Floor Statements

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

I rise in strong support of this resolution to support the goals and ideals of National Community College Month.

Community colleges are centers of educational opportunity. For over 100

years, they have been inclusive institutions that welcome all who desire to learn, regardless of wealth, heritage or previous academic experience.

Since their creation, community colleges have grown tremendously in numbers and have changed with the times. According to the American Association of Community Colleges, there are over 1,000 community colleges in this country serving about 11 million students. No other segment of higher education is more responsive to its community and workforce needs than the community college.

The community colleges help provide the country with professionals in fields like computer technology, law enforcement, homeland security, nursing and other health care fields. About 50 percent of new nurses are educated at community colleges, and close to 80 percent of firefighters, law enforcement officers, and emergency medicine technicians received their credentials from community colleges.

Not only do community colleges serve a unique role in graduating students with specific skills, but they are also extremely affordable. Tuition and fees at public community colleges average less than half of those at public 4-year colleges and one-tenth the tuition and fees at independent 4-year colleges.

In my congressional district, the Harrisburg Area Community College is a shining example of the important and successful role of community colleges in our Nation's higher education system. In fact, I am fortunate to have two branches of the Harrisburg Area Community College in my congressional district, in York and Gettysburg. Graduates from HACC begin careers in fields currently experiencing shortages such as nursing, early childhood education, and law enforcement. I have seen firsthand the successful partnerships created between the community college and local businesses.

We hope to continue to build on the support being given to community colleges through the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The reauthorization is an opportunity to look at every program individually and determine if it is helping us meet our goal of providng a quality and affordable post-secondary education to every American.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution honoring the goals and ideals of National Community College Month.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentlewoman have other speakers?

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time then.

Madam Speaker, I again urge a ``yes'' vote and want to commend the sponsor, Mr. Miller, and others supporting this, and my chairwoman, Mrs. McCarthy, for her advocacy here on floor. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 112, supporting the goals and ideas of a National Child Care Worthy Wage Day. I would like to thank my colleague from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for her leadership on this issue and for introducing the resolution we are considering here today.

Child care is an integral part of the daily routine of millions of families with young children. Working parents depend on child care so they can earn the income needed to support their families, as well as ensure that their children are well cared for in safe environments while they are working. As a result, approximately 63 percent of children under 5 years of age are in some type of regular child care environment each week.

High-quality child care, care that provides a stable, safe, stimulating environment, helps children enter school prepared to learn. Research has repeatedly shown that children who receive high-quality child care demonstrate greater mathematical ability, greater attention and thinking skills and fewer behavioral problems than children who receive low-quality care.

Quality care is directly linked to the quality of the educators, helping children to grow, learn and gain new skills is rewarding. However, it's very physically and emotionally taxing, as educators work long days, must be constantly alert, deal effectively with disruptive children, anticipate and prevent trouble, and provide firm but fair discipline. As a result, many child care workers leave the profession. The turnover rate in this industry is roughly 30 percent per year.

Compensation and additional training are important variables to ensure a high quality child care environment for our children. We need to attract and retain educators who have the caring, consistent relationships that are critical to children's development. I am pleased to commend our Nation's child care providers for their dedicated service to our Nation's children and their families.

I think it's important that we are taking time to recognize the critically important work of child care providers and the importance of doing better when it comes to their pay and benefits.

As a parent myself, my children, now second grade, fourth graders, went through a preschool program that was exceptional, it was certified. In that facility, we had both the preschool program and a very high-quality child care center as well. We saw the benefits to our children personally of that professional setting. An important part of being able to retain professional workers, staff, in those settings, is the pay and benefits.

When we look at the quality of these facilities, if we don't reduce that turnover rate, that 30 percent turnover rate, we will continue to be challenged to get somebody new in and get them up to speed. That impacts the quality of the care provided.

So I, again, commend the sponsor of the resolution for helping to raise national recognition and the importance of this issue, and urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) as much time as he may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as the gentleman may consume to another distinguished member of the Florida delegation, Mr. Keller.

Madam Speaker, we have got a great group of very proud Floridians here today. I am pleased to yield again as much time as the gentleman may consume to the gentleman, Mr. Bilirakis, from Florida.

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

The Florida Gators team will certainly go down as one of the best teams in the history of college basketball. After winning back-to-back championships this year, Coach Billy Donovan said, ``I sit up here very, very humbled, because I think I was fortunate enough over the last 2 years to coach a group of guys that has to go down in history as one of the greatest teams of all time.''

The love for the game and each other, the hustle and hard work that the players exemplified the past 2 years is something they certainly learned from their head coach, Billy Donovan. At the young age of 41, Coach Donovan is now in some elite company being one of only four active coaches to have won multiple championships.

I extend my heartiest congratulations to Head Coach Donovan, all of the hardworking players, their fans, and all members of the University of Florida family, including another distinguished graduate of the University of Florida who I would be in trouble with if I didn't mention when I go home tonight. My next oldest brother, Mark Platts, graduated in 1987 with a master's degree from the University of Florida.

I am happy to join with my chairwoman as well as my colleagues from Florida in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments and wish them continued success, unless they are playing my alma mater in the years to come.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support House Resolution 344, congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education.

Charter schools are innovative public schools with a simple interest in providing a quality education to children in their communities. They explore new educational approaches, such as longer school days or extended school years, and are free from most rules and regulations governing conventional public schools.

These schools meet the student achievement and accountability requirements under No Child Left Behind in the same manner as traditional public schools and they often set higher individual goals to ensure that they are of high quality.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from New York, Louisiana, Connecticut, elsewhere around the country in recognizing these innovative public schools, and I am proud to recognize this week as National Charter Schools Week.

I commend President Bush for his recent proclamation stating, quote, ``recognizing the important contributions of charter schools,'' as well on the executive branch side; and again urge a ``yes'' vote for this resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 293, which supports the goals and ideals highlighted through National Volunteer Week.

I would like to thank my colleague from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea- Porter) for introducing this legislation and bringing it to the floor here today.

As we have heard, National Volunteer Week has been celebrated since 1974, when President Nixon signed an executive order establishing this annual celebration of volunteerism.

As we now celebrate another National Volunteer Week, we are reminded that community service takes place through efforts both large and small throughout our great country. This year's Volunteer Week theme is Inspire by Example, and countless individuals of all backgrounds and ages inspire others every day through their efforts to address the common concerns of our neighborhoods, communities, Nation, and world. And I know personally that it was the example of my parents, Babs and Dutch Platts, volunteering in our community as a Sunday school teacher, a Little League coach, running the school candy sales; their example of volunteerism for me and my four siblings helped to inspire my interest in public service and pursuit of this very position I now hold.

Our country has seen the inspiring example of our citizens' willingness to serve others in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/ 11 and rebuilding efforts along the gulf coast, and in response to countless other tragedies, large and small, that touch lives every day.

Community service isn't just about responding to disaster. It is also about lifting a hand to help a neighbor, teaching a child to read, restoring a neglected park, and numerous other acts of good will that reaffirm our common humanity. As cochair of the National Service Caucus here in the House with Representatives Chris Shays, Doris Matsui and David Price, I am particularly interested in seeing the spirit of volunteerism celebrated and extended to as many Americans as possible.

As this resolution says, more than a quarter of this country's population volunteered in some capacity from September of 2005 to September of 2006 at an estimated value or benefit to our country of $280 billion. I certainly hope these numbers continue to grow.

I also want to express my thanks to the thousands of organizations and their leaders across the country that capture the spirit of our volunteers and bring that spirit to bear in a concentrated way to relieve suffering, provide opportunities to the needy, to clean up our communities, and bring hope to millions. These organizations and the public and private partners that support them provide needed infrastructure to support the energy of our community service providers.

As this resolution states, National Volunteer Week will continue to raise awareness of the role that volunteers play in local, national and international communities, and their commitment to improving lives, strengthening communities and fostering civic engagement.

Again, I thank my colleague, Ms. Shea-Porter, and urge my colleagues to support National Volunteer Week and to support House Resolution 293.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut, cochair of the National Service Caucus (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of H. Res. 293, and thank Ms. Shea-Porter for her introduction of this resolution, and hope that all of our fellow Americans will experience and celebrate the spirit of volunteerism throughout our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007.

Open and accountable government make up the cornerstones of good government. This legislation before us today seeks to strengthen these cornerstones.

The Freedom of Information Act was signed into law over 40 years ago, in July 1966, enacted after 11 years of debate. FOIA established a statutory right of public access to executive branch information.

FOIA provides that any person has the right to obtain Federal agency records. Originally, the act included nine categories of information protected from disclosure, and Congress has added additional exemptions over time.

Balancing the need for open government with the needs to protect information vital to national security and personal privacy is a constant struggle. Federal Departments and agencies are operating in the post-9/11 information age and face 21st century security, information management, and resource challenges.

As we seek to achieve this balance we must remember the words of Thomas Jefferson who said, ``Information is the currency of democracy.'' FOIA is an essential tool to ensure that the citizens of our great Nation have access to information in the way that Thomas Jefferson envisioned.

Over the past several years, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, and Accountability, on which I had the privilege to serve as Chair, conducted multiple hearings on FOIA implementation.

In response to legislative proposals introduced last session in the House and Senate, as well as the oversight conducted by the subcommittee, President Bush issued Executive Order 13392, entitled Improving Agency Disclosure of Information, on December 14, 2005. This document sought to improve the overall processing of FOIA requests, creating a more citizen-centered and results-oriented approach to information policy. And I certainly commend the administration for their efforts.

In response to that effort, though, we believed further work was needed. On September 27, 2006, the subcommittee marked up legislation very similar to that legislation before us here today. Specifically, the OPEN Government Act, introduced by my colleague from Texas, Lamar Smith, like the bill before us today, would close loopholes in FOIA, help requesters obtain more timely response, and provide FOIA officials with the tools they need to ensure that the Federal Government remains open and accessible.

While the legislation before us today includes provisions not included in Representative Smith's legislation from last session and to which he is currently opposed, I certainly want to commend Representative Smith for his leadership and dedicated efforts to improve the Freedom of Information Act and to make government more open and accountable.

I also want to thank Chairman Waxman of the full committee and subcommittee Chairman Clay for their efforts in moving this legislation forward quickly and, as well, recognize Ranking Member Davis of the full committee and Ranking Member Turner at the subcommittee for their efforts.

This legislation is about open and accountable government. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished

ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, is a bipartisan bill which seeks to restore protections for civil servants who report illegalities, gross mismanagement and waste, and substantial and specific dangers to the public health and safety.

H.R. 985 contains many of the provisions of legislation which I introduced during the 109th Congress, H.R. 1317. It represents consensus language crafted through bipartisan negotiations among myself, Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Davis, Representative Van

Hollen, as well as the majority and minority staffs of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and interested stakeholders groups such as the Government Accountability Project. I certainly would like to thank all who have been involved in this process.

To provide context for the legislation we are considering today, it is important to review the legislative history in the area of whistleblower protections for Federal employees.

As a result of finding that the civil service protections of the time were inadequate, Congress, in the first Bush administration, enacted into law the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, of 1989, which expressly stated that ``any protected disclosure of waste, fraud and abuse by a Federal employee is covered by the law.''

Unfortunately, as interpreted by the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal circuit court, loopholes began to develop in the WPA. Accordingly, Congress strengthened the law in 1994.

It is noteworthy that the report accompanying the WPA Amendments of 1994 expressed great frustration with the way the WPA was being interpreted. According to the report, it states, ``Perhaps the most troubling precedents involved the Board's inability to understand that 'any' means 'any.' The WPA protects any disclosure evidencing a reasonable belief of specified misconduct, a cornerstone to which the MSPD remains blind.

``The only restrictions are for classified information or material, the release of which is specifically prohibited by statute. Employees must disclose that type of information through confidential channels to maintain protection. Otherwise, there are no exceptions.''

Unfortunately, we are once again largely back to where we started. Since the 1994 amendments, 177 whistleblower cases have come before the Federal Circuit Court; however, only two whistleblowers have prevailed. Among the reasons are a number of decisions which have continued to create exceptions to the law, including decisions stating that an employee is not protected by the WPA if the employee directs criticism to other witnesses or a supervisor in an attempt to start the process of challenging misconduct, or the information disclosed was done in the course of the employee's ordinary job duties, or the information disclosed has already been raised by someone else.

In addition, the Federal Circuit Court has stated in one case that: For a Federal employee to reasonably believe there is evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse, as required by the law, he or she must overcome with irrefragable proof the presumption that the agency was acting in good faith.

This is an unheard of legal standard, defined in the dictionary as ``impossible to refute.'' In other words, the agency pretty much has to admit to the waste, fraud, or abuse.

H.R. 985 would clarify congressional intent that any whistleblower disclosure includes disclosures ``without restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of the employee's duties.'' In addition, H.R. 985 would end any uncertainty about the irrefragable proof standard, making it clear that the ``substantial evidence standard'' applies to all five categories for legally protected whistleblowing disclosures. Appellate courts could not impose additional burdens for a particular category, as I understand occurred in the case of White v. Department of Air Force with respect to ``gross mismanagement.''

Other provisions within H.R. 985 which are either identical or similar to provisions within previous versions of this legislation include:

Allowing employees the option to have their claims decided in Federal District Court if the Merit Systems Protection Board does not act on a claim within 180 days;

Ending the monopoly jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over appeals under the Whistleblower Protection Act;

Conducting a GAO study on the revocation of security clearances in retaliation for whistleblowing;

Extending whistleblower protections to the Transportation Security Administration baggage screeners;

Enhancing whistleblower protections for employees of government contractors;

Codifying an anti-gag rule that was first included in the Treasury Appropriations bill for 1988 and every year thereafter; and,

Continuing protections for whistleblowers who were subjected to prohibited personnel actions prior to their agency or unit being exempted from the WPA.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank each of the parties who have been involved in the ongoing development of this critically important legislation. I would also like to thank those courageous citizens who have blown the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. If we truly want to eliminate waste, fraud, and gross mismanagement throughout the Federal Government, then we need to empower and protect our Federal employees who are on the front lines of government operations and best positioned to witness this waste, fraud, and gross mismanagement. This legislation provides such empowerment and protection. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Iowa have any additional speakers?

Mr. Chairman, I will then continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

In the report language from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, there is a well-stated argument about the importance of this legislation, why we need it, and why we need it for national security employees as well. The report reads as follows:

``A key component of government accountability is whistleblower protection. Federal employees are on the inside. They can see when taxpayer dollars are wasted and are often the first to see the signals of corrupt or incompetent management.

``Unfortunately, whistleblowers too often receive retaliation rather than recognition for their courage. They need adequate protections so they are not deterred from stepping forward to blow the whistle.

``There are many Federal Government workers who deserve whistleblower protection, but perhaps none more than national security officials. These are Federal Government employees who have undergone extensive background investigations, obtained security clearances, and handled classified information on a routine basis. Our government has concluded that they can be trusted to work on the most sensitive law enforcement and intelligence projects, yet these officials receive no protection when they come forward to identify abuses that are undermining our national security efforts.''

I think the report language well states the case for this bill and the importance of us adopting this legislation and moving the process forward.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to again thank my colleagues who have worked on this and give special thanks to the staff of the majority and minority sides of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee both this session and for the last two sessions that I have been involved in this issue. We certainly wouldn't be here today without the tremendous work of the staff as well as the leadership of then-Chairman Davis, now-Ranking Member Davis, and current Chairman Waxman. So I appreciate everyone's participation in moving this very important issue forward.

This truly is about doing right by our courageous Federal employees who are willing to come forward when they see wrong and do right on behalf of their fellow citizens.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 985. It is important for any number of reasons. The bipartisan nature of this bill itself is I think in many ways reason enough. We have reached across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that we do what is right for the American public, for the traveling public and for the safety of all of us.

Mr. Chairman, as an intelligence officer myself, I know full well from firsthand experience the importance of having lines of communication open so the right information is getting to decisionmakers, and that right information can often include telling us what is not going right, what has gone wrong and how we can fix it.

It is vital that people have the opportunity and avenues and conduits through which they can give good information, information when things are going well and information when things are not going well. All of this ultimately makes us a safer, stronger Nation. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 985.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the Merit Systems Protection Board to rely on a consistent standard for clear and convincing evidence, which is the burden of proof that must be met to sustain an agency's affirmative defense that it would have taken the same personnel action in question independent of an employee's protected contact.

Under the amendment, clear and convincing evidence will be defined as ``evidence indicating that the matter to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.'' This standard is consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and administrative decisions for remedial employment statutes.

By way of background, when Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, it intended to toughen the legal burden of proof for a Federal agency's affirmative defense once a whistleblower establishes a prima facie case of retaliation from ``preponderance of the evidence'' to ``clear and convincing evidence.'' However, just the opposite has occurred. The clear and convincing evidence standard is now the primary basis cited to rule against whistleblowers in decisions on merits.

The reason behind this is that the Merit Systems Protection Board has created a unique test for clear and convincing evidence which is inconsistent with long-established judicial and administrative norms. In assessing the standard, the board considers three factors:

First, the merits of an agency's stated independent justification for acting against a whistleblower; second, whether there was a motive to retaliate; and third, whether the action reflects discriminatory treatment compared to that afforded employees who have not engaged in protective conduct.

The three-part test leaves the board with broad discretion in any given case with respect to how many criteria an agency must demonstrate and what level of proof must be demonstrated for each factor.

Adoption of this amendment is necessary in order to restore congressional intent in passing the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Through the WPA and this legislation we are now considering, Congress has defined the terms for two of the three tests an employee must pass to obtain relief: ``reasonable belief'' and ``contributing factor.'' For the administrative process to function as intended, Congress must also define ``clear and convincing evidence.''

Accordingly, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I appreciate this amendment being made in order by the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns raised and certainly will keep them in mind as we move forward with this process today and in the weeks and months to come.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's support and words in support of this amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment is intended to address situations in which an employee faces retaliation for being associated with whistleblowers through his or her testimony in a legal proceeding, and to encourage cooperation with Inspector General and Office of Special Counsel investigations, as well as compliance with the law.

Oddly, under current law, whistleblowers who make their disclosures of waste, fraud or abuse in the context of another employee's legal appeal, a grievance hearing, an Inspector General or Office of Special Counsel investigation are not given the same protections as other whistleblowers, such as those who blow the whistle on national television. This simply does not make sense.

My amendment would rectify this situation in three ways. First, the amendment would clarify that a protected disclosure cannot be disqualified because of the forum in which it is made, such as through witness testimony in another employee's appeal.

Second, the amendment would establish more realistic burdens of proof, the same as exist in most whistleblower cases, for those who were retaliated against because they testified on behalf of an employee exercising their legal rights, because they cooperated with an Inspector General or Special Counsel investigation, or because they refused to obey an order that would have required a violation of the law.

And third, the amendment gives these whistleblowers access to the same due process rights as other whistleblowers.

Testifying under oath, cooperating with an Inspector General or Special Counsel investigation, and refusing orders to violate the law are all important ways by which public servants can expose waste, fraud and abuse in the government. Accordingly, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to again recognize the ranking member, the past several terms as the chairman of the Government Reform Committee. He and his staff have been instrumental in moving this issue forward and working with my staff and members on the other side as well, and want to recognize him and his staff for their great work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2 and the previous vote by voice on that amendment be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question on adopting the amendment de novo.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, the adoption of this amendment would help to ensure sufficient competition among the designers and manufacturers of water and wastewater treatment equipment across the country. It is premised on the idea that small firms ought to have the same chance at bidding on a project as large firms. In addition, with there being a critical need to upgrade our water and sewer infrastructure, requiring States to ensure a full and open competition would likely reduce the cost of the program and help finance additional and much needed projects.

This amendment would simply provide that, ``No specification for bids shall be written in such a manner as to contain proprietary, exclusionary or discriminatory requirements other than those based upon performance, unless such requirements are necessary to test or demonstrate a specific thing or to provide for necessary interchangeability of parts and equipment.''

The amendment further provides that, ``When in the judgment of the grantee, it is impractical or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements, a 'brand name or equal' description may be used as a means to define the performance or other salient requirements of a procurement, and in doing so the grantee may not establish existence of any source other than the brand or source so named.''

The language found in this amendment is the same competition requirement that was applied to grants provided under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. While not identical, it is also very similar to a competition requirement adopted by my home State of Pennsylvania for its revolving fund.

I appreciate the Rules Committee having made the amendment in order, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of the amendment and the work of his staff, as well as the ranking member of the full committee and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. And, again, I appreciate their consideration and acceptance of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Phyllis C. Campbell, who will retire from the Defense' Logistics Agency's, DLA, Defense Distribution Center, DDC, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, on March 3, 2007. Ms. Campbell's distinguished government career spans 40 years, and her record of achievement during this period reflects greatly upon herself and upon the organizations with which she has served. Her contributions to the national defense will be missed as she moves on to new and exciting opportunities.

Ms. Campbell was appointed to the Senior Executive Service position of deputy commander, DDC in July 1998. The DDC is DLA's Lead Center for distribution and has management responsibility for 26 military distribution centers around the world.

Ms. Campbell hails from Steelton, Pennsylvania and has followed a varied career of increasing responsibility culminating in her appointment as deputy commander. In 1966, she entered the Federal service in the Transportation Division at Defense Distribution Depot

Ogden, Utah, and in 1973, was selected into the Depot's Management Intern Program. In 1979, Ms. Campbell became a supply systems analyst in the newly formed Defense System Automation Center, DSAC, which later became the DLA System Design Center, DSDC. In 1982, she returned to the Ogden installation, becoming branch chief with responsibility for all operations and administrative systems and procedures. In 1985, Ms. Campbell was promoted to division chief, assuming additional responsibility for a $30 million depot modernization program. In 1989, Ms. Campbell reached a career benchmark with her selection as deputy director, Office of Technology and Information Services.

In 1990, Ms. Campbell was selected by the Office of Secretary of Defense, OSD, to be the deputy for the Corporate Information Management Distribution prototype group. This group was chartered to develop a standard distribution system for use throughout the Department of Defense. In 1991, Ms. Campbell was reassigned to DLA's Defense Distribution Systems Center as its business manager. Ms. Campbell was instrumental in selecting the migration system for deployment to the then 30 DLA distribution sites. In 1993, Ms. Campbell returned to the OSD Comptroller's Office of Financial Review and Analysis. From 1995 until her appointment to deputy commander, she served as director, Distribution Operations with the Defense Distribution Center.

Ms. Campbell attended Weber State University and is the recipient of numerous special achievement and performance awards including the 2005 Presidential Distinguished Executive Rank Award, the 2002 Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Award, the Distinguished Order of Saint Martin, and the Military Ancient Order of Saint Christopher award in recognition of her contributions to transportation initiatives.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Phyllis C. Campbell on her retirement from Federal civil service. She epitomizes the dedication and professionalism that make our Federal government a model all over the world.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to first take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude and deep respect for our troops and civilians serving in harm's way. I have had the privilege of visiting our troops in Iraq on four occasions and Afghanistan twice, and they and their families are truly the heroes in America.

I rise today in opposition to this resolution, a resolution that seeks to maintain the status quo, in essence, to stay the course, a scenario that everyone agrees is unacceptable. This resolution offers no alternative strategy.

As we consider the challenges in Iraq, we need to remember and learn from the lessons of Afghanistan. In the 1980s, we supported the people of Afghanistan in defeating the Soviets, helping throw the Soviets out of that country. In 1989, when that happened, what did we do? We walked away. We did not finish the job. We did not help the people of Afghanistan to stand up a secure and stable government. Instead, we walked away. Who filled the vacuum? The Taliban, and ultimately al Qaeda, a safe haven for them to plan attacks against America and its interests.

In 1989, I imagine that few Americans believed that what went on in the mountains of Afghanistan would impact the lives of Americans here at home. On September 11, 2001, in a tragic fashion we learned that that was the case, that what went on in Afghanistan mattered here at home. We cannot afford to make the same mistake now in Iraq, to allow Iraq to become a safe haven for al Qaeda and other enemies of our Nation and our citizens.

The Iraq Study Group offered a comprehensive approach to the challenges of Iraq. It included political, diplomatic, and military options. As part of the military proposal, it dismissed increasing our troop levels by 100,000 to 200,000 troops, saying it was not feasible and would lend to the argument of an occupation.

However, the Iraq Study Group did support more limited troop reinforcements. And I quote from the Iraq Study Group report: ``We could, however, support a short-term deployment or a surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the United States commander in Iraq determined that such steps would be effective.''

The report goes on to dismiss the idea of an immediate withdrawal. Well, our commander in Iraq today, General Petraeus, an individual confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate, is on record supporting the need for these additional reinforcements.

Ultimately, the key to long-term success in Iraq is the Iraqi people themselves. They need to show the ability and the will to stand up and secure their emerging democracy. Having liberated Iraq from a regime of terror and torture, our role today is to assist the Iraqis in achieving a stable and secure nation. This reinforcement effort is part of that effort, along with regional diplomatic efforts and internal Iraqi political reconciliation efforts. We are now in the role of helping the Iraqis help themselves. We cannot forget the lessons of Afghanistan and walk away.

I urge a ``no'' vote

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, I certainly support the underlying goal of this legislation about making higher education more affordable for our citizens, and I plan to support this legislation to move the process forward because it is an important goal we are after.

I know from personal experience the importance of student loans. I am probably one of the few Members of this Chamber that was elected while still paying for student loans. In fact, my wife and I could not have afforded our undergraduate degrees and our graduate degrees without the support of grants and loans, and we were delighted when we were able to pay the loans back a few short years ago.

While I support the underlying goal, however, I need to raise concerns about the manner in which we are attacking this issue and some of the substance of the issue.

First, the process. This bill has not been allowed to have committee hearings. There has been no opportunity for amendments in committee, and certainly no opportunity for amendments here on the floor. In fact, we have a closed rule, no amendments. If we had followed regular order and taken this bill through the committee process, we could have taken a bill with a good intent and made it a good piece of legislation on behalf of all of our Nation's citizens and done even better than we will do today.

I also need to address the failure of this legislation to address the reason that students are in need of more and higher student loans, the reason they need to borrow more and more, and that is ever-increasing tuition rates.

To the great credit of the distinguished gentleman from California, in previous years we sought to address that issue. He led the charge to try to work with the institutions of higher education across this country to be reasonable, to be responsible. This legislation does not address that at all.

I am often surprised when higher education institutions lobby for greater loan limits, and they don't disclose to their students the reason that they need higher loans is because those very institutions keep raising their tuition rates. This bill does not address that unfortunately.

I am also very disappointed that this bill does not address the ability of students to get into colleges, those up-front costs and the initial costs. This is about graduates who are in repayment. It does not help new students to help families get their children into school.

Unlike the Deficit Reduction Act, and this was addressed earlier by one of the previous speakers, that legislation actually gave additional assistance to students in going to school, significantly higher grant program amounts, I think over $5 billion in new grant programs; lower loan fees that the distinguished gentleman from California addressed, from 4 percent to 1 percent; higher loan limits for those early years of college.

It made it more affordable for students, especially low- and middle- class family students, to get into college and to pay their bills as they were in college. This bill does not address that.

Finally, while I certainly support the pay-as-you-go approach and voted in favor of that reform this past week, this bill achieves that goal in a gimmick fashion. The way it spreads out

the reduction and pays for this is not true pay-as-you-go. And I think if we are going to do right by our citizens, in this case by those seeking and getting higher education opportunities, we need to make the tough decisions and truly pay for what we are providing in assistance.

I will vote in favor of this legislation to move the process forward, but I hope as it moves forward and we get to work with the Senate, that we will do much better in truly assisting the students who are trying to get into school or who are in school now with the cost of higher education. If we do so, as we have done in the past in some important ways with the Deficit Reduction Act, we truly will be about helping our Nation's students.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Resolution 745. This resolution will help to increase awareness about a horrible disease: pancreatic cancer.

Few Americans may understand that pancreatic cancer is a horrific killer. This year alone, over 33,000 people will be diagnosed with this disease. Because there are no early detection tools for this cancer, 99 percent of those diagnosed will lose their lives.

Many Americans are not aware that pancreatic cancer has the highest mortality rate of all cancers; most patients only survive three to six months after diagnosis. This is why it is a moral imperative for Congress to work to increase awareness of this deadly cancer.

Currently, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (known as ``PanCAN'') is the only national advocacy organization available for pancreatic cancer patients and their families and friends. I became aware of PanCAN through a constituent of mine, Bob Hammen, who lost his wife to this terrible disease. PanCAN provides patient support and professional education about this disease, while coordinating advocacy programs to focus national attention on finding a cure for pancreatic cancer.

PanCAN regards each November as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. With the passage of H. Res. 745, Congress will be supporting PanCAN's efforts to raise awareness about pancreatic cancer so that scientific advancements can lead to some early detection programs and effective treatments.

Mr. Speaker, because all of our fellow citizens have family, friends and neighbors who are regrettably vulnerable to this dreaded disease, I urge support from my distinguished colleagues for this resolution here today.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 178 which occurred on May 22, 2006, regarding H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001 remains a day of both indescribable tragedy and awe-inspiring heroism in our Nation's mind. We mourn for the victims of the terrorist attacks that day, and keep their families in our prayers. But we also remember the heroism displayed by so many.

No one will forget, not ever, the courage seen on 9-11. Courage seen in the actions of firefighters and police officers, Pentagon employees, and everyday citizens. Courage seen by the choices these heroes made-- to rush to the aid of others, to enter into burning buildings, to resist the hijackers of Flight 93. Many who work in the Capitol Building, both Members of Congress and staff, remember well that this symbol of democracy was most likely a target too--a target avoided only because of the heroes of Flight 93. We owe these heroes more than words can provide. We owe all these heroes more than words can provide.

We are fortunate that five years have passed without another terrorist strike on our own soil. We owe this to all those on the front lines of the War on Terror--in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. We should remember them, and their service, on this day too. We should ensure they are well-equipped, have the tools needed for their mission, and are properly recognized. They stand on the line for us--on behalf of life and hope, against an ideology that embraces death and hate.

The heroism of 9-11 is now part of what Lincoln called ``the mystic chords of memory.'' As time passes, the partisan disagreements of our day will fade into obscurity. But the heroism seen on 9-11 will not. Future generations of Americans, committed to the promise of a better world, united by the sacrifices of previous generations, will remember the heroes of September 11.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 861.

The debate we are having today serves as an important reminder to all Americans that we are a nation at war. This war is against an enemy that embraces hate and intolerance over liberty and justice. Like other wars in our history, the human and financial costs are high. We mourn the loss of each and every American who has made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation. All Americans are forever indebted to these courageous citizens and their families.

It is understandable that Americans worry for the safety of our troops and have doubts as reports of suicide bombings and other attacks air regularly on television. But as in the war against fascism in the 20th century and as demonstrated by the tragic attacks of 9/11, the stakes for our Nation and our democratic allies throughout the world could not be higher.

In place of the regimes of terror and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have duly elected constitutional governments, governments that are working to promote democracy in a region of the world that has rarely embraced it. The citizens of these nations have demonstrated their intense desire for freedom through their willingness to face down threats of violence and death in casting their votes in numerous national elections in both countries.

The global war on terrorism in the broad sense and the specific battles in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be won according to a specified timetable, and our enemy cannot be appeased. But we can and we will win this war because our cause is just and right. And winning this war will ensure that the democratic gains made in Iraq and Afghanistan are not lost.

The security of our Nation and its citizens, along with the defense of the ideals of freedom, democracy, and justice, is what is at stake in this global struggle of good over evil. This struggle requires us to go beyond Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, just as previous generations did to defeat the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. And in the words of President Roosevelt at the beginning of World War II, it means going forward with ``confidence in our Armed Forces, with the unbounding determination of our people'' in order to ``gain the inevitable triumph.''

May God watch over our troops serving in harm's way, and may God continue to bless our great Nation, the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 861 and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

The debate we are having today serves as an important reminder to all Americans that we are a nation at war. This war is against an enemy that embraces hate and intolerance over life and liberty. Like other wars in our history, the human and financial costs are high. We mourn the loss of each and every American who has made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation. All Americans are forever indebted to these courageous citizens and their families.

It is understandable that Americans worry for the safety of our troops and have doubts as reports of suicide bombings and other attacks air regularly on television. But, as in the war against fascism in the 20th century, and as demonstrated by the tragic attacks of 9-11, the stakes for our nation and our democratic allies throughout the world could not be higher.

I have traveled to Afghanistan twice and Iraq four times over the past four and one-half years. During these visits, there have been two constants that have instilled confidence in me about our mission and progress in these countries.

First is the professionalism, courage, and sense of duty displayed by our men and women in uniform. Whenever you thank our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen for their service, they humbly reply, ``I'm just doing my job.''

Their job, of course, is to protect our way of life. To protect the lives of our nation's citizens and the principles for which our great nation stands.

Our troops have removed truly brutal regimes from power in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They have denied terrorists two safe havens. They have eliminated the threat that a murderous dictator who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people--a dictator who continued to defy United Nations resolutions and shoot at American planes enforcing the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq--would again produce and brandish such weapons once international support for sanctions broke down.

Our men and women in uniform are building schools and roads, training police and soldiers, and hunting down terrorists. They are fighting al- Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq so we don't have to fight them here at home. They are helping the Iraqi security forces stand up so we can stand down.

In place of the regimes of terror and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have duly elected constitutional governments. Governments that are working to promote democracy in a region of the world that has rarely embraced it. The citizens of these nations have demonstrated their intense desire for freedom through their willingness to face down threats of violence and death in casting their votes in numerous national elections in both countries.

The devotion to duty of our men and women in uniform is truly inspiring. The sacrifices of these patriotic Americans on the front lines of the Global War on Terrorism, as well as the sacrifices of their family members on the home front, have earned the respect, admiration, and eternal gratitude of all Americans, as well as that of 50 million Afghani and Iraqi citizens who are free today because of the troops' successes.

The second constant in my visits to Afghanistan and Iraq is the genuine gratefulness expressed by the Iraqi and Afghani people for our nation's actions in liberating them and giving them a chance at freedom. Again and again, what I heard was simply: ``Thank you for liberating our citizens.''

On my first visit to Iraq, I met with the Mayor of Kirkuk, Abdul Rehman Mustafa, and other Kirkuk city leaders. Mayor Mustafa specifically asked my colleagues and me, upon our return home, to thank our nation's mothers and fathers for their willingness to support their children, our troops, in going into harm's way to defeat Saddam Hussein and thus liberate Iraq and its citizens. In the words of Dr. Kemal Kirkuki, one of Mayor Mustafa's colleagues on the Kirkuk City Council, ``This was not a war against Iraq. It was a war to liberate Iraq.''

On another trip, I met with a group of Iraqi women leaders, including Safia Taleb al-Suhail. This group of female government and private sector leaders exemplifies the transformation of Iraq from a nation ruled by terror and torture to one in which men and women alike have constitutional rights and opportunities. Safia shared with me how her late father, an opponent of Saddam Hussein, was killed in 1994 while living in exile in Lebanon by Saddam's intelligence service. Ten years later, Safia was named Iraq's Ambassador to Egypt.

The general consensus of these Iraqi women leaders was that they couldn't wait for the day when our and all Coalition troops could return home and Iraq did not need the military assistance of other nations. These Iraqi women leaders emphasized, however, how glad they were that our and the other Coalition troops were there ensuring the freedom of all Iraqis.

On my most recent trip to Iraq, I observed and met with Iraqi soldiers undergoing basic training. There are now over 260,000 Iraqis trained and equipped to fight the insurgency. Iraqis like those I met with at the East Fallujah training camp continue to stand in line and volunteer for service in Iraqi military and police units, even though they know that said service makes them a likely target for the insurgents. The Iraqi soldiers I met expressed their deep thanks for what our troops have done in their country.

The Global War on Terrorism in the broad sense and the specific battles in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be won according to a specified timetable, and our enemy cannot be appeased. But we can and will win this war because our cause is just and right. And winning this war will ensure the democratic gains made in Afghanistan and Iraq are not lost. Winning this war will also have a far-reaching and critically important impact in other Middle East countries.

The security of our nation and its citizens, along with the defense of the ideals of freedom, democracy, and justice, is what is at stake in this global struggle of good over evil. This struggle requires us to go beyond Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative--just as previous generations did to defeat the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. And, in the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the beginning of the Second World War, it means going forward, ``with confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people,'' in order to ``gain the inevitable triumph.''

May God watch over our troops serving in harm's way, and may God continue to bless our great nation--the United States of America.