Alan Grayson

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, laws have consequences. The scenario that we are describing here is one where a female prisoner is the victim of incest. If this law passes as currently written that female prisoner will be forced to carry to term the child of an incestuous relationship. I regard this as absolutely indefensible. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GRAYSON. I would ask the gentleman to consider the consequences of his action and withdraw the point of order.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of perfect clarity, may I have the first few words of the amendment read.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every appropriations bill this year and last year that has been considered under an open rule. This amendment would expand the list of parties the Federal Government is prohibited from contracting with because of misconduct on the part of those contractors. This list would include contractors who have been convicted of fraud; have violated Federal or State antitrust laws; who have been convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, violation of Federal tax laws, and other items outlined in section 52.209-5 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These are all offenses which any contractor doing business with the Federal Government must disclose to the contracting officer, but oddly enough, the contracting officer, absent this amendment, would then be free to ignore these transgressions and award contracts to the offending entities. I commend the authors of this bill for their inclusion of sections 536 and 537. I still believe, however, that we can improve on the bill by prohibiting agencies from contracting with those entities who have engaged in the activities described above. It is my hope that this amendment will remain noncontroversial, as it has been, and, again, will be passed unanimously by the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRAYSON. For avoidance of data, I would like to have the first few words of the amendment read, please.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It prohibits the Federal Bureau of Prisons from soliciting, offering, or awarding a contract--and by the way, I am talking about a new contract, not an existing contract--to a for-profit prison that guarantees the number of prisoners that will be housed there. I believe it is not only bad policy but fundamentally immoral to guarantee that our government will incarcerate a specific number of people so that a for-profit entity can guarantee its profit margin. Whether or not we agree on the main impetus for incarceration-- punishment, rehabilitation, or some combination of both--I would hope that we can all agree that a perverse conflict of interest, such as the one that this amendment addresses, should not be allowed to exist to be able to guarantee a profit on human bodies. This amendment seeks to eliminate any potential for a repeat of the ``kids for cash'' scandal that unfolded in 2008. In that instance, two judges from Pennsylvania accepted money from the builder of two private for-profit juvenile facilities in return for imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts. All told, those two individuals received $2.6 million in payments from the managers at that company. American citizens' freedom and the length of a convicted person's prison sentence should never be a line item on a business sheet. I would hate to imagine a world in which certain segments of our society could honestly question whether or not they are being targeted purely for filling an incarceration quota guaranteed to a for-profit prison. Let me be clear. I may not like for-profit prisons, but this amendment would not ban them nor would it have any effect on existing contracts that the Federal Government has already entered into. What it does do is it bans a practice of guaranteeing under new contracts a specific number of human beings that will be jailed or imprisoned in a given year. I think that is wrong. I hope that you do too. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. GRAYSON. The author of this amendment, namely me, is open to whatever ameliorating second order amendments the gentleman may care to offer. I think we may be on the same wavelength here, and I would not oppose a second order amendment if the gentleman so sought one.

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question again?

Mr. GRAYSON. Would the gentleman agree that the gentleman's principles of guaranteeing a contract to the prison companies can be achieved by simply giving them a certain dollar amount in the contract, which I will concede my amendment does not prohibit? All my amendment prohibits is guaranteeing a certain number of bodies. Would the gentleman concede that allowing them to get their guaranteed contract through dollar amounts would achieve the same purpose, and would the gentleman concede that this amendment allows that?

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, based upon the kind representations of the Chair and based upon the kind representations of the ranking member, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this concerns the Buy American Act and how it interacts with the work of the Trade Representative under this bill. The Buy American Act dates back to every Republican's favorite President, President Hoover, who signed it into office on his last day in office in 1933. It requires the U.S. Government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases, and there already is precedent for this in the trade organization agreement called the WTO 1996 Agreement on Government Procurement. The Buy American Act was specifically excluded from the government procurement agreements program. We are coming up upon a time when, according to news reports, the President may be presenting us with trade agreements. He may be presenting us with a fast track procedure for those trade agreements. The fast track procedure would basically give us a take-it-or-leave-it situation on these principles. Obviously, these trade agreements that have been negotiated are complex, but I think that we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bath water. This is an 80-year-old law. It requires that the American Government give preference to American-made products when making procurement decisions. This is a commonsense principle that guides purchasing throughout the Federal Government, as it should. Hard-earned American taxpayer dollars should be reused here at home. They should be going back into our economy and putting Americans back to work. I would hate to see this fundamental principle of government procurement slurred or undermined in any way by any agreement that is now being negotiated by the Trade Representative or anybody else in this administration or any future administration. Therefore, I submit this amendment to make certain that the agreements now being negotiated, the ones being negotiated in the future, respect this basic, fundamental principle that American dollars and American jobs are what the American Government is all about. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I regret bringing this up at 10:30 at night. I apologize for that because this is a weighty matter, and I think it deserves fair consideration. I hope we are not all too tired to deny this question the attention that it deserves. The purpose of this amendment is to raise the possibility of a Federal shield law that corresponds to shield law already in place in 49 States, but not at the level of the Federal Government. A shield law is legislation designed to protect a reporter's privilege or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and sources of information obtained during a news gather and dissemination process. In short, a reporter should not be forced to reveal his or her source, and that is in fact the law in 49 States, the only exception being Wyoming. This has come up in court cases at the Federal level and at the Supreme Court level, beginning with the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes, which I think poses this question in the microcosm. In that case, a reporter wanted to inform his readers about the nature of the drug hashish, and he realized the only way to go about that was to find and interview people who had actually used the drug hashish, and so he did that. After he published his article, relying upon these two confidential sources, at that point, he was subpoenaed to provide those sources, compromising their identity and compromising the principle of protecting your sources. This is an issue that comes up from time to time, often at the State level, occasionally at the Federal level. Some of us may remember the case of the Plame affair, the CIA leak scandal. A reporter was asked to release the name of the person to whom he had been perceived to leak regarding Valerie Plame. Reporters were asked, in general: Who are your sources with regards to this leak? One reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government probe. At this point, under current law, journalists are in a quandary. They realize the need to protect their sources. That right is recognized in 49 States, but it is not codified at the Federal level, so what I seek to do at this late hour today is to do just that. I think this is a very important principle, as Branzburg pointed out, that springs from the foundation of our law. The Constitution and the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech and of the press. It is completely incongruous to say we have freedom of the press, but the Federal Government can subpoena your sources and put them and you in prison--you, if you don't comply. This is something that should have been handled perhaps years, if not decades ago. It falls upon us tonight, at this late hour, to try to handle it ourselves. I respectfully submit this amendment as being a much-needed and long-delayed clarification that the Federal Government treats this matter no differently than 49 States now do, and therefore, I ask for support on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Supreme Court decision that we are talking about here was decided in 1972. There have already been hearings. There has been plenty of draft legislation. It is hard enough to get anything voted on around here. It is time to vote on this. After 42 years since the Supreme Court first addressed this, we don't have this body on record saying whether or not there should be a Federal shield law. I understand the reservations that have been expressed, but the time is now. The reporters in this country have waited long enough. It is time to be fair and show fealty to the First Amendment and to pass this amendment tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, I rise to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for agreeing to include three of my amendments into this en bloc package. Those amendments are numbered ``43'', ``81'', and ``140'', respectively. Grayson Amendment No. 43 will reinsert a worthwhile provision from the introduced version of H.R. 4435, requested by the Department of Defense, that was omitted from the bill text marked up in committee. This amendment provides the authority and discretion necessary to return personal property that is retained as evidence in connection with an investigation into a sexual assault involving a member of the Armed Forces. After the conclusion of all legal, adverse action, and administrative proceedings related to an incident, should a victim desire to have certain personal belongings returned to him or her, our Armed Forces will now have the ability to fulfill that request. As we all know, one of the primary goals of the American judicial system is to produce outcomes that will ``make the victim whole.'' Sometimes, Madam Chair, one important thing that we can offer a victim is to return items that he or she may cherish, which may have been confiscated as evidence during the course of an investigation. Let me be clear--this amendment is not intended to provide any new privileges to any perpetrator of a sexual assault. I am offering this amendment today to provide victims an opportunity to reclaim those items that are important to them. It was good policy when this bill was introduced, and it is good policy now. Grayson Amendment No. 81 will prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with entities convicted of using ``Made in America'' labels fraudulently. The current law governing this issue can be found at 10 U.S.C. 2410f. It states very clearly that if a person is convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, then the Secretary of Defense has the discretion not to debar that person from contracting with the Department of Defense. Madam Chair, if we are going to put laws on the books to address an issue, they should mean something. We, the Members of this body, should make our intent clear. If someone purposely misrepresents an item as being ``Made in America'', and he is convicted of that crime--he does not get the benefit of securing contracts with our Armed Forces. My amendment accomplishes that goal. It requires debarment of the entities outlined above, while at the same time allowing the Secretary of Defense a narrow national security exception, which should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. This amendment makes good sense. It protects American businesses, and appropriately punishes those who have the audacity to claim that a product has been ``Made in America'' when it has not. I'd be remiss at this time, if I did not thank my good friend, Representative Carol Shea-Porter from the great state of New Hampshire. She has been discussing the idea of this amendment with me at least since February, and she was integral in its drafting and securing the support of her colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee. For that I am grateful--thank you again, Representative Shea-Porter for all of your hard work in support of this amendment. Finally, Madam Chair, Grayson Amendment No. 140 will extend the current United States Space Protection Strategy by an additional five- year period--until 2030. In the 2008 NDAA, Congress required that a greater priority be put on the protection of national security space systems. It directed the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Director of National Intelligence, to develop a strategy for the development of capabilities that are necessary to ensure freedom of action in space for the United States. The strategy, which is outlined in the notes to 10 U.S.C. 2271, is required to cover fiscal years 2008 through 2013; 2014 through 2019; and 2020 through 2025. My amendment, recognizing that the first five- year covered period has lapsed, simply requires an additional five-year period--2026 through 2030. I am proud that this amendment will still be in force when my nine- year-old sons have grown into adults. This amendment will protect not just the United States' position in space, but also their physical well-being. Madam Chair, again, I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for agreeing to include all three of these amendments in this en bloc package. I believe these amendments make America not only a safer place, but a better place.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to rise tonight to acknowledge Heather Parton of Santa Monica, California, on the occasion of being awarded a Hillman Prize for ``Opinion & Analysis Journalism''. Many in this Chamber, and untold others across the internet, better know her by her pseudonym: ``Digby''. Digby, a political blogger, is the founder of the blog Hullabaloo, and has been called one of the ``leading and most admired commentators'' of the progressive blogosphere--by Glenn Greenwald no less, the recent recipient of a Pulitzer Prize himself. The Sidney Hillman Foundation's announcement this evening sums up my, and many others', sentiments: Tonight, the Sidney Hillman Foundation will honor Heather ``Digby'' Parton with the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion & Analysis Journalism. Digby's blog Hullabaloo has been a fixture in the progressive blogosphere for over a decade. Digby has eloquently opposed injustice and incompetence on issues ranging from the invasion of Iraq to the widening chasm between rich and poor in America. Whatever the topic, Digby approaches her work with a level head and a big heart. I will give the last word to Kathleen Geier of the Washington Monthly, ``Since she's the best daily political writer in America, an honor of this sort is the least we can do for her. Congrats to Digby and to the Hillman people for making such an awesome choice. Now and forever: What. Digby. Said!'' ``What. Digby. Said!'',

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for including legislative language I requested in this year's Military Construction, Veteran Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. It appears in section 232, as follows: Sec. 232. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to award a contract to any contractor if the past performance of the contractor resulted in the completion of a construction project at a facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs more than 24 months after the original agreed-upon completion date for the project. This language also exists as a stand-alone bill I have introduced, H.R. 4394: the `Serve Our Heroes Now Act'. What it means is this--if someone is responsible for a delay of two years, or more, of completion of a VA facility, they cannot awarded future contracts for military or VA construction. In my own district, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (``VA'') is building a new VA Medical Center (``VAMC'') that will serve an area of more than 90,000 veteran patients in East Central Florida. This VAMC will be one of seven members of the VISN 8 Healthcare System, covering parts of Florida, Georgia, and all of Puerto Rico. The original construction contract for the Orlando VAMC called for a final completion date of October 2, 2012. Eighteen months later, my constituents, who bravely fought for their country, are still waiting. This is a disgrace, and it must be remedied. Section 232 is clear. If the current contractor for the Orlando VAMC is determined to be at fault for construction delays, it will be ineligible for future contracts awarded from funds appropriated by this bill. That hurts--but it doesn't compare to the pain my constituents suffer while waiting for the VA Medical Center that has been promised to them. In closing, Mr. Chair, I want every Member here, and anyone else watching, to know that I will request this language in every Military Construction, Veteran Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that comes to this floor, as long as I serve in this body. Those responsible will be held accountable. I pray other veterans do not have to wait as long as my constituents have, and I pray that the new Orlando VAMC is fully operational by October of this year.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to language that was inserted by voice vote into this bill last year, as well as every other appropriations bill that was considered by an open rule. This amendment would expand the list of wrongdoing parties with whom the Federal Government is prohibited from contracting. That list should contractors who have been convicted of fraud, who have violated Federal or State antitrust laws, who have been convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, violation of Federal tax laws and other items outlined in section 52.209-5 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These are all offenses which any contractor doing business with the Federal Government must disclose to the contracting officer in every offer. Oddly enough however, without this amendment, the contracting officer is then free to ignore these transgressions and award contracts to the offending offeror. I commend the authors of this bill for their inclusion of sections 413 and 414, which are relevant to this issue. I submit, however, that we can improve this bill by prohibiting agencies from contracting with those entities who have engaged in the criminal and fraudulent activities that I have described. It is my hope that this amendment will be noncontroversial, as it was last year, and again be passed unanimously by voice vote by the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, in honor of Women's History Month, to recognize Libby and Robin Maynard. Libby Maynard was a leader among women through her personal life, her career, and her fight with breast cancer. A Florida native, born in Lakeland in 1943, Libby grew up active in her church and school music programs. Libby attended college in Georgia, where she majored in music and was selected for the Who's Who Among American College Students. While in college, Libby began her journey as a missionary. Her service led her to New York City where she worked directly with teenage gang members and was a minister of music at local churches. During her time in New York, she met and married Reverend Herb Maynard with whom she had two daughters. Libby moved home to Lakeland in 1979 to care for her mother, who was diagnosed with breast cancer for a second time. After her mom's passing, she spent some time in North Carolina, before returning to Florida again to care for her aging father. Having been touched by cancer personally, she began volunteering and then working for the American Cancer Society. Libby was passionate and dedicated. She loved helping people throughout her life. In January 2005, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She began her journey with cancer with the same boundless energy, determination, and amazing strength that she applied to every challenge in her life. Due to the demands of her cancer treatments, Libby lost her job and, as a result, her health insurance. Despite her own difficulties, she continued to be a positive light and to help those around her. Twelve months after her diagnosis, Libby ``won her trip to heaven'' after the cancer suddenly returned. Libby left this world with dignity and grace. She left behind a legacy of hope that her daughter Robin carries on in her name. Robin Maynard, following her mom's beautiful example, is a leader among women in Central Florida. After losing her mother to breast cancer in 2006, Robin saw firsthand the difficulties faced by uninsured women in Florida. In 2007, she founded Libby's Legacy Breast Cancer Foundation (LLBCF). The Foundation provides lifesaving breast health services to the uninsured and underinsured women of Central Florida and its health care advocates fight to get patients the treatment they need when diagnosed. In 2009, Robin left her successful career as an Orange County Crime Scene Investigator to work full time at LLBCF, where she fights daily for her patients to receive the treatment they need and deserve. Since it opened its doors, LLBCF has provided over 4,000 breast health services and diagnosed more than 65 cases of breast cancer. Today, 114 children still have their mothers because of Robin's tireless efforts after losing her own mother. Through their leadership and legacy, Libby and Robin continue to save lives. I am happy to honor Libby and Robin Maynard, during Women's History Month, for their service and contributions to the Central Florida community.