Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Presidential libraries attract millions of visitors each year, and serve as an important resource for researchers and historians, and provide inspiration for generations.

Over time, the cost of building and maintaining these facilities has risen significantly. Presidential libraries are built with private funds, then turned over to the Archivist for operation. An endowment covers some of the cost of operating a library, usually met through the establishment of a charitable organization. Funding for construction and the endowment come from private sources. Under current law, there is no requirement to disclose the source of these contributions.

There is a great deal of interest in enhancing disclosure on both sides of the aisle. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a Republican, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to require the disclosure of contributions to organizations that raise funds for Presidential libraries and related facilities.

His bill, H.R. 577, from the 107th Congress passed the House with strong bipartisan support by a vote of 392-3. When we consider enhanced disclosure, it is important to treat everyone equally. We need a sensible, even-handed approach to disclosure, one that applies equally to Democrats and Republicans.

The gentleman from Tennessee has had the right approach, one that was supported by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and many others across the aisle. I think it is of utmost importance that we avoid any temptation to politicize this important issue.

An amendment offered in committee would add the reasonable step of applying the disclosure steps of this legislation to Presidents elected after the enactment of this act. It is my hope that we can take politics out of disclosure, which is an important issue.

I also commend the Chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Clay, for his leadership on our subcommittee and in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this moment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any other speakers for the moment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate, again, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, and urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 1254.

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

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

When it comes to the records of a President, we need to ensure that the public's interest remains paramount. As I noted in the subcommittee, it is important that we distinguish the Nation's interest from that of a former President's interest. We need to achieve that critical balance between the President's constitutional privilege and the public's right to know.

The bill is one step toward preserving and protecting the constitutional prerogatives of Presidents while preserving public access to important and historic Presidential records. The legislation before us established a process whereby incumbent and former Presidents could, within specified time limits, review records prior to their release and determine whether to assert constitutional privilege claims against release of the records.

This legislation is identical to H.R. 4187, introduced in the 107th Congress and approved by the committee under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). I want to commend him for his work in this area.

In addition, I want to highlight an amendment which was approved by the full committee. This provision will close a loophole in the Presidential Records Act which would have allowed individuals previously convicted of a crime relating to the mishandling of Archives records to continue to have special access to Presidential records. The amendment to the bill states that the Archivist shall not make available any Presidential records to any individual claiming access as a designated representative under section 2205(3) of title 44 if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal or destruction of Archives records.

If you are convicted of mishandling Archives records, you should not have special access to original Presidential records. You are a proven risk, and we are obligated to mitigate this type of risk. Given the critical importance of Presidential records to the public, to researchers and to the press, we must ensure no one is able to tamper with history. This bill today includes this important amendment.

I also want to commend the Chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Clay, for his leadership on the subcommittee, and his thoughtful hearings held by the subcommittee in support of this bill.

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 urge all Members to vote in support of passage of H.R. 1255, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans offered two amendments that were not included in the reported

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I participated in a Government Reform hearing at Walter Reed Hospital.

During that hearing, we heard from soldiers wounded in the defense of our Nation and their families. Like most Americans, I was disappointed and saddened by what we learned. What we heard represents an absolute failure of military leadership and accountability.

Defense Secretary Gates has called for a review of all service branch medical facilities. Yesterday, the President announced the creation of a bipartisan commission to examine all U.S. military and veterans care facilities. The commission will be headed by former Senator Bob Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.

In addition to the Government Reform Committee, I serve on the House Armed Services Committee and on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Both committees have upcoming hearings on the care and condition of soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital.

We take seriously the health care of those who have provided service to our Nation. There is no excuse for what happened at Walter Reed Hospital. We must live up to our obligations to those who have served our Nation at such personal sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for accommodating me so I might have some time to speak on this issue this evening.

Today, Speaker Pelosi has continued with what is called a debate on the Iraq war, but this is not a debate. The floor here is empty, except for the Members scheduled to come to the floor for the record and comment on the failures or success of the war on terror, the conflict in Iraq, prewar intelligence, the search for weapons of mass destruction, reconstruction efforts, al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and, yes, George Bush. No real debate.

School children across America who are schooled in debate would not recognize what has happened here today, which should be the intellectual process of argument, because to call these series of speeches a debate is fiction, just as to call the nonbinding resolution proposed by the Speaker as congressional action is fiction.

This resolution has no binding effect on the administration, and it does not even have any binding effect on this body of Congress. This resolution is not a document from which decisions will be made or any action taken. This is not policy. This is not governance. It is, at best, a press conference. It is just talk.

The travesty of this fiction of a debate on the House floor is that there is no plan debated or alternatives for us to consider, only opposition. We do not have on the table a plan, an answer, or an action for us to take.

Now, I was not a Member of Congress when this House was asked in October of 2002 to grant the President authority to go into Iraq, and neither were 66 of my Republican Members of Congress. If they were with me they would fill this well, 66 of us that were not here on the Republican side when the President asked for authority to go into Iraq. However, I believe there are 55 Democratic colleagues who voted to send troops to Iraq who are still here today, and yet even those 55 Members who voted to send troops to Iraq offer no alternative plan. At a minimum you would think if you voted ``yes'' to send troops you would feel responsible and have a plan before publicly disapproving of the President's plan.

Now, there is certainly enough about the administration's handling of the Iraq conflict to disapprove of if we were to have a real debate. There is no question that serious mistakes have been

made in the execution of the Iraqi conflict. But today we will not debate solutions because, unfortunately, this resolution does not provide any.

In the war on terror, we have real enemies who want to kill Americans and our allies. No nonbinding resolution passed on this House floor will change that reality.

This is not a debate but it should be. The risks to our country are great. Our enemies and our men and women in uniform are listening. The only proposal brought forth by the Speaker is a statement of opposition and disapproval.

The House and the administration should work together on a bipartisan plan for winning the war on terror, a plan with a commitment that is not undermined by political expediency or partisan division.

Madam Speaker, on rollcalls numbers 44, 45, and 46, on January 22, I am not recorded.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each vote

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 41, on H. Res. 62, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 15, a resolution honoring the life of President Gerald R. Ford. As America remembers President Ford's leadership and service to the American people, I offer my condolences to the Ford family.

While attending former President Ford's funeral, I had the opportunity to converse with Dr. David Mathews, a community leader in my district. Dr. Mathews served as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under President Ford and shared with my office some personal stories of the President's legacy. Dr. Mathews recalled:

Ford was a reconciler. While there was a great balance in

Ford, he was also tough as nails. He did what he believed the

country needed and was never motivated by polls.

In 1976 one U.S. soldier stationed at Fort Dix died of the

swine flu. There was some concern that the potential for an

epidemic existed. A panel of the best and brightest

scientists of the day was convened. That panel included

Doctors Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, who did much of his

research at the University of Cincinnati. Both were pioneers

in developing polio vaccines. Some of the panelists counseled

the president to quickly begin creating vaccine and getting

the word out to the nation. Others thought it prudent not to

risk a panic, and wait. President Ford was decisive and

unwilling to risk an epidemic, giving the order to produce

the vaccine. To emphasize the point President Ford and I

received the first and second doses of the vaccine.

The working relationship and personal friendship between

President Ford and I continued after the Ford administration.

In the early 1980s, when I became president of the Kettering

Foundation, I suggested to Ford that he invite former

president Jimmy Carter to the first conference at the Gerald

R. Ford Presidential Library. That conference addressed the

public's reaction to proposals to strengthen the Nation's

Social Security program. The meeting was based on results

from a citizens' briefing book prepared for the National

Issues Forums.

Characteristically, President Ford agreed, not just

begrudgingly, or acquiescing, he was enthusiastic about

inviting Carter . . . That was the first project Presidents

Ford and Carter did together. It resulted in a life-long

friendship.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting H. Res. 15 and honoring the life of President Ford.

Madam Speaker, I have the honor to recognize a fellow colleague from the Great State of Ohio, Chairman Michael Oxley. Chairman Oxley has served with distinction in this House for 25 years and is retiring at the end of the 109th Congress.

Many people know Chairman Oxley either from his work on the Financial Services Committee, his tireless work for the constituents of the Fourth District of Ohio, or his years of participation as a player and manager of the Republican Baseball Team. Chairman Oxley is also a tireless advocate of the military and especially the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center--Lima, formerly known as the Lima Army Tank Plant.

The Joint Systems Manufacturing Center--Lima traces its history back to WWII when it prepared and processed more than 100,000 combat vehicles. The plant today is the sole producer of the M-1 Abrams tank.

Chairman Oxley worked with the Department of Defense over the years to encourage the utilization of the workforce and available space at the facility. Through his efforts, the plant has grown beyond its original mission, providing a wide variety of cutting-edge military vehicles for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps.

Most recently, Rep. Oxley was successful in working with Task Force LIMA during the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure to ensure the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center remained a strong and continued asset for the Nation, the State of Ohio and the greater Lima community. Chairman Oxley was also able to restore funding for the modernization of the M-1 tank, further ensuring our men and women in uniform remain the best equipped fighting force in the world.

Chairman Oxley is a distinguished member of the Ohio Delegation and of this House. He has made his mark on this Nation not only through his ardent support of the financial service industry, but also his unwavering support of the military. His tireless support of the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center--Lima has placed it in a strong position for the future. As Chairman Oxley sometimes quotes former President Reagan's farewell address, ``My friends, we did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference.'' For 25 years, Chairman Oxley has made a difference not only for Ohioans but for all Americans. The House of Representatives has benefited from his ideas and leadership.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 292 and 293 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, the lessons of history demonstrate that threats, left unchecked, become more dangerous over time. In the long- term isolationism is not an effective solution for peace-keeping nations.

Osama bin Laden, and the al Qaeda terrorist network he founded, were at war with the United States throughout the 1990s.

1993: The first attack on the World Trade Center

1996: Bin Laden calls on Muslims to harm U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf.

1998: Bin Laden claims: Muslims should kill Americans any where-- including civilians.

May 1998: Bin Laden foreshadows the future. He warns the battle will ``move to American soil.''

June 1998, a grand jury investigation issued an indictment against bin Laden

On the 8th anniversary of the UN sanctions against Iraq, two simultaneous explosions occurred at the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bomb in Kenya kills 213 people, including 12 American, injuring more than 4,500. In Tanzania, 11 are dead--85 injured.

August 20, 1998 President Clinton orders cruise missile attacks at suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan.

Soon after a new indictment was issued against bin Laden.

However, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were left virtually unchecked despite these and other terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s and up until 9/11.

Recently I visited Kenya, including the former site of the American Embassy in Nairobi. Today that site has been replaced by a park with a fountain, a memorial wall that has all the victim's names on it, and a memorial building. During past wars memorials to the victims of conflicts and those who served bravely to win them, have usually waited until the hostilities ended. In the name of all those who died at the sites of all the terrorist attacks, as well as those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to fight terrorism, we must ensure those memorials future by winning the war on terror.

Every event from bin Laden's first bomb in 1992 through today has been part of one long coordinating al-Qaeda war. The coordinated attacks in 1998 should have been a clear warning signal that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were determined, willing and able to attack Americans.

While Osama bin Laden had declared war on all Americans in 1998, the US didn't declare war on terror until September 12, 2001.

The opportunity to stop bin Laden before 9/11 came and went. The lessons of history assure us that left unchecked the forces of evil will grow stronger and will seek to harm us again. Today's discussion is about a simple choice; do we fight terrorism tomorrow or do we stop it with our actions today?

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 155, the Watt Substitute for the Budget I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 115, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 280, the Brownfields Revitalization Enhancement Act. I want to thank Congressman Miller from California for his hard work and dedication toward the issue of brownfields redevelopment. I look forward to working with Congressman Miller in the future on this issue.

Brownfield sites are served by an existing infrastructure and through their remediation, urban sprawl can be reduced. Redeveloping brownfields could create 1.9 billion dollars annually in increased tax revenues for American cities.

H.R. 280 provides grant money to cities and towns to redevelop brownfield sites. This bill also detaches grant availability from section

108 loan guarantees, which allows more communities to have access to critical grant funds.

Mr. Speaker, we must clean up our Nation's brownfields. These contaminated sites are hazards to our communities, and through their remediation we can bring businesses and families back into American cities.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act, which provides extensions for incentives for brownfields remediation, a vital tool for national economic growth and for our Nation's cities. I want to echo the comments of my colleague, Jerry Weller, and applaud his efforts for supporting the remediation of brownfields.

Brownfields are found in every State and in every Congressional District. Estimates range from 500,000 to 1 million brownfields sites across the Nation, covering roughly 400,000 acres.

Private investment is essential for urban growth. The expensing extension is a tool businesses can use to invest in urban redevelopment. In fact, it is estimated that brownfields redevelopment could generate as much as $1.2 billion annually in new tax revenue for American cities.

Brownfields are a major concern to America's cities, and we must provide as many incentives as necessary to clean up these contaminated sites, bring businesses back into our cities, and continue strong economic growth. This extension is an important first step toward redeveloping our Nation's brownfields, but much work is yet to be done. I urge my colleagues to support this important issue and vote in favor of H.R. 4297.