Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I am trying to figure out what companies this would apply to.

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

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I would assume that Iran, North Korea are probably on that list today?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, for example, would probably not be on that list today?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I am prepared to accept the amendment. I congratulate the gentleman for offering it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield 30 seconds?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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.