Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. That is correct in the case of Virginia, if the gentlelady would allow me.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. The District of Columbia portion that came from Virginia went back to Virginia in 1846. And I think it is important for Members to understand the reason for the Virginia section of the District petitioned to go back to Virginia was because they were afraid that Congress was going to enact a ban on slaveholding in the District.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my friend for yielding. We have Republicans quoting liberal professors and Democrats quoting conservative professors in support of where they are. At the end of the day I believe that if the District were a Republican enclave, our side would be getting up screaming for voting rights and the other side would be saying, no, the Constitution is strict. We are trying to take the politics out of this. In the last Congress, both committees with jurisdiction under Republican chairmen cleared this bill for the floor and the Republican leadership denied it an opportunity to come to the floor. We could have had a full and open debate at that point. I think it would have been helpful to the process. Now the Democrats are in control and they are bringing this up, not for a full and open debate, unfortunately, but under a closed rule. We should have an open rule on this. At the time when we are spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives to bring democracy to Baghdad, to Afghanistan and around the world, shouldn't we look right next door to our friends and neighbors here in the Nation's capital and give them the essence of democracy, the right to vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives? I think we should. There are different views as to how we should do this. The former chairman of the Judiciary Committee says it's constitutional, but doesn't like the at-large aspect of the Utah seat but we are not able to debate that on the floor today. My friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who has long been a champion of voting rights here has a different mechanism under which this could be established. I wish we could have a full and open debate on this. I think it would be helpful to the process. And I am really torn. Because on the one hand our side doesn't want the bill to come up at all, and the other side wants this to come up under very closed rules where we can't have full and open debate. I look forward to a spirited colloquy as we move through this. I am going to support the bill in its final form, of course, as it moves through because I think this is something that is long overdue for citizens of the Nation's capital and with a long line of legal precedents which treats the District of Columbia like a State when Congress says it can be treated like a State. Things like the right to trial by jury, paying Federal taxes, other issues that apply only to States under the Constitution but which under the District clause to the Constitution when we apply it to the District, it is treated like a State. And once again, looking at such conservative jurists as Ken Starr, Viet Dinh who wrote the PATRIOT Act for the Bush administration testified under oath as to its constitutionality. This shouldn't ultimately be locked up in this. This should be about basic voting rights for the capital of the Free World.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it is often said that if opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. With this bill, we are doing just that. Using the materials at hand today, we can open a portal to full democratic participation that for too long has remained locked. The circumstances are right, the stars are aligned, and the proposal is sound. Four years ago, we saw a confluence of events that set the stage for the compromise we have before us today. Two injustices met to create this opportunity to correct both. On the one hand, a long-ignored historical anomaly denies the citizens of the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, a more recent problem with the census denies the citizens of Utah the additional House vote that a true count would have yielded. As it happens, one jurisdiction is predominantly Democratic, the other predominantly Republican. The circumstances opened the way to a politically neutral solution to both problems. Throughout our Nation's history, it has been just this kind of win- win compromise that, however rooted in the fleeting circumstances of the day, provide enduring solutions to seemingly intractable problems. Each of us swears to uphold the Constitution, its letter and spirit. That living document is at its heart the most fundamental right of citizens in a democracy. All the citizens. So we rely on the plenary power found in the District clause to restore the full right of citizenship to our disenfranchised countrymen and women. After researching every possible avenue to right these wrongs and give the citizens of the District of Columbia and Utah, the next State that is eligible for a vote under the formula, the representation to which they are entitled, we concluded the approach before us today is both constitutionally sound and politically viable. The former is our sworn duty. The latter is a practical imperative. In 4 years, I have found no evidence that any Member of this body seriously plans to attempt retrocession or campaign for a constitutional amendment. There is a good reason for that: they are politically not viable. Most Members, including me, don't waste their time tilting at windmills. By now, every Member is aware of the constitutional arguments. I ask that you think carefully about what you hear today. Every first-year law student in this country learns that you can't just read the Constitution once over literally to figure out what it means. But that is what the other side's arguments are. That is where it stops, and that is where it starts. Those opposing this bill ignore 200 years of case law and clear instruction from the Court that this is a congressional matter and requires a congressional solution. Under their literal reading of the Constitution, District residents would have no right to a jury trial under the sixth amendment because you have to be a State to have that right. D.C. residents would have no right to sue people from outside D.C. in the Federal courts; only people from States have that right under Article III, section 2. The full faith and credit clause would not apply to D.C. because that only applies to States under a literal reading of the Constitution. And the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal taxes on the District. The Constitution says direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. Article I, section 2, clause 3. But in each of these cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can consider the District a State for purposes of applying these fundamental provisions. If Congress has the authority to do so regarding these lesser rights and duty, there should be no question we have the same authority to protect the most sacred right of every American: to live and participate in a representative Republic. It should also be pointed out that Congress granted voting representation in 1790 when it accepted the land that would become the Federal city. It then removed those rights, by statute, 10 years later. Those facts are undisputed. No amendment to the Constitution was considered necessary then. And those opposing the bill today will not explain, only assert, the claimed need for a constitutional amendment to reverse a decision that was made through enactment of a statute. This problem should be solved. A lot of people today will talk about the Framers and tell us that the Framers intended for the Federal city to have no direct representation. Do you really believe that if the capital had stayed in New York, the city would have been disenfranchised? Do you believe that if the capital had stayed in Philadelphia, the city would have been disenfranchised? Of course not, and neither should the people of Washington, D.C. What we know is men and women who fought and died to create this country were willing to die for people who might disagree with them politically. D.C. residents are paying Federal taxes. They are fighting and dying in the Middle East to bring democracy to that part of the world. This is no mere legal or political science exercise. It's a crisis. Your fellow Americans are being denied the full rights and benefits of representative government. We have before us this unique moment in our history, the opportunity to fulfill the promise of the Constitution and make our democracy whole again. I hope we hear opportunity knocking, and I hope we hear the faint, but unmistakable whisper of conscience and of history, urging us all to seize the moment with courage and humility. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2007] Rights and Wrong Historic legislation giving the people of the District a vote in their national government is being debated in the House of Representatives. Prospects for its passage have never been better. The Democrats who control the House have kept a promise to move the bill forward, but the disenfranchisement of American citizens shouldn't be about partisan politics. It should be about what is right and wrong. Indeed, the legislation working its way through the House sprang from he sense of injustice of a Republican House member from suburban Virginia. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III believes it is grotesque that D.C. residents are denied congressional representation. he came up with an ingenious way to get politics out of the equation. Two seats would be added to Congress--one for the mostly Democratic District and the other for heavily Republican Utah. The bill is on a fast track thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved the measure yesterday, with every Democrat and six Republicans voting for it. The Judiciary Committee now takes it up, and a battle is expected. It's hard to make a case for depriving people of a voice in Congress when they pay federal taxes, serve on federal juries and send family members off to war. It's also pretty embarrassing that the Untied States, while preaching democracy to the rest of the world, remains the only democratic country where people in the capital city are without representation. So opponents of D.C. voting rights have latched onto the only argument they can make with a straight face--that the bill is unconstitutional. Former judges and constitutional scholars such as Kenneth Starr, Patricia Wald and Viet Dinh, not to mention the American Bar Association, believe the bill is constitutional. They argue that Congress has repeatedly treated the District as if it were a state and that this treatment has been upheld. For his part, Mr. Davis has delved into history to make a compelling argument that the lack of a vote was never the aim of the Founding Fathers but rather an ``undemocratic accident.'' We concede that serious people hold the contrary view. No court has ever weighed in on the D.C. Voting Rights Act, so the constitutional question is open. That, though, is an issue for the courts to decide, in the event of a legal challenge. It should not be an excuse for Congress to continue to deny a basic right to more than half a million people.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just say to my colleagues, I think the gun ban in the District is ridiculous, and I would join with my colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesn't do that. Instead of bringing this motion back to the floor forthwith for a vote up or down to continue this resolution and send it to the Senate with the gun ban, it sends it back to the committee; is that correct, Mr. Smith? It does not send it back to the floor, this sends it to committee. So essentially this vote doesn't go anywhere. You can get your vote on gun rights, but it kills the bill, and that is the intention of this. And it is put there to put Members in a difficult situation. If you want to get a vote on District voter rights, you have to vote against this. I would hope that we can have a free vote on the District gun ban later on. The courts have overturned it. I don't think it is a good law. But this doesn't overturn it because this kills the bill, and with it kills the amendment. I would urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Linda Trexler, Principal of Neabsco Elementary School, upon being selected as the Prince William County Distinguished Educational Leadership Award winner and being named Prince William County Principal of the Year. The Washington Post presents annual awards to outstanding educators who ``day after day go beyond the challenges of the highly demanding profession to create exceptional educational environments for Washington area students.'' Principal Trexler certainly fits this definition. For the past 7 years Principal Trexler has devoted herself to the success of her students at Neabsco Elementary School. Under her leadership the school has become a fully accredited institution, a model of instructional improvement and has twice been named a School of Excellence in the Prince William County Public School system. Additionally, the school boasts a 90.1 percent SOL pass rate in math and a 91.4 percent SOL pass rate in language arts. These awards and statistics show the unique impact that a principal, faculty and student body can achieve when motivated to reach the common goal of academic excellence. It is plain to see that Principal Trexler has been able to lead her school to reach that goal. Principal Trexler's adoration and devotion to her students has been accepted and returned by the faculty and student body. Upon hearing about these awards, her students organized to write a song and create banners in her honor. This relationship built on respect and love for education has created an atmosphere that deserves celebration and should be replicated throughout the schools of our area and our Nation. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Ms. Linda Trexler on her tireless efforts to ensure that the students of Neabsco Elementary School receive the quality education they deserve. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Principal Trexler for receiving the 2007 Prince William County Distinguished Educational Leadership Award and being named Prince William County Principal of the Year. I wish Principal Trexler, her faculty and her students continued success in the years to come.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 60th anniversary of the Kiwanis Club of Woodbridge, Virginia. In 1947, Frank Sigman and Carroll White noticed a dearth of civic engagement in their local Woodbridge community. Having been previously exposed to Kiwanis, they decided that the culture of civic and community engagement promoted by Kiwanis would greatly benefit the area. They canvassed their neighborhoods in an effort to create an interest in starting a Woodbridge club. This work paid off and on March 22, 1947, the Woodbridge chapter was chartered. In fact, they were so successful in creating support that more than 200 people attended what turned out to be a gala affair. Taking root from these strong seeds, the club became a positive factor in shaping the development of Woodbridge. In the early days, the club helped establish a public water and sewage system, create a rescue squad, obtain land for a little league and provided organizational support for the creation of the Prince William County Police Department and the formation of the Potomac Hospital. Currently, the club maintains its strong ties to the local community by working with the local Boys and Girls Clubs, the Salvation Army, Action in the Community Through Service, Potomac Hospital's Mobile Family Health Clinic, the Senior Citizen's Center and the Special Olympics to provide services and financial support to those in need. Kiwanis is an international institution created to ``serve the children of the world.'' They were founded on six guiding principles that continue to lead their activities to this day. These six permanent ``Objects of Kiwanis'' are: to give primacy to the human and spiritual rather than to the material values of life; to encourage daily living of the Golden Rule; to promote the adoption and application of higher social, business, and professional standards; to develop by precept and example a more intelligent, aggressive and serviceable citizenship; to provide a practical means to form enduring friendships; and better communities and to cooperate in creating and maintaining sound public opinion and high idealism. The Woodbridge Kiwanis Club continues to use these noble principles to guide their efforts in the community to this day. It is plain to see that the club has played a fundamental role in making this area of Eastern Prince William County a great place to live, work and play. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate all Kiwanians on the service they provide to their communities. Their tireless efforts on behalf of the next generation truly merit recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the Woodbridge Kiwanis Club on its 60th anniversary and in wishing them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it is an honor for me to recognize Deborah Cohn, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, for her leadership in promoting government telework. Telework offers a great opportunity for the Federal Government to help solve environmental, traffic, and possibly continuity-of-operations issues, especially on the busy highways of Northern Virginia. It is well known that the Federal Government lags behind the private sector in providing telework options for its workforce. Yet, USPTO has set itself apart with its telework program. With her foresight, creativity, and perseverance, Deborah Cohn pioneered the development of USPTO's first telework program at a time when telework was far from the norm. Ms. Cohn not only convinced reluctant agency executives, she forged coalitions with managers, IT personnel, and the employee union to create an innovative, award- winning telework program at the USPTO. This month, the Trademark Work at Home, TWAH, program celebrates its 10th anniversary. TWAH, which began as a feasibility pilot of 18 teleworkers, today stands as the most innovative and progressive program in the Federal Government. It involves more than 220 employees, or 85 percent of eligible examining attorneys, who spend the vast majority of their workweek at home. The USPTO program has received awards from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Telework Exchange, the Mid- Atlantic Telework Advisory Council, and the International Telework Association and Council. Just last month, USPTO received the 2007 Work- Life Innovative Excellence Award from the Alliance for Work-Life Progress for the Trademark Work at Home Program. The TWAH program now serves as a prototype of an innovative telework program, combining management-by-objective with hoteling, resulting in documented savings of space and cost savings for the agency. The ability to manage employees remotely using clear, measurable performance goals, regardless of where they work, models an extremely successful telecommuting program for government agencies. The TWAH program also demonstrates that flexibility of time and location enables employees to maximize efficiency, which is reflected by production gains of teleworkers. The phenomenally low attrition rate among TWAH participants should encourage agencies that face recruitment and retention problems to consider such programs. It is essential that federal agencies maintain procedures for continuing government operations in the midst of, and following, a national emergency caused by terrorism or natural causes. Effective telework plans and procedures help ensure critical agency operations continue uninterrupted. Federal agencies with telecommuting programs receive significant benefits, including a more productive workforce, increased employee morale and quality of life, and the ability to better accommodate employees with health problems or child- or elder- care responsibilities. Teleworking eliminates a significant number of vehicle trips during peak hours, which aids the environment. The Federal Government should be a telecommuting leader, yet many federal agencies have been reluctant to embrace the concept. That is why I am delighted to congratulate Ms. Cohn on her outstanding leadership on telework issues. Ms. Cohn began her career at USPTO in 1983 as a trademark examining attorney. In 2001, she joined the Senior Executive Service as a Trademark Group Director. She became Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations in 2005 and currently oversees the examination and processing of applications throughout the trademark operation. Throughout her legal career at USPTO, Ms. Cohn has been involved in work-life improvement initiatives. She is a former Council of Excellence in Government Fellow, where she first developed the seeds of the trademark work-at-home program. Ms. Cohn is a graduate of The American University and George Mason University School of Law. Ms. Cohn is a sought-after resource and speaker as an expert on the development and management of telework programs. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Ms. Cohn's efforts in making USPTO's telework program the most successful operation of its kind within the federal government. Additionally, I call upon my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Trademark Office's award-winning telework program.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has ensured the public's access to Government records. The 1966 act replaced the old ``need to know'' standard with today's ``right to know'' practice, placing the burden on the government to justify any need for secrecy. However, the FOIA process has recently struggled to keep up with the public's demand for documents. Since 2002, FOIA requests have increased 71 percent. This additional volume has delayed the processing of some requests. Not long ago, President Bush signed an Executive Order to make FOIA operations more citizen-centric and results-oriented by requiring every agency to name a Chief FOIA Officer, establish a FOIA Requester Service Center, identify underperforming areas, and formulate a plan to implement improvements. Legislation designed to streamline and improve the FOIA process was introduced last Congress by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. His bill had moved through subcommittee to the full committee, with the assistance of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts. The Executive Order adopted many of the process improvements contained in that bill. The Majority took this bill and made additional changes, moving beyond process reforms. First, the attorney's fee provision appears to lower the bar attorney's fees eligibility. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, and it appears some want to codify old, more lucrative, law. We should take a close look at this provision. There is a great deal of talk about freedom of information, and open Government, and the public right to know. But I hope when we scratch the surface of this bill, it is not about money. Second, the Majority has listened to vocal special interest complaints about the so-called Ashcroft memo, and is attempting to codify the policies of former Attorney General Reno. I hope we can come to real bipartisan agreement on this provision as we move forward. Improving the procedural aspects of FOIA should be our goal here today. It is something we all agree on. Although the debate on the appropriate balance between open access and protected records will continue, I trust we will find a way to balance National Security with the vital principles of open Government.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this legislation establishes a statutory process under which incumbent and former Presidents could, within specified time limits, review records prior to their release, and determine whether to personally assert constitutional privilege claims against release of the records. This legislation is identical to legislation introduced in a prior Congress and approved by the Committee under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton. During consideration of the bill before us, the Committee approved my amendment to close a loophole in the Presidential Records Act. Current law allows those individuals previously convicted of a crime relating to mishandling Archives records to continue to have special access to Presidential records. My amendment states that the Archivist shall not make available any original Presidential records to any individual claiming access as a designated representative under statute, if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of Archives records. As I noted in Committee, we should take the simple step of blocking access to original Presidential records if you've been convicted of crime related to Archives records.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker our Nation's Presidential libraries are a priceless resource for researchers, historians, and the public. They serve as legacies to our Presidents, repositories of history, and a source of tremendous pride for local communities. At the same time, they have become elaborate institutions, housing official papers, museums, classrooms, conference facilities, and even gift shops. With this expansion, however, come additional costs. As the costs increase, so does the pressure to raise private funds. But under current law, those contributions do not need to be disclosed. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, worked to close this loophole. He has been a leader on this issue, drafting and moving legislation to an overwhelming House vote. But we should keep politics out of this. The bill before us applies to the current President and future Presidents. I offered an amendment in Committee to make this law effective for the next elected President. I hope we again will resist inserting politics into a bill the House passed by a vote of 392 to 3. With this legislation we are recognizing the perception of impropriety that contributions to a presidential library can raise. We don't need to re-open old wounds or begin inflicting new ones today. Presidents leave their mark on our rich history, and those giving to presidential libraries should be proud to have their donations publicly disclosed. Mr. Speaker, our goal should be a unanimous vote on the House floor-- anything less is a step back. I know my colleagues will agree: The cost of building presidential libraries: millions. The value of disclosing contributions to those libraries: priceless.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to speak on H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, which was introduced by Government Oversight and Reform chairman Henry Waxman last week. I want to thank the chairman for working with us. This is not a bill that we are particularly enthusiastic about. We have very divergent views in the way we should go about contract regulation, but we both want the same ends. And I want to commend him for working with us, addressing some of our concerns as it moved through the committee process. This bill would attempt to reform our acquisition system through a series of restrictions and reports geared towards greater regulation and oversight. More specifically, the legislation would limit the duration of contracts awarded under urgent conditions; require agency reports on minimizing the use of fixed-price and sole-source contracts; require additional reports to Congress on cost questions by auditors; and broaden the reach of current limitations on post-employment opportunities for our acquisition workforce, as well as limit the ability of acquisition workers hired by the government from the private sector to participate in certain acquisition activities. I want to thank the chairman again for working with me by including two provisions that we requested that are both intended to strengthen the Federal acquisition workforce through better training and management. The first would require the administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to come up with a government-wide definition for ``acquisition workforce.'' This modification would help give Federal agencies a clear picture of the composition of their existing acquisition workforce and provide a baseline for the improvement of the human capital resource dedicated to the management of the acquisition workload. The second would make permanent the Acquisition Workforce Training Fund, which was first enacted under SARA, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, which I authored. Last week our committee revised the introduced version of the bill by approving an amendment I offered to address the concerns I had with the bill's expansion of post-employment restrictions. While I wholeheartedly support the desire to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in government, I was troubled by certain provisions in the bill which sought to significantly expand current post- employment restrictions and curb the government's capability to take advantage of the valuable technical abilities and skills of former private-sector employees. At a time when we need to be looking for ways to retain qualified acquisition personnel, too many of whom are approaching retirement age, while at the same time looking for effective ways to recruit new qualified people, the introduced version tried to instead impose new restrictions on these Federal employees. These restrictions would have had a detrimental impact on the executive branch's ability to recruit and retain the brightest and the best personnel for the acquisition workforce, something we can ill afford. Our amendment shortened the bill's 2-year post-employment restrictions on contracting officers to 1 year and provided for a waiver of the restrictions on the ability of acquisition workers hired by the government from the private sector to participate in certain acquisition activities. My amendment also shortened the duration of the activity restrictions from 2 years to 1 year. While this language goes part way toward addressing my concerns about the negative effects such restrictions have had on the Federal Government's ability to recruit, hire, and retain the skilled acquisition workforce, I continue to have the same concerns. The bottom line is that there are too many good people working for this government for us to pass onerous restrictions based on the misdeeds of a handful of employees. We need to promote the natural churn of employees between the public and private sector, instead of trying to stymie it. We can't, on the one hand, bemoan the quality of contract management, while on the other, create more obstacles to getting the people that we need to do the job. In addition to the changes we made in committee last week, I am pleased to see the text of the bill that is on the floor today includes the good work of the Committee on Armed Services. That committee made significant improvements and clarifications to the underlying bill. The Armed Services Committee toned down some of the rhetoric in the bill. For example, by changing terms like ``limiting the abuse of abuse-prone contracts'' to ``improving the quality of contracts.'' More substantively, the Armed Services Committee raised the threshold of the report on preliminary audits of contractor costs from $1 million to $10 million. Nonetheless, I remain concerned a report like this, even at the higher threshold and the limitation to significant contractor costs, still presents a distorted and incomplete picture of the management of cost-type contracts. Contract auditors are critical cogs in the management system. They write audit reports which are submitted to aid the contracting officer in making his final determination whether particular costs are reasonable and consistent with applicable law and the contract terms and, therefore, permitted or what we call ``allowable under the contract.'' It is the outcome of the oversight process, not just the first phase, that we should be reviewing. If we want an accurate picture of costs actually billed to the government which the contracting officer determined the government will not pay, the unallowables, then we might learn something. But that is not what this bill does. The bill would only burden agencies with another meaningless reporting requirement and, I might add, add fodder up here for Members to take this review and make something of it that is probably not accurate. Each year our Federal contract professionals use the acquisition system to purchase almost $400 billion worth of goods and services, ranging from paper clips to advanced weapons system, from sophisticated information technology and management services to grass cutting and window washing. Recent reforms, culminating in our Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, have modernized the way the government does business with the private sector. No longer is our government laden with inflexible, timely, and costly acquisition systems. Legislative efforts over the past decade have provided many of the tools necessary for our acquisition professionals to get the job done. Unfortunately, the Federal acquisition system has been under stress in recent years because of the extraordinary pressures of a shrinking workforce, combined with the unprecedented Hurricane Katrina disaster relief and recovery efforts, the enormous job of managing contractors who provide logistical support for our troops in Iraq, and overseeing the daunting task of building an Iraqi infrastructure. To no one's surprise, this strain has resulted in a series of management problems that have been exaggerated by the press and exploited by opponents of the system. Nevertheless, the system has worked pretty well, and the vast majority of the government's acquisitions have been conducted properly. The problems have largely been the result of management difficulties exacerbated by an overburdened and understaffed workforce, combined with improper actions by a handful of officials. Frankly, Madam Chairman, I don't think that controls, reports, procedures and restrictions in this bill will go very far in addressing the challenges that face us today. Reverting to the bloated system of the past, weighted down with a process-oriented system doesn't help the government acquire the best valuable goods and services the commercial market has to offer and our government so desperately needs in a timely manner. Reverting to the past, under the rubric of fraud, waste and abuse and cleaning up the system may provide flashy sound bites and play well back home, but it doesn't give us the world-class acquisition system that we need to compete in the 21st century. We have put the current system to the test in some of the most difficult environments imaginable: Hurricane Katrina reconstruction and Iraqi logistics and contracting and reconstruction. The failures which occurred have been rooted in the inadequacies of management and implementation. And yet the Rules Committee, in looking at the Armed Services Committee report and ours, took out the provision that had the 1 percent additional funding for some of the management and implementation dollars that could have gone into training. As legislators, we should resist the temptation to micromanage our acquisition system based on unproven anecdotes of failure and misconduct. More controls and procedures will not remedy poorly defined requirements or provide us with a sufficient number of Federal acquisition personnel with the right skills to select the best contractor and manage the subsequent performance. Why should we force the taxpayers and private entities to undergo unreasonable burdens so politicians can reap short-term gain at the expense of crippling an already overburdened acquisition system and workforce? It is for these reasons, Madam Chairman, we find this bill has sufficient shortcomings. These shortcomings are shared by the administration in their statement on administration policy in the ITAA, and I will discuss those as the debate goes further. Finally, let me just say, this country, over the years, has had the debate over what is the appropriate role of oversight, how much is too much. But we need an acquisition system that works. And sometimes we spend so much in our rules and regulations, making sure somebody doesn't steal anything, that they can't do much of anything else either; and we get a system that is burdened and that does not create the efficiencies that we need to more forward. Once again, one of the greater issues that divide the chairman and myself is our philosophies on contracting. But I want to just commend him for working with us on this bill to try to get to where it is today. I know this is important to him. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairwoman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The administration strongly opposes H.R. 1362, which would impose a new statutory ban on how the government uses acquisition personnel and would restrict the executive branch's ability to determine the appropriate funding for acquisition workforce functions. That is what they say on their statement on administration policy. We also note that other provisions would impose burdensome statutory requirements that overlap with more efficient administrative efforts to strengthen the use of competition and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The administration also feels that this legislation would limit the Federal Government's ability to tap technical expertise of Federal employees who are former contractor employees. Frankly, we need the best and the brightest overseeing these contracts. As I take a look at contracts that have failed, a lot of it is due to the fact that we have not had appropriate oversight within the executive branch, and being able to get the best and the brightest is a very, very critical component to this. These restrictions, the administration feels, would lower the quality of procurement, solicitations, and analyses and would significantly harm the executive branch's ability to recruit and retain the experienced procurement officials from the private sector to close skill gaps and strengthen the overall capabilities of the acquisition workforce. The administration also is concerned with the new requirement in the bill that would impose exhaustive quarterly reporting on every significant contract management deficiency at the contractor and subcontractor levels. This requirement will interfere with agencies' abilities to address and resolve contract performance problems in a timely manner. The Information Technology Association of America in Arlington, Virginia says: The Association joined with other members of the Acquisition Reform Working Group in pointing out flaws in H.R. 1362, while saying that such significant legislation deserves the same light- of-day and careful consideration as do the major government contracts that the majority seeks to control. They note that the title of the bill alone mistakenly implies a lack of accountability for government contractors under current law. Their president, Phil Bond, notes that ``to the contrary, there is already abundant chapter and verse to bring best value to government and to protect the interest of taxpayers. What is really needed is better application of existing regulations by a fully staffed professional Federal acquisition corps working with responsible government contractors.'' The letter also points out to committee leaders that many of the contracting issues now being addressed are ``symptoms of the shortages of manpower and training for adequate contract management.'' And they note that ``the government can't retain personnel and fill existing job openings in the acquisition workforce.'' They also joined the working group in taking issue with the sections of the bill regarding disclosure of government contractor overcharges. While agreeing that the proper use and oversight of government contracts is paramount, they dispute any need for quarterly reports to Congress on contract charges that are adjudicated by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the DCAA. They note that these are unnecessary provisions and would force significant investment and government resources and additional burdens on acquisition personnel. So the ITAA comes out against it. They also note that another section of the bill that seeks more restrictive cost reimbursement-type contracts is also unnecessary and potentially harmful. They note that such contracts typically are used when uncertainties and risks are high, as in emergency situations, and development programs when it is not feasible to set a fixed price for the work required. The Federal Acquisitions Regulations, the FAR, already establishes detailed criteria for proper selection of contract type, including limitations on the use of cost-type contracts ``for use only when uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to suit any type of fixed price contract.'' Madam Chairwoman, if we want to fix the Federal contracting system, the appropriate way is to hire, train, retrain, and pay well our acquisition personnel so that they have a toolbox of acquisition options to use to get the best deal for the government in every case, get the best value for the government. The taxpayers' dollars are at stake here, and their role ought to be to make sure the taxpayer dollars are spent most efficiently. Adding burdens and layers and layers of regulatory reports do nothing to help that situation at all, and in many cases it can be very misleading as these burdens come out and we start taking out DCAA reports that have nothing to do with final adjudications of how these work. We already, by the way, have access to that information in Congress. What we don't have access to information is, and one of the things we would have liked to include, is to take final adjudications on costs that were deemed allowable and see what those costs are per contractor. That could have helped us in ferreting out which contractors are using these items. But this legislation does little to remedy those situations, unfortunately. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairwoman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start by saying we all want to limit the use of no-bid contracts. These go back of course to the Revolutionary War, where the troops were marching and they needed food and there is one farmer around. And you can't go out to bid to see who is going to sell you the lowest corn; you take what is there. But they should be limited, because competition is the cornerstone of our contracting system. Let me go through some of the assertions that are made in support of the bill and give my thoughts. Assertion one is that spending on sole source and other noncompetitive contracts has more than doubled over the last 5 years. And although spending has increased significantly over the last 5 years, it is due largely to 9/11 and Katrina. The total dollars competed is a percentage of total dollars available for competition. It has remained relatively constant between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, between 61 and 64 percent, according to the FPDS. This notwithstanding, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator will be seeking to help in the leadership of the CAOs to reinvigorate through administrative means the use of competition and related practice for achieving a competitive environment. The role of competition advocates should be revived, with special emphasis on planning and execution in the management of hard-to-task and delivery orders. There is an assertion that over the last 5 years the administration has jeopardized taxpayer interests and squandered hundreds of millions of dollars by giving private contractors exclusive control over huge portions of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Frankly, DOD is giving increased attention to contingency contracting, including training for acquisition and program personnel and standard operating procedures. The Department of Defense and other agencies have recognized the need to increase the number of prepositioned, competitively awarded contracts to address contingencies. Also, the Department of Defense has several audit agencies including the Defense Audit Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency working in theater to monitor the contracts and resources. Another assertion that comes from the other side is that this administration has justified the award of lucrative sole source contracts by citing urgent and compelling needs but then allowed these contracts to continue years after the emergency has passed. The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the CAOC, has established an Emergency Response and Recovery Working Group to improve access to information that can assist the acquisition workforce in planning for and addressing emergencies. The working group created a community of practice Web site, accessible at http://acc.dau.mil/emergencyresponse, so that agencies can share information about their policies and procedures, their best practices, their training resources, and other information of interest. For example, the site provides a link to the Emergency Acquisition Field Guide developed by FEMA so other agencies can learn about and adopt, as appropriate, practices employed by FEMA for performing specific assignments or functions in an emergency acquisition environment. The emergency response and recovery Web site includes a list of interagency contracts that offer the types of supplies and services that were required by agencies to address disaster recovery for Katrina and 9/11, such as communications equipment, fuel and transportation, pharmaceuticals, portable shelters, generators, tarps, bottled water, and emergency meals. The GSA has established a disaster relief and emergency preparedness homepage that provides a quick reference guide to offerings on its Multiple Award Schedules that can be suitable for addressing readiness, intervention, counteractive solutions, or post- emergency logistics. Another assertion is that cost reimbursement-type contracts leave the taxpayer vulnerable to wasteful spending by providing contractors with little or no incentive to control costs. Between 2000 and 2005, the use of this type of contract has risen 75 percent. Frankly, according to the FPDS again, the total government spending on contracts has increased considerably, roughly at the same percentage as the increases in cost-type contracts stated above. From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, total spending increased from $219 billion to $380 billion. But cost-type contracts play a useful and necessary role in contracting when uncertainties involved in contract performance don't permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract. And the contractors get caught on these many times when they move ahead and they estimate it to be one thing and then the needs of the contract change and they end up having to advance costs. So cost-type contracts in these types of situations are proven useful, but they are only good when they get the appropriate oversight from the procurement officers. And we don't address that underlying issue in a significant way in this legislation. Agencies such as NASA rely on cost-type contracts for critical R&D work, such as planetary science and exploration missions, systems development operation support in physical engineering, and life sciences. In the early 1980s, there was a push towards fixed-price contracts for R&D to address failed major programs, cost overruns. But ultimately Congress passed legislation requiring a secretarial approval for contracts over $25 million. DOD regulations preclude award of a fixed-price contract for a development program unless the level of program risk permits realistic pricing and the use of a fixed-price type contract allows an equitable and sensible allocation of program risk between the government and the contractor. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield for just one comment?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just note that on the bills on the Presidential records, the library, the whistleblowers, Mr. Waxman and his staff have worked very well with us. And the record should show that the reason we got such big bipartisan majority was their willingness to bend back and our ability to work back and forth. And I want to, again, commend him. We have other differences on this bill which is close to my heart that I think he understands and we understand; but even here they have worked with us. And I think the record should note that they have gone out of their way and we appreciate that.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield myself 1 minute to note again the reason for the rise in sole-source contracts has been emergencies like 9/11 and Katrina, under which the exigencies which government is faced with at that point to meet in a timely manner doesn't allow you to go out in these cases for a wide swath of bids. But I think we share a common desire to bring more competition into government contracting. I also want to note that at our committee hearing on February 8, the Inspector General, Richard Skinner, testified that the government's greatest exposure to fraud, waste and abuse is undoubtedly in the area of procurement. As already pointed out by members of this committee, he notes, the problem is not a new one. It dates back to the Federal Government's nearsighted policies in the early 1990s to reduce the Federal workforce. While acquisition management capabilities were being downsized, the procurement workload was on the rise. I hope to continue to work with the gentleman as we focus on this acquisition workforce and give them the tools they need.