecting financial, operational, and other risks inherent in transmission investments. I am pleased to say that this final conference report incorporates a tremendous move forward on our transmission infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Energy Conference Report. This Report now cements a blueprint for our nation's domestic energy policy for the first quarter of the 21st century. The need for a long-term energy policy is simple. We are experiencing a fundamental imbalance between energy supply and consumer demand that poses a tremendous risk to our nation's economic well-being, our standard of living and, to a great extent, our national security. If we continue energy production and consumption at a rate equal to the one set in the 1990s, by 2020 we will be experiencing a shortfall of supply and demand of nearly 50 percent. That shortfall can be made up in only three ways: import more energy; improve energy efficiency even more than expected; and increase domestic energy supply. This bill moves us away from our dependence on foreign sources of fuel and moves us in the positive direction of promoting a diverse mix of domestic sources of energy that will increasingly come from solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal sources. An extension of the wind energy production tax credit will breathe new life into wind farm projects throughout the country. Appalachian State University, located in my District, has identified areas in western North Carolina that might be the most suitable locations in the Southeast for developing wind farms. A production tax credit for energy generated from animal waste opens new opportunities for energy production, innovative and useful methods of waste disposal and increased farm income for North Carolina hog and poultry farmers. Our soybean farmers will also benefit from tax credits that encourage the production of biodiesel fuels from soybean oil. Corn, sweet potato and even tobacco farmers will benefit from the ethanol provisions in this bill, as demand for products that can be converted into ethanol-blended fuels will increase. Improvements in energy efficiency and conservation are prevalent throughout this bill. It expands the scope of the Energy Star program and establishes new energy efficiency standards for many new commercial and consumer products that use large amounts of energy. It authorizes $2.15B for hydrogen fuel cell program with a goal of launching hydrogen fuel cell cars by 2020. Finally, Congress will lead by example by requiring a 20 percent reduction in federal building energy use in the next 10 years as well as provide funding for energy efficiency programs for public buildings. All in all, the conservation and energy efficiency provisions of H.R. 6 will eliminate the need for at least 130 new 300 megawatt power plants by 2020. The bill helps modernize our aging electric generating facilities as well as promote the increased use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is essentially emission free and allowed us to avoid the emission of 167 million tons of carbon last year and more than 2 billion tons since the 1970's. In 1999, nuclear power plants provided about half of the total carbon reductions achieved by U.S. industry under the federal voluntary reporting program. The bill will go a long way to retain jobs in our country as well as create new jobs throughout the country. By allowing the Southeast, which enjoys cheap and reliable power, to develop our electric marketplaces as we see fit, we will see jobs retained in North Carolina and throughout the South. Knowing that the cost of electricity is one of the highest overhead costs manufacturers and factories assume, keeping costs low and reliability high will lead to the return of more manufacturing jobs to our region of the country. The bill will create the certainty in the investment markets that will allow Wall Street to finally attract the necessary capital to build and upgrade our electric transmission system. Long before the northeastern blackouts of this past August, my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Wynn, and I have been warning of a pending electricity outage if we didn't mandate reliability standards and give the marketplace the tools it needs to attract the capital to invest the reported $53 billion necessary to meet the electricity demand of the coming decade. I am pleased to see that the principles of our bill, the Interstate Transmission Act have been incorporated into the final Conference Report. Through the strength of our combined efforts and commitment to improving our nation's energy grid, I am pleased that the Wynn-Burr language for mandatory reliability provisions and new incentives for investment in transmission was included in this legislation. The bill also increases the authorized funding from the Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund. Earlier this year Representative Fossella and I introduced H.R. 2733 and working with Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor, we were able to incorporate this bill into the final conference report. H.R. 6 will allow states to use Federal funds to enforce the law. It will direct EPA and the States to implement operator-training programs and require all tanks be inspected on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, the 1000-plus pages this bill encompasses will be a much-needed shot in the arm of our recovering economy. It will begin our march towards energy independence and will best utilize all resources at our disposal to make sure that the lights stay on and the factories and small businesses stay open. I urge its passage and implementation into law.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the fine athletes of the East Surry Little League of Pilot Mountain's 16-and-under girls' fast pitch softball team. The dedication, talent, and hard work of these girls has won them a place in North Carolina's history as the very first North Carolina team to win a Little League World Series Championship. After a series of wins, the girls of East Surry clinched their final victory against Kentucky to claim the title as World Series Champions. Their victory on August 16, 2003 in Jeffersontown, Kentucky is certain to be remembered with pride in the hearts and minds of North Carolinians for many years to come. I commend the fine sportsmanship of these girls and wish them a future of successes. I am proud of their efforts in placing North Carolina among the states to hold a Little League World Series Championship win. To Manager Breck Honeycutt, Coaches Mike Burge and Brent Hull, and players Samantha Smith, Haley Burge, Kate Jewell, Karlie Love, Beth Hauser, Megan Hull, Sara Bartlett, Catherine Mitchell, Lauren Angel, Brooke Honeycutt, Jessica Hauser, Rachael Brooks, and Ashley Simmons, I assure you that the people of Surry County, and indeed all North Carolinians, are very proud of your accomplishments.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Clearly this is an issue that probably deserves more debate than it will receive here. But I have also, like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my good friend from the committee, want to go back to the past, 1995, when for the first time since 1935, we thought it was time to update our telecommunications laws in this country. Hard to believe that we could go for so long believing that technology or society did not force us to review it, but we learned then just how politically difficult change was. We made some bold changes, and because of that many of us receive the benefits of it today. We now have almost unlimited channels on cable. It is new competition. We have an array of new products through telecommunications that are the direct result of 1995 and congressional action. One additional piece of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, though, was that we mandated that the FCC every 2 years would look at it. We never wanted to play this catch-up game again. Now, let me make this clear for my colleagues: In the current appropriations bill we have already rolled back from 45 to 35 the ownership cap. So the Hinchey amendment is not about 45 to 35. It is about everything else that was in the FCC rule. When we talk about cross-ownership, you need not look very far; as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) said, there are 40 news companies that were grandfathered or received waivers that they concurrently have cross- ownership. In Tampa, Florida, you can find an outlet where Media General owns a TV station and a newspaper. It is a model of what every other person who potentially gets into dual ownership should look like. It brings value to the community, and they have lived up to the waiver that they were granted. There are benefits to the FCC rule. I believe that it was important, it was essential that we roll back from 45 to 35 the network ownership cap, if for no other reason than there was not a compelling reason on their part why it should be raised. But I felt strongly in 1995, when the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I came to this floor and, in partnership, we rolled it then from 50 percent out of committee back to 35 percent after the committee decided to raise it in 1996 Telecom Act from 25 to 35. And it has worked pretty good. And the balance is correct. And we have got the right checks and balances between independent stations. We spend a lot of time on the definition of localism. I have heard a lot of people mention localism today. I am not sure they had the in- depth debate that we did about what does it mean, really, localism. Well, the independent stations have the ability, and we made sure in that act to look at the networks and say, I am not going to air that because there is no value to the community that I serve. If we tip the balance a little bit, will we dilute it enough that they will not have guts enough to do it? I believe so. But to get there, you cannot do it if you pass the Hinchey amendment. I plead with my colleagues, if we want to roll back from 45 to 35, vote against the Hinchey amendment. The FCC does great work. It does not mean that we will always agree with everything they do. But understand that they have to do it because this Congress told them to do it every 2 years. They are obligated to review so that we do not wait 50 years again before we update our laws in this country as it relates to everything that they have oversight on. Let me once again urge my colleagues, if Members support the rollback from 45 to 35, vote against the Hinchey amendment because it is a poison pill to our ability to maintain 35 percent for network ownership.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, as vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a member of the Health Subcommittee, I have worked on Medicare prescription drug legislation for more than four years. The House has passed Medicare prescription drug legislation twice and I voted for both bills. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this bill. The $400 billion allocated for the Medicare drug benefit is not being spent widely under this legislation. High-income Medicare beneficiaries like Warren Buffett are subsidized 73 percent by the Federal government for their drug-only insurance plans. Low-income seniors who are not dually eligible have no cost-sharing assistance for their drug spending between $2,000 and $3,500. The Secretary is commanded to negotiate with insurance companies who will game the system to receive a 99.99-percent subsidy when 73 percent would have been fine. Mr. Speaker, that's not a negotiation--the insurance company will hold all of the cards. No money is being spent on a fallback plan. Seniors in rural areas of North Carolina will not have drug coverage if insurance companies refuse to offer a plan, even when the companies are bribed with an almost no-risk contract. This bill would benefit insurance companies, not extend a benefit to our Nation's seniors. Yet insurance companies do not want any part of this legislation. For four years insurance companies have been telling Congress that they do not want to insure Medicare beneficiaries' drug expenditures, but we keep throwing money at them in the hope that they will finally say yes. The premium subsidy used to be 67 percent, now it is 73 percent and Congress demands that it grow to 99.99 percent if need be. At the end of the day, who are we kidding? Of course it will be 99.99 percent. Our problem is that the Congressional Budget Office has written this bill. The last time I checked, Mr. Speaker, it was not the job of the Congressional Budget Office to write highly technical and important health care legislation. But policymakers are so convinced that a purely insurance-based product will work that they are willing to follow CBO's instructions and tweak the product one thousand different ways--and cut provider payments at the same time--to fit it under some magical budget ceiling. If CBO is wrong in its estimate, and this drug benefit costs more than $400 billion, our entire health care system will be at risk. This is not wise health care policy. Where do my colleagues think the extra money is going to come from? When CBO realizes that their estimated insurance penetration rate was off by 10 percent that money will come out of future physician, hospital, nursing home, and home health care reimbursement rates. If only 85 percent of seniors sign up for drug coverage and plans' subsidies skyrocket, that money will come out of Food and Drug Administration modernization efforts, National Institutes of Health research, and bioterrorism preparedness. Congress is working with a limited pot of money, but we are promising a defined benefit. Obviously, the experiences of the private sector have taught us nothing. If Congress listened to the private sector, we would mirror the success of defined contribution plans and individual empowerment by offering choice. Seniors could choose between twenty different discount drug cards based on the cards' formularies, pharmacy networks, and drug discounts. The government would set up accounts and contribute money to those accounts based on the seniors' needs. Seniors, their family members, friends, and former employers could put money into the accounts and receive a tax deduction. And insurance companies would offer catastrophic coverage that is subsidized by the federal government for low-income seniors. Unfortunately, that plan is not on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be able to come to the floor today and vote for a good Medicare prescription drug benefit because of the bills passed by the House in the last 3 years this one has the greatest chance of actually becoming law. But not only does this bill contain a bad drug benefit, it also contains a cut in the overall hospital market basket update, a new home health copayment, multiple reimportantion provisions that will harm our Nation's drug supply, and a reduction in the overall reimbursement rate for physicians such as oncologists and rheumatologists who administer Part B drugs. It also constitutes a threat to the very future of our health care system. I can only compare my feelings today to my experience in 1997, when I voted against the Balanced Budget Act. I was one of only 32 Republicans who opposed that bill. I came to Congress to balance the federal budget, but in the end I could not vote for the legislation because of the drastic and thoughtless cuts in Medicare reimbursements. Since 1997, Congress has done nothing substantive in Medicare except try to fix the damage done under the BBA. I cannot support this legislation that builds on and magnifies those 6-year-old mistakes. I regret that I cannot and will not vote for this legislation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to thank the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member, our colleagues on the House Committee on Ways and Means, the leadership of the House for having the foresight to move forward with legislation to recognize that there is a problem in America, a problem that we have ignored for a decade, the need to add a prescription drug plan. I did not come here to argue with anybody. I came here because I believe we can do better. I believe we can do better than the bill we have proposed. I believe we can do better than the substitute that is offered. America understands why we have not solved this because all they need to do is listen to us. We talk about each other's bills in a way that we point out things that we think are bad. We forget that we are talking about a population that has nothing. I wish we could have started with something smaller, but something that was targeted to people who are faced with the decision every day of do I buy drugs or do I buy food? But we have been convinced by this town that our only action has to be something comprehensive, something that includes everybody, something that includes those who have a minimal income and those who have an income of $1 million a year. We have not excluded anybody. We will not exclude them over here and we will not exclude them over here, because there are associations and groups that represent seniors, and they have never met those seniors, but we have. Mr. Speaker, we owe our constituents more than to sit on this floor and tear up each other's legislation. We have to be for something. To get up here and debate that we are against this and we are against that and it is bad, it is inadequate is only a suggestion that we are not good enough to serve here, that they ought to look for replacements. I would challenge all of us. I do not know what the outcome of tonight would be. I will vote no on both proposals that come up. I do not suggest on either side of the aisle that Members do that. That is what I am going to do. I have come to the conclusion, but never forget if we want a real solution to this, a real solution that affects real people, then we have got to put our heads together and work together and remember who it is that we are trying to provide for in this bill. I reluctantly say that I will vote against this.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2417. After terrorists struck on September 11, 2001, our government has been engaged in an aggressive prosecution of the global war on terrorism, a war that will be fought for years to come, I fear. Our efforts I have no doubt will be successful. To ensure success, however, we must prepare for the long road ahead of us. That is exactly what this bill does. The men and women of Intelligence and Law Enforcement Communities have been instrumental in the numerous successes thus far. I thank them for their sacrifices, for their dedication. We are indebted to them for their tireless service. In my view, the key to success in this war on terrorism is communication. We have to improve our communication across the Federal Government. We must improve and make seamless the flow of information within our Intelligence Community. It is essential to have good communication with our liaison partners, and better communication between Federal, State and local authorities and with the private sector must be ensured. Without doubt, intelligence and law enforcement officers are our front line defenders in our daily battle against this evil. State and local authorities also stand at the forefront of this war. Success in safeguarding the homeland lies firmly in the ability to communicate effectively and share sensitive, timely and actionable information among Federal, State and local officials. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2417 is an important bill because it also specifically authorizes greater training and support to local and State authorities as it relates to preventing the possible use of weapons of mass destruction in the United States. Additionally, H.R. 2417 authorizes funding to ensure greater participation of city, county and State law enforcement officials in joint terrorism task forces that are spread across this country. Mr. Chairman, only with better communication and sharing necessary, relevant and actionable information with State and local authorities, can we best wage the best effort on the war on terrorism in our homeland. I urge its passage.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, on February 20, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission agreed to change its rules to make it easier for telephone companies to deploy broadband facilities. It is now May, and the FCC has yet to issue the actual rules from that decision. On February 20, Washington, DC was still digging out from a major snowstorm, and most area schools were still closed. By the time the FCC issues its order, Washington weather will probably be that lovely mix of high humidity and 90 degree heat. When the FCC voted on February 20, we were wearing our heavy winter coats and snow boots. By the time the order is issued, we will be wearing seersucker suits and white shoes. On February 20, Major League Baseball players were just beginning to gather in Florida and Arizona for spring training. Since then, spring training has been completed, rosters have been finalized, and about 20 percent of the season has been played. On February 20, U.S. forces were amassing in the Persian Gulf Region. Since then, our troops have rolled through Iraq and ousted Saddam. Clearly, it takes the U.S. military less time to dethrone a vicious dictator than it takes the FCC to write the rules for an order it already agreed upon. How long do you think these past two-and-a-half months have been for those workers and families of workers laid off in the telecommunications industry? How many more workers lost their jobs in that time? How many who were laid off could have been put back to work? One thing is clear, broadband deployment will not start in earnest until the FCC sets the right policy rules. That has to start now by issuing the rules agreed upon back in February.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a fellow North Carolinian and an outstanding member of our community, Melissa Ellis Bartlett. I commend her for her dedication to children and education. Melissa has been a distinguished teacher for the past 18 years, sharing her gift of teaching both nationally and internationally. For the past four years, Melissa has taught at Iredell-Statesville Schools, where she is a cherished language arts educator. Previously, Melissa taught social studies and worked with at-risk students in central North Carolina. She also taught English in Cairo, Egypt, and remedial reading to students in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Melissa's commitment to her students and her excellence in the classroom has brought her to Washington today to be honored by President George W. Bush at the National Teachers of the Year ceremony. Melissa represents the finest of teaching professionals nationwide, and I am proud of all that she has accomplished. Teachers who share Melissa's dedication are a true treasure. I ask my colleagues and fellow North Carolinians to join me in extending our congratulations and heartfelt thanks to Melissa Bartlett for her years of selfless service. May she continue to inspire and enlighten students for many years to come.