Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the lead Republican cosponsors of H.R. 1592, I am pleased we are considering this legislation, which will allow the Justice Department to investigate crimes committed on the basis of the victims race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Under this bill, hate crimes that cause death or bodily injury because of prejudice can be investigated federally, regardless of whether the victim was exercising a federally protected right.

In my judgment, violence based on prejudice is a matter of national concern that federal prosecutors should be empowered to punish if the States are unable or unwilling to do so.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said:

We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil

liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must

remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a

wedge designed to attack our civilization.

That statement is no less true today than it was back then. I urge support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this resolution calling on the Arab League to acknowledge the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan and to step up their efforts to end it. The world collectively agreed to ``never again'' allow genocide after the 1994 mass murders in Rwanda. Tragically, genocide is again taking place.

The security, human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur has continued to deteriorate since the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in May 2006. Until a more effective U.N. peacekeeping force can be deployed to Sudan, we must continue to expand our support for the existing African Union forces on the ground in Darfur.

It is also critical the international community begin implementing and expanding the reach of some of the measures that have already been agreed in the Security Council including targeted sanctions, asset freezes and travel bans for Sudanese government leaders.

Unfortunately the concerns of the United States and many of our allies have fallen on deaf ears within the Sudanese government. It is especially difficult to convince a regime as callous and apathetic as Sudan of our determination to see the genocide end when other

nations are not supporting our efforts. I am very concerned China, Russia and Arab League states have thwarted attempts to enact stronger sanctions and more quickly deploy international peacekeepers. There is a genocide occurring in Sudan, and all Nations are duty-bound to end it.

In August of last year the Arab League supported Sudan's refusal of a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur, and then passed a resolution calling for more time for the Sudanese government to improve conditions there. Madam Speaker, how much time should we give them? How many lives will be lost in the meantime?

Stronger action to end the genocide must be swift and resolving this crisis must be one of our world's highest priorities. Having the assistance, or at least ending the willful neglect of the genocide by Sudan's Arab League neighbors, would be extremely helpful.

I thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee, as well as other members who have championed this issue, including Frank Wolf and Tom Lantos, for bringing this important resolution to the floor, and urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 493, I rise in strong support of this legislation and am grateful we are finally considering it. The objective of this bill is simple: preventing both health insurance companies and employers from using genetic information to discriminate against individuals.

In the past decade, science has made remarkable advances on the human genome. Genetic tests are already available to measure an individual's likelihood of developing specific diseases. In fact, soon every individual will have a genetic profile available that predicts the diseases for which they are more at risk, and what side effects to which they are more susceptible. These genetic advances will make health care pre-emptive and ultimately save the health care system--and consumers--money.

While these advances hold amazing potential, they also hold potential for abuse. For example, health insurance companies could charge higher rates--or even deny coverage--to individuals who are determined to be at higher risk for certain disease or illnesses. Similarly, employers could screen applicants for certain positions based on their genetic make-up to get the individuals least likely to develop diseases.

Our laws need to keep pace with medical advancement. If Americans are afraid of retribution from their health insurance company or from their employer if they get genetic testing done, none of the medical advances that are possible will be achieved. We simply must move forward in this critical area of science, which is why I urge passage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, on April 23, 2007, I was in Connecticut to meet with constituents and, therefore, missed 3 recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote number 245; ``yes'' on recorded vote 246; and ``yes'' on recorded vote 247.

Mr. Speaker, the thoughts and prayers of the entire Nation go out to the families and friends of those who lost loved ones.

What happened at Virginia Tech on Monday was a senseless tragedy and it is important for us to come together and find strength at such a sad time.

This is a time of profound mourning as there are few things more heart wrenching than the loss of so many young lives.

The sight of students and faculty coming together to comfort and support each other, however, is a stirring reminder of our Nation's resolve.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution has my support and the support of everyone who lives in the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, I am pleased we are moving quickly to consider this legislation, to finally give Washington, DC voting rights in the House of Representatives.

This bill would establish the District of Columbia as a congressional district and thus grant the citizens of the District representation in Congress.

The legislation also would grant an additional congressional seat to Utah based on the results of the 2000 Census.

Unlike some previous versions of this legislation, H.R. 1905 would make these two seats permanent.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has led the charge on granting the city of Washington, DC the right to have a full vote in the House of Representatives.

The citizens of the District pay federal taxes, so it is only right they have a say in federal affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this important and historic legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

There is not a Member of Congress who isn't tormented by the war in Iraq. There is not a Member of Congress that has not attended a funeral of a brave man or woman who has lost their life and seen the family's torment. So I just want to say for the record, all of us wrestle with this, Mr. Murtha, as you wrestle with this issue. We come to a different conclusion than you do, but it is as sincere and heartfelt as yours is.

I have been to Iraq 16 times. I try to go every 3 to 4 months. I think we made huge mistakes in 2003. I don't think we turned things around and started to move forward until June of 2004, when we transferred power to the Iraqis. I saw the rest of 2004 and all of 2005 as pretty stunning.

And then in 2006 we had this new government. It took them 4 months to become a government. And as you are going upstream and you are not making progress, you fall behind. The Samarra bombing was a catastrophe. For most of 2006 this government did not take decisive action. But on my last trip, the one we took just a few weeks ago, I started to see something that gives me hope, and it runs in the face of the resolution in the supplemental. I am seeing Anbar province turning around because the Iraqi Sunnis have come to us and said, we want to confront the insurgents in our province.

I spoke to 40 Iraqi soldiers in the Red Zone, not in the marketplace, and asked them, do you feel safe when you go home? Only about three or four told me they didn't feel safe. And, remember, they work 20 days, then they go home for 10. I saw their feeling of safety encouraging.

The Baiji oil refinery, which we took back with five batallions from the Iraqi Security Force is no longer a source of income for the insurgents. We have gotten at the corruption at the refinery; and now, instead of 20 trucks a day, we are having 200 trucks a day, and we feel fairly certain the oil is going to the right places and the insurgents aren't getting these dollars.

I am not against timelines; I am just against timelines in the supplemental. January 1, 2008 is one of them; April 1, 2008 is another; and, if the best happens, September 1, 2008. I am not against a timeline; I am against those timelines.

We need to give the Iraqis timelines that give them the time to resolve their differences. We attacked them; they did not attack us. We abolished all their security forces. How could we possibly leave before we give them the chance to have their Army stand up, their police stand up, their border patrol stand up? We attacked them. It is a moral obligation to give them the opportunity to defend themselves.

If we want to talk about timelines, let's work it out together. Let's establish timelines that give Iraqis time to do what they need to do.

I am voting against this resolution. It is harmful to Iraqis and harmful to Americans.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 293, supporting the goals and ideals of National Volunteer Week.

This week, we celebrate the millions of volunteers from around the country who give their time and energy to their communities.

National Volunteer Week's theme, ``Inspire by Example,'' says it all. Volunteers set an example of selfless service in giving in support of our country's most vulnerable residents, the homeless, hungry, elderly, at-risk youth, and disabled. Their work not only supports their communities, but encourages others to do the same.

More than 61 million people volunteered between September 2005 and September 2006. The estimated value of volunteer time given in 2005 is $280 billion.

This underscores the value of national service. Our Federal national service programs give Americans of all ages the opportunity to serve in areas of need around the country, recruiting

and managing volunteers. They help ensure the volunteer's time is used effectively to provide the maximum benefit to the organization and the people it serves.

I still remember how I felt as a 14-year-old watching the 1960 Presidential election between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John Kennedy. I felt energized listening to Senator Kennedy when he spoke of the Peace Corps and making the world a better and safer place. I wanted to be part of his vision. I wanted to give to the world community. Years later that dream was fulfilled when my wife, Betsi, and I served 2 years in the Peace Corps. The same powerful emotions, the same sense of energy and eagerness we felt in the 1960s is alive today and expressed by those who give back to their communities.

Today is a day to recognize the millions of Americans who volunteer and express our sincere gratitude for their service.

I thank my colleague Carol Shea-Porter, for introducing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, of which I am also a cosponsor. The way a society treats its animals speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens. I am committed to animal welfare because I believe humankind has an obligation to all animals.

Currently, it is a misdemeanor to sell, buy, or transport an animal to be used in a fight.

This legislation would make the crime a felony and increase the imprisonment penalty from 1 year to 3 years. The legislation also makes it unlawful to ship in interstate commerce a knife, gaff, or other sharp instrument used in cockfighting, and makes it a felony to use the postal service to promote an animal fight.

Dog fighting is banned in 50 states and cockfighting is banned in all but two, so I believe the Federal government is simply codifying a value that our States governments have already individually expressed.

Animal fighting is a cruel pastime where, in a typical fight, animals are drugged to heighten their aggression and forced to keep fighting, even after injuries, for the amusement and illegal wagering of handlers and spectators. We must put an end to this form of entertainment, which results in the brutal treatment of animals.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to help protect animals at the Federal level.

Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1433, I am pleased we are moving quickly to consider this legislation, to finally give Washington, DC voting rights in the House of Representatives.

This bill would establish the District of Columbia as a congressional district and thus grant the citizens of the District representation in Congress.

The legislation also would grant an additional congressional seat to Utah based on the results of the 2000 Census.

Unlike some previous versions of this legislation, H.R. 1433 would make these two seats permanent.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has led the charge on granting the city of Washington, DC the right to have a full vote in the House of Representatives.

The citizens of the District pay Federal taxes, so it is only right they have a say in Federal affairs.

Madam Speaker, I urge the support of this important and historic legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this closed rule allows only an up-or-down vote on the Democrats' proposal regarding needed military spending, but it contains an unrealistic timeline for the withdrawal of troops, and it includes bloated spending for nonmilitary expenditures.

We all want to do the right thing for our troops in Iraq and the Iraqi people. This bill does not give us the opportunity to do either.

I offered three amendments to the Rules Committee, and none were made in order because it made no amendment in order. One was to increase funding for our community action programs in Iraq, like Mercy Corps, who hire Iraqis in their organizations, and then the Iraqis are hired to do the work.

A second amendment would have required the President to come in with a timeline and to then require the Iraqis to meet it, and needing a 60 percent vote of support of this timeline or we leave even sooner.

The third was to encourage this Congress to debate the Iraqi Study Group recommendations, which both Democrats and Republicans agree with.

We could have done something on a bipartisan basis. We expect Iraqis to work out their differences and are critical when the Sunnis and Shias are unable to find common ground. Yet we in this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are unable to work out our differences, and we don't even have to fear a bomb being blown off or an assassination attempt.

We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis. Two-thirds of the House and three-quarters of the Senate voted to go in. It is absolutely imperative we get out of Iraq on a bipartisan basis.

I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow us to have a bipartisan approach.

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

It is a pleasure to share this debate with Congressman Carney and to know that former Chairman Davis, now ranking member, and former Ranking Member Waxman, now chairman, have worked so closely together. And tremendous kudos to Todd Platts for the work that he has done on this legislation. This is a bipartisan effort for a very real reason, whistleblowers need this protection.

All Federal employees are ethically bound to expose violations of law, corruption, waste, and substantial danger to public health or safety. But meeting that obligation to ``blow the whistle'' on coworkers and superiors has never ever been easy.

Breaking bureaucratic ranks to speak unpleasant and unwelcome truths takes courage and risks involving the wrath of those with the power and motive to shoot the messenger. Yet seldom in our history has the need for the whistleblower's unfiltered voice been more urgent, particularly in the realms of national security and intelligence. Extraordinary powers needed to wage war on our enemies could, if unchecked, inflict collateral damage on the very rights and freedoms we fight to protect.

The use of expansive executive authority demands equally expansive scrutiny by Congress and the public. One absolute essential source of information to sustain that oversight is whistleblowers.

But those with whom we trust the Nation's secrets are too often treated like second-class citizens when it comes to asserting their rights and responsibilities to speak truth to power. Exempted from legal protections available to most other Federal employees under the Merit System Protection Board, referred to as the MSPB, national security whistleblowers must traverse a confusing maze of inconsistent regulations and procedures that too often afford them far less process than is due.

The legislation before us today takes the important step of creating a procedure for whistleblowers handling sensitive national security information, to have their claims investigated and adjudicated on a timely basis. These claims would be investigated by the agency Inspector General, as they are now, who will keep all classified information secure, while providing a fair and independent mechanism for investigation and adjudication. Should the Inspector General, and we have an Inspector General in each of these agencies, not reach a timely decision, or the employees wish to appeal, our legislation allows the appropriate Federal Circuit Court to hear the case.

This new approach will give these employees effective protection, while at the same time ensuring sensitive and classified information stays secure.

While I believe an amendment to bring the Department of Homeland Security intelligence-related employees under the same provisions as employees of intelligence agencies such as the CIA or FBI should have been made in order, I am grateful we are finally moving legislation that will allow employees who have faced whistleblower retaliation to get on with their lives.

I also believe suspension or revocation of a security clearance has the same chilling effect as demotion or firing, but clearance actions are virtually unreviewable. Those with whom we trust the Nation's secrets should not be second-class citizens when it comes to asserting their rights and obligations to speak truth to power. Employees should never face termination or harassment for acting courageously to identify improprieties in the workplace, especially when their observations could help improve safety or eliminate waste, abuse or fraud.

Another important step this legislation takes is to expand whistleblower protections to Transportation Security Administration, TSA, screeners for the first time, and that is why the Homeland Security Committee has been given time for this debate. TSA baggage screeners currently do not have whistleblower rights, and this bill will extend to screeners the same protections that all other Department of Homeland Security employees enjoy.

With the full whistleblower protections of this bill, TSA workers could report violations of law, mismanagement, waste, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health and safety, including those regarding or relating solely to homeland or national security.

The bottom line is with more power to the executive branch must come more oversight. That is why I strongly support this legislation. I think that is why this legislation is strongly supported on both sides of the aisle.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, when you give the administration of any party the kind of powers we need to give an administration today, you have to have a strong whistleblower statute, a strong civil liberties board, and aggressive congressional oversight. There are two inconvenient truths we need to deal with, in society today. One is what Al Gore talks about: the environment, and national security issues related to the environment.

Another inconvenient truth is what the 9/11 Commission points out to us, that we are confronting deadly radical Islamist terrorism. And that requires stronger statutes to deal with it.

We had an attempt in the late eighties by the first President Bush to have a workable whistleblower statute. That statute was eroded by the Federal Court in D.C. We saw the Clinton administration try to strengthen it in 1994, and again it was weakened by the courts. This is another attempt to strengthen this statute.

We have a weakness in our whistleblower statute that we must address. And it is being addressed on a bipartisan basis.

We have a Merit System Protection Board that deals with everyone outside of the intelligence community, but it doesn't render decisions soon enough. We are requiring that decisions be rendered within 180 days. If not, a whistleblower can go to court. And we now allow whistleblowers to appeal decisions they disagree with.

But we have had a more serious problem. This is the area of concern relating to the intelligence community. Whistleblowers have had to go to their own individual Inspector Generals. The Inspector Generals follow different practices. We are now making sure those practices conform to the Merit System Protection Board practices.

The biggest challenge was when you take away someone's security clearance, it is like telling a bus driver you don't have a license to drive a bus. You make that whistleblower meaningless to the agency, and it is a huge disincentive to speak out.

We are not saying that can't be taken away in this legislation. We are saying it needs to be studied by the GAO. But what we are also doing is giving the employee the right to go to court within 180 days if a decision isn't rendered, and to have that same ability to make sure their case is heard if they disagree with the decision.

I can't say how strongly enough I support this legislation. This legislation, which passed the committee last year has been improved this year. But, again, I want to say, Mr. Platts, you deserve a tremendous amount of credit for what you have done and I congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing this legislation up so quickly.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his presentation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 107, a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, who continue to be held by the terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah more than 6 months after being captured. These soldiers were kidnapped on Israeli soil in two separate, but equally brazen attacks, which were acts of war.

During their time in captivity, Hamas and Hezbollah, both of whom desire to simultaneously maintain an armed wing and a political wing, have not reported on the soldiers' health and have not granted access to international organizations to check on their well-being.

In August of last year, shortly after the fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah stopped, I visited Lebanon and northern Israel. While in Israel, we met with the families of the kidnapped soldiers. I cannot tell you how difficult it is, especially for a parent, to know a loved one is in harm's way and there is nothing you can do to help him.

It is so important this resolution is on the floor of the House today because we want the soldiers to know, we want their families to know, and we want Hamas and Hezbollah and the state sponsors of their terrorist activities--Iran and Syria to know that America has not forgotten the kidnappings that took place last summer. We will not forget this injustice until the soldiers are returned home to their families safe and sound.

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 556, I am pleased the new majority is moving quickly to consider this legislation, which passed the House in the last Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. This legislation would require that all transactions involving foreign state-owned companies be automatically subject to a full 45-day investigation.

Last year, the attempt by Dubai Ports World (DP World), a port operations company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to purchase operating terminals at six U.S. ports was a clear indicator we must reform the CFIUS process.

Whenever a foreign investment affects homeland security, it deserves greater scrutiny. It seems to me, this legislation strikes the proper balance between strengthening our economy and protecting the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as a coauthor of the original legislation which created the Brownfields program, I rise in support of H.R. 644, which makes Brownfield Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, grants far more accessible to smaller communities by eliminating a requirement for communities to guarantee their BEDI grant with their Community Development block grant funds.

I believe the Brownfields program is one of the most successful programs the Federal Government has to help revitalized urban areas. These sites, typically in the heart of urban areas, lie idle because no one wants to incur the large costs associated with Superfund cleanups.

This, in turn should encourage more-environmental cleanup and economic development of brownfield sites. As a result, cities are marked by abandoned buildings and vacant lots while developers construct new buildings on what was previously open space in the suburbs.

Though small, these grants serve as seed money, enabling dozens of communities to leverage millions of State and private dollars to move into the actual cleanup phase.

By reusing Brownfields sites, we not only rebuild blighted communities, but also target development in city centers and avoid unnecessary urbanization on the fringes of metropolitan areas.