Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership calls the RESTORE Act of 2007 a compromise. Well, I agree. It compromises our national security.

Why do Democrats want to make it more difficult to gather intelligence

about terrorists after 9/11 than before 9/11? Since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted 30 years ago, our terrorist fighting agencies have been able to gather information about terrorists without obtaining a court order. Why burden our intelligence agencies now? Why make it harder to find Osama bin Laden? Why protect terrorists?

This bill, for the first time, requires a court order to monitor foreign persons outside the United States. If Osama bin Laden makes a call and we don't know who it is to, a court order must be obtained. That takes many hours and could well mean we miss an opportunity to stop an attack.

The bill omits liability protection for telephone companies that provided the Federal Government with critical information after 9/11. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of frivolous lawsuits.

The bill sunsets in 4 years, yet our agencies need certainty and permanence so they can develop new procedures and train employees.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need the RESTORE Act. We do need to restore the ability of the Federal Government to gather information about terrorists and to stop them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman and current ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and the former district judge from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is also the deputy ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could use my time today to discuss the bill before us because it does some good things, as the gentleman from North Carolina has

pointed out. For example, it clarifies a definition of ``Internet access'' to ensure that States do not tax Internet access, including the acquisition of transmission capabilities. But instead, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to talk more about what this bill does not do.

This bill does not permanently ban taxes on Internet access and e- commerce. Only by making the ban on Internet access taxes permanent can we give businesses the certainty they need to spend billions of dollars to construct, maintain and update the broadband Internet infrastructure throughout the country. And only by extending the moratorium permanently can we continue to keep the cost of Internet access down so that low-income individuals, those who are most sensitive to cost, can continue to use the great informational tool that is called ``the Internet.''

More than 240 Members have cosponsored bills H.R. 743 and H.R. 1077, which provide for a permanent extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This support is broad and bipartisan. A permanent extension is also consistent with the past actions of the House, which passed a permanent ban in 2003.

Hundreds of companies and groups, including AOL, Apple, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, Comcast, eBay, Electronics Industry Alliance, Level 3 Communications, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the National Taxpayers Union, Sprint/Nextel, Time Warner Communications, T-Mobile, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Telecom Association, U.S. Internet Industry Association, Verizon, Yahoo, the Business Software Alliance, and the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership, among many, many others, have called for a permanent ban on Internet access taxes; but this bill contains no such provision.

At the markup of this bill at the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, offered an amendment to extend the moratorium permanently. Even though 21 members of the committee, a majority, cosponsored H.R. 743, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007, five of the six Democratic cosponsors reversed themselves and voted against the permanent extension.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a one-time Presidential candidate, I guess they must have been for permanence before they were against it.

After the Democrats defeated that amendment, Mr. Goodlatte offered the next best thing, an 8-year extension of the moratorium. The 8-year amendment subsequently failed on a more or less straight party-line vote as did a similar amendment to extend the moratorium for 6 years. If we are going to have a healthy economy in America, if we are going to continue to create jobs, if we are going to continue to enjoy a high standard of living, if we are going to continue to increase productivity, we have to do everything we can to encourage and help the high-tech industry.

To that end, I, along with Republican Leader Boehner, Republican Whip Blunt, Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Cannon, sent a letter to the majority leader on Friday urging him to bring this bill to the floor under a rule that allowed for a vote on permanence. By denying the 242 Members who cosponsored a permanent ban on Internet taxes, Republicans and Democrats alike, the opportunity to vote for permanence, the Democratic leadership has shown that they oppose a permanent Internet tax moratorium that would help high-tech companies and that they want to leave the door open for taxing the Internet in the future.

I hope the American people and high-tech employers are watching today.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, chairman of the high-tech working caucus and co-chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus, as well, in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who is the original sponsor of H.R. 743, which would make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. We appreciate her leadership in writing such a bill, and we appreciate her support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

First of all, I would like to say to my colleagues that beginning last night in the early evening and continuing and extending to this morning, a number of us have been in touch with each other about the provisions of this bill with the hope and expectation that we might be able to resolve our differences. I have been in touch with the White House. I have been in touch with the principal sponsors of the legislation; and I think we had engaged in some good-faith efforts to try to, as I say, resolve our differences.

Specifically, I had been hopeful that the other side would accept some of the provisions that had been in an amendment that I had hoped to offer today. Unfortunately, that amendment was not allowed by the Rules Committee. So Members of the House are not going to be able to vote on that amendment, which, in my judgment, would have improved the bill. There were a couple of provisions in that amendment, though, that I thought would be of interest to the sponsors of the bill and to the other side, and I regret that we were not able to come to a meeting of the minds, because I think that would have improved the bill and also yielded a better result when the bill perhaps becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say to my colleagues that, if anything, I have a sympathy for the media, for the press. Long ago and far away, I was a newspaper reporter and spent 2 years writing articles, and so I have stood in the shoes of those who are reporters today. After being a reporter for a couple of years, I went to law school; and while in law school I actually wrote an article for the Texas Bar Journal called ``Politicians Versus the Press: Libel in Texas,'' and I actually came down on the side of the press. So that is where my sympathies lie.

However, in the case of this bill, I am afraid I cannot support it. And because we were not able to reach a compromise on the bill, I remain opposed to the bill, the White House remains opposed to the bill, the Director of National Intelligence remains opposed to the bill, and the Department of Justice remains opposed to the bill. Unfortunately, it is still so flawed that we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, a free press strengthens democracy. In our Nation the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the press their freedom to report. And for 200 years in this Nation, the press, in fact, has flourished. Information has flowed freely. And that is why I believe this bill is simply a solution in search of a real problem.

Members of the private sector and law enforcement officials believe H.R. 2102 diminishes legal rights, public safety, and our national security. We must ensure that whistleblowers can expose crimes, waste, and wrongdoing. But we should not create a protection so broad that those who would destroy people's reputations, businesses, and privacy can hide behind it.

The Federal Government defends our national security; so we must weigh the benefits of a reporter's privilege with the problems it may cause for those who protect our country.

I thank the primary authors of H.R. 2102, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Pence, for working with the Department of Justice, interested groups, and Members to develop alternative language to address legitimate concerns of industry and law enforcement authorities. Despite efforts to accommodate their concerns, the Justice Department and the acting Director of National Intelligence, as I mentioned a while ago, still oppose this bill for very good reasons. The White House also opposes the bill and a veto is likely. The President's senior advisers, in fact, have recommended a veto of this bill. They believe the stakes are too high in a post-9/11 world to support the Free Flow of Information Act.

For example, they have pointed out that the exceptions language fails to address misconduct that the Justice Department confronts on a daily basis. To illustrate, neither the bill nor the manager's amendment that will be offered contains exceptions language allowing DOJ to obtain the identity of a new source with the knowledge of a child prostitution ring, an online purveyor of pornography, gang violence, or alien smuggling, all examples.

And the text governing source disclosure exceptions only addresses prospective events, not past events. For example, the Department may be able to acquire information about a source's identity to prevent a terrorist attack like September 11; but if al Qaeda decides to tell a media outlet on September 12 how it planned and carried out the attack, DOJ could not compel that media outlet to reveal its terrorist sources while conducting an investigation.

If a child molester spoke to a journalist and revealed that he molested a child yesterday, under this bill Justice officials could not compel that journalist to reveal his sources and cooperate in the investigation. The Department of Justice will be hamstrung as it goes about the business of conducting investigations and prosecuting criminals.

Yes, numerous States have shield laws, but they run the gamut; and many are not near as broad as the Federal shield law proposed today. But the key difference is that the States are not entrusted with the responsibility of defending our country; the Federal Government is. Under the bill, DOJ carries the burden of trying to establish a national security imperative which can still be negated by a judge's subjective notion of what constitutes the public interest in news gathering. The bill's terms will be subject to the different opinions of hundreds of Federal judges across the country.

The bill is simply a solution in search of a problem. It has been 35 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment does not shield journalists in grand jury proceedings. The Justice Department has issued only 19 subpoenas to reporters seeking confidential source information since 1991. Only 19 subpoenas since 1991. The system is not broken. So why are we trying to fix it?

I simply believe we must err on the side of caution and not support legislation that could make it harder to apprehend criminals and terrorists or to deter their activities.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to a colleague, I want to yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to do is read an excerpt from the Statement of Administration Policy that might respond to some of the points that have been made.

The administration said that if H.R. 2102 were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill, and here's one of the reasons why:

``The bill would impose an unreasonable and unjustified evidentiary burden on prosecutors seeking to issue a subpoena to a member of the news media, placing authorities in an untenable position.

``In order to satisfy the bill's requirements, prosecutors essentially must prove the existence of specific criminal activity in a hearing before a judge, with notice to the subjects of the investigation, before they will be able to undertake the necessary investigative steps to determine whether a crime has occurred. Thus, in many cases, prosecutors will have to conduct a minitrial before their investigation has concluded, and in some cases, even before their investigation has gotten off the ground.''

Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the minority whip (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and one of the original sponsors of the legislation we are debating today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a diligent member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from the Department of Justice's letter in opposition to the bill we are discussing: ``Given the extensive safeguards already in place, the Department strongly opposes H.R. 2102 and similar legislative efforts to provide a `journalist's privilege' that would prevent the disclosure of relevant testimony and evidence critical to the fair disposition of investigations and trials.

``H.R. 2102 would make it virtually impossible to enforce certain Federal criminal laws, particularly those pertaining to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and would seriously impede other national security investigations and prosecutions, including terrorism prosecutions.

``H.R. 2102 would undermine national security and other law enforcement investigations by permitting compelled disclosure of a media source only when necessary to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States and only when the bill's other burdensome prerequisites are satisfied.''

But the problem here is that it would not allow us to get to the information after the fact. You could not force a journalist to disclose information, for instance, after a terrorist attack when you want to find out who was involved

in that attack. For that reason, we should oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read for my colleagues an excerpt of a letter we received from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

``We are joining the Department of Justice in opposing H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. We share the Department's strong opposition to H.R. 2102 articulated in its letter of July 31, 2007.

``The government must retain the ability to obtain information from the press that would both prevent harm to the United States and its citizens and to identify and bring to justice those who cause such harm. Unfortunately, press reports on U.S. intelligence activities have been a valuable source of intelligence to our adversaries. Former Russian military intelligence Colonel Stanislav Lunev wrote: `I was amazed, and Moscow was very appreciative, at how many times I found very sensitive information in American newspapers. In my view, Americans tend to care more about scooping their competition than about national security, which made my job easier.''

What an indictment.

Finally, and I am quoting from the letter: ``The bill, as drafted, would require that identification of the source be necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or other significant and specified harm to the national security. It would not, however, allow the government to compel the identification of a source if it was necessary to identify the perpetrators of a completed act of terrorism or an act that harmed the national security. Similarly, the bill could authorize the government to compel the identification of a source in order to prevent imminent death or bodily harm, but would not allow the government to compel disclosure of a source in order to identify a murderer.

``For these reasons and for the reasons set out in the letter from the Department of Justice, we urge the Congress to reject this bill.''

Mr. Speaker, that is a letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence). I have a question I would like to ask him.

The bill states that the determination as to whether the testimony or document is critical to the underlying matter is to be made ``based on information obtained from a person other than the covered person,'' the covered person being the journalist. There has been some confusion as to what is meant by ``information from the covered person.''

In the Washington Post on October 4, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the U.S. Attorney in the Scooter Libby case, wrote, ``The bill puzzlingly requires that agents prove that the leak occurred without relying on the newspaper article.''

Is Mr. Fitzgerald right? Does this provision mean that the party seeking the subpoena cannot use the very newspaper article at issue in the lawsuit to show why the reporter's testimony is needed?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his answer to my question. That is much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, and I know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has the right to close. I wonder if he has any additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize the objections to this legislation. The White House, the Justice Department, the Acting Director of National Intelligence and many law enforcement officials oppose H.R. 2102 because they believe it diminishes legal rights, public safety and endangers national security. The Department of Justice is concerned that this legislation will impede its efforts to conduct investigations and prosecute criminals.

For 200 years, information has flowed freely to the press. Congress need not enact H.R. 2102, when the status quo is working and the legislation's potential harm to our national security is so significant.

Our Founders created a legal system where no one is above the law. But if the media shield bill passes, we will be carving out a special exception to that rule for reporters, tabloids and bloggers.

This is not what our Founders intended when they created a free press. No one should be above the law, not even the press. We must err on the side of caution and not support legislation that could make it harder to apprehend criminals and terrorists or deter their activities. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

I support the manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). The provisions of the amendment do improve the bill by addressing some of the Justice Department's concerns. Despite this, it still does not cure the bill's fundamental flaws.

The legislation will still make it impossible to enforce certain criminal laws and will impede national security investigation. While I commend the sponsors of the amendment for trying to address the Justice Department's concern, even if the amendment is adopted, the bill should still be opposed. So I urge Members to support the amendment and oppose the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2102 presumes that a journalist is entitled to a reporter's privilege unless the government can show a court otherwise. The government can only do this by meeting certain threshold requirements set forth in the bill.

After all those requirements are met, the judge must then apply a balancing test. The judge must find that ``the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information.''

My motion to recommit provides further guidance to the judge as to what criteria should be considered in weighing that decision.

The motion to recommit simply states that the judge may consider the extent of any harm to national security. It does not dictate any result.

The manager's amendment partly addresses this issue by creating an additional exception to the privilege that excludes from the privilege leaks of classified information that harm national security in criminal cases. I agree with that idea as far as it goes.

This motion to recommit, though, goes further. It allows the judge to consider this factor in any case, not just a criminal case. It allows a judge to consider any leak that harms national security, not just a leak in violation of the laws on classified information.

There are many kinds of information that can harm national security. One example is grand jury information. Suppose that the government is conducting a grand jury investigation of a suspected terrorist ring. If a grand juror were to reveal that to a reporter, it might allow the terrorist to escape to strike another day.

Another example is information covered by various common law privileges like the attorney/client privilege. Suppose that an attorney knew his client, a former terrorist, was cooperating with authorities to avoid prosecution. If he revealed this to the press, it could reveal to the terrorist's former compatriots that they needed to change their plans.

Another example is confidential business information that is protected by contractual relationships. Employees of a computer company might know and reveal without authorization that a certain new chip is coming to the market in a matter of months. This might allow a foreign enemy to stop their research on that type of chip and devote their resources to some other project.

The problem is that any of these kinds of information could harm national security. If they do, a judge ought to be able to consider that in deciding what the public interest requires.

In short, I think we are going in the same direction, but the manager's amendment does not go far enough. The motion to recommit protects national security against harmful leaks in all cases, not just criminal cases. When national security is threatened by leaks, we must protect ourselves in all cases, not just criminal cases.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this motion and protect our national security.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of H.R. 1943, The Stop AIDS in Prison Act of 2007.

I introduced this legislation in the last Congress and am an original cosponsor of it this year as well. And I want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Waters, for her energetic help. I was happy to work with her in the last Congress, and I am pleased that we have worked together again this year. Also, I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, the incidence of HIV and AIDS in Federal and State prison populations is difficult to measure because not all Federal and State inmates are routinely tested. There are approximately 170,000 prisoners in the Federal system. The Justice Department said in its 2006 report that about 2 percent of State prison inmates and over 1 percent of all Federal inmates were known to be infected with HIV. The occurrence of HIV and AIDS cases in Federal prison is at least three times higher than it is among the United States population as a whole.

H.R. 1943 requires routine HIV testing for all Federal prison inmates upon entry and prior to release. For all existing inmates, testing is required within 6 months of enactment. This reasonable requirement will enable prison officials to reduce HIV among inmates and provide much needed counseling, prevention, and health care services for inmates who happen to be infected.

Requiring Federal inmates to be tested when they enter prison and when they leave prison is just good common sense. For some prisoners tested when they enter prison, such testing will ensure that they receive adequate treatments, education, and prevention services while incarcerated. Similarly, it is important that prisoners are tested shortly before they are released into the community so that adequate services can be provided after their release. That, in turn, will protect the community.

I believe in tough punishment for criminal offenders because the public deserves to be protected. But we have a duty to treat prisoners humanely and to rehabilitate them. Preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS among prisoners is an essential aspect of humane treatment and rehabilitation. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I just want to thank Congresswoman Waters again for making sure that we are here today, for her leadership on this legislation, and for working with me both last year and this year on such an important bill.

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

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

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

I strongly endorse H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to support American inventors, American businesses, and the American people by voting for this bill today.

Last year we laid a substantial foundation for patent reform. It was a good start, but we need to finish the job now. The Patent Reform Act is the most significant and comprehensive update to patent law since the 1952 act was enacted. The Judiciary Committee has undertaken such an initiative because changes to the patent system are necessary to bolster the U.S. economy and improve the quality of living for all Americans.

There are two major reasons the committee wrote the bill: first, too many patents of questionable integrity have been approved. Second, holders of these weak patents discovered a novel way to make money, not by commercializing the patents but by suing manufacturing companies whose operations might incorporate the patents. This combination of weak patents and ``seat-of-the-patents'' litigation has hurt the economy.

Most companies don't want to risk shutting down their operations in response to a questionable lawsuit. Nor do they have much faith in a legal system in which juries and even judges become confused by the complexities of patent law. The result: legalized extortion in which companies pay a lot of money to use suspect patents.

The bill will eliminate legal gamesmanship from the current system that rewards lawsuit abuses. It will enhance the quality of patents and increase public confidence in their legal integrity. This will help individuals and companies obtain money for research, commercialize their inventions, expand their businesses, create new jobs, and offer the American people a dazzling array of products and services that continue to make our country the envy of the world.

All businesses, small and large, will benefit. All industries directly or indirectly affected by patents, including finance, automotive, manufacturing, high tech, and pharmaceuticals, will profit.

Given the scope of H.R. 1908, it is impossible to satisfy completely every interested party. But the committee has made many concessions to accommodate many individuals and many businesses.

The bill has not been rushed through the process. Over the past 3 years, our committee has conducted 10 hearings with more than 40 witnesses representing a broad range of interests and views.

The Patent Reform Act was amended at different stages of the process to address criticisms of the bill. Still, not all interests have endorsed the bill. I think their response is mostly resistance to change, any change.

This bill is not intended to favor the interests of one group over another. It does correct glaring inequities that encourage individuals to be less inventive and more litigious.

Supporters of the bill run the educational, consumer and business spectrum. The Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Industry Council, the American Association of Universities, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Financial Services Roundtable, again, they all endorse this bill.

Article I, section 8, as the chairman mentioned a while ago, of the Constitution empowers Congress, ``to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''

The foresight of the founders, in creating an intellectual property system, demonstrates their understanding of how patent rights ultimately benefit the American people. Nor was the value of patents lost when one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, himself a patent owner, Lincoln described the patent system as adding ``the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.''

Few issues are as important to the economic strength of the United States as our ability to create and protect intellectual property. American IP industries account for over half of all U.S. exports, represent 40 percent of the

country's economic growth, and employ 18 million Americans. A recent study valued U.S. intellectual property at $5 trillion, or about half of the U.S. gross domestic product.

The Patent Reform Act represents a major improvement to our patent system that will benefit Americans for years to come.

Madam Chairman, this bill has been a bipartisan effort. We would not be here now without the steady hand and gentle suggestions made by our chairman, Mr. Conyers.

I also want to acknowledge the indispensable contributions of Congressman Howard Berman and Congressman Howard Coble, among others. All three of us have been chairmen of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee over the past number of years, and we have worked together on developing this bill. But it is Mr. Berman's good fortune and a testament to his legislative ability that we are on the House floor today, and I congratulate him for that achievement.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member and former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield a full 4 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on the condition, of course, that he is not too critical of this legislation and that he is dispassionate in his remarks.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, the chairman of the House High Tech Caucus, and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, ranking member of the Anti-Trust Task Force, and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the former chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.

Gohmert), the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

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

Issa, a member of the Judiciary Committee and the holder of 37 U.S. patents.

I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be unequivocal, first of all, in saying that I support this manager's amendment.

I yield to my friend from California (Mr. Herger) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from California for pointing these provisions out, and I certainly do agree with them, and we will work towards that goal.

I yield to the chairman of the committee.

I thank my friend from California for yielding. I certainly endorse his amendment and thank him for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding, and I want to point out that he is a member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I know he is going to describe this amendment very well, so I will not go into that detail, but simply urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, if I were present during the vote on the conference report on H.R. 2669, the ``College Cost Reduction Act,'' I would have voted ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1927, the Protect America Act of 2007. We are a Nation at war with foreign terrorists who are plotting deadly attacks. Al Qaeda recently released a video promising a big surprise in the near future. Yesterday, the Senate passed this national security bill, and the Senate got it right. It is time for the House to do the same.

This morning, the President called on the House to pass this critical bill, stating, ``Protecting America is our most solemn obligation, and I urge the House to pass this bill without delay.''

Mr. Speaker, last night we wasted valuable time considering a bill on the same subject strongly opposed by the Director of National Intelligence. But that debate did serve a purpose. Now we know where the majority of the majority stands. Ninety percent of the majority voted to deny the Director of National Intelligence what he said he needs to prevent future terrorist attacks.

The majority claimed that its legislation fixed the problem, knowing that the Director had publicly opposed the bill because it would not allow him to carry out his responsibility of protecting the Nation, especially in our heightened threat environment.

In the 30 years since Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, telecommunications technology has dramatically changed. As a result, the intelligence community is hampered in gathering essential information about terrorists needed to prevent attacks against America. Congress must modernize FISA to address this problem.

The bill, one, clarifies well-established law that neither the Constitution nor Federal law requires a court order to gather foreign communications from foreign terrorists; two, adopts flexible procedures to collect foreign intelligence from foreign terrorists overseas; three, provides court review of collection procedures for this new authority; and, four, requires semiannual reports to Congress on the use of this new authority.

Unlike the majority's proposal from last night, this bill does not impose unworkable, bureaucratic requirements that would burden the intelligence community. Regrettably, the Protect America Act includes a 180-day sunset, but terrorists do not sunset their plots to kill Americans, so Congress must enact a permanent change in our laws.

Mr. Speaker, last April, the Director submitted to Congress a comprehensive proposal to modernize FISA. That proposal already should have been approved. Congress must enact the Director's proposals from April to give the intelligence community the additional tools they need to keep our country safe.

As we approach the sixth anniversary of the devastating 9/11 attacks, it is critical that we remain vigilant in our war against terrorism. President George Washington once said: ``There

is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.'' Heeding his words, we must maintain our commitment to winning the war against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who's a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

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

Madam Speaker, this bill should be opposed by anyone who wants to protect America from terrorists.

It is a pitiful sight to see the majority denying the Director of National Intelligence the tools he needs to protect our country from terrorist attacks. The director warned Congress that ``the House proposal would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially in our heightened threat environment.''

According to the Director, the current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, does not allow the intelligence community to be effective. Specifically, the Director is unable to collect crucial information involving foreign terrorists.

Neither the Constitution nor Federal law restricts the ability of law enforcement or intelligence agents to monitor overseas communications; however, the bill would require the Director to obtain a court order to monitor calls from a foreign country to the United States. For instance, a foreign terrorist in Iraq who calls another terrorist in New York City would require or could require a court order. That jeopardizes American lives.

We are a Nation at war with foreign terrorists who continue to plan deadly attacks against America. We have an urgent need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Telecommunications technology has evolved dramatically over the last 30 years. Terrorist tactics are constantly changing in response to our efforts to disrupt their plots, and essential tools that we use must be modernized to keep up with this changing environment.

The safety of Americans depends on action by Congress. Al Qaeda recently released a video promising a big surprise in coming weeks. This threat, along with other activity, has heightened the concern among our intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, this bill fails to provide the fix that the Director has repeatedly told us is urgent.

First, the bill sunsets in 120 days. In 4 months, we will be right back where we started, dealing with the issue once again.

Second, the bill imposes bureaucratic requirements on the FISA process that will hamper efforts to protect America.

Third, the bill will interject the FISA court into a role that it has never had before. The bill will make it harder for the Director to do his job.

The majority could have solved the problem months ago. In April, the Director submitted to Congress a comprehensive proposal to modernize FISA. That proposal should already have been enacted. The majority failed to do so.

I hope, Madam Speaker, that there are no attacks before we revisit the issue and do what we should have done today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Texas and a member of the Homeland Security Committee (Mr. McCaul).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Shadegg).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who is a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and now ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, once again, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is also the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all deplore unethical conduct by Members of Congress and their staff. Each party has their fair share of examples. The public wants and deserves honest government. Unfortunately, this legislation does not bode well for this Congress' ability to deliver it.

In May, this House brought up a base bill that seemed very familiar to Republicans because the increased disclosures required in the bill were largely those contained in H.R. 4975, which was introduced by Congressman David Dreier, and which passed the House in the last Congress.

Last year's H.R. 4975 contained all of the following provisions: a requirement for Members to disclose post-employment negotiations with private entities; a prohibition on partisan influences on an outside entity's employment decisions; and increased quarterly electronic filing in a public database of lobbyist campaign contributions linked to Federal Election Commission filings.

That Republican legislation also increased civil and criminal penalties for failures to comply; required disclosure by lobbyists of all past executive branch and congressional employment; and contained a prohibition on lobbyists' violation of House gift ban rules.

Legislation the Democrats introduced this Congress, in the form of H.R. 2316, largely replicated Republican efforts from the previous Congress.

At the Judiciary Committee's markup of H.R. 2316, several additional Republican amendments that would strengthen this bill were adopted by voice vote. One provided for a 1-year revolving door ban that would prohibit private lawyers and law firms who enter into contracts with congressional committees from lobbying Congress while under contract to such committee and for 1 year thereafter.

That amendment by Representative Chris Cannon was adopted by voice vote at the committee, and was passed out of the House of Representatives. But it is nowhere to be found in the bill before us today.

Also, in May, Democrats supported and passed two motions to recommit offered by Republicans that contained even more ethics reforms. Those reforms required lobbyists to disclose which special projects they lobbied for.

If a special interest lobbyist is having closed-door meetings with Members of Congress regarding programs that do not benefit all Americans but only benefit a small group of people in one part of the country, then those projects should be disclosed.

The Republican motion to recommit also closed the existing loophole that allows State and local government entities to give gifts and travel to Members and their staff that other entities cannot give. It makes little sense to exempt entities that operate on taxpayer dollars from the gift and travel ban.

Current rules allow taxpayer-funded entities to give gifts and travel to Members and staff while they try to convince those same Members and staff to send more Federal taxpayer dollars their way. That is not fair, and the Republican motion to recommit, which was adopted, would have ended that practice.

The Republicans' motion to recommit also contained a reverse revolving door provision that would have prohibited a congressional employee who was a registered lobbyist prior to their congressional employment from engaging in official business with their former private employer for a period of 1 year.

The Republicans' motion to recommit also included the Republican- amended text to H.R. 2317, which required that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be fully disclosed.

Viewed in the harsh light of recent history, the legislation we consider

today is a hollow shell of reform. Just listen to the following list of reforms that Democrats have abandoned.

The provisions in this bill requiring the disclosure of contributions bundled together by lobbyists is weaker than the reforms passed in May, as this legislation requires the disclosure of bundled contributions exceeding $15,000 rather than the original $5,000.

That means less disclosure and less accountability to the American people. The weakened bundling disclosure provisions in this bill do not even cover bundled disclosures to PACs, a reform that 33 Democrats supported when it was accepted as part of the Republicans' motion to recommit H.R. 2317, and that 158 Democrats supported when it was accepted as part of the Republicans' motion to recommit H.R. 2316.

The newspaper Roll Call reported yesterday that, ``The average Democratic incumbent raised over 63 percent more from PACs during the first half of this year than during the same period in 2005.'' Could that be why Democrats don't want to disclose the bundled contributions lobbyists give to PACs?

This bill also fails to contain the following reforms that 158 Democrats supported in May. The length of this list defines the credibility chasm that now separates the Democratic Party from American voters.

The provision requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions by political action committees? Gone.

The provision requiring lobbyists to disclose the special projects they lobby for? Gone.

The provision prohibiting State and local governments from giving expensive gifts and lavish travel to Members of Congress in return for taxpayer dollars? Gone.

The provision prohibiting congressional employees who were lobbyists from engaging in official business with their former lobbyist employers? Gone.

Last May, the Washington Post reported that the Democrats brought up their original legislation ``after scrapping most key elements of an ethics package meant to deliver on Democratic promises to bring unprecedented accountability to Congress.''

Today, essential reforms have been thrown overboard, and the Democratic pledge of reform is sinking fast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the current ranking member and former chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

First of all, I would like to thank the majority leader for acknowledging this bill that we considered today largely mirrors the Republican legislation on ethics from the last Congress. As I mentioned in my opening statement a few minutes ago, I went through all the provisions that, in fact, had been carried over from the Republican bill last year.

But I would correct the majority leader in one respect, and that is many of the Republican reforms that were included in our motion to recommit which passed successfully with largely Democratic support earlier, all of those Republican reforms were eliminated. So this bill would have been much improved and much better if all the Republican reforms had, in fact, been included. I regret that was not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my friend and my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time remains for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas, Congressman Sessions, for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the conference report to H.R. 1, and I oppose this rule that provides for its consideration as well.

Mr. Speaker, while the conference report claims to protect Americans from foreign terrorists, we should be aware that in fact it does just the opposite. Specifically, changes in the Visa Waiver Program can do us great harm.

The Visa Waiver Program enables citizens of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 30 days or less without obtaining a visa. To qualify for participation in the Visa Waiver Program, countries must meet certain established criteria which include security standards for their travel documents, and a very low rate of nationals whose visas are denied.

The conference report language needlessly lowers the standards of the Visa Waiver Program. How can we consider the expansion of this program knowing that it has already been abused by two terrorists?

Peter Gadiel, president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America whose son was killed on 9/11, says, ``As family members of Americans who were murdered on 9/11, we are deeply concerned that some in Congress are working to expand the Visa Waiver Program. It is reckless and irresponsible to consider expanding the program in these perilous times, especially to accept countries that do not even meet current standards. Congress cannot and should not pass a law that would leave the door wide open for more terrorists.''

Lowering the standards for the Visa Waiver Program threatens national security and makes a mockery of our efforts to combat illegal immigration. Many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. legally on a temporary basis and never return to their home country. The conference report allows the administration to permit countries with a history of visa overstayers to participate in the Visa Waiver Program, guaranteeing an increase in illegal immigration.

The administration plans to admit countries to the Visa Waiver Program that come nowhere close to meeting current standards. They want to reward countries that have cooperated with us in the war on terror, and we all appreciate the assistance of our allies, but this is no way to conduct foreign policy.

It is irresponsible to lower the standards for the Visa Waiver Program and make it easier for terrorists to get into the U.S. This is no way to protect American lives.

It is bad enough that the administration doesn't enforce many current immigration laws. It is inexcusable that it would intentionally change the law knowing that it will endanger American lives and increase illegal immigration. It is so obvious that this change in the Visa Waiver Program will result in more illegal immigration and the inevitable entry of terrorists that the administration must now take responsibility for the predictable results.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the conference report as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a talented leader and individual, Mr. P.T. Wright. P.T., who currently serves as Acting Deputy Director of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program, is retiring from the Federal government after 34 years of distinguished service.

Since P.T. began his career with the former U.S. Customs Service in 1973, he has served with distinction in a number of key positions at the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security. In his management roles with U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; El Paso, Texas; Nogales, Arizona; and Washington, DC, P.T. was intricately involved in the development of customs policies for cargo examination and processing, drug interdiction and traveler processing.

Most recently, P.T. brought his track record of outstanding leadership to the Department of Homeland Security's US-VISIT program. The program benefited from his oversight and management of day-to-day operations.

P.T.'s familiarity with the communities surrounding our land borders has been a tremendous asset to US-VISIT. P.T. understood that active engagement with border stakeholders was critical in creating a foundation of trust and support upon which to build positive long-term relationships. He tirelessly traveled Southwest border communities to inform and educate border constituents about border management developments and initiatives. As a result of his in-depth knowledge of the land border environment and his ability to speak with clarity and conviction, P.T. earned the affection of border community leaders and gained instant credibility. And when P.T. returned to Washington, he took what he heard from border constituents and helped make real, on- the-ground improvements to US-VISIT.

While not yet completed, US-VISIT is now the world's most innovative and integrated biometrics program. This is in no small part due to leaders like P.T. Wherever he went, P.T. spread the message that biometrics are a powerful tool to improve the integrity of our immigration and border management system, to make us safer, and to facilitate legitimate travel and trade. I have no doubt that US-VISIT is on a path to continue to drive the innovative use of biometrics for identity management. P.T. deserves a great deal of credit for that success.

Mr. Wright's accomplishments and leadership were recognized last year with the prestigious Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive for his extraordinary contributions to our Nation's welfare and security over the course of a U.S. border management career spanning 34 years.

P.T. Wright is beloved within the US-VISIT program and around the many federal agencies that have worked with him. All who have had the opportunity to work with P.T. are better off for the experience. His candor and infectious sense of humor will be missed, but we are grateful for his long service and many contributions.

Madam Speaker, I urge that my colleagues join me in honoring P.T. Wright for his exceptional achievements and his commitment to excellence. P.T. has been an outstanding ambassador for US-VISIT. I commend P.T. for his service to the United States and I offer him best wishes in all of his future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 923, which has broad bipartisan support.

At the full committee markup of this legislation last week, members from both sides of the aisle, as Chairman Conyers just mentioned, and from all backgrounds and experiences joined together to ensure the swift prosecution of civil rights-era crimes, which were oftentimes ignored.

It is appropriate that the House consider this legislation today, Mr. Speaker. Last week marked the 44th anniversary of the murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers. Before his death, Medgar Evers was a primary, although unofficial, investigator of the Emmett Till murder. The committee was privileged to hear from his widow, Mrs. Myrlie Evers William. She movingly testified that the conviction of Medgar's killer in 1994, 31 years after his murder, gave a sense of hope to those who experienced this bleak time in our Nation's history.

Last week also marked an enormous victory in the fight to bring justice to unsolved civil rights-era murders. A Mississippi jury convicted former Klansman James Ford Seale for his role in the 1964 kidnapping and murder of 19-year-olds Charlie Eddie Moore and Henry Hezekiah Dee.

Unfortunately, time is running out for other unsolved civil rights- era murders. To date, the FBI has identified nearly 100 outstanding cases that still need to be solved. Many of these crimes are 30 to 40 years old. Evidence has been lost or destroyed, witnesses and defendants have died, and memories have dimmed. We must act swiftly to help bring long overdue justice to the victims, their families, and the communities that these brutal crimes affected.

H.R. 923 directs the Attorney General to designate a deputy chief within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights- era murders. The bill also directs the Attorney General to designate a supervisory special agent within the Civil Rights Unit of the FBI to further investigate these outstanding cases.

Finally, the bill provides much-needed resources to the Department of Justice, the FBI, and State and local law enforcement officials to prosecute these same cases.

Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank Chairman Conyers and Representatives Nadler, Franks, Scott,

and Forbes, members of the Judiciary Committee, for their commitment to this legislation.

I hope my colleagues will support this much-needed bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Madam Speaker, it's a great pleasure to recognize our 2007 National Basketball Association champions, the San Antonio Spurs!

Last night, the Spurs closed out the series by sweeping the Cleveland Cavaliers to win their fourth NBA Championship in the last nine years.

The Spurs again displayed their teamwork, grit, and determination on basketball's biggest stage. The Spurs were led by the post presence of Tim Duncan, the innovation and toughness of Manu Ginobili, the defensive pressure of Bruce Bowen and the quickness of Tony Parker.

By controlling the tempo and driving to the basket at will, Tony Parker won his first NBA Finals Most Valuable Player award. For the series, Parker shot an amazing 57 percent from the field and averaged 24.5 points.

Much deserved credit goes to Coach Gregg Popovich. With four championships, Coach Popovich has cemented his legacy as one of the greatest basketball coaches of all time.

Congratulations go as well to the Spurs' owners, Peter and Julianna Holt and to all the Spurs' supporters.

We congratulate the Spurs for their tremendous play, their professionalism on and off the court, and for bringing home yet another title to the Alamo City.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. Just 2 months ago, Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old student, killed 32 people and injured 20 others in a horrendous shooting at the Virginia Tech campus. Our Nation was shocked by the senselessness and brutality of this attack.

In addition to our sadness over the identity of the innocent lives lost, we were angry to learn that Cho Seung-Hui should not have obtained the two guns he obtained to commit this act because he had a history of mental illness.

Unfortunately, Virginia State law did not provide for transmittal of records of mental illness to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database, which would have disqualified him from purchasing firearms. Ambiguities in current Federal law also contributed to the system's failure to stop him from obtaining weapons. Today we take the first step in making sure that this tragedy is not repeated.

I commend Congresswoman McCarthy and Congressman Dingell and the other cosponsors for their commitment to addressing this issue in a way that protects every American's constitutional right to bear arms.

The NICS Improvement Act will ensure that the NICS background check system really is instantaneous and accurate. The act will require Federal agencies to provide relevant criminal mental health and military records for using NICS, create financial incentives for States to provide relevant records for using NICS, improve the accuracy of NICS by requiring Federal agencies and participating States to provide relevant records, require removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records, prohibit Federal fees from NICS checks and to require an audit by the Government Accountability Office of funds already spent for criminal history improvements, since hundreds of millions of dollars intended for NICS were spent on non-NICS programs.

To strike a fair balance on the issue of mental adjudications, the bill clarifies existing law to include involuntary commitments to a mental institution, prevents use of Federal adjudications based on medical diagnoses without a finding of dangerousness or mental incapacity, requires all Federal agencies imposing mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for ``relief from disabilities'' and requires States receiving funding to have a relief from disabilities program for mental adjudications and commitments.

The tragedy of April 16 can never be erased, but this bill is a step forward in protecting our country from violence by persons who have no right to possess a firearm.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to observe that the Dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has arrived on the House floor. And I just want to say, again, how much I enjoyed our working relationship in the development of this bill and again, appreciate all his contributions to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

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

Madam Speaker, this bill addresses the issue of the disclosure of campaign contributions bundled together by lobbyists. The Judiciary Committee addressed this issue in the last Congress when we adopted an amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) by a vote of 28-4.

As a principal supporter of these provisions, Mr. Van Hollen signed the following statement in last year's committee report: ``At the markup, we were able to develop a bipartisan provision concerning the areas of Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, principally the Lobbying Disclosure Act.''

So I'm glad to see a provision brought to the floor today that is so similar to what we did last year. However, I do find it ironic that we are bringing this bill to the floor with little advance notice.

Yesterday we received notice that this bill would come up less than an hour before the Rules Committee was to start. That hardly gave us a fair opportunity to offer amendments to the bill.

Madam Speaker, this bill and the other bill that we consider today on lobbying reform are supposed to be about open government, but the process by which this bill has been rushed to the floor shows how this House sometimes lacks a fair and open process.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I have no other speakers on this particular bill. So I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I, too, urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, the base bill addresses the same bundling issue that the Judiciary Committee dealt with in a bipartisan fashion last year. Mr. Van Hollen, the principal supporter of these provisions, signed on to that compromise.

I offer this motion to recommit because there is a difference between what was covered by the Van Hollen amendment that was adopted in committee last Congress and what is contained in this legislation authored by Mr. Van Hollen in this Congress, a very big difference.

This legislation does not require that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be disclosed. Why are PACs omitted from the disclosure requirements in this legislation?

As has been recently reported in the BNA Money & Politics Report, ``Democrats' new-found majority status has made them the biggest recipients of campaign money from lobbyists and others, a fact that could increase their wariness about passing strict new rules.''

``For example, a new analysis posted on the politicalmoneyline.com Web site, and based on Federal Election Commission reports, found that in the first quarter of 2007, Federal political action committees, that is the PACs this legislation exempts, reported giving all Federal candidates $27 million, of which almost $17 million, or 62 percent, went to Democrats, and only 38 percent went to Republicans. The Democrats' newfound fundraising prowess could cause them to have second thoughts about such proposals as increased disclosure of bundled contributions arranged by lobbyists, some observers said.''

It appears these observers were correct. The majority has let the color of money dampen their desire for more openness and reform. The loophole in this bill that exempts bundled contributions to PACs is big enough to ride a Democratic donkey through.

If we are requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions to political party committees, those same disclosure rules should also apply to contributions to PACs. Party committees represent all members of that party affiliation. PACs, on the other hand, represent more narrow, special interests. Why should the former be exposed to more sunshine, but not the latter?

The fact that PACs give more money to Democrats is not a serious answer. Time and again the majority party finds itself presenting legislation that picks favorites, when what the American people want is more honesty and more accountability. This motion to recommit would achieve that by including bundled contributions to PACs under the same provisions that cover Federal candidates, other PACs, and political party committees.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit so that we can have a more open and honest government. To put it another way, what was good for the Democrats last year should be good for the Democrats this year.

Madam Speaker, the American people want and deserve a government that operates in the sunlight and not in the shadows.

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