Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying, Look, I think the State Department when this draft was leaked made a mistake in trying to reclassify this and put the genie back in the bottle. They should have just said this is unofficial, this has some problems, and gone ahead. I think that would have made it a lot easier for everybody. Secondly, let's get real. For the State Department to make official pronunciations about another government and particular ministries can have its diplomatic challenges, and I respect the right of the administration in some of these instances to refrain from saying what the majority would like them to say. Having said that, I think the State Department, when they go tell The Washington Post things that they wouldn't tell this committee, gives me some problems and puts me on the side of voting for this resolution rather than defending the State Department. I want to thank the chairman for his oversight hearings on corruption in Iraq. I think it is entirely appropriate. I think he is certainly within his bounds in the right to get the information from the Department of State, and I hope in the future they will be more cooperative in terms of turning over information to the committee instead of just turning it over to the newspapers with their own slant. That is not the way this works. We have a separation of powers. We are a separate branch of government, the legislative branch, and we want to be part of these discussions. Now, this resolution could have been about a strong bipartisan consensus calling attention to the corruption in Iraq and urging the State Department to step up its efforts to ferret out official corruption, but it is not. The resolution is just the latest, as I said before, it is the latest find in a search for proxy anti-war votes that the leadership on the other side has staged to feed an increasingly restive left wing of their party. Unable to prevail directly, they ignore regular order; they nibble around the edges with symbolic surrogates and sense of Congress resolutions. Having said that, I am going to vote for this resolution. It is not the resolution I would have put forward. We would like to have had more input. I hope as we move down the road on a number of war issues, we can work across the aisle to try to bring some consensus and real change regarding what is going on in Iraq, instead of putting up a document such as this, drafted by one party. But I urge support for the resolution. I thank the chairman for his oversight hearings. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time to close.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I would like to inquire as to how much time I have.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate what the chairman of the committee has done in holding the hearings and the investigations. I think this is something the American people should know. There is no question about that. But there are particular concerns that go to the particular content of the resolution. The chairman and I have discussed this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, the former chairman of the committee (Mr. Burton).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to speak on H. Res. 734, a resolution about corruption in Iraq. Corruption, the theft of public resources for private gain, saps the life out of everything it touches. The fact that official corruption has long undermined government effectiveness and public confidence in Iraq and throughout the Middle East should come as no news to anyone. But no one believes rampant corruption is inevitable or tolerable in Iraq. Republicans don't support corruption, Democrats don't support corruption, so the pace and reach of our efforts to help the Iraqis prevent, deter, investigate and punish corruption in their struggling democracy should be one thing, perhaps the only thing, about our policy in Iraq that we can agree on. But we were never given the chance to agree. The language of this resolution has never been considered by any committee. Why not? Just last week, four House Committee chairmen wrote to the Secretary of State asking for her cooperation in ``finding solutions'' to corruption in Iraq. So those committees apparently have an interest in the issues raised by the resolution. But none of them ever considered this language. Why not? Because this resolution is just the latest find in the frantic search for proxy antiwar votes that the leadership has staged to feed an increasingly restive left wing of their party. Unable to prevail directly, they ignore regular order and nibble around the edges with symbols, surrogates, and sense of Congress resolutions. In this political environment, it almost doesn't matter how we vote since the resolution means so little and accomplishes even less. But, fairly or not, as has been voiced by several Members on the other side, a ``no'' vote would be portrayed as ``pro-corruption.'' That's unfortunate, and it didn't have to be that way. Both the committee majority and the State Department have gone out of their way to politicize the discussion of corruption in Iraq. This resolution cherry-picks statements from our hearing testimony and tries to pick a fight with the Secretary of State over access to certain information. I offered a substitute to try to bring some balance and perspective to this resolution, but it was rejected by the majority in the Rules Committee. I will talk more about that substitute later. For its part, the State Department's process for answering our inquiries about anticorruption assistance to Iraq has been sluggish and poorly thought out. When requested documents failed to show up, we didn't demand a committee vote on subpoenas the chairman decided to send to the Department. It's a separation of powers issue. The committee has a right to timely and meaningful access to information about executive branch programs and operations. The Department then classified information already, irretrievably, in the public domain. As a result of that decision, they felt compelled to limit open discussion on what everybody already knows about corruption in Iraq. Had the State Department witness at our hearing said to the committee what Ambassador Satterfield said in today's Washington Post, broadly speaking about the Iraqi Government's political will to fight corruption, we might not have needed to consider this resolution at all. Nevertheless, this is obviously not a resolution I'd bring to the floor to assert our constitutional rights. Both the process and the product tend to trivialize a serious and pernicious problem by reducing it to the terms of a spat over what State Department employees can say in an open forum and classification of a few sentences and two reports. It's a transparent attempt to draw the Secretary of State into a highly visible, but completely avoidable, conflict with the Oversight Committee. What is the House being asked to ``resolve'' in this resolution? That we should know ``the extent of corruption in Iraq''? That it was wrong to ``retroactively classify'' two draft State Department reports that had never been reviewed for sensitive information before? That it's an abuse of the classification process to ``withhold'' broad, unverified assessments of a foreign government by low-level State Department employees? And that a ``directive'' limiting discussion of potentially sensitive matters to a closed setting should be rescinded? Let me take them one by one. The phrase ``the extent of corruption in Iraq'' is used several times. In truth, it's code for the unspoken conclusion that if we only knew the real level of corruption, we would all conclude Iraq could never stand on its own. But contrary to what this resolution implies, it's no secret there is widespread corruption in Iraq. We concede that. It's sadly well documented, from the scandalous Oil-for-Food Program in the 1990s to present-day diversion of oil revenues. Corruption is a critical concern to the United States Government, to the Iraqi Government, and to the Iraqi people. No amount of handwringing or feigned indignation can avoid the hard truth that the United States did not bring corruption to Iraq, and it won't stop when we leave. And no spreadsheet or corruption clock will ever give us the real-time cost of bribes and the real-time cost of graft there. Focusing on the extent of corruption rather than the extent of anticorruption efforts betrays a desire to publicize corruption, not help fix it. On the classification question, in all honesty, I have my doubts whether the State Department's reports should have been classified. A sloppy process in Baghdad leaked them; they're on the Internet right now. It's probably counterproductive to put that genie back in the bottle. The Department simply should have said, ``The reports got out. Our mistake. But they represent only the collected anecdotes and flavor added by the authors and were not official policy statements of the United States.'' That could have avoided the whole fight over classification, but they didn't do it. On the question of ``withholding'' information, there is a difference, and in my judgment an important difference, between hiding information and simply exercising appropriate caution and good management in deciding who makes official statements about U.S. relations with another sovereign state and where those statements are made. More determined to be aggrieved than informed, the committee refused repeated efforts and offers to question witnesses in a setting that could permit us to discuss sensitive and classified information. If anything constructive comes out of passage of this resolution, I hope it's to refocus and reenergize State Department anticorruption efforts in Iraq. They need it. That might not be the goal of all those that are voting for this resolution, but it's my goal in voting for it, and it's the only positive outcome that I can see. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me just add that official diplomatic statements, even under oath in congressional testimony, critical of foreign governments, have consequences. Criticizing foreign governments through official statements of our government, when you are trying to get them to comply with other things, have consequences. Criticizing specific ministries, which were some of the questions asked, have consequences within a fragile political framework of the Iraqi current coalitions, and, for one reason or another, the State Department felt that, at least in an open forum, they felt constrained to make appropriate statements. However, I think it is clear from the amount of testimony and the volume of testimony and the substance of the testimony that we have heard that there has been corruption in Iraq for a long time. It continues, it will probably continue after we leave, and it is something that this Congress and the American people need to know about, and we can address it here on the House floor. This resolution was introduced dealing with corruption in Iraq and the State Department's attempts to cover up the extent of the corruption, or, I should say, the alleged attempts. This quotes various witnesses that have appeared before our committee over the last several years to discuss the affairs of Iraq. Along with the chairman, I participated in those hearings, too, and I listened to what the witnesses had to say, and I share his concern about the extent of corruption in Iraq, and I hope every Member does. But I am concerned about the way that the statements are being portrayed, the statements by the panels of expert witnesses who appeared before our committee, because in this resolution, it only paints half the picture. I offered to work with the chairman to come up with a resolution that in my judgment paints a more complete picture of the extent of corruption in Iraq, but the offer wasn't accepted. I then, in good faith, filed an amendment with the Rules Committee that accepted basically the resolution that was presented by the chairman but added some additional whereas and resolved clauses that I thought provided a more accurate, bipartisan perspective on the extent of corruption in Iraq. For example, the chairman's resolution quotes Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, as stating before the committee on October 4 that the ``rising tide of corruption in Iraq stymies the construction and maintenance of Iraq's infrastructure, deprives people of goods and services, reduces confidence in public institutions, and potentially aides insurgent groups reportedly funded by graft derived from oil smuggling or embezzlement.'' I concur with the chairman's concerns about this particular statement by Mr. Bowen and included the same statement in the amendments that we proposed. But I also added an additional quote made by Mr. Bowen at the hearing that says, ``Iraq has a history of corruption'' and ``the United States did not bring corruption to Iraq, and it will not be gone whenever we leave.'' He said that, but apparently that proposed addition didn't fit the theme of what the majority is trying to do this week. Additionally, the chairman's resolution quotes David Walker, the well-respected Comptroller General of the United States, as stating before our committee that ``widespread corruption undermines efforts to develop the government's capacity by robbing it of needed resources, some of which are used to fund the insurgency.'' I concur with the chairman's concerns about that statement made by Mr. Walker, something we want the world to know, Congress should be aware of. I included the same statement in the amendments that I proposed. But I also added an additional quote by General Walker at the hearing that says, ``none of us should underestimate the challenges of establishing strong and transparent government institutions in the wake of a dictatorship where corruption was woven into the very fabric of governing. And none of us should underestimate the challenge of rooting out corruption in a combat zone, even one where violence is diminishing as we have seen over the past 6 months.'' Apparently this proposed addition also failed to fit the majority's tidy little box for discussion this week. Another example, the resolution highlights the fact that the State Department instructed officials not to answer certain questions. My amendment included the same language as the chairman's but added an additional whereas to acknowledge the fact that the State Department counsel, concerned about the specific assessments regarding the government's capacities of Iraq Ministries and Ministers made in an open setting, and that these statements could affect the United States' bilateral relationship with the Government of Iraq and could put in danger the lives of Americans, of our allies, repeatedly offered to make United States Government officials and employees available to respond to questions regarding potentially sensitive or classified information, including foreign government information, in an appropriate secure setting where we wouldn't be endangering lives. But that truthful statement went too far as well to include in this resolution. The resolution also states that the State Department retroactively classified two reports on corruption in Iraq prepared by the Office of Accountability and Transparency in the United States Embassy in Iraq. I included the same whereas clause, but simply added an additional whereas, to explain that the original leaked report was an internal, unpublished, unedited and unapproved draft report on corruption in Iraq that, as described by one U.S. Embassy Baghdad employee has been embellished with anecdotes for flavor. The report had not been properly reviewed and vetted for classification purposes before. The majority was not interested in including that explanation for why the State Department chose to classify the report. Finally, my amendment would have included all but one of the chairman's resolved clauses and then added a handful of additional clauses to paint a more accurate picture of the extent and cause of corruption in Iraq. For example, I proposed to add a resolved clause that stated it is not an abuse of the classification process to protect from unauthorized disclosure information contained in draft internal, unedited, unpublished and unapproved reports that reasonably may be expected to cause harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States. Like all the previously discussed additions I proposed, apparently this assessment went too far, which leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that the resolution we are considering today is not a substantive resolution intended to achieve a bipartisan consensus on the important issue of corruption in Iraq, which we all agree on. It is intended to politicize and is a political measure, put forth by the majority, with no intention of trying to reach constructive steps to improve U.S. anticorruption efforts. Is that enough for Members to oppose this press release masquerading as serious legislation? That is for each Member to decide. As for me, I am going to support the resolution, with those reservations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me say that who speaks for the State Department at certain times and how nuanced the statement is going to be is very important in diplomatic jargon in terms of what its meaning is. I think that was one of the difficulties they had at that time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Just to put it in perspective, the report was, I think, something like 60 pages. It was called back for five sentences. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Jo Ann Davis, who has served this body with dignity and honor and dedication since her election in 2000. I first met Jo Ann when she was running for the House of Delegates in 1997 and quickly became impressed with her strong work ethic. Her congressional district, like mine, is the home of many current and retired Federal employees. So when I became chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, it was an easy decision to ask her to oversee the Civil Service Subcommittee. She took on the responsibilities of subcommittee Chair with great diligence and energy. Through her efforts, we made important strides in helping the Federal Government recruit and retain quality employees. With her help, we improved Federal student loan repayment programs and expanded dental and vision benefits. Jo Ann was a strong supporter of legislation allowing retired Federal employees to deduct health care premiums from pretax dollars, moving this important legislation through her subcommittee. She was also a reliable ally in the annual fight for pay parity for civilian Federal employees. Her district borders mine; we both represent portions of Prince William County. We have worked closely on a number of local issues. With her passing, Northern Virginia and the Commonwealth have lost a strong advocate. I salute Jo Ann Davis for her courageous fight against cancer. Her passing reminds us all that we need to fight this horrible affliction. My heartfelt condolences go out to her husband, Chuck and to her sons, Christopher and Charles. I hope they find solace in knowing she did so much to represent the people of Virginia.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this bill, not because I oppose punishing war profiteers or punishing corruption in contracting. I think these are critical, important laudable goals. I oppose this bill because creating a new law ``involving a contract or the provision of goods or services to the United States'' is a matter which must be considered in relation to the existing Federal acquisition systems, which this bill is not. Any attempt to legislate without considering the current system can have disastrous, albeit unintended, consequences which in this case include serious criminal penalties. As others have said today, we all agree that fraud against the United States undermines national security and there must be severe penalties for it. And of course we all agree corruption of any kind is unacceptable. Our committee in the last Congress held several hearings on contracting in Iraq and the difficulties that were faced there. And if the current law is inadequate to punish wrongdoers for these offenses, Congress should act. But taking up this bill in this way at this time proves to me that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are caring about passing a bill so that they can take political potshots at contractors. Hundreds of contractors' lives have been lost over in Iraq, and I think the widows and the mothers of these sons and daughters who have been killed in Iraq would be, I think, chagrined to hear their sons referred to as profiteers. In many cases the contractors are more in harm's way than our troops. They don't get the body armor. Many of them don't operate in the Green Zone or on bases. This is, in fact, a substitute, a proxy, if you will, because the majority can't put together a plan to end the war in Iraq so we go after contracting in Iraq. I think there are some things we could do, but I don't think this bill is the appropriate way to get through it. The words in this case don't make sense. It's not good law. What you care about is contractor bashing, consequences be damned. It is hard to get good companies to do business in Iraq. It is dangerous, it is expensive, it has all kinds of contingencies, and a lot of the best companies say we don't want to have anything to do with. The relationship between the government and the contractor is an arms-length business one, with many laws outlining how this relationship should proceed. Adding additional language to the criminal code regarding certain aspects of this relationship will have unintended consequences which have to be considered before moving this legislation forward. For example, the bill makes it a crime to materially overvalue a good or service. Under the Truth in Negotiation Act, a detailed process is already set out in which to address claims of defective pricing in Federal contracts. To those who don't know this government contract lingo, this might sound like fraudulent behavior. But defective pricing occurs when a company's contract price is significantly increased because the company submitted pricing data that was not accurate, complete and current. That's 10 U.S.C. 2306(a). In these cases, the government is generally entitled to a price reduction to remedy any overcharge by the submission of defective pricing data. The government takes seriously overpayments based on defective pricing and aggressively pursues contractors found to have engaged in these practices, in some cases including debarment. A contractor's liability can extend beyond the repayment of any overcharges, and under current law, can include fraud claims against the contractor. But under H.R. 400, would an overzealous prosecutor be able to go after a company with a defective pricing claim against it as materially overvaluing a good or service? Maybe. Maybe not. But we, on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee with jurisdiction over Federal procurement should have the opportunity to consider this language and its impact on the Federal acquisition system. The interrelationship of procurement law and the criminal law can be complicated. We have to be careful not to criminalize procurement management matters just because you can. Careful study is required to separate criminal behavior from management issues. I see other problems as well. Allowing a Federal prosecutor to enter post hoc determinations on whether a contract provides appropriate value to the government would have a chilling effect on a contracting officer's decisionmaking. Contractors would be discouraged from providing innovative solutions to government problems for fear that their solutions would subject them to charges of material overvaluation if the solution didn't work out as planned. Competition would be discouraged, which is the cornerstone of getting the best price and value because prospective contractors could be subjected to harsh penalties at the whim of a prosecutor who probably doesn't understand the acquisition system. In fixed price contracts, the price which the government buys would likely increase because contractors would have to include the possibility of these penalties in their pricing, costing the taxpayers money. In commercial contracts the market dictates what is a fair value, not a post hoc prosecutor's determination whether the government got appropriate value from the contract. I support strong penalties for war profiteering. I support strong penalties for corruption. I do not support H.R. 400 because I don't believe it has been given appropriate consideration by this House and numerous unintended consequences.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think the key here is that this legislation is needed. You have defective pricing legislation. You have Qui Tam actions. You have the Procurement Integrity Act. The language in this bill that concerns me is not the fact that its intent to defraud; that's in a lot of legislation. It's materially overvalues any good. And I can't find any precedent for that in the federal acquisition regulations. I can't find any precedent in terms of what this means and how a prosecutor could take this from materially overvaluing any good. That is a very subjective measurement. There are a lot of unintended consequences. And I suspect this bill will pass today, although not with my vote. But I hope we can improve it if we're going to make this actual law.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for introducing this bill. Martha Coffin Wright was the quintessential women's rights pioneer long before most women entertained the notion. She, along with her sister, Lucretia, spent their entire lives fighting for basic rights for women. She had a strong, independent mother who served as a powerful role model. In 1848, Mrs. Wright decided, along with others, to hold a convention in Seneca Falls to discuss the need for substantial women's rights. The significance of that first convention was recognized by Congress in 1980 when Women's Rights National Historical Park was created. The bronze statue to Mrs. Wright at the park shows that at the time of the convention she was 6 months pregnant while she participated in the convention. This was particularly remarkable at a time in history when women didn't often go in public as an activist, much less when they were pregnant. After the Seneca Falls Convention, Mrs. Wright served as president and in other leadership positions in many other women's rights conventions. Martha Wright was also a fervent abolitionist, and her home in Auburn, New York, was a station on the Underground Railroad. She often allowed fugitive slaves to sleep in her kitchen. Martha Coffin Wright was truly a woman whose significant accomplishments and contributions to both women's rights and civil rights set her apart as a leader and pioneer. Because of these, I rise today to recognize Martha Coffin Wright on the 200th anniversary of her birth and induction into the National Women's Hall of fame. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, community leader and family man. It is fitting that H.R. 3518 requests the designation of the post office in Cantonment, Florida, as the Charles H. Hendrix Post Office. Mr. Hendrix retired from the postal service after 37 years of service. Starting his career as a mail carrier and ultimately serving as the post master of the Cantonment post office, he was the type of employee that exemplifies loyalty and dedication. A life-long resident of Molino, Florida, Mr. Hendrix over the years served his community in many ways. He was a member of the Highland Baptist Church his entire life, where he served as Sunday School superintendent. He was church treasurer and chairman of the board of deacons at the time of his death. He was also a member of the Cantonment Rotary Club since 1962. He served one year as president and was an active member of the club service committee. He was also a charter member of the Molino Volunteer Fire Department, where he served as fire chief, assistant fire chief, and later as secretary of the fire department's board of directors, once again showing his dedication and service to others in the community. Because of Mr. Hendrix's service to the community, he is remembered with appreciation as a man of great integrity and willingness to help others. It is for these reasons that we name the Cantonment, Florida post office for Charles Harold Hendrix. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to a remarkable soldier, and another true American hero, Chief Warrant Officer Aaron Weaver, who at the age of 32 paid the ultimate price while in defense of his country. On January 8, 2004, he was on his way to have his blood work tested for cancer when the Black Hawk he was riding was shot down, killing all on board. As was noted before, Aaron was a testicular cancer survivor. He was still being treated when his unit was called to active duty in Iraq. He could have stayed at Fort Bragg, but that wasn't like him. His father said, He wanted to go to Iraq. When you're in a close group like that, you don't want your friends to leave you behind. As an Army Ranger, Weaver survived the October 1993 battle of Mogadishu in Somalia that was recounted in the book and film ``Black Hawk Down.'' His heroism in saving a friend's life was also featured in that documentary on the battle. Not only was Chief Warrant Officer Weaver a fighter, he was a husband, a father, and a son. He was proud to serve his Nation. And with gratitude for his bravery and sacrifice to his country, I would urge all members to join me in supporting H.R. 3530. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida, the author of this legislation, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1124, legislation I introduced earlier this year to extend the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program through 2012. This past May, the House approved the bill overwhelmingly and sent it to the Senate. Last month, after adding an amendment to exclude families who make more than $1 million a year from participating in the program, the Senate passed the bill 96-0. The amended legislation is now pending before the House. I urge my colleagues to support it. Prior to the creation of this program in 1999, residents of the Nation's capital did not have the luxury afforded to high school graduates everywhere else in the country, the chance to attend public colleges and universities at in-State tuition rates. This program levels the playing field by allowing District graduates to attend public colleges and universities at in-State tuition rates. The success of the Tuition Assistance Program is overwhelming and indisputable. College enrollment of public high school graduates in the District has doubled in the 7 years since the program was created from 30 percent to 60 percent, with 5,300 District graduates currently participating in the program. Few, if any other, federally funded initiatives can claim this level of success. The program has always received broad bipartisan support. Both Houses of Congress unanimously passed authorizing legislation for the program in 1999, and again in 2005. And the President has always supported full funding for the program in his annual budget request to Congress. The proven success of the program and the District's unique status make our choice simple. Congress should continue to support this legislation to provide higher education opportunities to high school graduates in the Nation's capital. I can't tell you how many parents told me, ``We would have moved to the suburbs if the program didn't exist.'' Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support a level playing field for high school graduates in the District. It's the right thing to do; it's the smart thing to do. I would also, at this point, like to thank, on the Republican staff, Mason Allinger, Howard Denes and David Marin for their hard work in bringing it to this moment. I've traveled a long road with the District of Columbia Access Act, from March 1, 1999, when it was introduced, until the present day. That road took us through the predecessor subcommittee that I chaired at the time, to the full Government Reform Committee, to the House and Senate floor, and then to the White House, where then-President Clinton signed the measure on November 12, 1999. In all of its legislative approvals the College Access Act, now known as the Tuition Assistance Grant Program, was passed unanimously, by voice vote. President Clinton had included sufficient money in his Budget Submission that year, and a Statement of Administration Policy endorsed the approach we had taken in authorizing use of those funds. I am deeply proud of our hard, bipartisan effort in enacting this measure and in re-authorizing it 2 years ago. My thanks to Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was ranking member of the District of Columbia Subcommittee in 1999, and who has worked tirelessly to enhance this legislation ever since. I would also like to thank my then-counterpart in the Senate, George Voinovich, for his continuing support, and Senators Warner and Durbin, for working with us to improve this legislation. The 5-year re-authorizing legislation before you today will enable District residents to continue to attend colleges and universities at in-state rates. President Bush, in his Budget Submission for fiscal year 2008, has included sufficient funds to make this happen. Then-Mayor Anthony Williams, and now D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, have both strongly supported this law as being very important for District high school graduates. As documented to this subcommittee, the graduation rate for public school students in the city has doubled since this law went into effect. We have incentivized staying in school. This law is a classic ``leveling of the playing field''. No city or county in the country is required to supplement its in-state rate with local funds, and neither should the taxpayers in the Nation's capital be saddled with this burden. Neither should the city be penalized for its own success in administering this program. Back on March 4, 1999, when I introduced this bill, I went to nearby Eastern High School with Ms. Norton. I was deeply moved by the reaction of the students. I will never forget how so many took our hands, looked into our eyes, and thanked us for introducing the original bill. I'm proud of all we have been able to do in the Nation's capital since 1995, when the city was literally bankrupt. Economic development, public safety, the real estate market, and so many other aspects of city life have changed for the better. But nothing has given me more satisfaction than working to improve educational opportunity. Fighting for equal educational opportunity is one of the reasons I entered public life. We need a healthy city to have a healthy Washington region. Re-authorizing this law, which has expanded higher educational choices, is an enormous leap forward. It is a strong part of our vision for the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me thank my colleague from Illinois for helping to shepherd this through today, and of course my friend from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who has been there from the beginning. This legislation at the very beginning had some tough sledding moving it through both Houses of the Congress. And also our thanks to Don Graham, who is really the father of this. The idea originated with him and he brought it to our attention early on in our congressional careers, and we are able to move it forward. But he brought a lot of bipartisan support from the business community to bear. I urge adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Jeanie Bell Winslow on the occasion of her retirement after 40 years of dedicated public service to the Federal Government. Mrs. Winslow began her career in federal service as a travel agent for the United States Army Audit Agency, where she was responsible for arranging official passenger travel, both domestic and international. In 1981, she spent 2 years at the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) learning about all modes of transportation as an intern for the Department of Army. After her internship, she was assigned to the Directorate of Personal Property at the MTMC for whom she managed military/industry symposiums and councils, and played a key role in responding to White House and congressional inquiries. While at the MTMC, Mrs. Winslow was also responsible for managing standard agreements with airline, air taxi and rental car companies who provide service to the Department of Defense. She managed the Federal Government's rental car program and represented the MTMS on various General Services Administration panels that sought to evaluate bids for the city-pair contract. Since joining the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC), Mrs. Winslow has managed their annual training symposium and Quality Award and Excellence in Transportation Awards Program, as well as legislative affairs and trade publications. As a result of her efforts, the SDDC's award-winning Translog magazine has doubled in issue size to 44 pages. Mrs. Winslow will retire as the Acting Director of the Command Affairs Office at the SDDC. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Jeanie Bell Winslow for her years of service and dedication to the Federal Government. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Winslow on her retirement and wishing her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I again want to thank Mr. Cooper for introducing this legislation and working with us as it moved its way through the subcommittee and committee process; Mr. Towns for his leadership; and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for his leadership as well. Today, we take up H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act of 2007. This legislation is intended to enhance the independence of Inspectors General throughout the government to improve their ability to monitor and oversee executive branch operations. Since the enactment of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Inspectors General throughout the government have played an integral role in identifying waste and mismanagement in government. IGs have also been instrumental in aiding Congress and the executive branch to make government more efficient and effective. We all agree IGs should operate independently, free from political interference. After all, both agency heads and Congress often rely on IG reports to provide frank assessments of the effectiveness of Federal programs. However, Inspectors General should also be part of an agency's management structure, part of a team, albeit with some independence, rather than a ``fourth branch'' of the Federal Government. If we separate the IGs from the day-to-day operations of the agencies they oversee, IGs will cease to perform a constructive, integrated role and instead will become Monday morning quarterbacks with their function solely second-guessing decisions made by agencies. Many of the provisions in H.R. 928 will help to enhance the effectiveness of the IGs in overseeing Federal agencies and programs. I am concerned that certain provisions of the legislation go further than I would like in isolating IGs, removing them from the agency decision- making process. For example, during committee consideration of the legislation, I offered an amendment to exempt smaller agency IGs from the ``for cause'' removal provision in the bill, thereby reserving the ``for cause'' removal threshold only for Cabinet-level agency IGs. The purpose of this amendment, which was adopted, I might add, with the help of my friends on the other side, was to strike an appropriate balance between the need to ensure independence of our Inspectors General while at the same time preserving the President's authority over employers and officers of the executive branch. I also have concerns with a provision that's in the current bill authorizing IGs to independently submit their budget requests to Congress outside of the traditional Federal budget process. My concerns with this new authority pertain more to the logistical nightmare this creates rather than any particular objection to increased IG independence. After all, having 60 separate budgets for individual offices accompanying the President's annual budget submission to Congress will only add unnecessary confusion to the already confusing Federal budget process. So when Members get the President's budget, under the way the law is currently written, they get the Federal budget submitted by the President and then 60 separate requests from IGs. Now, I intend to offer an amendment, which I am hopeful the other side will accept, which goes at least part of the way toward addressing the legitimate concerns raised by the administration but getting to the points that the author of this bill wanted to get as well. In closing, I believe the underlying legislation improves the laws governing our IGs. I think some additional changes need to be made as it moves forward, but I very much appreciate Mr. Cooper's efforts on this bill and his initiative in trying to identify these problems as we move through. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me talk, first of all, about what the legislation does. It establishes a 7-year term of office for the over 60 Inspectors General in the Federal Government. This gives them continuity from administration to administration, so they're not political lackeys, they are professionals. It limits the President's authority to remove a Senate-confirmed IG, and that's about half of them, except on certain grounds; for example, permanent incapacity, inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, conviction of a felony, or conduct involving moral turpitude. That gives the IGs independence from pressure from the appointing administration. At the smaller agencies, a different standard applies. There, an IG can be removed, but it will require 30-day advance notification to Congress before an agency head removes the agency's IG. The legislation also authorizes IGs to submit their budget requests to Congress independent of the President's budget submission. This is something that I'm going to have an amendment on later that I think will clarify it. This also codifies an executive order establishing the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. This is a coordinating council of Federal IGs, as well as an integrity committee to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by IGs. And unfortunately, we see that; these people are human beings as well. It increases the salary of IGs and prohibits IGs from receiving bonuses. It enhances IG power by granting limited personnel authority, expanded subpoena authority, and increased ability to deputize IG agents. It strengthens the GAO's authority to conduct investigations, for sworn testimony it requires congressional notification of agency noncooperation, and it expands IG ability to pursue false claims and recoup losses resulting from fraud. Now, the administration has issued a negative statement of policy on this for two reasons. One, they don't like the limitation on the President's authority to remove executive branch officials. On that, I think we have gone overboard, working together, both parties, to try to put reasonable limitations, but at the same time maintaining a higher level of independence for IGs than you will find at other levels. And I think institutionally, as Members of this House, the changes in this bill I think are worth supporting, I would oppose the administration in that. The second concern is the independent submission of the IG's budget to Congress, and we are offering an amendment to try to clarify that, which I will speak on later. Once again, this legislation was introduced by Representative Jim Cooper from Tennessee in February. It was approved by our committee by a voice vote in August. In addition to a substitute offered by Representative Cooper, which made a number of technical changes, the committee did adopt an amendment offered by me to limit the application of removal for cause in a way that I think we are all comfortable with. So, again, I want to thank the players who have brought this to this stage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.