Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on the committee and his strong opposition to this legislation. I rise in strong opposition to the legislation as well. This bill would increase penalties for those who commit crimes against certain groups of citizens, but not others. For example, if a man walks down the street and punches another man because the victim is a transvestite, the aggressor would be punishable by up to 10 additional years in prison. However, if the same man walks down the street and punches another person because the victim is a pregnant woman, a senior citizen, a child under the age of 10, a veteran or the like, then the aggressor would not be punishable by the potential 10-year prison sentence. This is simply unfair. While I strongly support efforts to rid our schools, neighborhoods and communities of violent crimes, I do not believe that new Federal laws specifically addressing hate crimes are necessary. Today, there are few, if any, cases in which law enforcement has not prosecuted violent crimes to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of the background of the person. In addition, this bill sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent of punishing citizens for their thoughts. When prosecutions occur under this bill, prosecutors will undoubtedly submit evidence of prior statements by individuals to prove that the aggressor was motivated by hate. This will have a chilling effect on citizens' willingness to speak freely as citizens will adapt to a new world where the Federal Government can cause any unpopular statements they make to be used against them in the future. One of the great freedoms we have as Americans is our first amendment right to speak our minds, whether our thoughts are popular or unpopular, and this legislation undermines that right. Again, I abhor acts of violence against any citizen. I abhor bigotry and believe that such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law when aggressive violence occurs. However, this legislation gives special preferences to certain classes of citizens and would create a chilling effect on one of our most cherished constitutional rights. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. However, if my colleagues need to be reminded further, I would like to share with them the statement of the administration regarding this legislation, H.R. 1592: ``The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. ``State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. ``There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State's own hate crimes law.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the balance of the statement of administration policy for the Record. H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly. Moreover, the bill's proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the administration and oppose this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. Earlier this month, I had the invaluable opportunity to travel to the war torn country of Sudan as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation led by our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. We journeyed to the besieged African nation to meet with the government and humanitarian leaders to discuss issues related to the ongoing atrocities in Darfur. What I saw was horrendous, and I am pleased that we have once again joined together here in this Congress to call for an end to this genocide. The ongoing crisis in Darfur and western Sudan has led to a major humanitarian disaster. At the core of the current conflict is a struggle for control of political power and resources, with an estimated 1.9 million people displaced, and more than 213,000 people forced into neighboring Chad. Observers estimate that up to 450,000 people have been killed over the course of this violence. It is deplorable that any government would use the systematic dislocation of its own people and the disease and starvation that inevitably follow as a weapon, not to mention the outright violence that the Government of Sudan has helped foster in Darfur. The situation there is clearly one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent times. As a Nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, we have a responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated, whether at home or abroad. This House has already taken action condemning the situation in Sudan, but still more must be done to end this humanitarian crisis. That is why I am joining with my colleagues in supporting this resolution. The resolution calls on the League of Arab States, Sudan's neighbors, to acknowledge the genocide in Darfur and step up their efforts to end this genocide. This crisis has cast an international spotlight on Darfur and the region, and we must urge the Arab League to step up their efforts and join with the world in ending genocide. While I have never seen anything like what I saw in Darfur, the situation is not completely hopeless. The humanitarian assistance the United States is providing is helping millions of people in desperate circumstances, but we must continue using international sanctions to force access for additional peacekeeping and humanitarian missions in order to stabilize this volatile place and prevent further genocide. Madam Speaker, while I was in Darfur, we had the opportunity to visit the Alsalom Internally Displaced Persons Camp, where some 47,000 people live in the most humble of conditions, some in huts made of twigs barely the size of a pup tent, with perhaps a piece of cloth or plastic to provide some additional protection. This is one of a hundred such camps spread across Darfur containing nearly 2 million people. While there, we had the opportunity to meet some very wonderful and very desperate people. We had the opportunity to look into the eyes of children, children who have the same hopes and expectations that all young children have, and yet, as I stood there, I realized how uncertain their future was. As long as that condition exists, the United States must continue to be the leader in shining a spotlight on what is going on in Sudan and working together to bring an end to this atrocity, and to bring hope, real hope, to those children.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and I would like to pose a couple of questions to the distinguished majority leader. I have listened to his historical discourse. As the gentleman knows, Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers, offered an amendment during the writing of our Constitution that would have provided voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia. It was defeated and not included in our Constitution. At that time, both portions of Maryland and portions of Virginia were included in a 100-square-mile area, and in 1846, the portion that had come from Virginia was ceded back to Virginia. I wonder if the gentleman, having posed the question about the constitutional amendment, would respond to the question, if this is ruled unconstitutional, as many of us think it is, would the gentleman bring to the floor legislation that would do something similar for the portions of the District of Columbia, excepting key government buildings, so that the citizens would have the opportunity to vote with the citizens of his State, Maryland, for whom he can speak with some regard?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would ask the gentleman further, if when the court, and I hope the court does, determines that this is unconstitutional, if in getting to that process, recognizing there are going to be lots of uncertainties if this bill were passed and signed into law, both for citizens of Utah, for the District of Columbia and for the operation of the Congress as a whole, if he would join with us in supporting an expedited judicial review to receive a prompt determination of the constitutionality of this legislation?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond. I would say, with due respect to the majority leader, the motion to recommit was offered as an amendment. No amendments were made in order, so it is our only recourse to offer it in those circumstances. I take the gentleman's statement as his word that he is going to oppose it for valid reasons, but I frankly see no valid reasons why we should not have expedited review of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time and simply say that I think this has been an excellent debate. I think there is good faith on both sides. But I do believe very, very strongly, as do I think many, many other people, that this is the wrong way to go about correcting the lack of a vote for residents of the District of Columbia, which the other side has clearly pointed out should be corrected. But there are correct ways to do it. An amendment to the United States Constitution, what Virginia did with recession of the land to Maryland and allowing the citizens to vote in Maryland are both good solutions. We should defeat this ill-conceived and unconstitutional legislation because the plain meaning of the Constitution, the words of the Constitution, cannot be altered by this House. And if we start doing that, we are indeed betraying our oaths. Defeat this legislation and do it right.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and it is at this time my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. There is no doubt that citizens of the District of Columbia have no full voting representation in the House of Representatives. However, there are ways that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them. The Constitution does not mince words when it says that Members of Congress may only be elected from the States. Article I, section 2 states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States. The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the Congress, article I, section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government as a district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as made by cessation of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States. Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution further illustrates that the District was never meant to have the same rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint a number of electors of President and Vice President, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. We amended the United States Constitution for that purpose. If the advocates of this seek to do the same for representation in the House, they need to amend the United States Constitution. The plain language of the Constitution is clear, that D.C. is not a State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However, the constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill would also establish an at-large Representative for Utah, which would allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice, once for their Representative from their district, and once for another Representative at large. This would clearly violate the constitutional principle of one-man, one-vote by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power. Adding insult to injury, this new bill we have before us today does not include the language from the previous bill, H.R. 1433, to eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate. Under this new bill, it appears that the District of Columbia would not only unconstitutionally be granted the same voting rights that State residents enjoy, but it would give D.C. greater representation than any State currently enjoys. The D.C. Delegate would continue to be eligible to vote in committee, and in the Committee of the Whole; and in addition, the new D.C. Representative would also be eligible to vote in committee and on the floor. While every other district would get one vote in committee and on the floor, the District of Columbia would get two votes in committee and two votes on the floor under this new language. Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is, again, appalling. Debate has been blocked on a bill that affects the relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. The majority has once again denied us even the opportunity to discuss amendments, including an amendment by Ranking Member Smith to simply provide for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is enacted in order to determine its constitutionality. Furthermore, it is very telling and disappointing that the majority has decided that it would rather violate its own PAYGO rules than allow an open and fair discussion on the underlying bill. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this very poorly crafted legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Alabama. The second amendment to the Constitution refers to the ``State.'' When the Constitution refers to the ``States,'' meaning today 50 States, then 13 States, it is referring to them in the plural. The ``State'' in the second amendment refers to the country collectively. And to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for whom I have great respect but also great disagreement on this issue, I hope that given the fact that we do acknowledge a difference of opinion on what the Constitution says means that he will join with us in seeking for expedited judicial review if, as I hope is not the case, this should be passed and sent to the courts for their review. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I thank the majority leader and the Speaker and the other Members of our delegation for their comments. The tranquil campus of Virginia Tech and the town of Blacksburg has been shattered by the actions of a lone gunman. The horror that the Virginia Tech community has experienced this week is something that every parent, every American hopes they never have to learn has affected their families and friends. I have a great appreciation for Virginia Tech, one of America's preeminent research institutions, having advanced from one of the original land grant universities. Thousands of people in my district which neighbors Blacksburg have gone to school there, have sent their children there, and are members of Hokie Nation. During my time in this body, I have had graduates and students of Virginia Tech work and intern for me. For years I have known what a special place it is, with its affiliated campuses and offices spread throughout the Sixth District and across the great Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet it is with great sadness that the rest of the world has come to know the compassion of Virginia Tech only through this tragedy. Although this horrendous and unspeakable violence showed the worst of mankind, it also showed what those of us who have been a part of the Tech community for years have always known--the students, the instructors, the administrators, and the citizens of Blacksburg care deeply for one another and take great pride in their community. Even in the worst circumstances, the Virginia Tech community showed great compassion for their fellow man and did what they could to help each other. Liviu Librescu, a survivor of the Holocaust, blocked the doorway of his classroom so that his students could climb out the windows to safety. Ryan Clark, a resident adviser in the West Ambler Johnston Hall, rushed into the hallway to help his fellow students when the first attack came and became the second victim. And I was deeply saddened to learn that one of my constituents, Henry Lee, a graduate of William Fleming High School in Roanoke, was among those who died in the attack on Norris Hall. Two other of my constituents from Harrisonburg, Virginia, Heidi Miller, an undergraduate, and Guillermo Colman, a graduate student, were wounded and thankfully are okay. Now, following this brutal action, throughout the campus and community, students are relying on each other to cope with what has happened, but they will not let the sorrow and pain that has overtaken them this week be the lasting legacy to those whose lives were lost. Under the leadership of President Charles Steger, the Virginia Tech community will become stronger as a result of this. Their compassion will reach far beyond the town of Blacksburg, deep into what is affectionately known as Hokie Nation. Their vocal pride in their community will not be silenced by the actions of one misguided soul. I was very moved as I witnessed the process begun yesterday at the convocation at Cassell Coliseum. Speaker after speaker, including the President, the Governor, and so many great leaders at Tech spoke of not only the grief, but of overcoming the grief and moving forward to a brighter and better future. For the families who have lost sons and daughters, fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters, I grieve for you and your loved ones. You will forever remain in the prayers of this Nation, and I hope that in time you can come to find peace. For the Virginia Tech community, although we grieve today, and what has happened will never leave our minds, I know that you will take this tragedy and use it to build a stronger campus and a more compassionate community for all.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H. Con. Res. 99, which has been called the single biggest tax increase in American history. However, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment that the majority decided to oppose debate on an amendment I offered to express the sense of Congress that the money the Federal Government spends is not the Government's, but rather the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer. My amendment also declares that Congress has a duty to guard against waste and excessive spending, that Congress should balance the Federal budget, and that Congress should expeditiously pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have-- yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Federal Government that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. Unless Congress is forced to balance the Federal budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. On the first day of this Congress, I introduced H.J. Res. 1, a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget, which has garnered 159 bipartisan cosponsors. I hereby renew my call on Congress to pass this crucial legislation, which also makes it harder to raise taxes. However, in the meantime, my simple amendment to the budget resolution would have been the least we could do to show the American people that Congress is committed to the same fiscal principles that America's families face each day. It is very telling that the majority thought it best to sweep this debate under the rug. Regarding the merits of the underlying Democrat resolution, it assumes the expiration of all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and adds those revenues, some $392 billion, into the budget over time. At the same time, they have chosen to increase discretionary spending. In fact, under the Democrat budget, appropriated spending is projected to increase faster than the rate of projected inflation. By increasing taxes on the American people in order to fund their own priorities, the Democrats assume that they know how to better spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. For America's farmers and ranchers already facing increased input costs, increased taxes would further add insult to injury. For many farmers and ranchers, this budget appears to hold the key to bolstering the budget for American agriculture. This bill purports to provide the Agriculture Committee with an extra $20 billion, seemingly tucked away in a ``reserve fund'' to be released at the discretion of the Budget Committee chairman. Although they've made it sound like there's an extra $20 billion just lying around waiting to be spent; this could not be further from the truth. The $20 billon is only available if it can be offset by cuts in other spending or increased taxes. The Agriculture Committee, as well as every other Congressional committee, already has the authority to spend dollars created by offsets under existing rules. This is either a poorly constructed hoax designed to create an illusion of increased funding, or it is part of a broader plan to continue to raise taxes to pay for increased program spending. In either case, there is nothing about the Democrat budget that does anything to relieve the budget crunch that farmers face in this farm bill. I urge my colleagues to see this budget for what it is and vote ``no.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force, I want to recognize MAJ Eugene Barlow for his 23 years of dedicated service to our country. In his most recent assignment, he serves as the Chief, Air Force Congressional Fellows Branch, Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison with, additional duties as a White House Social Aide. In June 1984, Major Barlow started his outstanding career as an enlisted Information Manager. He was selected for promotion to senior airman below-the-zone and later selected for promotion to staff sergeant under the Stripes for Exceptional Performers program. After assignments in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison Directorate, Major Barlow was selected to attend Officer Training School. He was commissioned in 1996 and assigned to Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, as the Chief of Customer Support. In August 1998, Major Barlow was selected for assignment to Kadena Air Base, Japan, where he served as Squadron Section Commander in the 67th Fighter Squadron. Before being handpicked for his current assignment, Major Barlow was assigned to his alma mater, the University of Maryland, as an Assistant Professor of Aerospace Studies Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing our sincere appreciation to MAJ Eugene Barlow for his outstanding service to both the Legislative and Executive Branches and our United States Air Force. We wish him the best as he transitions into a new career. Major Barlow is a true professional and a credit to himself and the United States Air Force.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia. In studying the life and times of the 28th President, we see how Woodrow Wilson affected and continues to influence how the United States responds to national and international crises. This bill is identical to legislation that passed on the House floor by Voice Vote in the 109th Congress September 28, 2006. As a statesman, scholar, and President, Woodrow Wilson faced economic crisis, democratic decay, and a world war. Presidential historians agree that World War I, and President Wilson's leadership, radically altered the role of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy--a policy that established a new path for America's role in promoting democracies throughout the world. So too did Wilson's high-minded ideals craft a legacy that shaped the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch in times of war. As a professor and president of Princeton University, Wilson created a more selective and accountable system for higher education. By instituting curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the world. Due to Wilson's legacy at Princeton, I am pleased to have the support of the current president, Shirley Tilghman, as we seek to establish a Presidential library and museum at Wilson's birthplace in Virginia. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a declaration of war against Germany, for ``The world must be safe for democracy.'' Ninety years later, we continue to champion that right of mankind. Specifically, this legislation will make grants from the National Archives and Records Administration for the establishment of a Presidential library to provide educational and interpretive services to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson. To ensure that a public-private partnership exists, my legislation also mandates that no grant shall be available for the establishment of this library until a private entity has raised at least twice the amount to be allocated by the Congress. Finally, once the library is complete, this legislation states that the Federal Government shall have no role or responsibility for the operation of the library.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act. There is no doubt that citizens of the District of Columbia do not have a full voting representation in the House of Representatives. However, there are ways that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them. The Constitution does not mince words when it says that Members of Congress may only be elected from the States. Article I, section 2 states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States. The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the Congress, Article I, section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government as a district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as made by cessation of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States. Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution further illustrates that the District was never meant to have the same rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint a number of electors, a President and Vice President, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the district would be entitled if it were a State. The plain language of the Constitution is clear, that D.C. is not a State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However, the constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice, once for their local representative and another time for an at-large representative. This would clearly violate the constitutional principle of one man-one vote by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power. Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. Ranking Member Smith offered an amendment which would have provided for an expedited judicial review. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation which is clearly unconstitutional. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia house voting rights act. There is no doubt that citizens of D.C. do not have a full voting representative in the house of Representatives. However, there are ways that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them. The Constitution does not mince words when it says that members of Congress may only be elected from the states. Article I Section 2 states that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the Congress, Article I Section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government as a ``District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessation of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.'' Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution further illustrates that the district was never meant to have the same rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint ``a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. . .'' The plain language of the Constitution is clear that D.C. is not a State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However, the Constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice--once for their local representative and another time for an at-large representative. This would clearly violate the Constitutional principle of ``one man, one vote'' by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power. Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. Ranking member Smith offered an amendment which would have provided for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is enacted, to determine its constitutionality. It is revealing that the majority decided to block that amendment which would have settled the Constitutional concerns about this legislation. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill- crafted legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible spending bill. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our brave service men and women who are fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq to make sure that they are the best equipped and most successful troops in the world. While the Democrats would have you believe that this legislation does just that, it couldn't be further from the truth. This supplemental is a prescription for defeat in Iraq by tying the hands of our military leaders and setting a date certain for withdrawing our troops. If we fail in Iraq, the resources now devoted by terrorist organizations and nations sponsoring terrorism there would be turned to spreading terror around the globe, including, again, on American soil. It is through the hard work and sacrifice of our American troops that the ideals of freedom continue to be spread. We owe them the resources they need to complete their mission, but this bill does not meet that threshold. Mr. Speaker, I am also alarmed that the Democrats are treating a wartime, let me repeat, wartime funding bill as a collection cup for pet projects. Many Members have already mentioned the litany of pet projects in the bill, so I do not need to repeat these so-called domestic emergency spending provisions. I would like to mention, though, how ridiculous this bill must seem to troops and their families listening or watching us on C-SPAN. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how I will respond when asked by constituents why funding for some $15 billion in pet projects is necessary when attempting to fund the global war on terror. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that some of these extraneous provisions may be worth examining, but how would we know? We did not hold oversight hearings on these issues and have, therefore, abdicated our responsibility to the taxpayer. If there is a problem, I am sure we can make the necessary fixes in regular order. I urge my colleagues to vote down this legislation and fund our troops with a clean supplemental bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the Judiciary Committee and on this legislation, and I also thank Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairman Scott, my colleague from Virginia, for their work on this legislation, as well as Congressman Murphy and Congressman Forbes, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 740, the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement, or PHONE, Act. Consumer fraud and identity theft are serious problems facing our citizens today. While technology has provided access to vast amounts of information about products and services that were not even imaginable a few years ago, technology is also being used by criminals to commit new types of fraud and to steal personal information from unknowing consumers. Like other technologies, caller ID devices have empowered consumers. These devices allow them to screen out calls they would prefer not to take. However, they also perform the important function of acting as an additional check to ensure that the individuals placing incoming calls are who they say they are. Unfortunately, criminals have found a way to fake caller ID information in order to trick consumers about who is actually calling. Increasingly, thieves are using this tactic to extract personal information from unsuspecting consumers. For example, by faking the caller ID of a consumer's bank, a thief can lure a consumer into divulging bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, and other types of sensitive personal information which can then be used to commit identity theft and other criminal acts. The PHONE Act will help stop this abusive practice. Specifically, this bill imposes criminal penalties on those that provide false caller ID information with the intent to defraud, as well as those that provide the caller ID information of an actual person without that person's consent, with the intent to defraud the recipient of the call. The PHONE Act is an important tool in the fight against identity theft, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which will help protect our Nation's judges against those who may want to harm them, or who may threaten to harm them in efforts to influence outcomes of cases. Until recently, when a judge or court official needed to submit a financial disclosure report, personal information about that individual could be redacted to prevent those who may intend harm from obtaining such information as the individual's home address. Unfortunately, this redaction authority expired at the end of 2005. A recent incident in which a convicted felon requested the financial disclosure records of a judicial officer and those records contained such items as the work address of the officer's wife--highlights the need to reauthorize the authority to redact this type of personal information. H.R. 1130, the judicial disclosure responsibility act, would amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend through 2009 the authority of the judicial conference to redact certain personal information from financial disclosure reports filed by judges. In addition, the bill would restrict disclosure of personal information about family members of judges when that disclosure might endanger them, in order to protect such information as the school location of a judge's children, the address of the workplace of a judge's spouse, and the like. This narrowly tailored legislation will protect those that protect us--and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.