Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because of my serious concerns with section 4 of H.R. 1309.

As I begin, let me emphasize that I support the intent of H.R. 1309. Transparency in government is an important priority. I campaigned on it and voted for the new ethics package that came before this House in early January with the hope that Congress might be more openly accountable to those who elected us.

This is a government of, by, and for the people, and the people deserve to know what their government is doing. Except for critical issues of national security policy, there must be a much better level of openness in the conduct of the Federal Government and the access of the American people to information about it.

However, section 4 of the bill before us, as it is currently drafted, appears to authorize Federal courts to award attorneys' fees to a plaintiff even when the opposing parties mutually reach and execute a settlement agreement.

The policy of FOIA is, and should be, to expedite and streamline production of documents falling within the statute. My concern is that when a Federal statute provides attorneys' fees after the parties mutually reach a voluntary settlement, it runs contrary to that very goal. Resolution short of protracted litigation should be encouraged, not discouraged. The current proposed language of section 4 of H.R. 1309 may have a devastating, perverse effect.

Second, the statute may further allow plaintiffs to receive attorneys' fees in almost any case they file so long as they can show that the defending government agency, for any reason, changed its position once the case had been commenced.

While it is true that FOIA complainants often face an uphill battle when they deal with a Federal agency, the language, as proposed, invites litigation instead of resolving it. Additionally, the legislation, as drafted, may actually undermine the stated ``dominant objective'' of the act by giving an incentive by Federal Departments to avoid disclosure.

The question this raises in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is that given the provisions of section 4 of the bill, why would any agency settle? As I read the bill, once a lawsuit is commenced, any change in position by a Federal Department or agency would be tantamount to an admission of liability for attorneys' fees. This would only encourage the filing of a myriad of lawsuits. If lawyers know they will make money no matter what the outcome, they will see this as a great opportunity to file, file, and file again. We will likely see a cottage industry for litigants who may not even care about the underlying documents.

Because of the concerns I have that the current proposal provides incentives to prolong litigation, I cannot support this measure in its current form. I regret that because I want to vote for any bill that prudently opens the door of government to those whom government represents, our fellow citizens. But the law of unintended consequences is at play here, and unless we strike section 4, we will see massive new litigation that will only clog the Federal docket, hamstring legitimate functions of government, and cost taxpayers potentially untold millions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would remove language from H.R. 985 that would prohibit dissent with respect to scientific research.

I filed my amendment because I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to shoehorn the debate about public policy influencing science into this legislation, thus turning it into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts.

As set forth by section 13 of the bill, the dissemination of ``false or misleading technical information'' is deemed to be an ``abuse of authority'' upon which a Federal authority can make a protected disclosure.

The problem is that on scientific issues, the question of what is false or misleading is often a difficult question on which reasonable people can disagree, and on which sometimes scientific authorities have a hard time making up their minds. Are eggs good for you or bad for you? Is milk good for you or bad for you?

Section 13 of this bill has significant implications upon the development of scientific research conducted by the government, including research and development work at the Defense Department, as well as federally funded research on health and related issues. By including the science provisions in this bill, I am concerned that we are opening the door for debates in science to become the basis of litigation. Putting the threat of litigation on a healthy debate of science is not good public policy.

Furthermore, this clause potentially makes the tension between ethics and science the subject of litigation. For example, federally funded scientific research on human cloning should be debated amongst policymakers and agency officials without fear of retaliation by scientists and researchers. If an agency or the administration disagrees with the findings of a particular scientist, we should not be opening up our judicial system for those disagreements to be litigated as Federal employee personnel issues. That hardly seems like a responsible policy.

I urge my colleagues to oppose turning science into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I would expect that the good gentleman that is debating against this amendment has policies in his office that allow him to control the message that comes out of his office, not to hide anything, I'm sure, but so that he will have a uniform message. That is important at times within government agencies.

What we do not want to do, Mr. Chairman, is, we do not want to include a provision in this bill that will put scientific debate in the middle of personnel issues for the Federal Government. We do not want to put the results of scientific research, we don't want to take that out of the grasp of debate by policymakers for fear of retaliation by scientists and researchers who are doing work for the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, this is good public policy to have this amendment, to take this section out of the bill; and I would

urge my colleagues to support this amendment

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, Idaho Governor Butch Otter recently sent a letter to House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall regarding a committee oversight hearing on ``The Evolving West.''

In the eyes of many environmentalists, ``the evolving West'' means replacing good-paying jobs in forest products, mining, oil and gas and ranching with an economy based on ecotourism and bed and breakfasts. In Idaho, we call this theory part of the ``War on the West.'' Numerous reputable studies show that jobs created by natural-resource-based industries are several times higher than seasonal jobs based on tourism. Working families in Idaho cannot support themselves on seasonal tourism jobs.

Governor Otter clearly and concisely defends the economy, culture and livelihoods of Western when he states:

The entrepreneurs, workers and families who devote their

lives to agriculture, timber and mining have ``evolved'' with

the landscape and the marketplace for generations. Such

challenges as energy and transportation costs and reliability

are changing their world at this moment.

But those are market-driven changes--issues of supply,

demand and geography. Our people, and our way of life,

deserve better than have our government further ``evolve''

them out of business.

Governor Otter further articulated the issue by stating ``Most of the challenges facing such resource industries as agriculture, timber and mining in Idaho and throughout the West are the result of Federal Government policies that unreasonably restrict access, overregulate activity and discourage sustainable growth.''

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert Governor Otter's letter in the Record and encourage my colleagues to read it.

Boise, ID,

February 28, 2007.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: On behalf of the State of Idaho, and

the people who value our lifestyle and their traditional

resource-based livelihoods, thank you for the opportunity to

enter a statement into the record for this hearing on the

``Evolving West.''

It's important to put ``evolving'' in context. The usual

connotation evokes gradual change resulting from natural

influences of environment and circumstance. However, there is

nothing gradual or natural about change in the West.

Most of the challenges facing such resource industries as

agriculture, timber and mining in Idaho and throughout the

West are the result of federal government policies that

unreasonably restrict access, over-regulate activity and

discourage sustainable growth.

From neglectful absentee land management that supplants

local stewardship to on-the-ground environmental myopia,

federal programs routinely provide disincentives to

progressive collaboration. In a single generation they have

changed much of the West from America's gilded hope for

independence and self-sufficiency to a gelded collection of

servile sycophants hopeful only for another round of

government largesse.

Now some promote a ``New West'' that relegates resource

industries to the status of historical relics. It is a self-

fulfilling prophecy from those who urge even more federal

control over our region's resources in the name of

environmental urgency or modern realities. They blithely, yet

earnestly, disregard the real people and real communities

that were established and nurtured by previous pendulum

swings in national priorities.

Make no mistake: Tourism, technology and even service are

important and growing segments of our economy. They are

adding to the diversity and vitality of Idaho and the West.

However, they are no panacea for a region inhabited by people

who have a special connection with the land, who understand

their responsibility to it, and who still value self-reliance

and individualism.

About 10 percept of Idaho's 1.4 million residents work in

the forests, fields and on the land. The combined industries

generate nearly $10 billion a year in receipts. The residual

impact generates thousands more jobs and additional billions

of dollars.

As a member of Congress representing Idaho's 1st District,

and now as Idaho's Governor, I see, hear and experience the

resilience of people struggling to maintain their livelihood

in resource-based industries every day. These citizens work

through burdensome policies and regulations to provide for

their families, support their communities and provide

valuable products for U.S. citizens and the world.

Eighty-eight percent of Idaho is rural. About 63 percent of

our landmass is controlled by the federal government. As a

result, and to far too great a degree, we are not the

architects of our own destiny. Yet the rugged geography and

great size of Idaho--the ironically complementary qualities

of remoteness and community--still draw people here.

Those people have used their ingenuity and resourcefulness

to supply timber, food and a host of value-added products to

the world. And our potential is far greater. If given the

opportunity by our federal landlords, the people of Idaho

could contribute mightily toward meeting America's future

energy needs with home-grown, clean-burning renewable fuels

found here in the ``Evolving West.''

Natural resource industries still provide some of the

highest-paying jobs in our state. Counties with healthy

timber, mining and agriculture operations have the highest

per-capita income. The people working in these industries are

conscientious stewards of the resources--relying on sound

science and state-of-the-art technology to protect and wisely

manage the natural resources for all to enjoy.

Viewing natural resource industries as ``extractive'' or

``consumptive'' gives unjustified short shrift to what made--

and still makes--the West a dreamscape of opportunity and

hope for people around the world.

The entrepreneurs, workers and families who devote their

lives to agriculture, timber and mining have ``evolved'' with

the landscape and the marketplace for generations. Such

challenges as energy and transportation costs and reliability

are changing their world at this moment.

But those are market-driven changes--issues of supply,

demand and geography. Our people, and our way of life,

deserve better than to have our government further ``evolve''

them out of existence.

Once again, thank you for this opportunity to address the

topic of this hearing. Please accept my warmest personal

regards and best wishes for a successful 110th Congress.

As Always--Idaho, ``Esto Perpetua''

C.L. ``Butch'' Otter,

Governor of Idaho.

Madam Speaker, this year is the 220th anniversary of Virginia's passage of its historic Statute for Religious Freedom. This measure, authored by Thomas Jefferson, was so important to the future President that he insisted that his authorship of this bill be memorialized for all time on his tombstone.

As Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Family Alliance, noted in a recent article in the Idaho Statesman, Jefferson's ``statute is problematic for groups who like to cite Jefferson in support of their effort to remove all mention of God, and Christianity in particular, from the public square'' (January 29, 2007).

As Mr. Fischer observes, ``In the first line of the statute (Jefferson) refers to `Almighty God,' '' and also includes references to ``the Holy Author of our religion'' and the ``Lord both of body and mind.'' Most historians agree that Mr. Jefferson is referring to Jesus Christ.

The respected American University historian Daniel Dreisbach, an Oxford Ph.D. and careful student of Jefferson's understanding of church and state issues, echoes the same theme: ``Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric `wall of separation,' prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only. Addressing the same topic of religious proclamations, Jefferson elsewhere relied on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that because `no power to prescribe any religious exercise' has been delegated to the `General [i.e., federal] Government . . . it must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority'.''

Put simply, Jefferson never envisioned that the ``wall of separation'' would be used as a pretext for government hostility to religion. To the contrary, he first used this phrase in a letter to the Baptist congregations of Danbury, Connecticut. Here's the phrase used in its

original context: ``I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.''

In other words, the ``wall'' was designed not to prevent people of faith from expressing their views in the public square, or to discourage them from applying their faith to public life, but rather to prevent the Federal Government from suppressing Judeo-Christian beliefs or their adherents.

What of President Jefferson's own practice as a public figure? Consider the words of James Hutson, Chief Manuscript Historian at the Library of Congress, in a recent article on the ``wall of separation:''

Jefferson's public support for religion appears . . . to

have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars

have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a

more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse

the position of his fellow Founders that religion was

necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it

was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address,

indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people.

Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural

Address. His attendance at church services in the House (of

Representatives) was, then, his way of offering symbolic

support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in

republican government.

In summary, it was because of his firm conviction that the state should never impede the liberties of religious citizens or organizations in the public square that Mr. Jefferson penned the Statue for Religious Freedom, not because of a secular desire to stamp out religion under the foot of government power. His Statute was not borne out of an enmity to religion, but a desire to protect it. And for that, on its 220th anniversary, the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and its author Thomas Jefferson should be honored by this body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is of vital importance to Idaho's First Congressional District, my State as a whole, and the greater western region of our country.

It is critical that Congress include language in the Emergency Supplemental to reauthorize and fully fund a 1-year extension of Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. It affects more than 615 rural counties and 4,400 schools near national forests in 39 states and literally, tens of thousands of students.

Without reauthorization, in Idaho alone, we would lose $23.3 million in funding this next year. That is a staggering loss in my small rural state.

In order to fully understand this issue we need to go back to the final year of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency to the establishment of the 1908 Payment Act for National Forests. Under this act, the Forest Service has paid 25 percent of its gross receipts to the states for the use of roads and schools in the counties where our national forests are located. The receipts come from leases, rentals, timber sales or other fees paid for using the National forest lands or resources. This is especially critical in Idaho, where more than 60 percent of our land is federally managed.

Congress realized at the time it was difficult for rural communities to be financially independent if they were surrounded by Federal land. If we privatized the land in those counties, they would be collecting property tax. But they cannot because the land is managed by Uncle Sam.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, or a bipartisan Craig-Wyden plan was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton to provide funding to offset the loss of revenues to counties resulting from the severely reduced Federal timber sales in rural communities. The laws kept schools opened, roads maintained, search-and-rescue missions operating and many other essential services afloat.

The 5-year time frame of the Craig-Wyden measure was designed to allow counties sufficient time to broaden their economic bases to replace historic timber sale income. The Federal timber sale program in Idaho has, to put it mildly, come up short. Idaho's communities want to log and carefully make use of the State's timber resources, but regulatory restrictions won't let them.

And that is why we need to take action.

Allow me to cite one example. I have the good fortune of representing the people of Shoshone County. Shoshone County is a rural county with about 13,000 students. Shoshone County receives the second largest amount of funds under the Secure Rural Schools Act, about $4.3 million. This is an already economically depressed community. About 75 percent of Shoshone County is in the Federal system, and yet the county is responsible to maintain more than 400 miles of public roads.

On my recent trip home just days ago, I had the opportunity to meet with Shoshone County commissioners and superintendents of public schools. For Shoshone County, losing these funds, 40 percent of their budget, means massive layoffs in an already small school system, loss of transportation for children to get to school, placing children in hazardous conditions to get to school. The road system needs constant care and maintenance. They can barely get by with what they have now.

We don't let Idahoans harvest timber. We expect them to maintain Federal roads. We provide them no fiscal relief or support. We want a top quality education for our children, but they have no economic base to raise even modest taxes.

Congress has to step in. We have to act now. First, in the short term, the solution is for Congress to approve a 1-year extension of Craig-Widen in the emergency supplemental. Second, while providing interim funding, Congress must come up with a long-term solution to this situation. I believe ultimately the answer lies in increasing timber harvesting.

The House Appropriations Committee will mark up the emergency supplemental this week. The emergency supplemental will be the last opportunity to address this issue before counties have to start implementing cuts to schools and services. Without a 1-year reauthorization of and funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, the predicament will be an emergency without rescue for hundreds and hundreds of rural counties across America.

I want to urge my colleagues to support this crucial 1-year extension.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tip my hat to the good gentleman for his efforts on the floor and for the compelling argument that he has made here.

The idea that our young people, young men and women, have gone to Iraq, gone to Afghanistan, they have spilled their blood there for a purpose that would become meaningless if we withdraw without finishing the job over there, that is something that makes the discussion I think a little different.

All of us are tired of the war. All of us are tired of the casualties that have been inflicted. What we have to do is keep our eye on the ultimate goal, what it is. Is it to quell a disturbance, a dispute that has arisen between different Islamic groups? No, it is not. It can never be.

It has to be the security of the United States. For those folks who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, for their lives to have meaning, we have to consider what that goal is.

The national security of every person in this country, those interests have to be paramount to everything else that we consider. They have to be paramount to our distaste for the fighting that has gone on. They have to be paramount to every life that has been lost.

Mr. Speaker, for those lives that have been lost to have meaning, it has to be that we will save more lives by their efforts that have been there than if we just pull up stakes and quit. If we do not get that job done, if those radical Islamists are allowed to declare a State, if they have a home, a base from which to operate, we will repeat the events that happened when the Taliban had a home base in Afghanistan.

The recipe is before us. We have seen it before. We will have a repeat of something like 9/11.

The only choice that we have as a Nation is to continue that job over there, to get it finished as best we can. Is there a perfect prescription for that? No, there is not. Is it going to be easy? No, it is not. Will we have more casualties? Unfortunately, we will, and yet we must continue this fight so we will not dishonor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to this point in the conflict.

I thank the good gentleman.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would first like to thank you for reminding the body of the need for decorum in our remarks

Madam Speaker, several points. First is, it is stunning to me that this body will consume over 36 hours of floor debate on a nonbinding resolution. This should be on the consent calendar. Irrespective of one's position on the war in Iraq, all taxpayers are right to be incensed at such waste in this Congress.

This legislation will not have the effect of law, will neither inspire nor impede military action in Iraq or elsewhere, will not encourage our troops on the ground nor foster victory over America's enemies that practice terror. It will have one effect: poking the President of the United States in the eye, diminishing his credibility among the international community and eroding his ability to lead here at home. It will also have the very genuine result of undermining and demoralizing our soldiers that are now in harm's way.

Second, equally stunning is the apparent preoccupation with demeaning President Bush while ignoring those who are our real enemies. Our enemies are not in the White House or the Defense Department. They are not people like David Petraeus or his staff. They are not the vast majority of Muslims throughout the world, who, like us, want simply to live peaceful and secure lives.

America's enemies are radical Islamists, less than 1 percent of all Muslims, whose faith requires that a pure Islamic state be established and that violence is the instrument by which to establish it. Their faith requires terrorist acts against the West and all Muslims who stand in the way of that agenda. That is why Osama bin Laden can say that he and his followers are ``in love with death.'' Indiscriminate slaughter is, for these sick people, merely a tool in their arsenal of moral barbarity.

That is why his second-in-command has declared that Iraq and Afghanistan are ``the two most crucial fields'' in their war. That is why al Qaeda in Iraq has declared an Islamic state in Iraq's Anbar Province.

Third, how do America's enemies view us? For one thing, they fear George W. Bush and our military. That is why Libya's Mu'ammar Qadhafi 3 years ago surrendered his nuclear materials to the U.S. That is why Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraq's most powerful militia leader, just made a beeline for Iran; not for a sunny vacation from long, tiresome days of planning suicide bombings, but because he feared for his life.

But America's enemies view Congress quite differently. They see us as divided, irresolute, unwilling to face honestly their concerted plan for our destruction. Hence, this nonbinding resolution.

In light of this reality, I would ask my friends across the aisle, what is your binding plan for defeating America's enemies? America, our allies and our enemies are still waiting for your binding plan.

More than 3,000 Americans have died upholding the hope of defeating America's real enemies and bringing freedom to Iraq. We must not allow their deaths to become a pretext for the abandonment of that hope of victory or abandoning the Iraqi people. But rather, they must serve as the inspiration of a renewed commitment to hope of victory and security for Iraq. We owe to their heroism and sacrifice nothing less than one thing, victory over America's enemies in Iraq.

America is the last best hope of man on Earth. A victory in Iraq is our last best hope of defeat of America's most dangerous enemies and also the freedom and security in the Middle East. We must not fail.

Mr. Speaker, for those who would support House Concurrent Resolution 63, I ask, what is your plan? ``No'' is not a plan.

We have three options to follow. The first is to stay the course. I don't know of anyone, including the President, who is suggesting we take that route. The second is to increase the troops level, which the supporters of House Concurrent Resolution 63 are saying no to. The only other option is to reduce troops.

I would ask you who will support House Concurrent Resolution 63, read the Baker-Hamilton report, a bipartisan report, that talks about the effects that will occur if we do withdraw from Iraq. There will be widespread violence there, more than we are seeing today. And they warn us that a withdrawal may require the U.S. to engage, once again, in Iraq to stabilize that area.

So for those of you who would support House Concurrent Resolution 63, I again ask, what is your plan? ``No'' is not a plan.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to join with my colleagues this week in support of the ``Hire a Veteran Week'' resolution.

Scripture tells us, ``Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.'' Few things could better characterize the conduct of so many of our Nation's veterans.

The men and women who have worn the uniform of our country have been willing to place themselves in harm's way on our behalf. They have offered to lay down their lives for us. They have shown us the greatest love.

Not only have our veterans demonstrated the greatest love to us, they also have demonstrated a quality of character that should inspire us all.

How can we show them the same kind of commitment? By treating current service personnel well on the battlefield, making sure they have the equipment needed to get the job done well. We must make every benefit of technology and the full wealth of our Nation available to our military to ensure our soldiers, sailors, air personnel and Marines have what they need to do their jobs.

We need to treat them well when they return: We need to keep faith in providing them with the benefits they need to show our gratitude for their sacrifice.

And we need to treat those they love well: We need to care for the families of the fallen, their widows and orphaned children.

The measure before us ``encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon employers, labor organizations, veterans' service organizations, and Federal, State, and local governmental agencies . . . to lend their support to increase employment of the men and women who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States.''

The ability of our veterans to contribute is not limited to their time in uniform. They are also men and women with specialized skills and bring exceptional training to the marketplace. Hiring a veteran is a sound economic investment.

Madam Speaker, that's something all Americans can support, and I look forward to voting for H. Con. Resolution 5, ``expressing support for the designation and goals of `Hire a Veteran Week' and encouraging the President to issue a proclamation supporting those goals,'' when it comes before the House.

Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have pointed out the problems with raising the minimum wage; that it is an unfunded mandate on small business, will likely result in the loss of over 1 million jobs for low wage earners, that it will eliminate entry level jobs and actually hurt the poor more than it helps them.

The negative impacts will result naturally from the rules and principles of the free market. In my college courses, I learned that the rules and principles of free markets are the rules and principles that every business and worker are subject to in every transaction, every negotiation and every new idea. That is, those negative effects of this bill are unavoidable with its passage. In spite of the negative effects, this bill does seem destined to pass.

As a freshman Congressman, the likely passage of this measure has taught me a new principle: The force of Congress can be brought to bear and justified to suspend those natural laws which would otherwise control important matters. The well-intentioned desire of Congress to help the poor apparently will not be restrained by the rules and principles of the free market that otherwise do restrain American businesses and workers. Apparently, Congress can change the rules that would otherwise affect the affairs of mankind.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have asked my staff to draft a measure I call the Obesity Reduction and Health Promotion Act. Since Congress will apparently not be restrained by the laws and principles that naturally exist, I propose that the force of gravity by the force of Congress be reduced by 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, that will result in immediate weight loss for every American. It will immediately help reduce obesity problems in America. Weight loss will also help to promote the overall health of Americans as we have been vigilantly advised by our health care.

Mr. Speaker, I thank this body for the education I have received from the passage of this bill. Since the basis for the use of Congress's power is the same with both measures, I would also ask that everyone who is supporting the measure before us consider becoming an original cosponsor of the Obesity Reduction and Health Promotion Act, and I have a copy.

Mr. Speaker, I close by noting that, with the new principles I have learned, it appears to me that with Congress the sky is the limit.