Bruce Braley

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa

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

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). I commend Mr. Tierney for his work on this compromise. As a member of both the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he has done a great job on expressing the concerns of both committees in a way that will allow us to move forward with this important legislation. One particular change made by this amendment is the removal of language in the underlying bill that allows a national security whistleblower to always disclose information to a supervisor. This amendment acknowledges that there are certain circumstances where it may not be appropriate for a supervisor to receive a disclosure, such as when an employee is disclosing classified information to which the supervisor does not have access. This amendment also changes a provision in H.R. 985 regarding national security whistleblowers, to limit which Members of Congress can receive information from a national security whistleblower about an especially sensitive subject. It is important that Federal workers who specialize in national security issues have the ability to disclose the information about government wrongdoing to Congress. These workers need to know that they have access to a safe harbor where information will be fully investigated and appropriately safeguarded. However, because of the sensitive nature of the information these whistleblowers may disclose, it is also important to ensure that appropriate Members of Congress receive these communications. This amendment addresses concerns that have been raised about allowing national security whistleblowers to disclose sensitive classified information to Congress by ensuring that information will go to members of committees with expertise and procedures for handling such information. I support this compromise amendment, and I urge all Members to vote ``yes.' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which strikes section 13 of the underlying bill, is very simple; all it does is expand the term ``abuse of authority'' under existing law to include any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis. And it is the federally funded component of that clause that makes this amendment bad for the American people. American taxpayers should not have the risk of important scientific research being impacted by political influence from any political party. That is why it is important that this amendment be defeated. There are those that say that politics and science will always intersect. That is absolutely true. Science doesn't give us all the answers. We have to make political and policy decisions about the right path to follow. For example, an administration might decide not to support a certain type of research. We may not agree with that decision, but the administration has a right to make it as long as it is honest about the information and rationale behind it. What is not acceptable is when the government actually manipulates science to advance its decisions. Hiding data, releasing misinformation, gagging scientists, all to justify a political course of action, is wrong. That is the type of action that we want Federal employees to feel safe in reporting. And that is why this bill makes crystal clear that disclosures related to manipulation and distortion of science are protected disclosures. That is why I again call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting against this amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. For the past 6 years, there has been overwhelming political interference with science by the Bush administration. We have seen examples of government scientists barred from conducting or presenting research because it conflicts with administration policies. We have seen scientific findings manipulated or outright rejected when they don't bolster favored policies. And we have seen government agencies put out information about health that is entirely false, but politically advantageous. In one EPA report on the environment, the White House made so many edits to downplay the discussion of global warming that scientists at the agency said the draft no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change. The FDA delayed approval of plan B for over-the-counter use based on political, not scientific, reasons, causing senior FDA officials and scientific experts to resign in protest. Numerous scientific and medical organizations have taken positions against this abuse of science. It has been condemned in the editorial pages of the most prominent scientific journals. The Journal of Science, for instance, said that this interference invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation. Mr. Chairman, 52 Nobel Laureates, 62 National Medal of Science winners, 194 members of the National Academies of Science and thousands of other American scientists have signed a statement speaking out against political interference in science. To prevent and remedy these kinds of problems, we have to know about them. That is why this legislation makes clear that employees who want to disclose these kinds of abuses are entitled to whistleblower protections. Our Federal scientists should not be punished at work for coming forward to report these abuses of science. This legislation will have no effect at all on legitimate political or policy decisions related to scientific issues. All it does is prevent retaliation against employees who report abuses of science. The amendment we are debating now would strike this critical provision. I strongly oppose the amendment and urge all Members to vote ``nay.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment clarifies that Federal whistleblowers are protected regardless of where they are or when they blow the whistle. A whistleblower who makes a disclosure that is considered a whistleblower disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) gets the benefit of protections such as the right to challenge a retaliatory act by an employer. If the same whistleblower makes the same disclosure but does it while testifying as a plaintiff or as a witness in litigation, the whistleblower does not get the same protections. We should protect Federal employees who expose government wrongdoing, no matter what the forum. This amendment appropriately extends Whistleblower Protection Act coverage to employees who make disclosures in litigation as described in 5 U.S.C. Section 2302(b)(9). This amendment extends equal burdens of proof and individual rights of action to whistleblowers who serve as witnesses in Inspector General and Special Counsel investigations. This amendment also clarifies that these protections apply to Federal employees who face retaliation for refusing to violate the law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which closes these senseless loopholes. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and commend him for his work. This amendment will clarify the standard used to evaluate an employee's defense when a whistleblower claims that an employer acted in illegal retaliation. When a whistleblower claims that an agency engaged in a retaliatory action, it is an affirmative defense for the agency if it can prove that it would have taken the same action even if the employee had not blown the whistle. This is, in fact, the same type of analysis that takes place in sex discrimination and sexual harassment claims, and yet nothing in this amendment would impose a different burden of proof in those cases because they are statutory-based claims and are not affected by the amendment. Congress set the agency's burden of proof for this defense as ``clear and convincing evidence'' in the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Merit Systems Protection Board has ignored the intent of Congress and implemented its own test for evaluating whether or not an agency has shown clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action anyway. This has made it almost impossible for employees to successfully challenge retaliatory personnel actions. This amendment defines clear and convincing evidence as evidence indicating that the matter to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. This is a commonsense fix that clarifies Congress' intent. I support this amendment which will further strengthen protection for whistleblowers and urge all Members to vote ``yes'' in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for introducing this amendment which would enhance a provision of underlying legislation that protects scientific whistleblowers. The underlying provision clarifies that whistleblowers disclosing political or ideological interference with Federal science are protected from retaliation. This amendment furthers that goal by affirming that Federal scientists and grantees should also be able to report censorship of scientific debate without fearing reprisal. I support passage of this amendment. I urge Members to vote ``yes.''

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also want to thank my colleagues for the bipartisan spirit of support for this bill. I want to just add a few more names to the record, in the remaining time that I have available, of courageous whistleblowers. These are not hypothetical situations we are talking about. One of them, Richard Levernier, was employed at the Department of Energy for 22 years and was in charge of testing security at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. Working through normal DOE channels, he tried for years to get his superiors to address security weaknesses that might allow terrorists to successfully assemble and detonate a nuclear device at one of the facilities. But his superiors declined to acknowledge that vulnerabilities existed. When he faxed two unclassified Inspector General reports to the press, DOE suspended his security clearance. At the time he was 2 years away from retirement and eligible for a full pension. After he filed a lawsuit against DOE for unjust termination, the Office of Special Counsel conducted an investigation and concluded that the harassment against Levernier constituted a systematically illegal reprisal. The OSC also found a substantial likelihood that his underlying charges were correct. Another brave individual, Russell Tice, a former intelligence agent at the National Security Agency, worked for 20 years in special access programs known as ``black world programs and operations.'' He had his security clearance revoked in May, 2005, after alerting his superiors of suspicious activity by a coworker. NSA later dismissed him after he raised questions about the legality of some NSA ``black world'' programs, including the eavesdropping by the Defense Department and the NSA on American citizens. Mr. Tice wanted to talk to Congress about what he feels are further abuses by the NSA, but has not been allowed to do so. Specialist Samuel J. Provance's unit in Iraq was instructed to interrogate detainees in a way that he thought was immoral and inappropriate, and he told his superiors. Instead of investigating his claims, his superiors demoted him. And, finally, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer was demoted and his security clearance stripped after he made protected disclosures to the 9/11 Commission about Able Danger, a pre-9/11 operation for combating al Qaeda, and explained that there were DOD and DIA failures regarding 9/11. This is not a hypothetical problem. Federal whistleblowers are being silenced, and instances of waste, fraud, and abuse are not being exposed. That is why I call on all my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I see some of my distinguished colleagues here today, specifically Ranking Member Davis, Congressman Shays. And to prepare for this debate today, Mr. Chairman, I watched a movie, ``The Insider,'' last night, because it was a classic example of why we need whistleblower protection in this country. The sight of those seven tobacco company CEOs standing before the committee on which I am proud to serve, raising their hands and swearing that tobacco and nicotine is not addictive, and the compelling personal story of Jeffrey Weigand and the struggle he and his family went through are why we need to support this bill today. One of the reasons why we are here today is because of the compelling stories of dozens of national security whistleblowers from multiple Federal agencies who have provided sobering and exhaustive stories about retaliation and retribution for speaking the truth. These accounts have been well documented before the committees of this House. Michael German was a highly regarded FBI agent working on domestic terrorism cases for 16 years before quitting in frustration in 2004. His whistleblowing concerned a case that, according to NBC's Dateline, ``involved a potential nightmare scenario: meetings between a home- grown militia-type terrorism organization and an Islamic fundamentalist group during which they discussed possible cooperation.'' Mr. German alleges that the FBI fumbled the case and then, after he blew the whistle, falsified records in order to cover its mistakes. He reported his concerns to his superiors and reportedly faced retaliation for doing so, though a Department of Justice Inspector General report substantiated many of his claims. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Yes.

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

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

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

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 149, which recognizes and honors the purpose of International Women's Day. Recognizing the contributions American women have made to our Nation's progress over the course of history is so very important because their contributions have too frequently taken place out of the limelight. It is truly remarkable when one takes note of the expansive list of contributions women have made to our country throughout its history. From my own State of Iowa, Lilia Abron became the first African- American woman in the Nation to obtain a doctoral degree in chemical engineering at the University of Iowa. Phyllis Propp Fowle, a native of Iowa, became the first female Judge Advocate General Officer in the U.S. Army. Arabella Mansfield became the first female lawyer in the United States after being admitted to practice law in Iowa. And I constantly remind myself I would not be here today had it not been for my own mother. She went back to school to obtain her four year teaching degree so she could help my family make ends meet after my father was injured in a grain elevator accident. Using a single calendar day of the year to honor the barriers these women and countless others broke and the sacrifices they made is the least we can do to thank them for their contributions to our society. I only hope that their stories inspire other women--and men--to work hard to achieve the promise this Nation was founded on: a place where all people are created equal.

Mr. BRALEY

Mr. BRALEY. I would like to thank my friend from Maine, and also my friend from Illinois who happened to bring up the issue with the Maytag jobs. And I think this leads us to another topic that is not discussed very often in terms of some of the hidden costs of our current trade policy. The former world headquarters for Maytag was located in Newton, Iowa. And I grew up about 30 minutes from Newton, Iowa. I got my first driver's license at the Jasper County Courthouse in Newton, Iowa. Over 150 years ago, my great, great grandfather, George Washington Braley, walked from up in your neck of the woods from Vermont all the way to Iowa and settled in Jasper County. And Maytag has been a foundation of the economy in Jasper County for many, many years, and Mr. Hare talked about the plant in Illinois, the Maytag plant that lost many of its jobs to Mexico. What happened about 10 years ago was, in an effort to develop competition between competing Maytag factories for the Neptune washers, it was decided that there were going to be incentives offered by the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois in the competition to keep those jobs in America. And so the legislature in Illinois and the legislature in Iowa both went to work to pass special tax statuses for expensing of manufacturing equipment to make it more attractive for those companies in Iowa and Illinois to be able to compete for these new Neptune washers. Unfortunately, as we have seen, that competition was short-term only. And the Maytag headquarters no longer exists in Newton, Iowa. The Maytag jobs in Illinois have now left for Mexico. And we are seeing the impact that this trade policy that we have pursued for the past decade is having on American workers. And, like my friend from Illinois, nobody I talk to, my friends in labor, my friends in small businesses and manufacturing, thinks that trade is a bad thing. We need to encourage trade, because that is what creates job opportunities for American workers. What we are talking about is making sure that our trade policies are fair and balanced. And one of the unique things that I have seen since I came here is that we seem to see more and more small- and medium-sized manufacturers and labor coming together and talking about a need for a comprehensive reform of our trade policies. One of the things we know is that the Constitution gave this body, Congress, an important role to play in international trade, and one of the problems with the fast-track trade promotion authority that previous Congresses gave to the chief executive was that, in a sense, it involved an abdication of our responsibilities to be an active partner in setting trade policies. And what that means is that we have also abdicated some of our responsibilities to the workers of this country, to the workers of international countries where trade laws and workers rights are not held to the same high standards they are in the United States. We have penalized American manufacturers because of environmental regulations they are required to comply with in this country that are not imposed upon foreign manufacturers. And we have seen the exploitation of workers and human rights in other countries that allow goods to be produced at slave labor conditions and severely undercut the market for those goods on the international economy. So I am here tonight with my friends to talk about why it is important that, when we go forward from this point, looking at the trade policies, not just for the current administration, but for future administrations, no matter which party happens to occupy the White House, it is important for us to look back on the historical role that Congress has played in making sure that our trade policies reflect the same basic values that made this country great in the first place. And so that is why I am here to talk about how we, as a body, have to step up to the plate and share our fair share of this responsibility moving forward. And to my friend from Maine, where I know these policies have had a dramatic impact in a lot of different manufacturing and foreign good sectors, I would like to yield back and ask about some of the difficulties that his constituents have encountered in this same area.

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Were you serving in this body when fast track was authorized?