Floor Statements

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

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

Madam Chairman, we all deplore unethical conduct by Members of Congress and their staff. Each party has their share of examples. The public wants and deserves clean government, and today we finally bring before the House a bill that seems very familiar. That is because the increased disclosures required in the bill we are addressing today are largely those that were contained in H.R. 4975, which was introduced by Congressman David Dreier in the last Congress and passed the House then.

Last year's H.R. 4975 contained all of the following provisions: a requirement to disclose postemployment 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 Elections Commission filings.

The legislation also increased civil and criminal penalties for failure 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. Similar provisions, of course, are included in the legislation before us today.

At the Judiciary Committee's markup, I was glad to see that several Republican amendments that would strengthen this bill were adopted by voice vote. One was an amendment offered by Representative Chris Cannon that provides 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.

Republicans passed nearly identical reform provisions over a year ago. I am pleased to finally see legislation come before the House this Congress that substantially mirrors Republican efforts from the last Congress.

The concepts of greater transparency and more accountability are not the property of any one political party, but it just so happens that Republicans led the way in the last Congress by writing a reform package very similar to the one we are considering today. A simple comparison of the provisions in this bill with those in H.R. 4975 from the last Congress will show that what we see on the House floor today is a clear reflection of what we saw on the House floor last year.

I had hoped a vote on these measures would have occurred much earlier in this Congress, but I am happy to cast my vote again today for these reforms.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a valued and active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) who, among the other things, I believe wants to engage the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in a colloquy.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I support this manager's amendment. It contains provisions authored by Representative Gohmert of Texas that would allow Members to omit personally identifiable information from the electronic reports of their travel and financial disclosure statements if such information is not required to be disclosed under House rules. This is a reasonable bipartisan provision, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment. The base bill under consideration today is largely a reflection of the Republican reform bill the House passed in the last Congress, and that was largely authored by the Representative from California (Mr. Dreier). But it does not include all of the Republican authored reform provisions. One of those authored by Representative Dreier is contained in this amendment. It would require that when Members and House employees end their service in the House, they be given notice of the exact dates in which their post-employment restrictions apply. The amendment also would require that that information be made available on the Internet, which would provide more accountability and transparency. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

And Madam Chair, I once again want to thank Mr. Dreier for his continuous efforts to try to achieve open and honest government. Those efforts have begun years ago, and they continue today and will effectuate the passage of this amendment and this bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) who, prior to his current public service to our country, also served as a Vice Admiral in the Navy.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a member of our Republican leadership team.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, H.R. 1592, for three reasons. First, the bill will result in disproportionate justice for crime victims who do not fall within the categories it contains. Second, it will have a chilling effect on religious freedom and first amendment rights. And third, it is probably unconstitutional and raises significant Federalism issues.

We can all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim, but also to the larger community whose public safety has been violated. That is why all violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However, this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system.

Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person.

To me, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. In fact, in 1984, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, enacted the Sentencing Reform Act to ensure the consistent application of criminal penalties to avoid, ``unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct.''

Why are we departing from the fairness embodied in that Act? Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, but rather with intent.

This legislation forces law enforcement officials to comb the offender's past to determine whether the offender ever expressed hostility toward a protected group. In addition, the bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on a suspect's religious beliefs, membership and religious organizations and any past statements made by a suspect. A chilling effect on religious leaders and others who, press their constitutionally protected beliefs, unfortunately, could result.

Some of my colleagues on the other side will claim that an amendment adopted during committee markup protects religious speech. However, it would not diminish the chilling effect of possible involvement in criminal investigations. Religious speakers and groups will feel in greater jeopardy as a result of this bill.

The facts of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell underscore the danger of this legislation. In that case, Todd Mitchell received an enhanced hate crime sentence because of remarks he made to prior to others attacking a teenager because of his race. Mitchell did not participate in the physical assault of the teenager. His sentence was upheld. He was punished for his words.

My colleagues on the other side have argued that no prosecutor would ever subject members of a religious community to the criminal process. Are we willing to take the risk and leave the first amendment protections to a prosecutor's discretion?

I also believe the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will likely be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation.

In 2000, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case, the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not apply to noneconomic violent criminal conduct that does not cross State lines, nor does the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th amendments. Those amendments only extend to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.

While the 13th amendment reaches private conduct such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's sexual orientation, disability or gender identity constitutes a badge and incidence of slavery. Aside from the constitutional defects of this bill, it purports to federalize crimes that are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments.

FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last 10 years. Only six of approximately 15,000 homicides in the Nation involved hate crimes.

As the Washington Post stated in a previous editorial, ``Rape, murder and assault--no matter what prejudice motivates the perpetrator--are presumptively local matters in which the Federal Government should intervene only when it has a pressing interest. The fact that hatred lurks behind a violent incident is not, in our view, an adequate Federal interest . . .''

Unfortunately we cannot legislate away the hatred that some feel in their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in our country. For all the reasons I have mentioned above, I oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a former attorney general of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a ranking member of the IP subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former speaker of the Florida house.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and also the ranking deputy member of the Crimes Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman fro Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time to my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward. It seeks to protect America's senior citizens and those who serve in our Armed Forces.

My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added to the list of protected groups.

We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished.

The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year.

We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.

These are horrible crimes that strike fear into the hearts of America's senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be victimized next.

This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda.

With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this act.

If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel?

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.

Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last month the House considered a similar piece of legislation. As has become the Democrats' antidemocratic custom, no amendments were allowed. The language of the bill was changed hours before it came to the House floor, and Republicans were allowed only a motion to recommit.

Today, we are back again to consider legislation to unconstitutionally give D.C. residents a voting representative in Congress. Since the wording of the legislation has been changed without approval by the committee of jurisdiction, we will not have an opportunity to give D.C. residents the right to possess weapons to protect themselves and their families. And the reason we cannot give them that right is the same reason the bill was withdrawn last month: The Democratic leadership is afraid Congress would approve it.

It is a shame that a bill that supposedly supports democracy is being brought up in such an undemocratic manner. The majority waived its own rules and will pass a separate tax increase, all to ram through the House an unconstitutional bill they rewrote at the 11th hour with no amendments allowed.

At the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said: ``Permit me to be blunt. I consider this act to be the most premeditated, unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

This legislation was constitutionally suspect last month and it is constitutionally suspect today. The Constitution explicitly says that Members of Congress can only be elected by people who live in States. Article I section 2 reads, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''

Judges and legal experts agree that since D.C. is not a State, it cannot elect Members of Congress. In fact, a Federal district judge here in D.C. already has spoken on this point stating clearly, ``We conclude from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.''

And the House Judiciary Committee also has spoken on this point. When the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino in the 95th Congress reported out a constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do by statute, the report stated, ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential. Statutory action alone will not suffice.'' So what is being attempted with the legislation before us today is something long recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment.

Further, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal treatment. It grants Utah an additional Representative who will run at- large or statewide rather than in the individual district provided for in the redistricting plan the Utah legislature passed last year. The at-large provision creates a situation this country has not seen since the development of the Supreme Court's line of cases affirming the principle of one man, one vote.

Under this provision, voters in Utah would be able to vote for two Representatives, their own district Representative and their at-large Representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able to vote for their one district Representative. The result would be that Utah voters would have more voting power than the voters of every other State.

The new bill the majority drafted at the 11th hour even fails to strike the current position of the Delegate that represents Washington, D.C. Currently, that delegate can vote in committee. So this bill not only grants voters in Utah two voting Members when every other voter only gets one, but also gives District voters two votes in committee, one vote for the D.C. Delegate and one vote for the new D.C. Member of Congress. Congratulations to Utah and D.C. voters.

Some feel sincerely that the Constitution can be pulled and stretched a

little and interpreted otherwise, but at least we can agree that it is by no means certain that the bill is constitutional. What is certain is that congressional voting for D.C. residents could be obtained by a constitutional amendment.

In 1978, Congress approved such a constitutional amendment, but only 16 of the 38 States necessary ratified it. As I mentioned, at the time the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee said the only legitimate way to give D.C. residents the right to vote in Federal elections was a constitutional amendment as opposed to this kind of legislation.

Why is that process being ignored now? Is it because of the fear of failure again?

Like many Members of Congress, I favor giving D.C. residents the right to vote for Members of the House and the Senate; but this bill doesn't do that. It limits D.C. residents to voting only for House Members. This bill does not allow D.C. residents to vote for Senators. Why are we considering a bill that gives D.C. residents only half their rights? Isn't that ``taxation without representation''? Or maybe it is ``taxation with half-representation.'' Maybe we should refund D.C. residents half their taxes if this bill passes.

There is a solution, and it treats the residents of D.C. better than this bill. It is constitutional. It is more likely to succeed in a constitutional amendment, and it will give D.C. residents the right to vote for both House Members and Senators.

D.C. was originally carved out of Maryland. If D.C. were given back to Maryland, except for the Capitol and some Federal buildings, D.C. residents would be residents of a State and have the same voting rights. It has been done before. That part of D.C. that was once part of Virginia was returned to Virginia in 1846, so the precedent is there. Such legislation would only require a majority vote in Congress and in the Maryland legislature. Both are controlled by the Democratic Party.

Why are we waiting? Why not the best for D.C. residents? Why are we spending time on a bill that is constitutionally suspect and would be challenged in court? Why are we not acting now to return the District to Maryland and assure D.C. residents the right to vote in all Federal elections as quickly as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee and also a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Any Member who votes for this bill is voting to grant D.C. residents more voting power in the House of Representatives than any of their own constituents now enjoy. That is because this latest version of the bill fails to eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate.

The D.C. Delegate can, of course, vote in committee, which means that if this bill passes, D.C. residents will have two votes in committee and one on the House floor. That would give D.C. residents more voting power in the House than any other voter in the country. That is obviously unfair, and I think we all know it.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit simply requires expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of the bill's provision. I believe this legislation is unconstitutional and will produce significant legal and electoral turmoil if enacted. So it is critical that the motion to recommit be adopted to ensure that if the bill violates the Constitution, that unconstitutional action will not be prolonged.

This motion to recommit constitutes the very same expedited judicial review provision Congress agreed was appropriate, on a bipartisan basis, in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. That provision was successfully employed to facilitate the Supreme Court's expeditious review of that legislation.

Opponents might claim that an expedited review of the legislation would already be provided by 28 U.S.C. sections 2284 and 1253, but that is very far from clear. 28 U.S.C. section 2284 only applies to ``actions filed challenging the constitutionality of an apportionment of a congressional district over the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.'' The creation of a new House Member to represent a non-State constitutes neither an apportionment nor something relating to a statewide legislative body. The 14th amendment itself makes clear that apportionment is a concept that only applies to States.

Also, nothing in 28 U.S.C. section 1253 requires the Supreme Court to ever hear the case, and absent a statutory requirement, the Supreme Court retains the discretion regarding whether and when to a hear a case.

In contrast, the motion to recommit requires that the case be brought in the District of Columbia before a three-judge Federal district court with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The motion to recommit provides that ``It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.''

Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said in his testimony offered at the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the first of three versions of this bill that were introduced, ``Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

As Professor Turley also pointed out, the inevitable legal challenge to this bill could produce legislative chaos. With a relatively close party division in the House, the casting of a determinative vote subsequently held invalid by a court could throw the validity of pieces of future legislation into question.

There is no reason to stall a judicial resolution of these important issues, especially when doing so risks legislative chaos regarding the validity of future legislation passed by the House.

Mr. Speaker, if supporters of H.R. 1905 believe the bill is constitutional, and I know they do, they should want to get that constitutionality established by the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Likewise, we should all want to shorten the time that the Representatives created under this bill would serve, if they are, in fact, declared unconstitutional.

The bill is either constitutional or it is not. Let's adopt this motion to ensure that question is resolved expeditiously and to prevent as much uncertainty as possible.

I encourage my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to join the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt in introducing the ``Need- Based Educational Aid Act of 2007.''

Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award financial aid solely on the basis of demonstrated need. These schools also agreed to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of that group of schools. From the 1950s to the late 1980s, the practice continued uncontested.

In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against 9 of the colleges that engaged in this practice. After extensive litigation, the parties entered into a consent decree in 1991 that all but ended the practice. In 1992, Congress passed the first exemption to the antitrust laws for these colleges as part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992. That temporary exemption codified the settlement and allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only, to use common criteria, to use a common financial aid application form, and to allow the exchange of students' financial information through a third party. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students.

In 1994, Congress extended this exemption as part of the Improving America's Schools Act. Congress has extended the exemption twice since 1994--in 1997 and 2001. As of May 2006, twenty-eight schools utilized this antitrust exemption. This exemption expires on September 30, 2008.

I believe the current exemption makes sense, and to my knowledge there have been no complaints about it. A recent GAO study of the exemption found there has been no abuse of the exemption and stated that there has not been an increase in the price of college as a result of the exemption. The Antitrust Modernization Commission, which is due to release its final report next week, studied this exemption and found that it provides ``limited immunity for limited conduct,'' that is, it is narrowly tailored to meet its goals of promoting access to need- based financial aid.

This bill would make the exemption passed in 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2001 permanent. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption.

The need-based financial aid system serves worthy goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. No student who is otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of these schools because of the limited financial means of his or her family. This bill helps protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions.

The last time a permanent extension of this antitrust exemption was considered by the House it passed by a vote of 414 to 0. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would return the procedures for appointing interim U.S. Attorneys to what it was before Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act.

Some have claimed that the PATRIOT Act's reform was used to avoid Senate confirmation of permanent U.S. attorneys. To prevent that alleged abuse, this bill, H.R. 580, was rushed headlong through the Judiciary Committee.

One hearing was held on the bill. But that hearing focused mostly on the current U.S. Attorney controversy, not the bill, itself. It was then pushed immediately to the full committee, without an opportunity for subcommittee mark-up.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would have liked to have worked more with the Democrats in a bipartisan fashion to improve the existing law. We might well have found a better solution.

The majority's own witnesses at the hearing, for example, testified that much of the problem with the interim appointments process is the time it takes to obtain Senate confirmation. This bill, however, does not address that problem.

Given more time, we might have considered some promising ideas from the other side of the Capitol.

Senator Kyl, for example, proposed a 120-day interim appointment power for the Executive Branch, and a 120-day clock for the Senate to confirm permanent appointees. This would have addressed the principal problem.

Senator Sessions proposed to set qualification standards for judicial appointments of interim appointees. These standards would have helped prevent unsuitable judicial appointees--assuming, for the purposes of argument, that there should be any judicial appointees of Executive Branch prosecutors.

This bill would allow judges to appoint the very Executive Branch prosecutors practicing before them, and would raise legal, ethical and practical concerns. Surely we could have done better than return to a flawed law of the past.

The rush to legislation also led to an under-considered amendment adopted at committee mark-up. That amendment would preclude the use of the full range of tried and true tools in the Vacancy Reform Act to obtain interim U.S. Attorneys.

Specifically, it would preclude the President from reaching out to Senate-confirmed, Presidential appointees serving in other capacities, rather than just career civil servants, to serve in these important posts on an interim basis.

The amendment limits the pool of qualified individuals to serve temporarily as U.S. Attorneys, so it weakens the federal government's ability to fight crime.

In these times of the War on Terror and the continuing, age-old war on crime, the service of U.S. Attorneys--the front line of federal law enforcement--is more than ever a matter of first importance to the Nation. Their appointment is serious business.

We should not have rushed to judgment in attending to this business, but instead have given the legislative process the time that it deserves.

We have missed an opportunity to improve this bill. The American people have not been well-served.

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

Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation because it is clearly unconstitutional. While the bill may be well-intentioned, as Members of Congress, we swear an oath to support our Constitution. We cannot gloss over its deficiencies.

At the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said, ``Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

Supporters of this bill claim Congress owes the authority to enact this bill under a broad reading of the so-called District Clause in Article I, section 8. However, Article I, section 2 says, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.'' Since D.C. is not a State, it cannot have a voting Member in the House.

This was an issue that was clearly raised, debated and rejected by the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment to the Constitution during the New York ratification convention that would have allowed Congress to provide the District with congressional representation, but his amendment was rejected by the convention on July 22, 1788.

More recently in 2000, a Federal district court here in D.C. spoke on the issue, stating, ``We conclude from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.''

The House Judiciary Committee has already spoken on this point as well in the 95th Congress. Under the leadership of Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino, the Judiciary Committee reported out a constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do by statute. The report accompanying that constitutional amendment stated the following, ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential; statutory action alone will not suffice.''

Congress passed that constitutional amendment in 1978, but it failed to get the approval of three-quarters of the States over a 7-year period. In fact, only 16 of the 38 States required for its ratification supported the amendment.

So what is being attempted by the legislation before us today is something long recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment that the vast majority of States have already failed to approve. Proponents of this legislation cite a 1949 Supreme Court case called Tidewater, but the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report analyzing that case. It concluded that ``at least six of the Justices who participated in what appears to be the most relevant Supreme Court case, National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co., authored opinions rejecting the proposition that Congress's power under the District Clause was sufficient to effectuate structural changes to the political structures of the Federal Government.

``Further, the remaining three judges, who found that Congress could grant diversity jurisdiction to District of Columbia citizens despite the lack of such jurisdiction in Article III, specifically limited their opinion to instances where there was no extension of anymore fundamental right,'' such as the right to vote for a Member of Congress.

The unconstitutional approach of this bill is completely unnecessary. Most of the District of Columbia, other than a few Federal buildings, could simply be returned to the State of Maryland. That process of retrocession is clearly allowed by the Constitution. It would grant representation to those in Washington D.C., by a simple majority vote, and they would then have representation in both the House and Senate, an improvement over this bill that limits representation only to the House.

Any discrepancies regarding the number of electorates granted to D.C. by the 23rd amendment could easily be corrected through a constitutional amendment once D.C. Members were represented in Congress through retrocession. Madam Speaker, even conceding for purposes of argument the proponents' interpretation of the vast breadth of the District clause, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal treatment.

H.R. 1433 grants Utah an additional Representative that will run at- large or statewide. The at-large provision creates a situation this country has not seen since the development of the Supreme Court's line of cases affirming the principle of ``one man, one vote.''

Under this provision, voters in Utah would be able to vote for two Representatives, their district representative and the at-large representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able to vote for their one district representative. The result would be that Utah voters would have disproportionately more voting power compared to the voters of every other State.

There is no question D.C. residents have fought bravely in wars and served their country in a variety of ways. That is interesting, even heartrending, but irrelevant to whether or not this legislation is constitutional.

I also ask this House to consider the serious, practical consequences of passing this legislation. The inevitable legal challenge to this bill could produce legislative chaos by placing into doubt any future legislation passed in Congress by a one-vote margin.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because it is clearly unconstitutional, and, if enacted, could lead to years of protracted legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the majority leader on one point that he made and that is that Washington, D.C. is distinctive. However, it is especially distinctive because it is the only capital in the world that exists under the U.S. Constitution, and that is why this bill is unconstitutional.

Madam Speaker, I include for printing in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1433--District of Columbia

House Voting Rights Act of 2007

(del. norton (d) district of columbia and 17 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 1433.

The bill violates the Constitution's provisions governing the

composition and election of the United States Congress.

Accordingly, if H.R. 1433 were presented to the President,

his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

The Constitution limits representation in the House to

representatives of States. Article I, Section 2 provides:

``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members

chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications

requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the

State legislature.'' The Constitution also contains 11 other

provisions expressly linking congressional representation to

Statehood.

The District of Columbia is not a State. Accordingly,

congressional representation for the District of Columbia

would require a constitutional amendment. Advocates of

congressional representation for the District have long

acknowledged this. As the House Judiciary Committee stated in

recommending passage of such a constitutional amendment in

1975:

``If the citizens of the District are to have voting

representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is

essential; statutory action alone will not suffice. This is

the case because provisions for elections of Senators and

Representatives in the Constitution are stated in terms of

the States, and the District of Columbia is not a State.''

Courts have reached the same conclusion. In 2000, for

example, a three-judge panel concluded ``that the

Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve

as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional

representatives.'' Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 46-47

(D.D.C. 2000). The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. And

just two months ago, Congress's own Research Service found

that, without a constitutional amendment, it is ``likely that

the Congress does not have authority to grant voting

representation in the House of Representatives to the

District of Columbia.''

Recent claims that H.R. 1433 should be viewed as an

exercise of Congress's ``exclusive'' legislative authority

over the District of Columbia as the seat of the Federal

government are not persuasive. Congress's exercise of

legislative authority over the District of Columbia is

qualified by other provisions of the Constitution, including

the Article I requirement that representation in the House of

Representatives is limited to the ``several States.''

Congress cannot vary that constitutional requirement under

the guise of the ``exclusive legislation'' clause, a clause

that provides the same legislative authority over Federal

enclaves like military bases as it does over the District.

For all the foregoing reasons, enacting H.R. 1433's

extension of congressional representation to the District

would be unconstitutional. It would also call into question

(by subjecting to constitutional challenge in the courts) the

validity of all legislation passed by the reconstituted House

of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former attorney general of the State of California.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Judiciary Committee and also a member of its Constitution Subcommittee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a valued member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), another valued member of the Judiciary Committee, and also the ranking member of one of its subcommittees.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a senior Member of this body.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a former Speaker of the House in Florida.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, let me summarize the reasons we should oppose this legislation. D.C. is not a State, and the Constitution clearly limits representation in the House to States.

Supporters of this bill claim Congress has the authority to enact this bill under a broad reading of the so-called ``District clause'' in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. However, Article I, section 2 clearly says, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''

The bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal treatment as well. H.R. 1433 grants Utah an additional Representative who will run statewide or at large. The at-large provision violates the principles of one man, one vote. Voters in Utah would be able to vote for two Representatives, their district Representative and their at-large Representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able to vote for their one district Representative. The result would be that Utah voters will have disproportionately more voting power than the voters of every other State, and that, too, is clearly unconstitutional.

In 2000, the Federal District Court in D.C. itself stated, ``We conclude from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.''

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, this unconstitutional approach is completely unnecessary. Most of the District of Columbia, other than a few Federal buildings, could simply be returned to the State of Maryland. That process of retrocession is clearly allowed by the Constitution. That process could grant representation in the House to those in Washington by a simple majority vote. D.C. voters could then be represented by both House and Senate Members, an improvement over the current legislation.

Madam Speaker, finally, and for many good reasons, the administration also opposes this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Madam Speaker, in its current form.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit I have offered contains a bipartisan proposal by Representatives Mike Ross and Mark Souder, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested today that District of Columbia citizens have the right to vote in Congress. If that is the case, then they must also agree that the citizens of the District should have a constitutionally guaranteed right to possess firearms.

Currently, D.C. citizens are prevented from owning any handgun at all. Even those who lawfully own and store a rifle or shotgun are prohibited from using them to defend themselves, their families or their homes.

District law threatens honest people with imprisonment if they unlock, assemble or load their guns even under attack. Although the District has the most stringent gun control laws in the Nation, they still suffer from one of the highest murder rates. Since January 1 of this year alone, 35 people have been murdered in the District. Last year over 150 people were murdered, and 2,000 suffered gun assaults.

This violence continues unabated, despite the strict gun control laws. It is time to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and to defend their families.

On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down some, but not all, of the District of Columbia's gun control laws as unconstitutional. The court agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Justice Department and constitutional scholars, present and past, that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to possess firearms. This court decision, which will continue to wind its way through the judicial system, compels Congress to act now to protect all second amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, the prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as ineffective as it is unconstitutional. It is high time we rectify this wrong.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who in the last Congress passed a piece of legislation very similar to the motion to recommit that we consider now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and believe it is necessary to protect judges, their family members and the other courthouse personnel by preventing disclosure of personal information that can be used to target and retaliate against them.

This legislation extends the authority of Federal judges and court personnel to redact sensitive and personal information from financial disclosure reports for security reasons. The current authority to redact personal and sensitive information from financial disclosure reports expired at the end of 2005.

Recent assaults and threats against Federal judges and their family members demonstrate the need for this redaction authority to continue. I believe this is an important safeguard to prevent vindictive offenders and litigants from seeking their revenge by harming or intimidating judges, probation officers and others.

H.R. 1130 extends the authority for 4 years, expands the coverage to include immediate family members, and improves the annual reporting requirements on the use of this authority. Although I favor a permanent extension of redaction authority, I support a 4-year extension to ensure the bill's timely passage by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member of the Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 545, the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007, which provides urgently needed funds to Native American communities for the enforcement and treatment of methamphetamine addiction.

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 was enacted last year as part of the U.S. PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act. It included three critical grant programs to assist States with America's escalating methamphetamine problem: the COPS Meth Hot Spots program, the Drug-Endangered Children program and the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders program. However, the act inadvertently omitted Native American communities from participation in two of these grant programs.

At a hearing before the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee in February, Mr. Ben Shelly, vice president of the Navajo Nation, stated that methamphetamine is the drug of choice in Indian country.

In 2005, 40 percent of all calls seeking police assistance on the Navajo Nation were meth-related. Even more troubling is that 40 percent of all violent crimes committed on the Navajo Nation are directly related to methamphetamine use trafficking.

Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the sponsor of H.R. 545, testified at the hearing that 74 percent of Native Americans surveyed in a recent study say that meth is the single biggest threat to Native American communities today. The Native American Meth Enforcement and Treatment Act corrects this oversight and gives Native Americans full access to all three meth grants. This legislation is critical to our continuing fight to eliminate the meth epidemic in America.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan legislation and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 740, the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement Act, or PHONE Act, and I thank Chairman Conyers and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support of this bill which unanimously passed the House at the end of the 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, a new type of fraud known as ``spoofing'' is becoming more prevalent. Spoofing involves masking one's caller ID information to facilitate a fraudulent telephone call to the recipient. Those who engage in spoofing use incorrect, fake or fraudulent caller identification to hide their identity, and then obtain personal information from the victim.

Call recipients unwittingly divulge their names, addresses, or Social Security numbers under the mistaken belief that the caller represents a bank, a credit card company, or even a court of law.

Spoofing is not simply annoying; it is the latest tactic for committing identity theft and other types of fraud that costs victims thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Spoofing not only victimizes the phone call recipient, but also invades the privacy of those individuals whose caller ID is used to mask the fraudulent calls. To address this, H.R. 740 specifically prohibits the use of an actual person's caller ID information for spoofing.

Although the technology needed to spoof has been available for some time, it previously required special equipment and knowledge to use the masking technology.

Recently, this technology has become more accessible either through the purchase of Internet telephone equipment or through Web sites specifically set up for spoofing.

These Web sites claim to protect one's privacy. However, the use of this technology has been linked to fraud, prank phone calls, political attacks, and telemarketers' attempts to avoid ``do not call'' restrictions.

Additionally, calling cards can be purchased or accounts set up to facilitate multiple telephone calls. One of the greatest concerns related to spoofing is the use of the technology by criminals to mislead law enforcement officials and evade prosecution.

H.R. 740 addresses these concerns by creating a new Federal crime to prohibit the modification of caller ID with

the intent to deceive the recipient of a telephone call as to the identity of the caller.

The bill imposes a fine and/or a prison term of up to 5 years for violations. However, the legislation does not affect legally available blocking of caller ID technology, or lawfully authorized activities of law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

This legislation will help deter telephone fraud, protect consumers from harassment, and protect consumers and their personally identifiable information from identity thieves. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is a member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and who is chairman of the House Republican High-Tech Working Group, and who is also the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy) who, as Mr. Scott said awhile ago, is the original author of similar legislation. Were it not for Mr. Murphy's efforts in the last Congress to pass his bill unanimously, we would not be here tonight. We thank him for his leadership and for his initiative last year.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back as soon as the gentlewoman from California is ready to close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

increasing the timeliness of Freedom of Information Act,

FOIA, responses and ensuring a customer-oriented approach to

FOIA processing. The Administration has been pursuing these

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

strong management review and reforms that the President

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

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

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

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

Administration believes it would be premature and

counterproductive to the goals of increasing timeliness and

improving customer service to amend FOIA before agencies have

had sufficient time to implement the FOIA improvements that

the President directed them to develop, put into place,

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

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

impose substantial administrative and financial burdens on

the Executive Branch. These provisions could result in

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

the personnel and funds needed to implement them would have

to come from existing agency resources. Moreover, the agency

reports that were issued last summer, and the improvement

plans that are being implemented, illustrate that the

challenges that agencies face in responding to FOIA requests

are often unique to each agency and, therefore, require

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

fits-all legislative approach.

The Administration's specific concerns with the bill

include the following.

The Administration strongly opposes expanding the

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

would exempt a larger class of requesters from the obligation

to pay fees assessed for searching for responsive documents.

Expanding the definition would have serious fiscal

consequences for the Executive Branch. Moreover, with no

requirement that requesters pay search fees, they have no

incentive to tailor their requests and will likely make

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

resources and increase the time it takes to process all

requests. Further, under current law, agencies have authority

to waive or reduce fees upon a determination that disclosure

of information will contribute significantly to public

understanding.

The Administration also strongly opposes reinstating the

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

litigation fees. The Administration is concerned that its

reinstatement would serve as a disincentive to an agency's

voluntarily revisiting decisions and improving procedures

with respect to FOIA requests, because doing so could make

the agency liable for a complainant's legal fees.

Furthermore, the bill could be interpreted to include an

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

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

that would justify attorneys fees. Such an interpretation

would be a major departure from long-standing administrative

law practice and would severely undercut the traditional

function of the administrative appeal process, which is

designed to provide the requester with an avenue of further

review at the agency, thereby reducing the likelihood of a

lawsuit. If this provision covers relief provided at the

administrative appeal stage, this could increase the FOIA

program costs dramatically and would serve as a disincentive

to release records at the administrative appeal stage.

The Administration strongly opposes commencing the 20-day

time limit for processing FOIA requests on the date that the

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

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

This provision represents a very significant change from

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

appropriate element of an agency has received the request in

accordance with the agency's FOIA regulations. The provision

fails to take into account the complexity of many requests,

the need to consult with other Executive Branch entities, or

the need to search for records in multiple locations,

including at Federal records centers. As noted above, the

Executive Order requires agencies to implement improvement

plans specifically focused on eliminating or reducing any

backlog of FOIA requests, and the Justice Department's

preliminary review of the agencies' annual reports indicates

that some agencies have already realized meaningful backlog

reductions.

The Administration is opposed to the creation of an

``Office of Government Information Services'' within the

National Archives and any intent that the proposed Office

would be given any sort of policymaking role with respect to

FOIA compliance. The FOIA compliance function remains

appropriately placed with the Department of Justice, the lead

agency in implementing Executive Order 13392.

Finally, the Administration strongly opposes the provision

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

General Ashcroft's FOIA Memorandum and return to Attorney

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

believes that the structure of the FOIA reflects the

appropriate balance between the public's right to know how

the government is operating and the equally important need to

safeguard certain information, such as that pertaining to

personal privacy or homeland security.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the ``Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007'' (the ``OPEN Government Act'').

This legislation will give the public more information and better insight into the workings of government by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The OPEN Government Act also creates a broader definition of ``news media'' so that additional types of news media can obtain government documents at minimal cost.

The legislation establishes a system that assigns individualized tracking numbers to requests for information so individuals can track their requests.

I want to protect our open system of government and ensure that the Federal government responds to the American people.

Unfortunately, the process for obtaining government information is overly burdensome and federal agencies have become less and less responsive to requests for information.

This deters citizens from obtaining information to which they are entitled.

Taxpayers should have the opportunity to obtain information quickly and easily from the Federal government.

I had hoped to work with the Democrats to draft bipartisan legislation this year and we were able to compromise on several provisions of the bill.

Unfortunately, we could not come to an agreement on all provisions.

The bill I am introducing today includes provisions regarding recovery of attorneys' fees when an individual has been wrongly denied information, penalties for agencies that do not comply within the specified FOIA time limits, and additional agency reporting requirements.

However, the key issue the Democrats insisted on adding to the bill was a statutory presumption of disclosure surrounding FOIA.

It would in essence reverse the FOIA guidelines set out by former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

In 2001, then Attorney General Ashcroft established a policy that information from the government should not be provided if it was likely to threaten national security or invade personal privacy.

My bill would continue this policy and make FOIA requests subject to these national security and personal privacy concerns.

This bill makes it easier for citizens to get an answer to their requests for information. Citizens should have the opportunity to obtain information quickly and easily from the Federal government.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Daletta Andreas, executive director of the Hill Country Chapter in Kerrville, TX, who passed away the weekend of February 24 following a brief illness.

Ms. Andreas started working for the Hill Country Chapter in 1989 when the chapter was located in an old two-story house owned by the H.E.B. Foundation and leased for $1 a year. At the time she was the only chapter employee.

Under her guidance and efforts, the chapter became more active in the community and surrounding areas. Today, it serves seven counties and has three full-time staff members.

Ms. Andreas recruited a large and supportive group of volunteers from Kerrville and surrounding counties. She established a very good rapport with many organizations, such as fire and police departments and the sheriff offices.

Through her fundraising efforts the Hill Country Chapter was able to obtain and purchase its own building. In 2001, Hill Country Chapter also was able to purchase its own mobile feeding unit or ERV, which can provide meals to disaster affected residents. During the aftermath of Rita and Katrina, the chapter fed many refugees from Louisiana and south Texas.

Ms. Andreas worked hard for the job she truly loved, that of advancing the Red Cross mission. I want to recognize and honor her for the work she did that will continue to benefit the community and its citizens for years to come.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, this nonbinding resolution is really a nonsensical political statement. It would deprive our troops of the reinforcements they desperately need. Let us trust their judgment and give them the reinforcements they want.

How would you feel if you were an American soldier in Iraq and Congress passed this resolution? It is like telling you to fight with one arm behind your back, and that is no way to defeat a terrorist.

It is our responsibility to assist our troops, not discourage them by ignoring their needs. This political resolution shortchanges our generals and their troops. Instead, we should support those who are sacrificing their lives to protect ours.

Our men and women in uniform desire only to serve their country with honor. Rather than deny them what they want, we should give them the resources they deserve.

Unfortunately, many terrorists hate our country, our citizens, our freedoms and our way of life. The global war on terror is fierce; this is no time to appear weak. London, Moscow, Madrid and six other cities around the world have suffered terrorist attacks since 9/11, but there is a reason no terrorist attack has occurred in America since 2001. It is not because some would second-guess our military; it is because our troops want to win, and we should give them that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and send the troops this message: We are here to help you.

Mr. Speaker, this nonbinding resolution is really a nonsensical political statement. It would deprive the generals and the troops of the reinforcements they desperately need.

How would you feel if you were an American soldier in Iraq and Congress passed this resolution? It is like telling you to fight with one arm tied behind your back, and that is no way to defeat a terrorist. Let's trust the men and women in uniform who are sacrificing their lives to protect ours.

There is a reason there has been no terrorist attack on America since 2001. It is not because some want to second-guess our military, it is because our troops want to win.