Floor Statements

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 Fire and Rescue 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 Fire and Rescue Department. Receiving the Lifesaving Award: Firefighter Jason M. Buttenshaw, Firefighter Marc G. Campet; the Certificate of Valor: Firefighter Joshua R. Allen, Master Technician Jerry Smith, Technician John C. Guy, Technician David A. Hessler, Firefighter Clarke V. Slaymaker, Lieutenant Richard S. Slepetz, Firefighter Jason E. Earl, Deputy Chief Jeffrey B. Coffman; the Silver Medal: Captain I Randal L. Bittinger, Master Technician William B. Wheatley, Firefighter Hugh S. Boyle; the Bronze Medal: Captain II Michael R. Smith, Master Technician Randal A. Leatherman, Firefighter Lloyd W. Coburn III, Lieutenant Thomas L. Flint, Lieutenant Bruce A. Neuhaus, Firefighter Ryan J. Ward, Technician Carl E. Jones.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue 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 Herndon 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 Herndon Police Department. Receiving the Lifesaving Award: Senior Sergeant Jerry S. Keys, Corporal Robert A. Galpin, Police Officer First Class Damien C. Austin; the Certificate of Valor: Police Officer First Class Edward E. Stapleton, Detective Lisa A. Kara, Police Officer First Class E. Brian Hamilton, Police Officer First Class Justin P. Dyer.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in the Herndon 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. Two members of the Fairfax County Sheriff's Office 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 Sheriff's Office. Receiving the Certificate of Valor: Private First Class Robert L. Perryman; the Bronze Medal: Private First Class Darrell L. Carty.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and

women who serve in the Fairfax County Sheriff's Office. 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 Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Today we are considering legislation to strip away a fundamental right for American workers: the secret ballot.

Secret ballot elections have long protected workers from intimidation, coercion, and retribution. The National Labor Relations Act of 1947 set in statute a system that gave workers the option of voting by secret ballot when deciding the question of union organization in their workplace.

Why, 50 years later, is there a compelling need to do away with the secret ballot system? How is it that a worker will only be given a ``free choice'' by making his or her preference known to all?

This isn't about protecting workers; this is about flagging union membership and declining dues. Unions only represent 12 percent of the workforce--only 7 percent in the private sector. Union bosses know they don't fare as well in secret ballot elections as they do in card check elections, so they want to do away with them.

Only two months after they regained the majority, the Democrats are here to do the bidding of their union backers. There is no other reason for this debate today.

Consider the following letter sent to Mexican officials in 2001. This letter states:

. . . the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to

ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a

union they might not otherwise choose . . . we feel that the

increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition

elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican

workplace.

This letter was signed by 16 of my Democratic colleagues, including the sponsor of today's bill. Perhaps they have had the benefit of reflection.

Madam Chairman, this legislation isn't about helping the working man and woman; it isn't about fairness or discrimination. It is about political payback, it is legislative tribute to the union bosses that still control the Democratic Party. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate, our first care should be for the safety and morale of the men and women serving in the American Armed Forces. Whatever the way forward, nothing said here should be heard by friend or foe as disrespect for the work and sacrifice of those who willingly fight our battles in a very dangerous world.

It took the United States and coalition forces less than 3 weeks to topple

a brutal Iraqi regime that had held an iron grip on power for almost 30 years. Since then, they have battled a growing insurgency and rampant sectarian violence with professionalism and bravery. Of all the instruments of national power we could and should be discussing today, diplomacy, economic policy, intelligence and warfare, our military is the only one that has performed predictably, consistently, and well.

Still, knowing what we know today, after almost four years of attempted nation-building on the shifting sands of Iraq, the plan to put 21,000 more Americans in harm's way there has to be viewed with a cold-eyed skepticism born of that hard experience. Putting American troops between feuding Sunni and Shia in the middle of Baghdad, in my judgment, is a mistake. This is the appropriate place for Iraqis, not Americans.

The Iraq Study Group concluded that, ``Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.'' They quoted a U.S. general who said that if the Iraqi Government does not make political progress, ``all the troops in the world will not provide security.'' I agree.

Like many Members, Republicans and Democrats, I voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, just as I supported President Clinton's decision to take military action against the former Yugoslavia. Four years ago, we were trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolutions on disarmament and weapons inspections. Only a credible threat of force could possibly convince him that it was finally in his interest to respect the lawful demands of the international community.

Voting to support the President strengthened his hand in the diplomatic effort to get the Iraqi regime to comply peacefully. Saddam Hussein chose not to comply, and when diplomacy fails, and military action becomes necessary, politics should stop at the water's edge and every American should stand behind the Commander in Chief.

But no grant of authority is a blank check. Today, naive notions about a quick or tidy victory in Iraq have given way to far grittier options on how best to achieve our strategic goals in that nation, in the region, and in the global struggle against Islamic extremism.

We want the President to succeed, but we are disappointed our hopes and good intentions for Iraq remain unrealized. Many are frustrated by the mistakes and missed opportunities that plagued this noble but star- crossed effort. Poor planning for occupation and reconstruction of a devastated nation, and missteps by the Coalition Provisional Authority, allowed the insurgency and long-simmering factional hatreds to erupt and to take root.

At this point, it seems clear to many that only Iraqi interests, not ours, can be advanced on the streets of Baghdad. U.S. and coalition forces were tasked as protectors of Iraq's hard-won sovereignty, not referees in unchecked sectarian vendettas. From here, the surge looks much more like the status quo on steroids than a serious alternative policy to reach a realistic goal. Some way must be found to cut the Gordian knot that ties us to an Iraq strategy that says we can neither win nor leave.

Moreover, so long as American troops are the ones on the ground, taking the fire and being objects for sectarian terrorist hatred, other stakeholders who have more at stake in the region than we will refuse to step forward.

But whatever else it might accomplish, this resolution still does not do enough to illuminate a new, sustainable strategy in Iraq. It offers us few alternatives, and I am disappointed in that. The profound and complex issues central to our international position today cannot be reduced to simplistic political statements. We took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not just strike poses on how that duty applies to the key questions before us as a Nation. In the end, these are purely political statements, when the debate we really need to have is about the most apolitical subject of all: national security in a time of global peril.

Today, the House sends a purely symbolic message to the President. It is a message that will also be heard by our troops, by the Iraqi Government, by the Iraqi people who have relied on us, and by our enemies who are hoping we will quit the fight soon. It does not say enough. We should be debating the elements of an effective policy to stem the tide of jihadism infecting growing swaths of the globe. This resolution says only what some Members are against, nothing about what we are for.

The Iraq Study Group report put forth 79 specific recommendations, many focused on the need for far greater engagement of regional powers, friends and foes in taking realistic steps to stabilize Iraq. I joined my colleague, Frank Wolf, in supporting creation of the Iraq Study Group, and I wish he and others were allowed to offer those recommendations for discussion by the House. Those are the debates and the votes I had hoped to participate in today.

The lack of substantive alternatives before us, particularly on the question of adequate funding for deployed troops, betrays the majority's empty, conflicted positions on Iraq: against the President, but for nothing. The Senate majority attempted to straddle the same contradictions recently, confirming without dissent the new commanding general for Iraq, while at the same time claiming to be against the very same mission they know he has been ordered to undertake.

On the genuine questions of security and strategy in Iraq, we cannot remain, as Winston Churchill admonished, ``decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.''

Mr. Speaker, we must decide, and I have decided, to support this resolution because it is the only option that has been made in order by the majority today to engage the House in formulation of Iraq policy, but once troops are committed by the Commander in Chief and we are engaging the enemy, symbolic gestures like this must confront the more complex realities of how to support those forces in the safe and speedy completion of their mission.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Caressa Cameron for her year of service to the Miss America Organization and Greater Springfield area.

Ms. Cameron won the title of Miss Greater Springfield 2006 on February 12, 2006. She has worked tirelessly with the Boys and Girls Club to promote her platform of AIDS awareness through behavior modification in the Northern Virginia area.

During her reign, Ms. Cameron made numerous appearances around Springfield, including a gala fundraiser at Greenspring Retirement Community. She also spoke to students at Erving Middle School about ``Right Decisions, Right Now,'' a Miss Virginia program.

Last June, Ms. Cameron competed in the Miss Virginia pageant in Roanoke, VA and placed 2nd runner-up. She was then asked to represent Virginia at the National Miss Sweetheart Pageant in Illinois and placed 4th runner-up to Miss National Sweetheart 2006.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Ms. Cameron for representing the Greater Springfield area with great pride and respect. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating her on this distinguished title and in wishing her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. George B. Gould for over 27 years of dedicated service to the National Association of Letter Carriers, NALC.

Since joining NALC in 1979, George has been a legislative consultant involved in numerous issues, such as budget, appropriations, health care, retirement, and education. Through his advocacy, on behalf of the 300,000 members of NALC, George has made great progress on issues affecting postal operations. This progress includes his instrumental work in the creation of NALC's political action fund as well as his work in advancing political freedoms for federal workers through his efforts in reforming the Hatch Act in 1993.

During his career, Mr. Gould co-chaired the Coalition to Preserve the Postal Service, a group consisting of representatives from the mailers community, the U.S. Postal Service, the postal supervisors and managers, and postal unions. The coalition worked to secure funds for the anthrax cleanup, to bring Civil Service Retirement System funding to the Postal Service, and to make general postal reforms.

Mr. Gould also chaired the Fund for Assuring an Independent Retirement, FAIR, Committee on Legislative and Political Affairs. Representing over 8 million active and retired employees, FAIR fights to protect and enhance Federal employee pensions and other benefits.

Mr. Gould has been recognized by Regardie's Magazine on their Power 100 List of the most influential people in Washington. Additionally, he has been featured in Roll Call, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Legal Times, The Federal Times, and The Boston Globe for his effective and tireless lobbying efforts. Mr. Gould has also received acknowledgement from Project Vote and in 1990 he received the ``Good Guy'' award from the National Women's Political Caucus.

It was apparent to all those who worked with George that he had a knack for the policy process and a desire to improve public policy for the Federal employee. Drawing on his years of experience, Mr. Gould went out of his way to be a teacher and mentor to the staff of NALC. As his last act of service, he trained an able replacement to ensure that the ideals and issues important to NALC do not suffer in his absence.

Madam Speaker, in closing I would like to commend and congratulate Mr. George B. Gould on all of his accomplishments. His efforts have deeply impacted the public discussion, but more importantly the policy that affects the postal service, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding George for his past accomplishments and in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Edith Edna ``Betty'' Vaughn for a lifetime of service as a health care professional.

Born Edith Edna Lunn on November 3, 1945, Betty, as she later preferred to be called, was the only girl of her parents' four children. She became interested in nursing and health care at an early age, often having to look after her brothers. Betty decided to turn this interest into a career when she attended nursing school in 1963. She graduated in 1967 with a diploma of nursing from the University of Essex in England.

Betty met her husband, Victor Vaughn, at a hospital dance and married him 1 year later. The Vaughn's moved to Richmond, VA, where Betty began her career at the Johnston-Willis Hospital.

In 1974 the Vaughns moved to Blacksburg, VA, where Victor attended Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Betty continued her career of service working at the local community hospital. Mrs. Vaughn was a dedicated professional during the days and a loving, supportive wife to her husband at night.

Upon completion of Mr. Vaughn's education, the family moved to northern Virginia where Betty joined the staff at Fairfax Hospital, today known as INOVA Fairfax Hospital. Betty has been a cheerful, positive employee to the hospital, spreading joy to all patients she encounters. While her retirement is well deserved, she will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, in closing I would like to commend Mrs. Edith Edna ``Betty'' Vaughn for her lifetime of service. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Betty for her past accomplishments and in wishing her a happy and healthy retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. G. Martin ``Marty'' Wagner for over 31 years of dedicated service to the Federal government.

Through Mr. Wagner's current role as Deputy Commissioner of Federal Acquisition Services, and previously as Acting Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner, he oversaw the acquisition of more than $50 billion of goods and services for various federal agencies. He managed a workforce of more than 4,000 associates who helped the Federal government find, buy and manage all federal non-real estate services.

Mr. Wagner led initiatives that set the tone and direction for major changes in government-wide management. He has played a key role in promoting electronic government, in using commercial contracts and approaches, and in putting performance measures into practice. Such initiatives include the creation of FirstGov, the Government's Internet portal; and FedbizOpps, the gateway for all federal procurements.

During Mr. Wagner's career he has been honored for his good work and accomplishments as a premier civil servant. Mr. Wagner received the Meritorious Presidential Rank for his career achievements as well as his efforts in leading the administration's effort to reinvent the federal management process. He also received the Distinguished Presidential Rank for his work to improve federal management, specifically the implementation of a new management framework to reflect modem management principles and effective uses of technology. Finally, Mr. Wagner received the General Services Administration's ``Giraffe Award'' for ``sticking his neck out'' and taking risks to improve various GSA programs. These recognitions illustrate the kind of results-oriented federal employee he is.

Whether Mr. Wagner was instituting the massive modernization of the federal telecommunications system, establishing improved customer and employee management systems, or taking the simple, personal step of adding Brail to his business cards, Mr. Wagner has always worked to ensure that everyone had improved access to the federal government.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Mr. Wagner on all of his achievements. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Marty for his past accomplishments and in wishing him continued success in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 718, the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007.

The National Guard needs a voice to ensure that its people get the same training, equipment and benefits as their active-duty counterparts. It needs a voice to speak for the needs of governors and the guardsmen who defend and protect us from natural disasters and acts of terror.

Asking the Department of Defense to approve one four-star General for the National Guard and allow this Guard General a seat at the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not overly reaching or a threat to national security. It's simply a matter of providing a seat at the table to an organization that has earned it.

When it comes to the Guard, Cold War thinking still prevails at the Pentagon. So a bipartisan and bicameral group of Members of Congress stand united behind this bill. This year, we have added three important provisions to: allow Guard officers to advance to the highest ranks of leadership; force better accountability in service procurement for the National Guard; and, define and improve the fractured planning and operational relationships between the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, U.S. Northern Command and our Governors.

After 9/11, the President issued an Executive Order making the security of the homeland the No.1 priority of the Department of Defense. But the Department's attempts to empower the Guard have so far been date have been hollow, with no clear standards, no firm requirements and only minimal funding.

The Department of Defense seems to be in denial about the essential role the National Guard plays in times of need. The Pentagon needs to show more concern for the force that protects Americans first, arrives first, acts first and stays longest.

Today, the Government Accountability Office released a study sponsored by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee entitled: ``Actions Needed to Identify National Guard Domestic Equipment Requirements and Readiness.'' This study points out that the Department of Defense has yet to take decisive action to improve the National Guard's domestic capabilities and clearly points out why this basic Guard empowerment bill is absolutely necessary.

If you want to know why the Guard deserves a seat at the table, take a look at what the Air Force has budgeted this year for First Air Force, which is made up of the nation's top Air National Guard wings. These are the fighters who protect the skies over America. Their command budget and manpower is being cut almost in half. And it should come as no surprise that these Air Guard wings are not on the Air Force list to get F-22s or F-35s.

Last year's BRAC decimated Air National Guard units that provided critical airlift capability during Hurricane Katrina, moving people, water and supplies through catastrophic damage. Without that capability, we may be in a worse position today in terms of emergency supply movement than we were when the storm struck.

Or consider the readiness of the Army's chemical and biological response units, most of which rest in the Reserve Component units. GAO soon will release a study sponsored by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that will show the Army has not seen fit to enhance these units for homeland defense. As a result, Americans remain vulnerable to the chemical-biological attack many fear likely if not inevitable.

A year and a half after Hurricane Katrina, the findings and basic recommendations in the Select Committee Report on Hurricane Katrina have not been adequately addressed.

Moreover, the National Guard continues to perform valiantly in the Global War on Terrorism. The National Guard provides almost half the manpower, support and transportation

our military uses overseas, yet it has just 35 percent of the equipment it needs. The time has come to fix this.

Since 9/11, every single person in this country has benefited from the exemplary service provided by the men and women of the Guard. I urge the new leadership in this Congress, as they examine defense policies and budgets, to keep in mind the needs of the these brave men and women, who for too long have been treated as second-class citizens by our military. This country cannot afford a broken state/federal response to homeland emergencies.

Madam Speaker, those National Guardsmen responsible for our homeland defense and military assistance to civilian authorities deserve the resources, planning and training they need. These reforms are long overdue, and the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 represents an essential step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Dale City Bengals, who on December 9, 2006, won the American Youth Football Pee Wee ``AA'' Division National Championship.

After a stellar regular season the Bengals advanced through local and regional qualifiers to gain a berth in the national tournament in Tampa, FL. Over a period of 5 days, the Bengals played against the best football teams in the Nation and emerged victorious with the ``Taft'' National Championship Trophy.

The tournament started with a seeding game, where the Bengals drew a match up against the Brooklyn Chiefs. The Bengals got off to a rocky start as they were routed 27-6. Their four coaches, Jim Spellman, Joviaire Yarbo, Joel Avent, and Moses Webb, knew it was time to refocus. Through an extra practice and a new attitude they were able to do just that.

In their next game against the Westchester Raiders the Bengals came out with a chip on their shoulder, and they were forced to invoke the mercy rule on the way to a 48-13 victory. In the meantime, Brooklyn had won their semi-final game as well, setting the stage for an epic rematch.

Prior to the final game, Assistant Coach Yarbo brought the team together and during an inspired speech told the players, ``it doesn't matter how you get there--it matters what you do when you get there.'' Drawing on these words and a power ground game, the Dale City Bengals persevered to create a 13-6 lead late in the game. With the Chiefs driving on what would prove to be their final possession, middle line backer Jacob Spellman intercepted an errant pass that sealed the outcome of the game, earning him MVP honors.

In a truly inspirational story, the Dale City Bengals represent all that is great about youth sports. Drawing on the support of their parents, coaches and community, the Bengals' team performance shows that anything is possible when people come together to achieve a common goal. I honor the efforts of every player: Daniel Amendolaro, Jaylen Avent, Juan Bennett, Shakeem Copeland, GeJuane Dalrymple, Xavier Dashiell II, Typer Donnelly, Easton Hawk, Khalil Jackson, Jamil Jackson, Kinte Johnson, T.J. Middleton, Kamel Montgomery, Tariq Qawiyy, Darnell Rife, Michaiah

Smith, Jacob Spellman, Joseph Walker II, Moses Webb, Jr., and Ji Wright.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor the Bengals on their championship and to wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 78. This is an uncomfortable decision for me since for many years I have tried to convince the Republican-controlled Rules Committee to grant my friend, the Representative from the District of Columbia, a vote in the Committee of the Whole.

In the beginning I did so because the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole, which has little meaning in practice, carried important symbolic meaning to people who had no representation at all.

Over the past 4 years, I have embarked on a journey to give D.C. a real vote in the House of Representatives. Working with Congresswoman Norton and numerous legal scholars and many colleagues on my side from across the ideological spectrum, we have crafted a bill that was politically neutral, gave real rights to the District of Columbia, and solved Utah's special problem created in the last census to boot.

The Speaker of the House has been a cosponsor of my legislation. The majority whip says he expects the bill to be brought up quickly this session. It is clear that if our bill, the D.C. FAIR Act, were brought to the floor today, it would pass with solid support from both parties.

Today's resolution muddies the waters. It fails to recognize the fundamental difference between the District of Columbia and the territories. It ignores the carefully constructed bipartisan compromise we reached in the D.C. FAIR Act. It amounts, as The Washington Post opined today, to little more than ``dithering.''

I hope this vote, which grants illusory voting rights to Delegates, is designed to expose the strong support that exists for full D.C. voting rights. But pardon me if I appear cynical.

To the cynic in me, this resolution smacks of obfuscation. What the majority is doing today threatens to delay action on the real injustice that has plagued the District for more than two centuries. I am looking for assurances that this is not the case.

Admittedly, we could have avoided this awkward grouping of governmental apples and oranges if the Republican leadership had brought the bill to the floor at the end of last year. The bill was ready. It is ready now, too. It is time for the new majority to not just talk the talk.

What is proposed today in H. Res. 78 is not a politically neutral solution. It adds four Democrat votes and one Republican. Traditionally, when we have added votes in the House, we have done so in a politically neutral manner. Worse, this resolution mixes the interests of the District of Columbia, the Federal district, the capital of the free world, whose residents pay Federal income taxes, with those of the territories.

This mushy thinking is what has led to nearly 200 years of no representation for District residents. H. Res. 78 distracts attention and saps energy from the movement we have created behind D.C. voting rights. It is confusing and allows Members to check a box that in reality is not being checked.

Still it is tempting to support this, if only to get more Members of Congress acclimated to voting to expand representation for District residents. But this is a sham, and I am not going to be part of it. I can't condone grandstanding and symbolism when real reform is so easily within our grasp.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Michael P. Neuhard upon his retirement as Fire Chief and Fairfax County Fire Marshal for the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department.

Over the past 30 years Chief Michael Neuhard has worked tirelessly to promote efforts that ensure the safety and well-being of the citizens of Fairfax County. During his career he has moved through the ranks of the department serving in such positions as assistant chief of administrative services, deputy chief of special operations, hazardous materials response team coordinator and head of hazardous materials services in the fire prevention division.

As Fire Chief and Fairfax County Fire Marshal, Chief Neuhard oversees a staff of 1,678 personnel, 300 operational fire and EMS volunteers, and 36 fire stations. In this role he plans, coordinates, and directs the overall operation of the Fire and Rescue Department, which includes fire suppression, hazardous material abatement, emergency medical services, fire prevention, technical rescue, as well as administrative and support services.

Through service on numerous department, county, regional, state and national boards, Chief Neuhard has demonstrated his dedication to safety in his community. He is chair of his department's Strategic Planning Leadership Team, a member of the Fairfax County Domestic Violence Prevention Policy Coordinating Council, chair of the National Technology Transfer Center--Emergency Response Advisory Committee, as well as chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments Fire Chiefs Committee. Additionally, he has served on the Secure Commonwealth Panel since his appointment in 2002 by then-Governor Mark Warner.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Chief Michael P. Neuhard on all of his accomplishments. His efforts have boosted the overall safety and preparedness of the citizens of Fairfax County and the region. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Chief Neuhard for his past accomplishments and in wishing him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with the majority's efforts today to attempt to restore the public trust in government.

The Nation's Capital has been hammered by corruption-related political scandals in recent years, and it is imperative that we take action to respond to these scandals. But H.R 476, the Congressional Pension Accountability Act, is little more than a trophy that the majority can hold up to claim they restored public trust in the Nation's Capital. In a nutshell, the legislation gives Members of Congress who are convicted of a public corruption related crime an additional slap on the wrist by preventing them from counting their time served as a Member of Congress toward their federal retirement.

This stands in stark contrast to much stronger, bipartisan legislation that the Committee on Government Reform marked up last February to crack down on public officials convicted of betraying the public trust. The Federal Pension Forfeiture Act of 2006, approved by unanimous consent by the Committee last year, would have denied federal retirement benefits to any Member, congressional employee or political appointee in the Executive Branch convicted of a crime related to public corruption punishable by more than one year imprisonment for an act committed while the individual was employed by the federal government.

Unlike H.R. 476, last year's proposal would have permanently denied a pension from an official convicted of a corruption-related crime rather than simply limiting time that counted toward the official's retirement. Additionally and most importantly, last year's proposal covered not only Members of Congress but also political appointees in the Executive Branch. After all, federal officials in both branches of government equally share the blame for the fact that the public no longer trusts public officials.

It's unclear to me why the majority would want to only address half of the issue when we have an opportunity to address the issue in its entirety. Unfortunately this is the first opportunity I have had to raise this concern since the legislation was taken straight to the floor rather than receiving the benefit of committee consideration. Regardless of process, I fear that this legislation will do little if anything to restore any of the public's trust in the federal government.

Therefore, it is with regret that I will vote in favor of this legislation, and I do so only because no other option has been presented to the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Tom Temin for over 17 years of service providing the Federal technology community with unbiased, accurate, and timely information.

Through Mr. Temin's role as executive vice president and editor in chief of Government Computer News, Washington Technology, Defense Systems, Government Leader and other technology publications, he has brought valuable insight and creative journalism to the Federal IT arena.

Under Tom's guidance Government Computer News has become a premier IT magazine providing objective and comprehensive rankings of the usefulness and overall value of technology as it reaches the market. Leaders in the executive branch, both Houses of Congress and the broader technology community have come to consider the editorials he has written for Government Computer News as shrewd and perceptive analysis of the implications of IT trends.

The newspaper's fair and unyielding pursuit of issues showing the flaws and faults in the Federal technology sector has prompted numerous reforms that continue to conserve funds and improve performance for the American taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Mr. Tom Temin on all of his accomplishments. His tireless efforts have deeply impacted the public discussion of IT issues in the Federal Government, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Tom for his past accomplishments and in wishing him continued success in the years to come.