Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money is being spent on a war overseas, it is important there be benchmarks and consequences if they are not met.

Last week the House approved an emergency war supplemental that will finally hold the Iraqi Government accountable by measuring its performance on standards that President Bush himself outlined earlier this year.

Under the plan passed here last week, the President must report to Congress this summer on the progress the Iraqi Government has made on these key benchmarks. If the Iraqi Government lives up to its promises, our troops will remain there until next year. If, however, they do not meet the President's own benchmarks by this summer, we will begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq immediately. This accountability is particularly critical after the release of a Defense Department report showing that the Iraqi Government is not close to meeting any of these benchmarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Iraqi Government realizes that the American troops are not going to be in Iraq indefinitely, and that they have to begin seriously taking responsibility for their own nation.

I thought it was important to come today and put a human face on the tragic story of Joshua Omvig. This handsome young man you see in this photograph is Joshua Omvig, and standing next to his headstone are his parents, Randy and Ellen.

It was Christmas in 2005 when I opened up the Waterloo Courier, my hometown newspaper, and saw the name Omvig, which jumped out at me right away because I have known Randy and Ellen for a long time.

Even though Grundy Center is just south of my district, I immediately was drawn to this tragic story. Joshua Omvig is not going to be reflected in any of the casualty totals from Iraq, but he and the other tragic stories you have heard today deserve to be included no less in the toll that has been taken on the lives of young men and women of this country. We owe them more. That is why I was so proud that my colleague from Iowa took the initiative to push this measure onto the House floor into committee so that it can finally receive the proper attention it deserved.

I came here with some prepared remarks, but I chose instead to speak from the heart today. Because when I was out at Walter Reed for the oversight hearings on the problems and the backlog of disability claims and the Surgeon General of the Army, Lieutenant General Kiley, tried to justify that backlog by saying that the science of post-traumatic stress disorder was still evolving in 2003 and that was preventing them from processing these claims, I had enough. Because I knew what people like Randy and Ellen Omvig have been going through, and I knew that this ability to prevent these tragedies from happening has been around for many years. And so I told General Kiley, with all due respect, that's hogwash.

It is important for this body to stand up and say that post-traumatic stress disorder is real, which is exactly what General Schoomaker said that day. That is why I urge you all to support this important bill and honor the memory of Joshua Omvig.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. This bill is named in honor of 22- year-old Joshua Omvig, a member of the U.S. Army Reserves 3398th MP Co. from Grundy Center, IA, who tragically took his own life in December of 2005 after serving an 11-month tour of duty in Iraq.

This legislation is an important step in ensuring adequate mental health care for our troops who return home from serving in combat zones and who, like Joshua, may be suffering from combat-related anxiety, depression, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This bill is a necessary and overdue step in reaching out to veterans of all ages, and their families, in order to prevent the tragic deaths of heroes like Joshua Omvig.

Nearly 1,000 veterans receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, commit suicide each year, a number which is startling and unacceptable. Army studies show that around 25 percent of the soldiers who have served in Iraq display symptoms of serious mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse, and PTSD. These figures are expected to rise, as PTSD an other mental health problems often do not surface for months after soldiers have returned home. These mental health problems put our service personnel at higher risk for suicide.

When Joshua returned home from Iraq with PTSD, his family knew that he was suffering, but they didn't realize how completely his illness would devastate him. They didn't realize he had PTSD, or that he was at risk for suicide. And they did not know how to help him, because they did not have the appropriate resources available to them.

The Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act will help prevent suicides like Joshua's by requiring the VA to develop and implement a comprehensive program to reduce the incidence of suicide among veterans.

This program includes educating VA staff about how to identify risk factors for suicide, and training staffers in the appropriate ways to respond to crisis situations and prevent suicide among veterans. The bill also requires the VA to provide mental health care to veterans 24 hours per day, and requires that a suicide prevention counselor be available at every VA facility. These counselors will provide direct assistance to veterans, and will also work with local emergency rooms, police departments, mental health organizations, and veterans' service organizations to provide outreach to veterans who may be at risk for suicide.

Additionally, the bill requires the VA to provide outreach and education for veterans and their families to give them the necessary skills to cope with mental illness, to reduce the stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental illness, and to know when and how to seek suicide prevention assistance.

It is my fervent hope that the passage of this bill in the House of Representatives today means that the tragic death of young Joshua Omvig will not be in vain. I would like to commend Joshua's parents for their advocacy on the behalf of their son and all veterans, and thank Congressman Leonard Boswell for his leadership on this issue. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act, and I look forward to the passage of this critical legislation today.

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

I am proud to be here today to bring to the floor of the House of Representatives, H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Enhancement Protection Act of 2007. A month ago today this important bill passed the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform unanimously by a vote of 28-0. I strongly support the bill, and I hope it will receive a similar level of bipartisan support on the floor of the House of Representatives today. We need to send a strong message that protecting the rights of whistleblowers is not a Democratic issue, it is not a Republican issue, it is an issue that impacts the lives and the safety of every American citizen.

Whistleblowers have long been instrumental in alerting the public and the Congress to wrongdoing in Federal agencies. In many cases, the brave actions of whistleblowers have led to positive changes that have resulted in more responsible, safe and ethical practices. In some instances, the actions of whistleblowers have even saved lives.

Unfortunately, despite the importance of whistleblowers in ensuring government accountability and integrity, court decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have undermined whistleblower protections and have unreasonably limited the scope of disclosures protected under current law.

The hearings that Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis have been holding in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the 110th Congress have highlighted the need for expanded protections for workers who shed light on wrongdoing by government agencies and departments. Several hearings held by the committee have helped uncover waste and fraud in government contracting, both here in the United States, and in Iraq, waste and fraud which has led to the loss of billions of taxpayer dollars and has jeopardized the safety of Americans here at home and those serving abroad.

At another hearing, we learned that some officials in the Bush administration have sought to manipulate Federal climate science, compromising the health and safety of American families and the future of the planet solely for political gain.

Perhaps the starkest reminder of the need to protect those who remain silent in the face of government wrongdoing came at last week's hearing at Walter Reed, at which we learned about the terrible living conditions and bureaucratic hurdles that soldiers have endured there.

At the hearing, it became clear that nobody dared to complain about the squalid living conditions and inadequate care at what is supposed to be the best military facility in the world because of fear of retribution.

Because of this fear, it took an expose by a newspaper in order for action to be taken on these severe and systemic problems, and many of our Nation's heroes had to suffer there for far too long.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 makes important changes to existing law that will strengthen protections for government workers who speak out against illegal, wasteful and dangerous practices.

The bill protects all Federal whistleblowers by clarifying that any disclosure pertaining to waste, fraud or abuse, ``without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context or prior disclosure,'' and including both formal and informal communications, is protected.

The bill also gives whistleblowers access to timely action on their claims, allowing them access to Federal district courts if the Merit Systems Protection Board does not take action on their claims within 180 days.

In addition, the bill clarifies that national security workers, employees of government contractors, and those who blow the whistle on actions that compromise the integrity of Federal science are all entitled to whistleblower protection.

As we continue to fight terrorism and other national security threats, this landmark legislation will give whistleblower protections to national security whistleblowers for the first time. It may be hard to believe, but currently employees at key government agencies in charge of protecting the United States, including the FBI, the CIA, and the Transportation Security Administration, are excluded from whistleblower protections.

These are the employees who work every day to keep our country safe and secure. These workers deserve to have the same protection as other Federal employees, and the American public deserves to know that workers who come forward with information that is essential to national security will not be punished for helping to keep us safe.

A good example is former FBI agent Coleen Rowley, Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2002. Special Agent Rowley graduated from Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa, which is located in my district. Like me, she received her law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law. She is married and has four children.

After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Special Agent Rowley wrote a paper for the Director of the FBI, which laid out in detail how personnel at FBI headquarters failed to take action on concerns raised by the Minneapolis field office concerning its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. These failures, identified by Special Agent Rowley, could have left the United States vulnerable to September 11 attacks in 2001. Special Agent Rowley later testified before the Senate and the 9/11 Commission about these very same concerns.

Following those hearings, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican

who has been a proponent of whistleblower protection, pushed for a major reorganization at the FBI, resulting in the creation of the Office of Intelligence, which significantly expanded FBI personnel with counterterrorism and foreign language skills.

Senator Grassley commended the actions of Rowley, saying on the floor of the Senate last June, ``in typical FBI fashion, the missteps from 9/ 11 would have been swept under the rug if it weren't for whistleblowers like Coleen Rowley . . . it looks to me like she's the only one who did anything to make sure the FBI was held responsible for its lack of responsiveness.''

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act also ensures that employees who work for companies that have government contracts are protected when they report waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. This provision is especially important, considering the use of private contractors by the United States Government has reached an all-time high, and that spending on Federal contracts has almost doubled since 2000, reaching $400 billion in 2006.

Private companies with government contracts are now performing some of the most important work of the government, including protecting civilian workers in Iraq and ensuring the safety of American citizens in the United States. This bill will help ensure that employees of government contractors, who report on the abuse of taxpayer dollars or other wrongdoing, do not have to fear the loss of their jobs or other retribution.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill clarifies that employees who blow the whistle on political interference in Federal scientific research and reports are also entitled to whistleblower protections. It is essential that we have the best and most accurate scientific research and information that is possible.

Americans trust that their tax money is funding thorough and adequate scientific studies that are free from political interference or manipulation. As lawmakers, we also depend on accurate and unbiased scientific information to make policy decisions that will impact the lives and futures of American families.

Protecting government researchers who report actions or policies that compromise the accuracy and integrity of Federal science is critical to ensuring the public and the lawmakers are able to make wise and informed decisions that affect our lives now and will have repercussions far into the future.

I would like to thank Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis for their work on this bill in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Again, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Whistleblower Enhancement Protection Act today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Waxman of California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his insightful comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I see some of my distinguished colleagues here today, specifically Ranking Member Davis, Congressman Shays. And to prepare for this debate today, Mr. Chairman, I watched a movie, ``The Insider,'' last night, because it was a classic example

of why we need whistleblower protection in this country. The sight of those seven tobacco company CEOs standing before the committee on which I am proud to serve, raising their hands and swearing that tobacco and nicotine is not addictive, and the compelling personal story of Jeffrey Weigand and the struggle he and his family went through are why we need to support this bill today.

One of the reasons why we are here today is because of the compelling stories of dozens of national security whistleblowers from multiple Federal agencies who have provided sobering and exhaustive stories about retaliation and retribution for speaking the truth.

These accounts have been well documented before the committees of this House.

Michael German was a highly regarded FBI agent working on domestic terrorism cases for 16 years before quitting in frustration in 2004. His whistleblowing concerned a case that, according to NBC's Dateline, ``involved a potential nightmare scenario: meetings between a home- grown militia-type terrorism organization and an Islamic fundamentalist group during which they discussed possible cooperation.''

Mr. German alleges that the FBI fumbled the case and then, after he blew the whistle, falsified records in order to cover its mistakes. He reported his concerns to his superiors and reportedly faced retaliation for doing so, though a Department of Justice Inspector General report substantiated many of his claims.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

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

I also want to thank my colleagues for the bipartisan spirit of support for this bill.

I want to just add a few more names to the record, in the remaining time that I have available, of courageous whistleblowers. These are not hypothetical situations we are talking about.

One of them, Richard Levernier, was employed at the Department of Energy for 22 years and was in charge of testing security at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. Working through normal DOE channels, he tried for years to get his superiors to address security weaknesses that might allow terrorists to successfully assemble and detonate a nuclear device at one of the facilities. But his superiors declined to acknowledge that vulnerabilities existed.

When he faxed two unclassified Inspector General reports to the press, DOE suspended his security clearance. At the time he was 2 years away from retirement and eligible for a full pension. After he filed a lawsuit against DOE for unjust termination, the Office of Special Counsel conducted an investigation and concluded that the harassment against Levernier constituted a systematically illegal reprisal. The OSC also found a substantial likelihood that his underlying charges were correct.

Another brave individual, Russell Tice, a former intelligence agent at the National Security Agency, worked for 20 years in special access programs known as ``black world programs and operations.'' He had his security clearance revoked in May, 2005, after alerting his superiors of suspicious activity by a coworker. NSA later dismissed him after he raised questions about the legality of some NSA ``black world'' programs, including the eavesdropping by the Defense Department and the NSA on American citizens. Mr. Tice wanted to talk to Congress about what he feels are further abuses by the NSA, but has not been allowed to do so.

Specialist Samuel J. Provance's unit in Iraq was instructed to interrogate detainees in a way that he thought was immoral and inappropriate, and he told his superiors. Instead of investigating his claims, his superiors demoted him.

And, finally, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer was demoted and his security clearance stripped after he made protected disclosures to the 9/11 Commission about Able Danger, a pre-9/11 operation for combating al Qaeda, and explained that there were DOD and DIA failures regarding 9/11.

This is not a hypothetical problem. Federal whistleblowers are being silenced, and instances of waste, fraud, and abuse are not being exposed. That is why I call on all my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for introducing this amendment which would enhance a provision of underlying legislation that protects scientific whistleblowers.

The underlying provision clarifies that whistleblowers disclosing political or ideological interference with Federal science are protected from retaliation. This amendment furthers that goal by affirming that Federal scientists and grantees should also be able to report censorship of scientific debate without fearing reprisal.

I support passage of this amendment. I urge Members to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and commend him for his work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and commend him for his work. This amendment will clarify the standard used to evaluate an employee's defense when a whistleblower claims that an employer acted in illegal retaliation.

When a whistleblower claims that an agency engaged in a retaliatory action, it is an affirmative defense for the agency if it can prove that it would have taken the same action even if the employee had not blown the whistle. This is, in fact, the same type of analysis that takes place in sex discrimination and sexual harassment claims, and yet nothing in this amendment would impose a different burden of proof in those cases because they are statutory-based claims and are not affected by the amendment.

Congress set the agency's burden of proof for this defense as ``clear and convincing evidence'' in the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Merit Systems Protection Board has ignored the intent of Congress and implemented its own test for evaluating whether or not an agency has shown clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action anyway.

This has made it almost impossible for employees to successfully challenge retaliatory personnel actions.

This amendment defines clear and convincing evidence as evidence indicating that the matter to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.

This is a commonsense fix that clarifies Congress' intent.

I support this amendment which will further strengthen protection for whistleblowers and urge all Members to vote ``yes'' in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

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

This amendment clarifies that Federal whistleblowers are protected regardless of where they are or when they blow the whistle.

A whistleblower who makes a disclosure that is considered a whistleblower disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) gets the benefit of protections such as the right to challenge a retaliatory act by an employer. If the same whistleblower makes the same disclosure but does it while testifying as a plaintiff or as a witness in litigation, the whistleblower does not get the same protections.

We should protect Federal employees who expose government wrongdoing, no matter what the forum. This amendment appropriately extends Whistleblower Protection Act coverage to employees who make disclosures in litigation as described in 5 U.S.C. Section 2302(b)(9).

This amendment extends equal burdens of proof and individual rights of action to whistleblowers who serve as witnesses in Inspector General and Special Counsel investigations. This amendment also clarifies that these protections apply to Federal employees who face retaliation for refusing to violate the law.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which closes these senseless loopholes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

For the past 6 years, there has been overwhelming political interference with science by the Bush administration. We have seen examples of government scientists barred from conducting or presenting research because it conflicts with administration policies. We have seen scientific findings manipulated or outright rejected when they don't bolster favored policies. And we have seen government agencies put out information about health that is entirely false, but politically advantageous. In one EPA report on the environment, the White House made so many edits to downplay the discussion of global warming that scientists at the agency said the draft no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.

The FDA delayed approval of plan B for over-the-counter use based on political, not scientific, reasons, causing senior FDA officials and scientific experts to resign in protest.

Numerous scientific and medical organizations have taken positions against this abuse of science. It has been condemned in the editorial pages of the most prominent scientific journals. The Journal of Science, for instance, said that this interference invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.

Mr. Chairman, 52 Nobel Laureates, 62 National Medal of Science winners, 194 members of the National Academies of Science and thousands of other American scientists have signed a statement speaking out against political interference in science. To prevent and remedy these kinds of problems, we have to know about them. That is why this legislation makes clear that employees who want to disclose these kinds of abuses are entitled to whistleblower protections. Our Federal scientists should not be punished at work for coming forward to report these abuses of science.

This legislation will have no effect at all on legitimate political or policy decisions related to scientific issues. All it does is prevent retaliation against employees who report abuses of science. The amendment we are debating now would strike this critical provision.

I strongly oppose the amendment and urge all Members to vote ``nay.''

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which strikes section 13 of the underlying bill, is very simple; all it does is expand the term ``abuse of authority'' under existing law to include any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis. And it is the federally funded component of that clause that makes this amendment bad for the American people.

American taxpayers should not have the risk of important scientific research being impacted by political influence from any political party. That is why it is important that this amendment be defeated.

There are those that say that politics and science will always intersect. That is absolutely true. Science doesn't give us all the answers. We have to make political and policy decisions about the right path to follow.

For example, an administration might decide not to support a certain type of research. We may not agree with that decision, but the administration has a right to make it as long as it is honest about the information and rationale behind it. What is not acceptable is when the government actually manipulates science to advance its decisions.

Hiding data, releasing misinformation, gagging scientists, all to justify a political course of action, is wrong. That is the type of action that we want Federal employees to feel safe in reporting. And that is why this bill makes crystal clear that disclosures related to manipulation and distortion of science are protected disclosures. That is why I again call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

I commend Mr. Tierney for his work on this compromise. As a member of both the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he has done a great job on expressing the concerns of both committees in a way that will allow us to move forward with this important legislation.

One particular change made by this amendment is the removal of language in the underlying bill that allows a national security whistleblower to always disclose information to a supervisor. This amendment acknowledges that there are certain circumstances where it may not be appropriate for a supervisor to receive a disclosure, such as when an employee is disclosing classified information to which the supervisor does not have access. This amendment also changes a provision in H.R. 985 regarding national security whistleblowers, to limit which Members of Congress can receive information from a national security whistleblower about an especially sensitive subject.

It is important that Federal workers who specialize in national security issues have the ability to disclose the information about government wrongdoing to Congress. These workers need to know that they have access to a safe harbor where information will be fully investigated and appropriately safeguarded. However, because of the sensitive nature of the information these whistleblowers may disclose, it is also important to ensure that appropriate Members of Congress receive these communications.

This amendment addresses concerns that have been raised about allowing national security whistleblowers to disclose sensitive classified information to Congress by ensuring that information will go to members of committees with expertise and procedures for handling such information.

I support this compromise amendment, and I urge all Members to vote ``yes.'

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 985, back to the House with an amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 149, which recognizes and honors the purpose of International Women's Day.

Recognizing the contributions American women have made to our Nation's progress over the course of history is so very important because their contributions have too frequently taken place out of the limelight.

It is truly remarkable when one takes note of the expansive list of contributions women have made to our country throughout its history.

From my own State of Iowa, Lilia Abron became the first African- American woman in the Nation to obtain a doctoral degree in chemical engineering at the University of Iowa.

Phyllis Propp Fowle, a native of Iowa, became the first female Judge Advocate General Officer in the U.S. Army.

Arabella Mansfield became the first female lawyer in the United States after being admitted to practice law in Iowa.

And I constantly remind myself I would not be here today had it not been for my own mother. She went back to school to obtain her four year teaching degree so she could help my family make ends meet after my father was injured in a grain elevator accident.

Using a single calendar day of the year to honor the barriers these women and countless others broke and the sacrifices they made is the least we can do to thank them for their contributions to our society.

I only hope that their stories inspire other women--and men--to work hard to achieve the promise this Nation was founded on: a place where all people are created equal.

I would like to thank my friend from Maine, and also my friend from Illinois who happened to bring up the issue with the Maytag jobs. And I think this leads us to another topic that is not discussed very often in terms of some of the hidden costs of our current trade policy.

The former world headquarters for Maytag was located in Newton, Iowa. And I grew up about 30 minutes from Newton, Iowa. I got my first driver's license at the Jasper County Courthouse in Newton, Iowa. Over 150 years ago, my great, great grandfather, George Washington Braley, walked from up in your neck of the woods from Vermont all the way to Iowa and settled in Jasper County. And Maytag has been a foundation of the economy in Jasper County for many, many years, and Mr. Hare talked about the plant in Illinois, the Maytag plant that lost many of its jobs to Mexico.

What happened about 10 years ago was, in an effort to develop competition between competing Maytag factories for the Neptune washers, it was decided that there were going to be incentives offered by the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois in the competition to keep those jobs in America. And so the legislature in Illinois and the legislature in Iowa both went to work to pass special tax statuses for expensing of manufacturing equipment to make it more attractive for those companies in Iowa and Illinois to be able to compete for these new Neptune washers.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, that competition was short-term only. And the Maytag headquarters no longer exists in Newton, Iowa. The Maytag jobs in Illinois have now left for Mexico. And we are seeing the impact that this trade policy that we have pursued for the past decade is having on American workers.

And, like my friend from Illinois, nobody I talk to, my friends in labor, my friends in small businesses and manufacturing, thinks that trade is a bad thing. We need to encourage trade, because that is what creates job opportunities for American workers. What we are talking about is making sure that our trade policies are fair and balanced. And one of the unique things that I have seen since I came here is that we seem to see more and more small- and medium-sized manufacturers and labor coming together and talking about a need for a comprehensive reform of our trade policies.

One of the things we know is that the Constitution gave this body, Congress, an important role to play in international trade, and one of the problems with the fast-track trade promotion authority that previous Congresses gave to the chief executive was that, in a sense, it involved an abdication of our responsibilities to be an active partner in setting trade policies. And what that means is that we have also abdicated some of our responsibilities to the workers of this country, to the workers of international countries where trade laws and workers rights are not held to the same high standards they are in the United States. We have penalized American manufacturers because of environmental regulations they are required to comply with in this country that are not imposed upon foreign manufacturers. And we have seen the exploitation of workers and human rights in other countries that allow goods to be produced at slave labor conditions and severely undercut the market for those goods on the international economy.

So I am here tonight with my friends to talk about why it is important that, when we go forward from this point, looking at the trade policies, not just for the current administration, but for future administrations, no matter which party happens to occupy the White House, it is important for us to look back on the historical role that Congress has played in making sure that our trade policies reflect the same basic values that made this country great in the first place. And so that is why I am here to talk about how we, as a body, have to step up to the plate and share our fair share of this responsibility moving forward.

And to my friend from Maine, where I know these policies have had a dramatic impact in a lot of different manufacturing and foreign good sectors, I would like to yield back and ask about some of the difficulties that his constituents have encountered in this same area.

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Were you serving in this body when fast track was authorized?

We know from history that timber has always played an important role in the economy of your State. How has the timber industry been affected because of what is happening in the global marketplace for timber and lumber sources from other areas that don't have to comply with the same types of restrictions we talked about earlier?

One the things that we often don't talk about when we talk about the loss of jobs overseas is the direct impact it has on the communities where those jobs depart from. And one of the things that we know, in talking about the sad story of Maytag in Iowa, is that at the time Maytag still functioned with its corporate headquarters in Newton, Iowa. They contributed almost $1 million a year just in property taxes alone to the city of Newton and Jasper County. That is just one small component of the many intangibles that we don't talk about with these trade policies and how they impact the communities that we represent over the long term.

One of the other things we know is that a lot of people who work in those good-paying jobs take on leadership roles in their communities as volunteers, as coaches, as mentors; and when they have to leave because they don't have a place to work anymore, all of that intangible benefit that contributes to the quality of life in a community leaves with them. So I think that sometimes we focus too much on the pure economic costs of these jobs that go overseas, and not enough on the real human costs that goes along with them.

I think a good example of that was one of the first things I did after becoming a Member of Congress was look at caucuses I could join that were going to be beneficial to the constituents that I represent in my district. One of the caucuses I joined was the Steel Caucus because there is a steel plant that has a direct economic benefit to employees in my district.

And one of the things I was struck by at the meeting that I went to, a breakfast meeting of the Steel Caucus, was it was bipartisan. There were representatives of the steel industry, of labor, and everybody was there to talk about the same problem, and that was cheap steel from China flooding the U.S. and international markets.

And one of the things that came up during those discussions, again in a bipartisan sense, was the myth of the so-called level playing field, which is that U.S. manufacturers who play by the rules, provide good, high-paying jobs with decent benefits, comply with environmental regulations, treat their workers fairly, are not on a level playing field when it comes to competing with Chinese competition and other parts of the world economy because other countries do not play by the same rules.

So I think one of the things that we need to be talking about here is how we can work in a bipartisan spirit to develop those coalitions that have a direct benefit for American workers, American manufacturers, American employers and consumers of these products, because we all are literally in this together.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania has a fondness for college football so I am going to root this question in that. One of the great football players at Iowa State University when I attended there in the mid-to-late 70s was a gentleman named Tom Perticone from Clareton, Pennsylvania. And while Tom was playing football at Iowa State, the movie ``Deer Hunter'' was very popular, which was filmed in and around Pittsburgh general area, and also near Clareton. And one of the things that film depicted so well was the whole culture of the community where a life's history has been devoted to a particular industry and how everything revolves around it. And we have seen that in my home community of Waterloo, Iowa, near the old Rath Packing Company, where a virtual community of businesses and services formed around the factory, and everyone's lives were tied up in that.

And I was hoping that you might be able to shed some light on the very real, personal toll on the culture of those communities in your district that have seen this dramatic shift, and how employment is available to the people who graduate from high school and don't have the same opportunities they did 15 years ago.

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning in a pair of work boots that I have owned for 26 years to express my strong support for H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.

I wore these boots when I worked for the Poweshiek County Road Department building roads and bridges on the county roads where I grew up. I wear them proudly today as a reminder of the hard work and sacrifice made every day in this country by working men and women who exercise their constitutional right to freedom of association by joining labor unions.

The Employee Free Choice Act provides greater protection to that freedom of association by providing for majority sign-up, first contract mediation and binding arbitration, and tougher penalties for violation of workers' rights.

Protecting the rights of workers has been a long and difficult struggle. Seventy-five years ago this month, Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which declared it to be the public policy of the United States that employees be allowed to organize and engage in collective bargaining, free from coercion by their employers. The Employee Free Choice Act reinforces that public policy for labor negotiations in the 21st century.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important bill, and I look forward to the day when it is signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota. It was a great thrill for me to walk on to the floor today and fulfill a campaign promise I made, and that is by wearing a pair of 26-year-old boots that I first wore when I worked for the Pauchet County Road Department in my home county building bridges and roads and farm-to- market roads for the people of the small county where I lived.

One of the reasons I wore these boots today is because it is very personal to me what is happening in the Employee Free Choice Act.

When I worked there during the summertimes back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a lot of the people that I worked with would complain every year that they did not feel like they were getting a fair share for the work that they were performing, and they were always talking about whether or not they needed a union to represent them. I am very proud of the fact that now those same secondary road workers in my home county are represented by a union, and they benefit from collective bargaining in the workplace.

One of the reasons that I wore these boots today was a reminder of the hard work and sacrifice made every day in this country by working men and women who are simply executing and exercising their constitutional right to freedom of association. That is what collective bargaining is all about, and that is what the Employee Free Choice Act does. It gives those hardworking men and women greater protection to exercise their freedom of association by providing for majority sign- up, first contract mediation and binding arbitration and tougher penalties for violating the provisions of workers rights.

Now, let's talk about why this month is so significant. This month, we will celebrate in a couple of weeks the 75th anniversary of the Norris-La Guardia Act, one of the first acts that recognized as a matter of law that workers have a right under the Constitution to collectively organize and bargain with their employers. That act was sponsored by a Republican senator from my neighboring State of Nebraska, George Norris, who had the vision and the foresight to recognize that, unless we protect workers rights, none of us will reach our full potential as human beings.

George Norris was one of those eight brave Members of Congress that John F. Kennedy featured in Profiles in Courage because of the courageous actions he took without regard to partisan politics, because it was the right thing to do. That is why we are here today to celebrate, 75 years later, a new protection for workers that will have just as much impact on their lives as the Norris-La Guardia Act did 75 years ago by making sure that they have protection in the workplace for labor negotiations in the 21st century.

Seventy-five years ago, it was yellow-dog contracts that everybody was concerned about, which was a method that employers were using all over the country to say: You cannot get a job here unless you sign an agreement in advance not to join a union. That is how bad it was 75 years ago. And yet, under the past 25 years, through the interpretation of the existing National Labor Relations Act by conservative judges, we have seen an erosion in the right of workers to collectively bargain, to organize, and to protect their rights in getting first contracts.

That is why I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, because there is another story to these boots that I am wearing. I wore a different pair of boots the first 3 years I worked for the Poweshiek County Road Department. And when I graduated from college and got accepted to law school, I thought I wasn't going to need those boots anymore, and the last day I worked that summer, I took my boots out in the yard and I lit them on fire and said good-bye to them.

When I started law school, I lost my father and his parents within a 3-month period of time, and I ended up going back and working for that same county road department after my first year of law school and I needed a new pair of boots. These are the boots that I wore that year. I made a vow to myself I was never going to get rid of them; and that is why I am proud to be with my new members in the Democratic class of 2006 here on the floor celebrating this historic day for workers of the United States. And I am so proud to be here with you.

I know that you share my concern of protecting workers rights as an element of protecting human rights. One of the first things that I did when I started running for Congress was do as much as I could to educate myself about the history of the labor movement in my State of Iowa, and one of my friends presented me with a book that cataloged those things.

One of the most striking stories that I read about was an African American worker at John Deere who decided to make a living driving a truck instead, and drove with a group of other truckers who were part of a union to the State of Illinois where they stopped to get lunch. This African American truck driver was told he could not eat lunch in the same restaurant with his white co-workers. And his white co-workers from this labor organization informed the owner of that restaurant in no uncertain terms that either they would all be served together, or he would experience what it was like to

see a semi drive through the front door of his establishment.

One of the things that we all know is that when we protect workers' rights, we are really advancing the cause of human rights, and I was just asking if you could comment on that, and what role, what we did today, how that played in moving the cause of human rights.

One of the things we are talking about in terms of these myths is really the fundamental shift that happened here today, that now, under the Employee Free Choice Act, it will be as difficult to certify a union as it is to decertify a union, because one of the myths that you have up there is that somehow by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, it will be harder for companies that no longer share the support of the workforce to have that union represent them in a collective bargaining agreement, that somehow what we did today will make it more difficult to decertify the union. In reality, it has always been fairly easy to decertify a union and nothing about the Employee Free Choice Act changes that.

So I would ask my friend from Kentucky if he could talk about some of the other myths that we heard today and throughout the week during the discussion that we know aren't based on fact and aren't based upon changing anything about the law that currently exists under the National Labor Relations Act.

Well, I think one of the things that we deal with every day in this hallowed body are issues of human dignity. And to me, that is the essence of the vote we took today on the Employee Free Choice Act. It is not about giving one side in the bargaining negotiations an unfair advantage over the other side. It is about leveling the playing field so that all people have the means to reach their full potential as human beings. I believe with all my heart that that is what the Employee Free Choice Act helps to achieve.

I think it gives workers trying to enter into their first contracts greater assurances that their rights are going to be protected and their voices are going to be heard. I think that it puts more teeth into protecting those workers when employers choose to engage in tactics that have been prohibited under existing law, but have not been enforced as they should have been. And I think that when the rules are clear, and the penalties are clear, then everyone involved in the collective bargaining process has greater motivation to do the right thing. And, after all, that is what this is all about, giving people on both sides of the negotiating process the motivation, the incentive to do the right thing, to treat each other with dignity and respect and to

give them the best opportunity to achieve a good and profitable business venture that benefits the employer and the employee.

To me, that is what today's vote was all about, and that is why I am hopeful that the bill will be sent to the Senate and receive the same type of respect and debate that it did in this body, and that it will get sent to the President for his signature and be signed into law, so that all workers in this country will know that they have the protection that they deserve to reach their full potential as human beings.

Madam Speaker, I grew up surrounded by heroes. My father, Byard Braley, got permission from his mother at the age of 17 to enlist in the Marine Corps, and 1 year later found himself landing on Iwo Jima, the same day the flags were raised on Mount Suribachi. Thirty thousand marines and Japanese soldiers lost their lives in 1 month on an island the same size as my hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa.

My father saw one of his best friends vaporized by a shell burst, and we did not learn that fact until 15 years after he died.

The same night that my father landed on Iwo Jima, another marine from my hometown of Brooklyn slept under those flags as Japanese bombs flew overhead. Harold Keller was the real deal. He was the second marine to reach the summit of Mount Suribachi, and he single-handedly fought off a Japanese counterattack and rescued the people you see depicted in Flags of Our Fathers.

When he came home to my hometown, he repaired milking equipment for area farmers. My uncle Gordon Braley served in the merchant marine, guarding allied shipping lanes in the North Atlantic.

My Uncle Bert Braley served in the Army Air Corps, and my Uncle Lyle Nesselroad served in the Navy. My cousin, Dick Braley, was a Marine Corps artillery officer at a firebase in Vietnam.

These ordinary men taught me that patriotism is not something you claim by putting down others who disagree with your viewpoints. It is something you earn by the way you live your life, the respect you have for the institutions that make the United States a great beacon of liberty, freedom and justice.

When I return to my hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, I am still surrounded by heroes. These heroes belong to the battalion of the Ironman Battalion of the Iowa National Guard. They are approximately 560 fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters from Waterloo, Dubuque, Oelwein and everywhere in between.

One of them, Ray Zirkelbach, is missing his second consecutive year in the Iowa House of Representatives, because their latest tour was recently extended. A flag is draped over his desk in the House chamber.

These heroes are the reason why I stand here today in opposition to the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. On November 7, 2006, the voters of this country went to the polls and clearly stated that it is time for a new direction in Iraq.

Soon after, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group presented President Bush with a desperately needed blueprint for change. They recognized that the deteriorating crisis in Iraq couldn't be solved by military action. Instead, it required a political solution between warring factions for a stable democracy to evolve.

The Iraq Study Group recognized that ``stay the course'' was a failed strategy, and that three prior troop surges had done little to stem the growing violence. They knew that the Iraqis would never get serious about standing up for their own country until they were confronted with a timetable for redeploying our forces.

After I was sworn in as a Member of Congress on January 4, I hoped that President Bush would listen to the advice of this bipartisan group whose recommendations he welcomed.

I hoped that he would move to fulfill the promise of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, when this Congress stated that 2006 would be a period of significant transition in Iraq, with the Iraqi Security Forces taking the lead for their own security, so we could begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Instead, the President ignored the recommendations of the study group and chose to escalate the war in Iraq without charting a new course.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle who disagree with the resolution we are debating today, by all means vote your conscience. I will be voting my conscience and joining well-known Republicans who agree that the escalation is a mistake:

People like Senator Chuck Hagel of my neighboring State of Nebraska, who called the President's escalation plan the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it is carried out.

People like former Iowa Representative Jim Leach, who said that the President's policy in Iraq may go down as the greatest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history.

Well-respected military experts also oppose this escalation, including General Colin Powell, General George Casey and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The President truly stands alone with a strategy that his own generals, key Republicans, and the American people oppose. The time is long overdue for the people's House to reassert its rightful place in our constitutional system of checks and balances.

We have a duty to send a message that it is time for real change in Iraq, change characterized by accountability and redeployment of our troops. There will be no more blank checks. There will be tough questions in oversight, and I will work hard to make sure that this happens. I ask everyone to support the resolution

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Dubuque, Iowa, the oldest city in Iowa, located among the bluffs of the Upper Mississippi River for being named one of the 100 Best Communities for Young People by America's Promise.

I would also like to recognize the 11 residents of the City of Dubuque sitting in the gallery above who made the

long journey from Iowa to Washington to speak with Iowa's congressional delegation about keeping their promises to Dubuque's families. These residents' dedication and commitment illustrates why their community has been recognized with this honor.

In the annual 100 Best Communities for Young People competition, America's Promise honors outstanding efforts on behalf of young people by their communities. The people of Dubuque, Iowa, have demonstrated their commitment to families and children through their involvement of the Dubuque Mentoring Partnership. Thanks to the important work of the DMP, the number of mentors in Dubuque has more than tripled and the number of children waiting for a mentor has been cut in half since 2005.

As a longtime mentor with Big Brothers/Big Sisters in my hometown of Waterloo, I learned the importance of mentoring to give children the greatest opportunity to achieve their potential.

The people of Dubuque should be proud of their accomplishment. I am proud to represent them in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to express my strong support for H.R. 521, a much-deserved honor for a great American, Congressman Lane Evans.

Although Rock Island, Illinois is not in my district, it is part of the Quad Cities that includes Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa, which I am privileged to represent.

The entire Quad Cities region has benefited from Congressman Evans' many years of leadership in this body. His passionate advocacy for veterans and working men and women earned him a special place in the hearts of his constituents, and his voice will be sorely missed.

I am proud to serve with his successor, another great champion for veterans and working families, my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Congressman Hare.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 521 as a living testimonial to the many years of public service rendered by Congressman Evans in the United States Marine Corps and in the House of Representatives. Please join me in renaming the United States Post Office in Rock Island, Illinois as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.''

Madam Speaker, last November the American people demanded real results to improve their everyday lives and strengthen middle-class families. Tonight President Bush has the opportunity to change course and work in a bipartisan way to deliver results for America's families.

The new Democratic Congress has not waited for the President to ask. In our first 100 hours, this House has already succeeded in passing legislation to raise the minimum wage, expand Federal funding for stem cell research, implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, require negotiation for lower prescription drug costs, make college more affordable and end subsidies for Big Oil to invest in clean, renewable energy.

Tonight I would hope that the President would voice support for these popular bills. After all, they received strong bipartisan support here in the House. On average, 67 Republicans supported each of these bills.

The Democratic Congress looks forward to working with the President to take America in a new direction, but in order to do that, the President needs to realize that he cannot continue down the same road he has traveled for the last 6 years. We will see tonight if he has learned that lesson.

Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to express my strong support for H.R. 6, the CLEAN

Energy Act of 2007. This bill will help move our country toward a goal shared by all Americans, a desire to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by shifting our energy emphasis from the Middle East to the Midwest.

According to the GAO, the United States has spent $130 billion in the past 32 years in government subsidies to the oil industry. The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 represents a bold new direction in our energy policy by creating a strategic renewable energy reserve to invest in clean renewable energy resources like ethanol, biodiesel and wind energy.

As someone whose family has been farming in Iowa for the past 150 years, I am proud that Iowa has been at the epicenter of the renewable fuels explosion and alternative energy boom with over 55 ethanol and biodiesel refineries built or under construction. Iowa also ranks third in wind energy production and tenth in wind energy potential in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to have had the privilege to have voted today for the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate an historic event that occurred in this Chamber 91 years ago during the middle of the Great War, the war to end all wars.

On January 10, 1918, this House passed a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote by a vote of 274 to 136. Representative Jeanette Rankin from Montana, the first woman to serve in this body, whose statue appears in Statuary Hall and who became the first woman to serve in Congress in 1917, asked her male colleagues this important question in asking them to support that amendment: ``How shall we answer the challenge, gentlemen?''

Her question is worth repeating today as President Bush prepares to escalate the war in Iraq. We need to repeat her question: How shall we answer this challenge?

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be here today to talk about the need for more civility in this body. I would like to remind the House that the last Member to be sanctioned for being assaulted on the floor of this House was Lovell Rousseau, who was involved in an assault on a representative from Grinnell, Iowa, the city I was born in.

I think we can all think back to those days and be grateful that we now serve in a body where respect is a daily part of the operations. I think it is never too late to learn from the past and to make sure that we continue to express the importance of treating each other in a manner that provides respect to this body and also brings honor to it.

When I was out on the campaign trail, I often talked about growing up in my hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa. When people had a problem there, they never asked if you were Republican or a Democrat, they asked for your help, and they got it. I think that is the purpose this body, to solve problems and to do it in a way that brings respect and honor on this body.

I am very honored that this new rules package promotes greater civility and does it in a manner that is consistent with House rule XXIII, which requires us to conduct ourselves at all times in a manner that shall reflect credibly upon this House, and by promoting an atmosphere where we are required to be on guard against abuses in voting time and reforms to the conference committee process. We will all do more to bring respect for the people who elected us to this body to serve.