Guardsmen & Reservists' Tax Fairness Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have a bit of irony in play here on the House floor. This week the Democratic leadership has declared it Open Government Week, Open Government Week as we take up amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, an act that is incredibly important as a tool for us to hold our government accountable because it gives people the opportunity to access information that can be reviewed by people to determine what action needs to be taken.

But, unfortunately, in the middle of this Open Government Week we have a bill that is coming to the floor, not the bill that went to the committee, not the bill that went through the subcommittee hearings, but an amended bill that has not been reviewed, and was handed to us 10 minutes ago.

Now, the reason why bills come on the Suspension Calendar where we agree to suspend the rules is because they are bills that have been fully vetted, that have openness to them, and that people are aware of what they are and have the opportunity to review them when we have an understanding that more than a majority of this House supports what is in that bill.

But today, without prior notice, and 10-minute amendments to the bill, we have a bill that we are currently reviewing to determine what changes have been made and what the implications would be.

Some of the speakers on the other side of the aisle talked about in Open Government Week that we wanted to make certain that there weren't backroom deals that were being made. Well, clearly the bill, unfortunately, that comes before us on the Freedom of Information Act is the product of a backroom deal where the majority of this House is going to be left with reviewing it to determine what is in it after it had come through our committee and subcommittee.

So my comments about this bill will be about the one that came from the committee and the subcommittee that the subcommittee Chair and the chairman worked so hard in a bipartisan way to bring to this floor.

I know others on this side of the aisle will be reserving their comments for the areas of the bill where it has been modified, where the backroom deals have been made. And we are all unaware of its impact.

The Freedom of Information Act is a popular tool for inquiry for the press, researchers, business, attorneys, activists. But most importantly, it remains a tool for the citizen. Improving the procedural aspects of the act is certainly a worthy goal.

Legislation designed to streamline and improve the Freedom of Information Act process was introduced last Congress by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). His bill, H.R. 867, has moved through subcommittee to the full committee. This was a solid bipartisanship bill that Republicans introduced and guided through the legislative process. This year the majority took that bipartisanship bill and made a few changes.

Republicans offered two amendments that were not included in the reported

bill. First, the attorneys' fee provision appears to significantly lower the bar for the recovery of fees, making it easier for those seeking information from the Federal Government to recover legal fees.

The language in this bill differs from that in H.R. 867. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter in the Buckhannon case, and now some fear the effect of this decision, what it might have on their ability to get attorneys' fees.

The language of section 4 of this bill would make plaintiffs eligible for attorneys' fees in almost any case, so long as they can show that the defending government agency somehow changed its position once the case had commenced. I hope we can closely consider the rationale behind this provision, and its implications for the numerous Federal statutes providing for attorneys' fee awards where the United States or a Federal agency or official is a party. You have to assume that if this is the provision that passes, everyone litigating under any private right of action will clamor for the same favorable legislative treatment.

An amendment was offered in committee to strike section 4 to preserve settled judicial precedent regarding attorneys' fees and highlight this issue. I hope my colleagues in the House and the other body will take a close look at this section as the legislation moves forward.

Second, the majority has taken to heart various groups' concerns about the so-called Ashcroft memo. During President Clinton's administration, Attorney General Janet Reno issued a memorandum establishing a presumption of disclosure if no foreseeable harm would result from the release of information.

Shortly after 9/11, and recognizing the challenges of the standard and the challenges that we face in the global war on terror, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a memorandum that encouraged agencies to carefully consider the protection of the values of interest embodied in the statutory exemptions to FOIA when making disclosure determinations.

I understand that there are serious concerns with this section, and I understand the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) will speak on this bill and this provision.

Nevertheless, I hope that we continue to balance the need for open government with the need to protect information vital to national security and homeland security, and I hope we keep in mind the importance of individual privacy throughout this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's description of that. I do want to note that my understanding of the applicable dates are that the markup of our bill occurred on March 8 and the CBO cost estimate I believe is dated March 12, which would explain perhaps why there were no objections in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho and a member of our subcommittee (Mr. Sali).

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

I want to commend the Chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Clay, for his thoughtful approach to hearings on this matter and his leadership in shepherding this bill. I want to thank Chairman Waxman for his efforts in having a very bipartisan discussion in the committee on the bill. He was very welcoming of the input from all of the committee members.

Unfortunately, though, here, right in the middle of Open Government Week, we have the irony that this is not the bill that both of these gentlemen worked so diligently on a bipartisan basis for in the committee and subcommittee. It has been amended, unfortunately, as the other side of the aisle decried, in a back room by Democratic leadership in order to make the bill conform to the rules of the House for it to be able to move forward.

In the middle of Open Government Week, what does that mean? Well, it means that while we all stand up here and talk about the importance of freedom of information, and freedom of information is important because it gives people the ability to hold their government accountable; but as we all discuss that, we have a bill that is going to be moving forward and come before this House that the members of the committee did not see, the members of the subcommittee did not see, that each of them is going to have to review and have to have their staff review, that members of the public at large who may have been following this bill in the professional community or average citizens who had an interest in it will go to a Web site and look at a bill that was approved by the committee and approved by the subcommittee, but unfortunately, is not the bill that is before us.

And it is not before us because in the middle of Open Government Week, the bill that was placed before us was amended without the participation of the committee, without the participation of the subcommittee, and without the participation of this body. We will all come to vote on a bill that has been amended in a back room by Democratic leadership.

You have heard that there are a number of concerns that people on this side of the aisle have about the bill. As you are aware, this bill began as a Republican bill offered by Mr. Smith of Texas, H.R. 867. It has been modified in several ways about which individuals do have concern. But the underlying principle, freedom of information, that encourages effective government and encourages government to be responsive, is one that we all support and hold dear and certainly we should continue to support the Freedom of Information Act.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, Martin Luther King said, ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You only need a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love.''

Those that volunteer to serve our country deserve our thanks and our support. Members of our Armed Forces make tremendous sacrifices as they honorably perform their duties and deserve so much in return for their service.

The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Act is an important piece of legislation that would eliminate many inequities that presently exist in Federal statutes affecting those performing service to our country.

The bill makes several improvements in the Tax Code for servicemembers and their families. It includes a provision to remove obstacles for Americans who wish to serve our Nation overseas through the Peace Corps by providing relief from capital gains taxes on the sale of a home.

Additionally, the bill makes several important changes to the Supplemental Security Income program, known as SSI. The SSI program provides critical benefits for servicemembers who are caring for a severely disabled spouse or child. This bill would change SSI's treatment of certain forms of military compensation when determining SSI eligibility and benefit amounts for military families. As a result, more military families will be able to benefit from this important safety net. This bill would remove penalties that presently exist for blind,

disabled, and elderly veterans under the SSI program.

And, finally, the bill would end the disparate treatment of compensation that is paid to some AmeriCorps volunteers but not to others under the SSI program. This modest change would enable disabled Americans to serve their country and their community despite their disability. For some Americans, AmeriCorps can provide a pathway for the disabled to gain the skills to reenter the workforce.

At this time, I would like to enter into the Record the following documents.

Stories of Americans With Disabilities in National Service

People with disabilities volunteer for the same reasons

that anyone else does--to give back to their communities, to

improve their surroundings, and to be active and engaged in

life. Some national service participants who have

disabilities volunteer with organizations that serve other

people with disabilities, while others focus their efforts on

helping to meet a wide range of critical community needs. The

individuals profiled here represent a small sampling of the

many people with disabilities involved in the Corporation for

National and Community Service's Senior Corps, AmeriCorps,

and Learn and Serve America programs.

americorps*state and national

Steve Hoad, AmeriCorps Alumnus 2001, AmeriCorps*VISTA

Alumnus 2003 Augusta, Maine; disability: blind.

Steve Hoad served with the Maine Conservation Corps in

Augusta as a coordinator of volunteers on a statewide basis.

The program, called SERVE--Maine (State Environmental

Resource Volunteer Effort for Maine), identifies volunteers

for outdoor or natural resource projects sponsored by

government agencies or nonprofit groups. As a person who is

blind, Steve thinks it's important for lots of organizations,

including the Corporation for National and Community Service,

to address inclusion. Steve feels his contributions are

important for the additional reason that, in his opinion, ``.

. . people with disabilities have been left on the sidelines

and pushed into isolation by a couple of different ideas that

people seem to have. One is that because maybe someone looks

different or acts differently or speaks differently, that

they're not as smart; and the other is that because someone

is disabled, they can't contribute anything, they need to be

helped. Those two ideas become very exclusionary.''

americorps*vista

Dawn Facka, AmeriCorps*VISTA Alumna 2001, Anchorage,

Alaska; current location: Charleston, South Carolina;

disability: hearing impaired.

Dawn Facka, a service-learning coordinator with

AmeriCorps*VISTA, advocates for people with disabilities and

serves as a role model for young men and women with

disabilities that come to serve in AmeriCorps Programs. In

addition, she teaches others about the importance of

inclusion and facilitates disability awareness and diversity

training to AmeriCorps*NCCC members. She strives to create a

work environment that is welcoming and understanding to those

individuals with disabilities by advocating for community

involvement and supporting organizations that support and

help individuals with disabilities. She says that ``If

AmeriCorps, had not opened the doors of opportunity to me, I

most likely would still be ashamed and embarrassed of who I

am and [how] society has labeled me. I would still be

apologizing to people who did not tolerate or accept my

hearing loss. I can't begin to show my gratitude . . . to

AmeriCorps for showing me another world.''

americorps*nccc

Joe Tierney, AmeriCorps*NCCC Alumnus 2001 and 2002,

Charleston, South Carolina; current location: Boston,

Massachusetts; disability: traumatic brain injury.

Joe Tierney dedicated two years of his life to service with

Americorps*NCCC. During these years he tutored children,

built houses, designed and built wheelchair ramps, surveyed

and mapped a historical graveyard, blazed trails, worked at a

camp for children and adults with disabilities, and much

more. Of his time there he writes, ``Throughout my service I

met some amazing individuals, traveled to some fascinating

locations, and learned a variety of skills, but most

importantly my service gave me the opportunity to recover,

the ability to experience life with a smile. I made the

decision to join AmeriCorps because I felt an obligation to

give back, I understood that I was very fortunate to have

recovered and that I would have never done it without the

help of many thoughtful, committed, competent individuals.''

learn and serve america

Jared (not his real name), Learn and Serve America Alumnus

2002, Hampshire, Massachusetts; current location: Hampshire,

Massachusetts; disability: significant disabilities.

Jared (not his real name), a high school student with

significant disabilities, participated fully in a water

quality testing initiative though a school-based service-

learning project in Western Massachusetts. During the

project, Jared spoke of all that he learned about water

quality and the effects on the environment. His family and

teachers were impressed with the project because it provided

Jared with a meaningful experience to give back to his

community as well as taught him vital life skills. His mother

speaks of the project as being one of the few opportunities

Jared has had to mingle with other students outside of

special education.

rsvp

Dean Homerick, RSVP Volunteer, current location: Lexington,

Ohio; disability: debilitating arthritis.

Dean Homerick began service as an RSVP volunteer as soon as

he became eligible--the day he turned 55. He is involved in

environmental issues and emergency operations. He volunteers

regularly at the Columbus Zoo, participating in education

programs to teach children about animals, as well as

volunteering at a local nature center and at the Ohio Bird

Sanctuary, where he edits a monthly newsletter. He also

volunteers for the American Red Cross and is the volunteer

coordinator for the Richland County Emergency Operations

Center, charged with alerting volunteers in the event of an

emergency.

corporation for national and community service

The Corporation for National and Community Service provides

opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to

serve their communities and country through three programs:

Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. This

year, more than 1.6 million individuals will participate in

the Corporation's programs, helping thousands of nonprofit

organizations, faith- based groups, schools, and government

agencies build their capacity to meet critical local needs in

education, the environment, public safety, disaster relief,

and other areas. Together with the USA Freedom Corps, the

Corporation is working to build a culture of citizenship,

service, and responsibility in America.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Neal to handle the rest of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio yielding me time, and I also want to thank Ranking Member Tom Davis and Chairman Henry Waxman for their hard work on this issue. I know how strongly they feel about the need for more open government, and I and many others appreciate their efforts.

The process for obtaining government information is overly burdensome, and Federal agencies have become less and less responsive to requests for information. This deters citizens from obtaining information to which they are entitled.

H.R. 1309, the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007, has much to recommend it, but it contains at least one fatal flaw, the statutory presumption of disclosure. For that reason, I oppose this legislation.

The presumption of disclosure would reverse the FOIA guidelines set out by former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Shortly after September 11, 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed that FOIA be used to ensure an open and accountable system of government while at the same time protecting national security and personal privacy.

The directive encouraged agencies, when making a decision on discretionary disclosure, to carefully consider whether national security, privacy, and government's interest would be jeopardized.

Unfortunately, this bill only exacerbates national security and personal privacy concerns. Instead of allowing agency discretion regarding national security concerns, this statutory language would mandate the release of information if the information does not blatantly fall under an existing exemption.

For instance, under the bill's language there is no discretion to determine whether the information requested will invade personal privacy. Also, if information requested is required by FOIA to be released, under this language it could tip off a terrorist to an investigation that is being conducted. So the bill could set in motion events that could compromise our national security.

Last year, neither the House nor Senate bipartisan legislation included this questionable presumption of disclosure language. It is my understanding that this year's bipartisan Senate version also will not include this questionable language. And, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the administration opposes this provision, too.

There is no good reason to support a flawed bill, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to have the statement of opposition by the administration be made a part of the Record.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 1309--Freedom of Information

Act Amendments of 2007--(Rep. Clay (D) Missouri and two cosponsors)

The Administration shares the goals of H.R. 1309 of

increasing the timeliness of Freedom of Information Act,

FOIA, responses and ensuring a customer-oriented approach to

FOIA processing. The Administration has been pursuing these

goals, and will be continuing to pursue them, through the

strong management review and reforms that the President

directed 15 months ago in the first-ever Executive Order on

FOIA--Executive Order 13392, ``Improving Agency Disclosure of

Information''--which he signed on December 14, 2005.

However, the Administration cannot support H.R. 1309. The

Administration believes it would be premature and

counterproductive to the goals of increasing timeliness and

improving customer service to amend FOIA before agencies have

had sufficient time to implement the FOIA improvements that

the President directed them to develop, put into place,

monitor, and report on during FYs 2006 and 2007. For example,

as explained below, several of the bill's provisions would

impose substantial administrative and financial burdens on

the Executive Branch. These provisions could result in

slower, not faster, agency processing of FOIA requests, and

the personnel and funds needed to implement them would have

to come from existing agency resources. Moreover, the agency

reports that were issued last summer, and the improvement

plans that are being implemented, illustrate that the

challenges that agencies face in responding to FOIA requests

are often unique to each agency and, therefore, require

agency-tailored reforms, not a government-wide, one-size-

fits-all legislative approach.

The Administration's specific concerns with the bill

include the following.

The Administration strongly opposes expanding the

definition of ``representative of the news media.'' The bill

would exempt a larger class of requesters from the obligation

to pay fees assessed for searching for responsive documents.

Expanding the definition would have serious fiscal

consequences for the Executive Branch. Moreover, with no

requirement that requesters pay search fees, they have no

incentive to tailor their requests and will likely make

overly broad requests, which, in turn, will stretch agency

resources and increase the time it takes to process all

requests. Further, under current law, agencies have authority

to waive or reduce fees upon a determination that disclosure

of information will contribute significantly to public

understanding.

The Administration also strongly opposes reinstating the

so-called ``catalyst theory'' for the reimbursement of FOIA

litigation fees. The Administration is concerned that its

reinstatement would serve as a disincentive to an agency's

voluntarily revisiting decisions and improving procedures

with respect to FOIA requests, because doing so could make

the agency liable for a complainant's legal fees.

Furthermore, the bill could be interpreted to include an

``administrative action'' through the FOIA appeals process as

a possible means by which a requester can obtain ``relief''

that would justify attorneys fees. Such an interpretation

would be a major departure from long-standing administrative

law practice and would severely undercut the traditional

function of the administrative appeal process, which is

designed to provide the requester with an avenue of further

review at the agency, thereby reducing the likelihood of a

lawsuit. If this provision covers relief provided at the

administrative appeal stage, this could increase the FOIA

program costs dramatically and would serve as a disincentive

to release records at the administrative appeal stage.

The Administration strongly opposes commencing the 20-day

time limit for processing FOIA requests on the date that the

request ``is first received by the agency,'' and preventing

the collection of search fees if the timeline is not met.

This provision represents a very significant change from

current practice in which the 20-day clock begins once the

appropriate element of an agency has received the request in

accordance with the agency's FOIA regulations. The provision

fails to take into account the complexity of many requests,

the need to consult with other Executive Branch entities, or

the need to search for records in multiple locations,

including at Federal records centers. As noted above, the

Executive Order requires agencies to implement improvement

plans specifically focused on eliminating or reducing any

backlog of FOIA requests, and the Justice Department's

preliminary review of the agencies' annual reports indicates

that some agencies have already realized meaningful backlog

reductions.

The Administration is opposed to the creation of an

``Office of Government Information Services'' within the

National Archives and any intent that the proposed Office

would be given any sort of policymaking role with respect to

FOIA compliance. The FOIA compliance function remains

appropriately placed with the Department of Justice, the lead

agency in implementing Executive Order 13392.

Finally, the Administration strongly opposes the provision

in the bill that appears to be an attempt to repeal Attorney

General Ashcroft's FOIA Memorandum and return to Attorney

General Reno's pre-9/11 FOIA guidance. The Administration

believes that the structure of the FOIA reflects the

appropriate balance between the public's right to know how

the government is operating and the equally important need to

safeguard certain information, such as that pertaining to

personal privacy or homeland security.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut, has outlined a number of provisions in this bill, we come together today not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We are united in our respect for those who wear the uniform of the United States Armed Forces, and we are united in our desire to ensure that Federal programs within the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction from the Tax Code to the SSI program work effectively for members of the military, veterans, first responders and their families.

Let me begin by also thanking Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery, as well as Chairman Neal, Chairman McDermott, and Ranking Members English and Weller, for their outstanding leadership in crafting this legislation. This bill is a great example of what we can accomplish when we put our differences aside and work together. I am hopeful that the revisions we are making to this legislation today will be taken up in short order by the other body.

I would also like to highlight two specific provisions in the bill that have been of particular interest to me during my time in Congress. The first provision, section 202, is modeled on legislation, the Blind Veterans Fairness Act, that I first introduced in the year 2000. My legislation would correct a problem in the Federal SSI rules and affects blind veterans in four States, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, that provide these veterans modest annuities in recognition of the substantial sacrifice they have made to serving our country.

Regrettably, under current Federal law, these State annuities actually reduce any SSI payments for which blind veterans would otherwise be eligible. As we heard from Michelle LaRock of our New York City's Division of Veterans Affairs at our Ways and Means hearing in October, this quirk in the Federal SSI rules creates a hardship not only for the affected veterans themselves, but for the States that administer these annuity programs as well. As in years past, the bill I introduced in the 110th Congress, H.R. 649, has enjoyed bipartisan support.

Let me turn briefly to a separate provision, section 107 of the bill, which will permanently allow penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs, 401(k)s, and other retirement funds for Reservists and National Guardsmen called to active duty. As we all know, when Guardsmen and Reservists are called up from our States, they often face significant reductions in pay compared to their civilian salaries, put an economic strain on their families. To lessen this economic hardship, many of them

choose to draw down on their retirement funds.

Unfortunately, under prior law, they faced a 10 percent ``early withdrawal tax'' when they did so, and they faced restrictions on making repayments to their retirement funds upon returning from active duty. Last year's Pension Protection Act provided relief from this 10 percent penalty tax and permitted unlimited repayments within 2 years after leaving active duty, but only for Guardsmen and Reservists called to active duty before December 31, 2007.

To ensure that this important relief remains available on a permanent basis going forward, I introduced H.R. 867, the Guardsmen and Reservists' Tax Fairness Act on February 7 of this year. This legislation has also attracted a bipartisan group of cosponsors, as well as endorsements from several leading veterans service organizations.

Mr. Speaker, we recently got a great reminder of the time-sensitivity of this particular provision from the area I represent in Western New York. Just days ago, it was announced that 100 members of the 107th Air Refueling Wing, stationed at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, will be deployed to the Middle East in January as part of the global war on terror. Unless this tax benefit is made permanent, these brave men and women, and countless more just like them across the country, will lose their eligibility simply because the calendar has flipped to 2008 before their date of deployment.

I sincerely hope that our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol will recognize the urgency of this issue and ensure that the provision is sent to the President's desk before adjourning for the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Herger, a very senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman from New Jersey, our distinguished member from Ways and Means. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. As both the manager of the bill, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, has outlined and as I have outlined, as we share strong support and we put Democrat and Republican views aside, and represented clearly what is best for America as we deal with our veterans and as we deal with our firefighters. And so both sides of the aisle today join strongly in a clear message of support of this legislation as it comes again before the House and goes to the other body, in hopes that the other body will see fit to support the type of legislation that is coming with such bipartisan support of not only the Ways and Means Committee but through what I believe will be the entire House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close debate on our side.

Let me first take a moment again to thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery for their ongoing

work on this important bill and for including two specific provisions I described earlier regarding SSI benefits for blind veterans and penalty-free withdrawals by National Guardsmen and Reservists.

Even more importantly, I want to thank my chairman and ranking member for working so hard to cultivate a true spirit of bipartisanship when we deal with issues where we can find common ground.

Today on this legislation, which is very important for both Guardsmen and Reservists and veterans who are serving our country and have served our country, and for our first responders and our firefighters, today is one where we have worked hard to take a number of bills and put them together and make it an opportunity to get results in 2007 that will be the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1309) to promote openness in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Archives, and lead sponsor of the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1309.

H.R. 1309 champions the values of transparency and open government that we celebrate during Sunshine Week and that are embodied in the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, as it is referred to.

Introduced with my colleagues Representative Waxman, chairman of the full Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Representative Platts, this bipartisan legislation is necessary to strengthen FOIA as a tool for enabling public access to government records.

During a hearing in February, the subcommittee heard extensive testimony concerning long delays and bureaucratic obstacles experienced by requesters when trying to obtain government records under FOIA.

According to testimony from GAO, most agencies throughout the government are failing to keep pace with the volume of requests they are receiving, the number of pending requests carried over from year to year has been steadily increasing, and the rate of increase is growing.

A report released on Monday by the nonprofit National Security Archive further highlights the failure of agencies to make information available to the public in a timely way. According to the report, just 22 percent of agencies are complying with the 1996 ``e-FOIA law,'' which requires agencies to post frequently requested information on their Web sites.

An insufficient level of resources available for FOIA processing is one reason requesters are being forced to wait long periods of time for responses from agency FOIA offices. Another factor is the current administration's policy of withholding government information that would have been released under previous administrations. Government secrecy has increased as the volume of requests has gone up dramatically.

Building on the OPEN Government Act introduced in the last Congress by Senators Cornyn and Leahy and Representative Lamar Smith, H.R. 1309 contains 13 substantive provisions aimed at removing obstacles to complete and timely government responses to FOIA requests.

The bill would re-establish the policy of the Clinton administration, under which agencies were directed to disclose requested information unless the disclosure would result in some harm. The current administration has encouraged agencies to be more aggressive in asserting statutory exemptions to deny FOIA requests.

In addition, the bill proposes a government-wide ombudsman to mediate disputes between agencies and requesters. This would help to reduce the number of disputes resolved through costly and time consuming litigation.

Other key provisions include: A requirement that agencies respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days or face meaningful administrative penalties; the establishment of a publicly accessible tracking system for pending FOIA requests; and new reporting requirements to allow Congress to evaluate agency compliance with FOIA laws and regulation.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1309 provides a strong, reasonable and bipartisan approach to streamlining the FOIA process and increasing transparency in government. It has the vigorous support of every major organization representing the media industry, journalists, historians, archivists and the public interest in government openness and accountability.

We owe it to our constituents to pass this legislation and ensure that the Freedom of Information Act provides actual access to government information to which the American people are entitled.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman from California, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working together on this bill to open up our government to the people of the United States. And I also want to thank Mr. Smith, who has reservations about the bill, but I want to thank him for his leadership in championing the cause of freedom of information in this country.

I want to also thank my friend from Wisconsin for agreeing with us that the bill was modified since it came out of committee, and that modification was in order to eliminate the costs associated with the bill.

Let me say that H.R. 1309 champions the values of transparency and open government that we celebrate during Sunshine Week and that are embodied in the Freedom of Information Act. The bill does several things: It would reestablish the policy of previous administrations under which agencies were directed to disclose requested information unless the disclosure could result in harm. In addition, the bill proposes a government-wide ombudsman to mediate disputes between agencies and requesters. This would help to reduce the number of disputes resolved through costly and time-consuming litigation.

It does several other things: There is a requirement that agencies respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days or face meaningful administrative penalties. It establishes a publicly accessible tracking system for pending FOIA requests.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, H.R. 1309 provides a strong, reasonable, and bipartisan approach to streamlining FOIA and increasing transparency in government. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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