Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has ensured the public's access to Government records. The 1966 act replaced the old ``need to know'' standard with today's ``right to know'' practice, placing the burden on the government to justify any need for secrecy. However, the FOIA process has recently struggled to keep up with the public's demand for documents. Since 2002, FOIA requests have increased 71 percent. This additional volume has delayed the processing of some requests.

Not long ago, President Bush signed an Executive Order to make FOIA operations more citizen-centric and results-oriented by requiring every agency to name a Chief FOIA Officer, establish a FOIA Requester Service Center, identify underperforming areas, and formulate a plan to implement improvements.

Legislation designed to streamline and improve the FOIA process was introduced last Congress by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. His bill had moved through subcommittee to the full committee, with the assistance of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts. The Executive Order adopted many of the process improvements contained in that bill.

The Majority took this bill and made additional changes, moving beyond process reforms.

First, the attorney's fee provision appears to lower the bar attorney's fees eligibility. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, and it appears some want to codify old, more lucrative, law. We should take a close look at this provision. There is a great deal of talk about freedom of information, and open Government, and the public right to know. But I hope when we scratch the surface of this bill, it is not about money.

Second, the Majority has listened to vocal special interest complaints about the so-called Ashcroft memo, and is attempting to codify the policies of former Attorney General Reno. I hope we can come to real bipartisan agreement on this provision as we move forward.

Improving the procedural aspects of FOIA should be our goal here today. It is something we all agree on. Although the debate on the appropriate balance between open access and protected records will continue, I trust we will find a way to balance National Security with the vital principles of open Government.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation establishes a statutory process under which incumbent and former Presidents could, within specified time limits, review records prior to their release, and determine whether to personally assert constitutional privilege claims against release of the records.

This legislation is identical to legislation introduced in a prior Congress and approved by the Committee under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton.

During consideration of the bill before us, the Committee approved my amendment to close a loophole in the Presidential Records Act. Current law allows those individuals previously convicted of a crime relating to mishandling Archives records to continue to have special access to Presidential records. My amendment states that the Archivist shall not make available any original Presidential records to any individual claiming access as a designated representative under statute, if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of Archives records.

As I noted in Committee, we should take the simple step of blocking access to original Presidential records if you've been convicted of crime related to Archives records.

Mr. Speaker our Nation's Presidential libraries are a priceless resource for researchers, historians, and the public. They serve as legacies to our Presidents, repositories of history, and a source of tremendous pride for local communities. At the same time, they have become elaborate institutions, housing official papers, museums, classrooms, conference facilities, and even gift shops.

With this expansion, however, come additional costs. As the costs increase, so does the pressure to raise private funds. But under current law, those contributions do not need to be disclosed.

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, worked to close this loophole. He has been a leader on this issue, drafting and moving legislation to an overwhelming House vote.

But we should keep politics out of this. The bill before us applies to the current President and future Presidents. I offered an amendment in Committee to make this law effective for the next elected President. I hope we again will resist inserting politics into a bill the House passed by a vote of 392 to 3.

With this legislation we are recognizing the perception of impropriety that contributions to a presidential library can raise. We don't need to re-open old wounds or begin inflicting new ones today. Presidents leave their mark on our rich history, and those giving to presidential libraries should be proud to have their donations publicly disclosed.

Mr. Speaker, our goal should be a unanimous vote on the House floor-- anything less is a step back. I know my colleagues will agree: The cost of building presidential libraries: millions. The value of disclosing contributions to those libraries: priceless.

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

I rise today to speak on H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, which was introduced by Government Oversight and Reform chairman Henry Waxman last week. I want to thank the chairman for working with us.

This is not a bill that we are particularly enthusiastic about. We have very divergent views in the way we should go about contract regulation, but we both want the same ends. And I want to commend him for working with us, addressing some of our concerns as it moved through the committee process.

This bill would attempt to reform our acquisition system through a series of restrictions and reports geared towards greater regulation and oversight. More specifically, the legislation would limit the duration of contracts awarded under urgent conditions; require agency reports on minimizing the use of fixed-price and sole-source contracts; require additional reports to Congress on cost questions by auditors; and broaden the reach of current limitations on post-employment opportunities for our acquisition workforce, as well as limit the ability of acquisition workers hired by the government from the private sector to participate in certain acquisition activities.

I want to thank the chairman again for working with me by including two provisions that we requested that are both intended to strengthen the Federal acquisition workforce through better training and management. The first would require the administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to come up with a government-wide definition for ``acquisition workforce.'' This modification would help give Federal agencies a clear picture of the composition of their existing acquisition workforce and provide a baseline for the improvement of the human capital resource dedicated to the management of the acquisition workload. The second would make permanent the Acquisition Workforce Training Fund, which was first enacted under SARA, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, which I authored.

Last week our committee revised the introduced version of the bill by approving an amendment I offered to address the concerns I had with the bill's expansion of post-employment restrictions. While I wholeheartedly support the desire to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in government, I was troubled by certain provisions in the bill which sought to significantly expand current post- employment restrictions and curb the government's capability to take advantage of the valuable technical abilities and skills of former private-sector employees.

At a time when we need to be looking for ways to retain qualified acquisition personnel, too many of whom are approaching retirement age, while at the same time looking for effective ways to

recruit new qualified people, the introduced version tried to instead impose new restrictions on these Federal employees. These restrictions would have had a detrimental impact on the executive branch's ability to recruit and retain the brightest and the best personnel for the acquisition workforce, something we can ill afford.

Our amendment shortened the bill's 2-year post-employment restrictions on contracting officers to 1 year and provided for a waiver of the restrictions on the ability of acquisition workers hired by the government from the private sector to participate in certain acquisition activities. My amendment also shortened the duration of the activity restrictions from 2 years to 1 year. While this language goes part way toward addressing my concerns about the negative effects such restrictions have had on the Federal Government's ability to recruit, hire, and retain the skilled acquisition workforce, I continue to have the same concerns.

The bottom line is that there are too many good people working for this government for us to pass onerous restrictions based on the misdeeds of a handful of employees. We need to promote the natural churn of employees between the public and private sector, instead of trying to stymie it. We can't, on the one hand, bemoan the quality of contract management, while on the other, create more obstacles to getting the people that we need to do the job.

In addition to the changes we made in committee last week, I am pleased to see the text of the bill that is on the floor today includes the good work of the Committee on Armed Services. That committee made significant improvements and clarifications to the underlying bill. The Armed Services Committee toned down some of the rhetoric in the bill. For example, by changing terms like ``limiting the abuse of abuse-prone contracts'' to ``improving the quality of contracts.''

More substantively, the Armed Services Committee raised the threshold of the report on preliminary audits of contractor costs from $1 million to $10 million. Nonetheless, I remain concerned a report like this, even at the higher threshold and the limitation to significant contractor costs, still presents a distorted and incomplete picture of the management of cost-type contracts. Contract auditors are critical cogs in the management system. They write audit reports which are submitted to aid the contracting officer in making his final determination whether particular costs are reasonable and consistent with applicable law and the contract terms and, therefore, permitted or what we call ``allowable under the contract.'' It is the outcome of the oversight process, not just the first phase, that we should be reviewing. If we want an accurate picture of costs actually billed to the government which the contracting officer determined the government will not pay, the unallowables, then we might learn something. But that is not what this bill does. The bill would only burden agencies with another meaningless reporting requirement and, I might add, add fodder up here for Members to take this review and make something of it that is probably not accurate.

Each year our Federal contract professionals use the acquisition system to purchase almost $400 billion worth of goods and services, ranging from paper clips to advanced weapons system, from sophisticated information technology and management services to grass cutting and window washing. Recent reforms, culminating in our Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, have modernized the way the government does business with the private sector. No longer is our government laden with inflexible, timely, and costly acquisition systems. Legislative efforts over the past decade have provided many of the tools necessary for our acquisition professionals to get the job done.

Unfortunately, the Federal acquisition system has been under stress in recent years because of the extraordinary pressures of a shrinking workforce, combined with the unprecedented Hurricane Katrina disaster relief and recovery efforts, the enormous job of managing contractors who provide logistical support for our troops in Iraq, and overseeing the daunting task of building an Iraqi infrastructure. To no one's surprise, this strain has resulted in a series of management problems that have been exaggerated by the press and exploited by opponents of the system.

Nevertheless, the system has worked pretty well, and the vast majority of the government's acquisitions have been conducted properly. The problems have largely been the result of management difficulties exacerbated by an overburdened and understaffed workforce, combined with improper actions by a handful of officials.

Frankly, Madam Chairman, I don't think that controls, reports, procedures and restrictions in this bill will go very far in addressing the challenges that face us today. Reverting to the bloated system of the past, weighted down with a process-oriented system doesn't help the government acquire the best valuable goods and services the commercial market has to offer and our government so desperately needs in a timely manner. Reverting to the past, under the rubric of fraud, waste and abuse and cleaning up the system may provide flashy sound bites and play well back home, but it doesn't give us the world-class acquisition system that we need to compete in the 21st century.

We have put the current system to the test in some of the most difficult environments imaginable: Hurricane Katrina reconstruction and Iraqi logistics and contracting and reconstruction. The failures which occurred have been rooted in the inadequacies of management and implementation.

And yet the Rules Committee, in looking at the Armed Services Committee report and ours, took out the provision that had the 1 percent additional funding for some of the management and implementation dollars that could have gone into training.

As legislators, we should resist the temptation to micromanage our acquisition system based on unproven anecdotes of failure and misconduct. More controls and procedures will not remedy poorly defined requirements or provide us with a sufficient number of Federal acquisition personnel with the right skills to select the best contractor and manage the subsequent performance.

Why should we force the taxpayers and private entities to undergo unreasonable burdens so politicians can reap short-term gain at the expense of crippling an already overburdened acquisition system and workforce?

It is for these reasons, Madam Chairman, we find this bill has sufficient shortcomings. These shortcomings are shared by the administration in their statement on administration policy in the ITAA, and I will discuss those as the debate goes further.

Finally, let me just say, this country, over the years, has had the debate over what is the appropriate role of oversight, how much is too much. But we need an acquisition system that works. And sometimes we spend so much in our rules and regulations, making sure somebody doesn't steal anything, that they can't do much of anything else either; and we get a system that is burdened and that does not create the efficiencies that we need to more forward. Once again, one of the greater issues that divide the chairman and myself is our philosophies on contracting. But I want to just commend him for working with us on this bill to try to get to where it is today. I know this is important to him.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for a unanimous consent request.

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

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 1362, which would impose a new statutory ban on how the government uses acquisition personnel and would restrict the executive branch's ability to determine the appropriate funding for acquisition workforce functions.

That is what they say on their statement on administration policy. We also note that other provisions would impose burdensome statutory requirements that overlap with more efficient administrative efforts to strengthen the use of competition and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

The administration also feels that this legislation would limit the Federal Government's ability to tap technical expertise of Federal employees who are former contractor employees.

Frankly, we need the best and the brightest overseeing these contracts. As I take a look at contracts that have failed, a lot of it is due to the fact that we have not had appropriate oversight within the executive branch, and being able to get the best and the brightest is a very, very critical component to this. These restrictions, the administration feels, would lower the quality of procurement, solicitations, and analyses and would significantly harm the executive branch's ability to recruit and retain the experienced procurement officials from the private sector to close skill gaps and strengthen the overall capabilities of the acquisition workforce.

The administration also is concerned with the new requirement in the bill that would impose exhaustive quarterly reporting on every significant contract management deficiency at the contractor and subcontractor levels. This requirement will interfere with agencies' abilities to address and resolve contract performance problems in a timely manner.

The Information Technology Association of America in Arlington, Virginia says: The Association joined with other members of the Acquisition Reform Working Group in pointing out flaws in H.R. 1362, while saying that such significant legislation deserves the same light- of-day and careful consideration as do the major government contracts that the majority seeks to control.

They note that the title of the bill alone mistakenly implies a lack of accountability for government contractors under current law. Their president, Phil Bond, notes that ``to the contrary, there is already abundant chapter and verse to bring best value to government and to protect the interest of taxpayers. What is really needed is better application of existing regulations by a fully staffed professional Federal acquisition corps working with responsible government contractors.''

The letter also points out to committee leaders that many of the contracting issues now being addressed are ``symptoms of the shortages of manpower and training for adequate contract management.'' And they note that ``the government can't retain personnel and fill existing job openings in the acquisition workforce.''

They also joined the working group in taking issue with the sections of the bill regarding disclosure of government contractor overcharges. While agreeing that the proper use and oversight of government contracts is paramount, they dispute any need for quarterly reports to Congress on contract charges that are adjudicated by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the DCAA. They note that these are unnecessary provisions and would force significant

investment and government resources and additional burdens on acquisition personnel. So the ITAA comes out against it.

They also note that another section of the bill that seeks more restrictive cost reimbursement-type contracts is also unnecessary and potentially harmful. They note that such contracts typically are used when uncertainties and risks are high, as in emergency situations, and development programs when it is not feasible to set a fixed price for the work required. The Federal Acquisitions Regulations, the FAR, already establishes detailed criteria for proper selection of contract type, including limitations on the use of cost-type contracts ``for use only when uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to suit any type of fixed price contract.''

Madam Chairwoman, if we want to fix the Federal contracting system, the appropriate way is to hire, train, retrain, and pay well our acquisition personnel so that they have a toolbox of acquisition options to use to get the best deal for the government in every case, get the best value for the government. The taxpayers' dollars are at stake here, and their role ought to be to make sure the taxpayer dollars are spent most efficiently.

Adding burdens and layers and layers of regulatory reports do nothing to help that situation at all, and in many cases it can be very misleading as these burdens come out and we start taking out DCAA reports that have nothing to do with final adjudications of how these work. We already, by the way, have access to that information in Congress. What we don't have access to information is, and one of the things we would have liked to include, is to take final adjudications on costs that were deemed allowable and see what those costs are per contractor. That could have helped us in ferreting out which contractors are using these items. But this legislation does little to remedy those situations, unfortunately.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

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

Let me start by saying we all want to limit the use of no-bid contracts. These go back of course to the Revolutionary War, where the troops were marching and they needed food and there is one farmer around. And you can't go out to bid to see who is going to sell you the lowest corn; you take what is there. But they should be limited, because competition is the cornerstone of our contracting system.

Let me go through some of the assertions that are made in support of the bill and give my thoughts.

Assertion one is that spending on sole source and other noncompetitive contracts has more than doubled over the last 5 years. And although spending has increased significantly over the last 5 years, it is due largely to 9/11 and Katrina. The total dollars competed is a percentage of total dollars available for competition. It has remained relatively constant between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, between 61 and 64 percent, according to the FPDS.

This notwithstanding, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator will be seeking to help in the leadership of the CAOs to reinvigorate through administrative means the use of competition and related practice for achieving a competitive environment. The role of competition advocates should be revived, with special emphasis on planning and execution in the management of hard-to-task and delivery orders.

There is an assertion that over the last 5 years the administration has jeopardized taxpayer interests and squandered hundreds of millions of dollars by giving private contractors exclusive control over huge portions of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Frankly, DOD is giving increased attention to contingency contracting, including training for acquisition and program personnel and standard operating procedures. The Department of Defense and other agencies have recognized the need to increase the number of prepositioned, competitively awarded contracts to address contingencies. Also, the Department of Defense has several audit agencies including the Defense Audit Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency working in theater to monitor the contracts and resources.

Another assertion that comes from the other side is that this administration has justified the award of lucrative sole source contracts by citing urgent and compelling needs but then allowed these contracts to continue years after the emergency has passed.

The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the CAOC, has established an Emergency Response and Recovery Working Group to improve access to information that can assist the acquisition workforce in planning for and addressing emergencies. The working group created a community of practice Web site, accessible at http://acc.dau.mil/emergencyresponse, so that agencies can share information about their policies and procedures, their best practices, their training resources, and other information of interest. For example, the site provides a link to the Emergency Acquisition Field Guide developed by FEMA so other agencies can learn about and adopt, as appropriate, practices employed by FEMA for performing specific assignments or functions in an emergency acquisition environment.

The emergency response and recovery Web site includes a list of interagency contracts that offer the types of supplies and services that were required by agencies to address disaster recovery for Katrina and 9/11, such as communications equipment, fuel and transportation, pharmaceuticals, portable shelters, generators, tarps, bottled water, and emergency meals. The GSA has established a disaster relief and emergency preparedness homepage that provides a quick reference guide to offerings on its Multiple Award Schedules that can be suitable for addressing readiness, intervention, counteractive solutions, or post- emergency logistics.

Another assertion is that cost reimbursement-type contracts leave the taxpayer vulnerable to wasteful spending by providing contractors with little or no incentive to control costs. Between 2000 and 2005, the use of this type of contract has risen 75 percent.

Frankly, according to the FPDS again, the total government spending on contracts has increased considerably, roughly at the same percentage as the increases in cost-type contracts stated above. From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, total spending increased from $219 billion to $380 billion.

But cost-type contracts play a useful and necessary role in contracting when uncertainties involved in contract performance don't permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract. And the contractors get caught on these many times when they move ahead and they estimate it to be one thing and then the needs of the contract change and they end up having to advance costs. So cost-type contracts in these types of situations are proven useful, but they are only good when they get the appropriate oversight from the procurement officers. And we don't address that underlying issue in a significant way in this legislation.

Agencies such as NASA rely on cost-type contracts for critical R&D work, such as planetary science and exploration missions, systems development operation support in physical engineering, and life sciences. In the early 1980s, there was a push towards fixed-price contracts for R&D to address failed major programs, cost overruns. But ultimately Congress passed legislation requiring a secretarial approval for contracts over $25 million. DOD regulations preclude award of a fixed-price contract for a development program unless the level of program risk permits realistic pricing and the use of a fixed-price type contract allows an equitable and sensible allocation of program risk between the government and the contractor.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for just one comment?

Let me just note that on the bills on the Presidential records, the library, the whistleblowers, Mr. Waxman and his staff have worked very well with us. And the record should show that the reason we got such big bipartisan majority was their willingness to bend back and our ability to work back and forth. And I want to, again, commend him.

We have other differences on this bill which is close to my heart that I think he understands and we understand; but even here they have worked with us. And I think the record should note that they have gone out of their way and we appreciate that.

I yield myself 1 minute to note again the reason for the rise in sole-source contracts has been emergencies like 9/11 and Katrina, under which the exigencies which government is faced with at that point to meet in a timely manner doesn't allow you to go out in these cases for a wide swath of bids. But I think we share a common desire to bring more competition into government contracting.

I also want to note that at our committee hearing on February 8, the Inspector General, Richard Skinner, testified that the government's greatest exposure to fraud, waste and abuse is undoubtedly in the area of procurement. As already pointed out by members of this committee, he notes, the problem is not a new one. It dates back to the Federal Government's nearsighted policies in the early 1990s to reduce the Federal workforce. While acquisition management capabilities were being downsized, the procurement workload was on the rise.

I hope to continue to work with the gentleman as we focus on this acquisition workforce and give them the tools they need.

I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the committee, Mr. Turner.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Chairman, we fully support transparency and accountability in decision-making, but we need to remember we are asking for all of these audit reports that are only advisory in nature. They are not disposition. These are questioned costs, and contracting in a war zone or in an emergency often lacks appropriate documentation. But these are allowable costs.

I think to provide those to Congress not only gives you too much information, a lot of it can be misleading and can be misplayed.

Knowing that the results of an audit will be provided to Congress during the negotiation and the resolution process, which is what they are asking for, could unduly influence the impact the audit advice may have on the contracting officer's administrative determination. This inhibits their authority to appropriately and effectively resolve contracting issues using all of the relevant information available to them. This could also have the unintended effect of increasing the number of contract disputes.

But I know my colleague feels with a passion that we need to move ahead and do something of this order. I look forward to working with him on legislation on the acquisition workforce which we don't touch in this area. This legislation I think falls short of the promise, but I appreciate the willingness he has shown to work with us. We will address further issues later in our motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the offeror of the amendment just a clarification question before I yield.

For a company to have to disclose under this, it would be a foreign- owned company, I understand, that is based or has majority operations in a country described in subsection D. Any idea who that would apply to? I am just trying to figure out.

I am trying to figure out what companies this would apply to.

A foreign-owned company could be, if it is on the American Stock Exchange, that probably would not make it a foreign-owned company in all likelihood?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Let me just ask the author of the amendment, this would obviously apply, this is a list that evolves, as the Secretary of State certifies, is that correct?

I would assume that Iran, North Korea are probably on that list today?

Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, for example, would probably not be on that list today?

I am prepared to accept the amendment. I congratulate the gentleman for offering it.

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

Will the gentleman yield 30 seconds?

I will commend my friend from Delaware for offering this amendment. I would just say we are happy, and we are here to support it as well, and we think this adds to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This motion to recommit would bar Federal agencies from awarding contracts to colleges and universities that either prohibit on-campus military recruitment, or otherwise do not provide military recruiters access to campuses and to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access that is provided to any other employer.

On March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed a Federal appeals court ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. In doing so, eight Justices upheld the constitutionality of the so-called Solomon amendment, upon which this motion is based, forbidding most forms of Federal aid to higher educational institutions that deny military recruiters access to students equal to that provided other employers.

Mr. Speaker, military recruiters must be given access to university and college campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope provided to other employers.

This motion establishes that requirement government-wide. We already do this to some agencies in government. A number of Departments are already covered; but since this bill is government-wide in scope, we make this government-wide in scope.

This motion establishes that requirement, thereby addressing an apparent trend among certain colleges and universities to attempt to frustrate military recruiters through official and unofficial mistreatment.

Unfortunately, this growing trend is not isolated to the higher education community, as evidenced by the decision last November by the San Francisco Board of Education to phase out Junior ROTC from the high school system over the next 2 years. At a time of war, when we are depending on a volunteer military, it seems counterproductive to be openly discriminating against our military personnel and to create perceptions that military service is not a noble and professional calling.

The Department of Defense noting that certain colleges and universities continue to restrict access or limit opportunities for military recruiters to participate fully in job fairs, placement office services and interview programs, supports congressional efforts to take action to pass legislation granting military recruiters access equal to that of other employers.

The motion to recommit would help prod those colleges and universities that currently do not provide equal access to military recruiters.

We also, I want to note, have a clause in here that this prohibition does not apply to an institution of higher education or a sub-element if the Secretary of Defense determines that the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.

I urge my colleagues to support this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I would just add, 10 U.S.C. 983 already covers a number of agencies, the Department of Defense and others in terms of contracting and limitations that are put on colleges and universities that don't allow recruiters to come on campuses. This makes it government-wide.

This body has addressed this issue before. But I think it is time to make this government-wide, and I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, today, we take up the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007. This legislation would modernize, clarify, and expand the laws protecting Federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and mismanagement in the Federal Government.

At the outset, I think it is important to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts). Throughout this process, Mr. Platts has been an unwavering advocate for Federal employees. This bill would not exist today in this form if not for his steady leadership.

Almost immediately following the 1994 changes in the Whistleblower Protection Act, it became clear that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals would continue to create loopholes where no loopholes were intended and dilute protections for whistleblowers Congress clearly intended to protect.

This bill we are considering today develops a new regime governing whistleblower protections and offers fresh solutions to the continuing problem of employee retaliation. I am proud this legislation would allow Federal employees and contractor personnel to pursue their claims in the Federal district court, to be heard before a jury of their peers, if no action is taken by the Merit Systems Protection Board within 180 days.

Under current law, cases filed by employees who believe they have been retaliated against for blowing a whistle can sometimes end up languishing before the MSPB for years before a final decision is issued. H.R. 985 would change the process and allow Federal employees to reach resolution on this issue one way or the other.

I am disappointed, however, the Rules Committee did not make in order my amendment to remove from the bill language which would provide for an ``all circuits'' review of whistleblower claims.

My amendment would have tried to maintain the uniformity in the consideration of whistleblower cases in the Federal courts by keeping in place the current requirement that all whistleblower appeals go through the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, rather than opening up appeals to all circuits.

Without my amendment, Federal employee whistleblowers could end up possessing a different set of rights and protections based on where they file their claim. For example, a Border Patrol agent in Texas could be protected by a different set of whistleblower protections than a Border Patrol agent in Maine.

I think the underlying legislation already provides sufficient reforms to the whistleblower protection laws by revising the statute under which the Federal Circuit reviews whistleblower claims. Going further in this legislation, removing the requirement that all appeals must go through one Federal appeals court, is going to, in the long term, be counterproductive to our policies governing Federal employment.

I am also interested in the amendment dealing with national security whistleblowers Mr. Hoekstra filed at Rules, but was not made in order. While I supported the language Mr. Hoekstra's amendment sought to strike, I understand many members from the intelligence-related committees and officials in the intelligence community have concerns which I believe need to be addressed before this bill moves on to the Senate.

One additional concern I would like to mention is with section 13 of the bill. Section 13 would open a whole new area of personnel conflicts to whistleblower protections. This new language, added to the bill this year, would make influencing federally funded scientific research a prohibited personnel practice by specifically identifying the dissemination of false or misleading scientific or medical or technical information as an ``abuse of an authority'' that is actionable in Federal court.

Rather than acknowledging the natural and perfectly healthy tension that exists between science and policymaking, this section would submit the ``science versus ethics'' issue to the Federal courts to be litigated as a personnel issue.

Unlike many on the Democratic side of the aisle who believe only scientific findings should serve as the foundation for public policy and decisionmaking, I believe science is just one cog in the policy decisionmaking process. Science must be balanced against factors such as the morals of our society and the ethics of individual policymakers, as well as countless other policy considerations. As I have said before, I don't believe we should turn the tension between science and policymaking into a personnel matter that gets litigated by the courts.

In closing, I believe the underlying legislation makes a number of important positive contributions to Federal whistleblower policy, and I support this bill.

While I believe we can still make a few refinements to the bill to make it better, I applaud Mr. Platts' and Mr. Waxman's efforts to move this bill forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would amend the section of the bill dealing with the so-called ``politicization of science'' to say that Federal researchers and scientists are permitted to publicize the results of their federally funded research without any input from the agency paying their salaries and employing them.

First of all, I think it is inappropriate to shoehorn the debate about public policy influencing science into a bill about protecting whistleblowers. That is why I intend to support Mr. Sali's upcoming amendment to strike entirely the section which gives rise to this amendment.

Second, this amendment would make worse the provision in the underlying bill which would turn the natural tension between science and public policy into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts.

The whistleblower laws protecting Federal employees are intended to protect individuals retaliated against for exposing waste, fraud, or abuse in government. This amendment has nothing to do with waste, fraud, or abuse, it actually has to do with one person's opinion.

Instead, this amendment would give an individual Federal researcher who conducts research using taxpayer dollars the full discretion as to how and where to publicize his or her research, prohibiting the agency who financed the research and for whom the researcher works from even getting involved in that process.

If a Federal researcher conducts a study using Federal money and decides he or she wants to present the research at a meeting in, say, Cuba, Iran, the Federal Government can wind up in court if it attempts to prevent the researcher from presenting the findings in that country.

Or if a Federal researcher conducts a study using Federal money on a classified national security matter involving, let's say, satellite technology, the Federal Government would be legally barred from having any say in how and to whom that information gets disseminated.

It is an overreach. This amendment protects one individual's right to determine how best to use taxpayer dollars instead of the collective judgment of elected and appointed policymakers. And to add insult to injury, the underlying bill would require taxpayers to pay the attorneys' fees of the individual should the researcher sue the government for trying to get involved.

To make matters worse, there is nothing in this amendment that would bar the Federal researcher from touting the fact that his or her work was ``Federal research,'' giving it the pretense of being research endorsed by the American public. It is a slippery slope to scientific chaos where the taxpayer foots the bill for conflicting, misleading, and possibly even poorly done work. There are no protections for the public or taxpayers for this amendment.

We have held a number of hearings in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee under the leadership of Chairman Waxman to investigate the possibility of ``politicization'' of science, and I understand the problem this amendment is attempting to address. I don't think, however, this is the way to do it. This is possibly a deal killer in terms of how this bill comes together in getting support from this side of the aisle.

This amendment is bad public policy, and it is bad for national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is a Member of this House that doesn't sympathize with what the gentleman from Michigan is trying to do.

The difficulty is the way this amendment is drafted. It is a huge overreach. It allows anybody who is doing research under the auspices of the Federal Government to then publish it without any kind of overview from their superiors, who sometimes have competing reports and deliberations as they reach a public policy decision.

This is bad law. It allows attorneys' fees in the case where somebody is denied that opportunity.

This kind of overreach amendment is not about whistleblowing at all; it is a politicization of science from the other perspective. I urge Members to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

I oppose this amendment. This amendment would raise the threshold by which agencies must prove they would have taken disciplinary action against an employee notwithstanding the employee's whistleblower claim.

Current law requires agencies to prove this by clear and convincing evidence. This amendment raises the threshold and requires agencies to prove that such action was highly probable or reasonably certain.

There may be a real issue here which must be addressed, but after working on this bill for years now yesterday was the first time that this issue was brought to our attention.

On its face, I am concerned this amendment would raise an already high threshold imposed upon agencies trying to prove they are placing an employee on administrative leave because, for example, the employee sexually harassed another employee and not because the employee is a whistleblower. The current clear and convincing evidence standard seems a sufficient burden of proof to impose upon agencies.

I am also concerned we may be establishing a dangerous precedent by further defining in one isolated statute what the term ``clear and convincing evidence'' means. Does the U.S. Code typically define standards of proof such as ``clear and convincing'' and ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' or are these terms of art defined in case law? And does this new definition of ``highly probable'' or ``reasonably certain'' actually solve the problem or does it make it even more confusing for courts and litigants?

Mr. Chairman, there may be a valid issue here worth investigating. It is entirely possible that the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the courts are getting this wrong, but we should review this proposed change and vet it through the committee process before amending the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The good news is we have an opportunity to address these questions. The authorizations for both the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board expire this year, and the committee can and should carefully review the issue as we consider these reauthorizations.

I think my concern on this, if there is a pending sexual harassment claim against an employee, and they all of the sudden turn out and become a whistleblower, that then in the sexual harassment claim we have a higher standard, and for the litigant, the person that has been harassed in that case, they have a higher burden of proof than they would notwithstanding the whistleblower claim. I do not think that is fair to the person who is being harassed in this case, and I do not see a need for it.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment today and allow the committee in regular order to consider carefully and foil this problem identified by my good friend and colleague Mr. Platts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and, once again, thank him for his leadership on this issue. I support this amendment.

This amendment will extend additional whistleblower protections against reprisal to employees who cooperate with their agency Inspector General or in some other official grievance or investigative process.

Unfortunately, courts have misread the intent of the Whistleblower Protection Act and have arbitrarily reclassified certain whistleblowing activity as an exercise of appeal right. These rights are covered under a different section of title V of the U.S. Code.

By reclassifying these activities as exercises of appeal right, the courts have deprived employees of whistleblowing protection for their same disclosure showing significant misconduct if presented in a grievance or litigation instead of, for example, in a television interview.

It could occur when an employee faces reprisal as one associated with a whistleblower when testifying in an IG investigation or Office of Special Counsel investigation.

It strikes me these are precisely the forums Congress intended the whistleblower to take. These are, in essence, whistleblowers who are operating within the existing chain of command. They have used the chain of command, not gone outside the system, but they are not afforded the same protection as those who do.

These are the forums where we can actually make a difference to policymakers. This amendment ends the inequity by clarifying that an otherwise protected disclosure cannot be disqualified because of the forum where it is communicated.

I support this amendment. I congratulate my friend for offering it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Lynbrook Elementary School on their 50th anniversary.

Located in Springfield, Virginia, Lynbrook Elementary School opened its doors on February 11, 1957. Although it opened on that day and was dedicated a month later, the school continued to take shape over the next twenty years as the local population boomed and the true needs of the community were realized. An air-conditioning system, a gymnasium, a music room, additional classrooms and ``the pod'' were all added to create the Lynbrook that we know today. Additionally, in 1976 a contest was held to select a new school mascot. Out of this contest, and the imagination of a young Wee Lane Yee, Lenny the Leprechaun was born.

The school continued to evolve through the end of the last century. In the 1980's many of Lynbrook's long standing traditions, including ``Shamrock Shindigs'' and the medieval fair, were started. Also, the students began publishing the schools first newspaper, The Four Leaf Clover, which remains in circulation today.

Lynbrook strives to stay true to its long standing mission statement: to provide a safe environment where all students will become lifelong learners and develop a positive sense of self-worth and an appreciation among students, staff and community for all diverse backgrounds and experiences.

To that end, the school is constantly seeking to improve its strong relations with its students, parents and community. The students' academic, social and emotional learning are met utilizing proven instructional strategies. Families are encouraged to participate in PTA events, such as: family nights, socials, concerts, student programs and cultural events. Additionally, Lynbrook has been repeatedly recognized for its students' active participation in the Marine Corps Marathon Healthy Kid Fun Run. All of these factors demonstrate a concerted effort on behalf of the school's faculty to mold the young people at Lynbrook Elementary into well rounded, high-functioning adolescents.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate all of the students, faculty and parents who have played such an integral part in the establishment and growth of this fine academic institution. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating Lynbrook Elementary School on its 50th anniversary and in wishing them many more years of continued academic success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Fair Oaks Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, FOVFR, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.

Since its inception in 1957, FOVFR has achieved great success. Working alongside career personnel, the company has provided high quality fire, medical, emergency, and support services.

In my experiences with the company, I have seen its unwavering dedication to the Fairfax County community as well as its volunteers' strong values of unity, performance and personalized delivery.

While FOVFR has admirably served the Fairfax County community for 50 years, their efforts in 2006 were especially notable. During the past year, volunteers spent 9,613 hours actively responding to emergency situations. Volunteer stand-by units supported the Marine Corps Marathon, the Annual National Down Syndrome Society's Buddy Walk, various high school band competitions and more.

Company statistics show a growing need for FOVFR's excellent services. Response levels for basic life support, canteen and command level services all were elevated last year, in certain cases by as much as 30 percent. I am confident that FOVFR will continue to rise to the occasion to meet the needs of their local community in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in the Fair Oaks Fire and Rescue Company. Their efforts, made on behalf of the citizens of Fairfax County, are selfless acts of heroism and truly merit our highest praise. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding this group of remarkable citizens and congratulate them on their 50th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations 2006 Fairfax County Citizen of the Year, Sally B. Ormsby.

For the past 40 years Sally B. Ormsby has been a dedicated community activist fighting on behalf of her neighbors in Mantua and the residents of Fairfax County, Virginia. Her community activism started through focused pursuits on parent-teacher associations and garden clubs, but blossomed into larger roles that ultimately changed the face of the community in which she lived.

Most notably, in 1990, when a local underground oil spill rocked the foundation and stability of her local Mantua community, she rallied her neighbors, calmed fears and sought logical and appropriate remedies to the issues at hand. In the midst of the community outrage that followed concerning associated health risks and collapsing home values, Sally's steady hand played a key role in addressing the containment, control, and remediation of the affected grounds. This highlights just one of her many crowning achievements where her hard work and dedication overcame immense obstacles for the betterment of Fairfax County.

Over the years she has served as president of the Federation of Fairfax County Citizens Associations, chair of the Providence District Council of Civic Associations, president of the Woodson High School PTA, appointee to the Committee on Revenue Expenditures, a member of the board of directors of the League of Women Voters and president of the Mantua Civic Association, to name a few.

Sally has always been able and willing to step forward when duty called, to work toward the positive resolution of pressing local issues. Her leadership is most evident in the face of crisis where her ethos of service acts as a beacon guiding her fellow citizens towards their collective end goal.

While compiling this impressive legacy of service, Sally has been a dedicated wife to her husband, Dr. W. Clayton Ormsby, and loving mother to her two children, Alison and Tyler.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Sally on her impressive record of service to Fairfax County. I call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Sally B. Ormsby, the 2006 Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations Citizen of the Year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Lee A. Rau, recipient of the 2006 Citation of Merit by the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Association.

A resident of Reston, Virginia, since the 1960s, Mr. Rau has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life of Fairfax County residents. Possessing a true passion for the less fortunate, Mr. Rau has addressed the growing problem of housing affordability in Northern Virginia by offering his legal expertise to a variety of community projects.

Throughout his career as a notable public servant, Mr. Rau has been involved with myriad civic organizations including Reston Association, Lake Anne Village Center Revitalization Project, Reston Interfaith, Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Greater Reston Arts Council, and the High Rise Affordability Panel established by Hunter Mill District Supervisor Cathy Hudgins. Through this work, Mr. Rau is able to assist Fairfax County in meeting affordable housing goals: increasing the supply, encouraging their provision, conserving stable neighborhoods and revitalizing older neighborhoods.

While actively engaged in civic activity throughout Fairfax County, Mr. Rau has also served on an extensive list of professional associations such as the American Bar Association, Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, United States Chamber of Commerce Council on Antitrust Policy, D.C. Bar Energy Study Group, and the Constitutional and Administrative Law Advisory Committee of the National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc.

Mr. Rau was named the 1990 Restonian of the Year; was awarded the Best of Reston Award in 1996, and is more than deserving of this Citation of Merit. His commitment to his

community and to making the county a better place to live for all of its residents is to be commended.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I applaud Lee Rau for his public service and receipt of the Citation of Merit by the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Association. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on this distinguished achievement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the outgoing 2006 Board of Trustees of the Burke Centre Conservancy.

The Burke Centre Conservancy is a homeowners' association representing 5,862 homes Burke, Virginia. A planned residential community, Burke Centre is comprised of single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, co-ops, duplexes and quad units. The variety of housing located in Burke Centre provides the conservancy with unique and pressing challenges to ensure the positive livability of the area.

The board of trustees is made up of volunteer members of the association elected on an annual basis. Their purpose is to provide services to the membership, and to maintain and protect the common areas and amenities of the association. The board creates and approves a $4,000,000 annual operating budget funded through membership assessments.

This board has been particularly active in addressing the most pressing issues facing Burke Centre. Over the past year, they updated the community strategic plan, created a community risk management plan, conducted a stream bank instability study, completed a $250,000 wetlands remediation project, assisted in the creation of a community parking district, completed a bathymetric study of the local ponds to establish maintenance needs and revised regulations associated with the conservancy's employee personnel, investment, and procurement policies.

Burke Centre will sorely miss the guidance and leadership of President Greg Smith, Treasurer Phil Pool, Secretary Marc Flaster, Oaks Trustee Joe Berner, and Ponds Trustee Colette Sheldon who retired at the end of the year. The conservancy, however, will remain in good hands under the leadership of recently reelected Vice President Jimi Grande, Woods Trustee Kala Quintana as well as the newly elected members of the board.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I wish to commend and congratulate the outgoing board on their exceptional commitment to their community. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2006 Board of Trustees for the Burke Centre Conservancy and in wishing their community continued success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to come over and speak on this, but the gentleman from Tennessee's eloquence moved me to also add my support for this resolution. I supported it through the committee process. But to also recognize the contributions of the players, the Josh Gibsons, the Buck O'Neals who, because of the bars of segregation at the time, were never allowed to participate in what we now know as the Major Leagues.

But this resolution speaks to the fact that their contributions, that their activities and their records are also an important part of American history and of baseball history, and they should be remembered for their contributions. And that is what this resolution does. In their own ways, they are not only great players, great all-stars, great performers, and great athletes, but they also were pioneers. And I am proud to be here to support the gentleman's resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, with so many distractions in our lives today, it is important to take a step back to acknowledge the central role that families play in the development of our Nation's youth. This resolution celebrates those aspects found in a positive family atmosphere which promotes healthy and well-adjusted young men and women.

It is true that the children are our future, and the strength of our country has been and will continue to be built on families providing educational, social, ethical and moral guidance to our children.

The devotion of time is one of the most important things we can do to help maintain a positive family environment. And while it may be difficult to find time in our hectic schedules, things as simple as playing with educational toys, reading together or visiting an age- appropriate museum will stimulate a child's curiosity that will be beneficial throughout their lives.

Also, something as easy as slowing down enough to take the time to listen to one another, maybe by having dinner as a family whenever possible is a time tested way to nurture a child through family participation during their formative years.

Young people are increasingly exposed to the stress and pressures of our modern society. In order to combat these negative influences, we must take it upon ourselves, as a society, to expose young people to loving and supporting families whenever possible. As an example, doing a community service project as a family is one of the many ways to teach children that to build a community and to thrive as a society, we should all share in assisting one another.

National Children and Families Day provides us an opportunity to recognize our responsibility to create family environments that nurture the next generation and to promote a positive environment for families across America.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 62.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Bailey's Crossroads Rotary Club.

The Bailey's Crossroads Rotary Club was chartered on March 12, 1977, under the sponsorship of the Falls Church Rotary Club. The club was known as ``The Early Birds'' due to their 7:30 a.m. Friday meeting time at a Bob's Big Boy restaurant.

There were 27 members at the club's onset, which was prior to the approval of female membership. When Rotary International approved membership for women in 1989, the club led the way and was among the first to induct a woman into Rotary.

Bailey's Crossroads Rotary Club continues to maintain a focus on the Four Avenues of Service, both internationally and in the local community. The following activities are highlights of the club's service sponsorships: Interact Leadership Club at JEB Stuart High School; ``Family Day''; delivery of Thanksgiving food baskets to the elderly during the holiday season; food and clothing drives to assist the needy; a Rotary Centennial construction project; and consistent support for matching grants projects.

Bailey's Crossroads Rotary Club has consistently been a leader in the number of members who are Paul Harris Fellows, having contributed $1,000 or more to the Annual Programs Fund. The club has given a total of $312,000 to the Rotary Foundation since 1977. The Bailey's club is known throughout Rotary District 7610 as the ``Can Do Club'' and has received numerous awards including Outstanding Club. I am proud to have served as 1 of the 29 past presidents, and commend current president, Joseph W. Luquire, for his dynamic leadership and for the excellent reputation of the club.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I congratulate Bailey's Crossroads Rotary Club on its continued success and contributions to their community and Nation. On the occasion of their 30th anniversary, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging this outstanding and distinguished organization.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding group of men and women in Northern Virginia. The Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce annually recognizes individuals who have demonstrated superior dedication to public safety with the prestigious Valor Award. Several members of the Vienna Police Department have earned this highest honor that Fairfax County bestows upon its public safety officials.

There are several types of Valor Awards that can be awarded to a public safety officer: the Lifesaving Award, the Certificate of Valor, or the Gold, Silver, or Bronze Medal of Valor.

It is with great pride that I enter into the record the names of the recipients of the 2007 Valor Awards in the Vienna Police Department. Receiving the Lifesaving Award: Master Police Officer Trent H. Nelson, Sergeant Jamie L. Smith, Police Officer First Class Jarod B. Evans; the Certificate of Valor: Sergeant Michael R. Reeves, Officer Christopher W. Shaver.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in the Vienna Police Department. Their efforts, made on behalf of the citizens of Fairfax County, are selfless acts of heroism and truly merit our highest praise. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding this group of remarkable citizens.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding group of men and women in Northern Virginia. The Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce annually recognizes individuals who have demonstrated superior dedication to public safety with the prestigious Valor Award. Several members of the Fairfax County Police Department have earned this highest honor that Fairfax County bestows upon its public safety officials.

There are several types of Valor Awards that can be awarded to a public safety officer: the Lifesaving Award, the Certificate of Valor, or the Gold, Silver, or Bronze Medal of Valor.

It is with great pride that I enter into the record the names of the recipients of the 2007 Valor Awards in the Fairfax County Police Department. Receiving the Lifesaving Award: Mr. Khalid S. Sheikh; the Certificate of Valor: Sergeant Michael O. Barbazette, Detective Anthony D. Erway, Police Officer First Class Brian A. Gaydos, Detective John P. Keating, Second Lieutenant Christopher C. Cochrane, Police Officer First Class John S. Turner Jr., Police Officer First Class Eric M. Hillebrand, Police Officer First Class Darrell D. Estess; the Gold Medal: Master Police Officer Michael E. Garbarino, Detective Vicky O. Armel, Officer Richard A. Lehr Jr.; the Silver Medal: Master Police Officer Mark P. Dale, Detective Jeffrey W. Andrea, Master Police Officer William C. Horn, Second Lieutenant Boyd F. Thompson Jr.; the Bronze Medal: Police Officer First Class Westley S. Bevan, Lieutenant Stephen J. Thompson, Second Lieutenant Craig C. Copeland, Detective Steven L. Carroll, Police Officer First Class Daniel L. Horton, Master Police Officer Jeffrey K. Rockenbaugh, Master Police Officer Robert D. Patterson, Police Officer First Class James H. Urie, Police Officer First Class Ivan J. Roeske, Public Safety Communicator III Lisa A. Smith, Lieutenant Joseph R. Hill, Police Officer First Class Christopher R. Keaveny, Police Officer First Class David M. Popik, Sergeant Mark J. Smith, Sergeant John G. Sterling, Police Officer First Class Michael A. Wheeler.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in the Fairfax County Police Department. Their efforts, made on behalf of the citizens of Fairfax County, are selfless acts of heroism and truly merit our highest praise. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding this group of remarkable citizens.