Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I make a point of order against section 502. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House Rule XXI. It proposes to change existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislation under an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Section 502.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I say to my friend from Ohio and my friend from Indiana, they work on our committee. We could probably structure something that would accomplish the goals that they would like to achieve. But we feel this is legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules. Therefore, I would insist on my point of order.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Montclair Lions Club No. 36563, located in Prince William County, Virginia. The International Lions Club is the world's largest service club organization with 1.4 million members in 46,000 clubs in 193 nations. Since 1917, the International Lions Club has been able to touch the lives of countless individuals across the globe. The club's motto, ``We Serve'' demonstrates the tremendous effort, desire and willingness of volunteers worldwide to better the lives of others through humanitarian efforts. In 1990, Lions established SightFirst, a $143.5 million global initiative to fight the major causes of preventable and reversible blindness. Since 1979, the Montclair Lions Club has provided dedicated service to Prince William County, working tirelessly to further the welfare of the community. In its first 25 years the club raised well over a quarter of a million dollars through a wide variety of fundraisers including citrus sales, White Can Day donations, White House Christmas Ornament sales, and food sales. The club has held a golf tournament fundraiser annually with the majority of the proceeds being donated to the Dale City Boys and Girls Club and Action in the Community Through Service. Montclair Lions Club members donate their time to community service projects including Safety Break, Montclair Property Association events, Habitat for Humanity and many others. These hours of service have enriched innumerable lives in Prince William County and beyond. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate the Montclair Lions Club on 25 years of success. They have served the interests of their community well, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the Lions Club's past accomplishments and in wishing the club continued success in the many years to come.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Merle McDougald Werner, a correspondent who filed one of the first reports of the D-Day invasion in 1944. Mr. Werner died May 19, 2004 at his home in Falls Church, VA at the age of ninety-one. Mr. Werner was born January 28, 1913, in Bladen, Nebraska. He attended the University of Nebraska and received a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Missouri in 1934. During the years 1934 to 1937, Mr. Werner worked for several newspapers in Nebraska and Wyoming when he became employed with the United Press, a precursor of United Press International located in Des Moines. In 1941, Mr. Werner transferred to United Press' Washington bureau and was appointed as a war correspondent based in London where he worked with Walter Cronkite. Surrounded by gunfire and deep cold waters, Werner stepped onto Utah Beach four hours after the beginning of the attack in which 156,000 Allied troops took part. He pulled out his typewriter and began an account of the day from a foxhole that was dug for his protection. Mr. Werner's account became one of the first of the invasion to reach Americans in the states. During World War II, Werner also covered the German bombing of London, the liberation Paris in August 1944, the U.S. occupation of Berlin in 1945 and the Potsdam Conference. Additionally, Mr. Werner's recollections of his D-Day experiences are on display in a current online issue of the Newseum, a museum dedicated to journalism. He is also believed to be the last surviving journalist of those who accompanied the invasion forces. Mr. Werner was viewed as a calm and stoic man who considered himself to be very fortunate to have not only survived the war, but also to have participated in covering the biggest news event of his generation. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Merle McDougald Werner for his service to his country. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Mr. Werner's past accomplishments and remembering him for his dedication to his country and fellow Americans.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, please include the attached exchange of letters between Chairman Michael G. Oxley of the Committee on Financial Services, Chairman John A. Boehner of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and myself in the Congressional Record at the end of the debate on H.R. 3797 under general leave. Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, March 9, 2004. Hon. Tom Davis, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Tom: On February 26, 2004, the Committee on Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 3797, the 2004 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act. As you know, the Committee on Financial Services was granted an additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over banks and banking. Section 8 of the bill addresses the regulation of banks chartered by the District of Columbia by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Because of your willingness to consult with my committee regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill by the Financial Services Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Financial Services Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 3797. In addition, the Committee on Financial Services reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within the Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by the Committee on Financial Services for conferees on H.R. 3797 or related legislation. I request that you include this letter and your response as part of your committee's report on the bill and the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Michael G. Oxley, Chairman.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously it is the usual subterfuge on this. As a primer, they pay taxes on profits. They do not pay taxes on their losses. But we are talking here about an effective tax rate, not the tax rate itself, which of course would be equal for U.S. income. All work performed on this contract is performed in the United States. They were awarded this contract and the experts, the career civil servants who looked at this, decided this was the best procurement to protect the homeland. What they would have us do, the author of this would say let us not take the best defense we can get for the homeland, let us take something else. Let us pay a little more, let us get a little bit less because we want to settle the score because the parent company of the U.S.-based company that won this procurement somehow should be punished, even though all the work will be performed in the United States. And Accenture LLP led the SMART Border Alliance, which represents 31 U.S. companies employing 330,000 people in 50 States. Again, the US-VISIT program led the source of selection process here and chose this as the most effective means, not just cost effective but technically effective means, to protect the homeland, and they want to throw that out the window and say we will take second best for some other reason. The time to address this, frankly, was at the time of the procurement. Congress held hearings on this. We had an opportunity on this procurement before it was let to do something on that in the hearings. As I noted before, they do not receive a competitive advantage on this. Accenture is not a corporate inversion. This was a global partnership and all of their U.S.-based work of course they pay taxes on in the United States. The thing I worry about most, though, is retaliation. Right now in information technology we are running an $8 billion trade surplus. This jeopardizes that surplus by inviting retaliation from other countries in the globe where we currently maintain a trade surplus with retaliation against U.S. companies doing business in those different countries, and I think that would be a disaster for the U.S. economy, something that my district in Northern Virginia knows something about, being one of the leaders in this. I do not think we should reduce the safety and security of the U.S. to settle a political score in this particular case. Why should U.S. taxpayers pay more money and take, in the opinion of the career civil servants, a secondary technical solution to protect our homeland? I also want to note no jobs are being outsourced. All the work on this contract is being performed in the United States. Accenture I do not even believe has any employees in Bermuda. Every cent of taxes that is earned on this will be paid here. The CEO of Accenture lives in Texas. Their Chief Financial Officer lives in Texas. And the idea that somehow they are not employing Americans or these jobs are going offshore or any intimation of that is patently false. Let us take a look at the procurement itself because I think it is important. It is creating a nationwide entry and exit tracking system for foreign nationals visiting the United States. This amendment delays that for 2 years. I do not think our homeland needs that. I do not think the security in this country needs that. I urge defeating the amendment.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me just respond to my friend from Wisconsin who has raised this issue. I have struck for the second year in a row these so-called corporate inversion amendments. The appropriate time to take this up in my opinion would have been before the procurement moved forward. Several committees of this House held hearings on the US-VISIT contract. I think if this had been part of the initial contract, then we would not have gone through this process, companies would not have spent millions of dollars, and we could have addressed this earlier in the process. The difficulty now is that we would delay this process up to 2 years further, and I think it is a needed program. We have kept the language in section (a) under this going forward for future contracts in the spirit of compromise with the gentleman, but I understand his concerns. I have other substantive concerns with what the gentleman has said, but I think in the spirit of compromise we have tried to get an appropriate balance and allow the contract to move forward.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentlewoman is entitled to her strong opinion but not her own facts. She notes that troops overseas need help. The reality is if her amendment passes, this will have to be recompeted and it will push back protecting our borders another 2 years. A lot of companies invested money in this. Homeland Security invested money in going through these. This will have to start again. The bids of the losers in this particular case will be made public. Everyone will have a starting place. This pushes the outcome to protect our homeland 2 years. So this does not do anything to protect the homeland, number one. Number two, Accenture, to my understanding, pays an effective tax rate for fiscal year 2004 of 34.8 percent. The two competitors in this pay, in their recent 10-K filings, 31.3 percent and 28 percent respectively. I ask the gentlewoman where is the tax advantage if they are paying a higher percentage of their taxes? Does she know? There is no tax advantage.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I agree with them.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concern. The issue has been addressed in other tax laws, but I understand the gentleman's concerns on this and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this is about the best technology to defend the borders. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States made up of American companies in opposition to this amendment. I have a letter from the Professional Services Council made up of American companies in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. It clearly has to be recompeted, and we will be wrought with protests. I urge that this amendment be soundly defeated and we send the signal here that we want to protect the homeland first. This is a homeland security bill. It ought to stay that way.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Well, this throws the procurement basically up in the air and out the window and delays it, I think, at a minimum a couple of years. Worst of all, we know under this contract, Texas gets 35,000 jobs. Those jobs, if this amendment becomes law, are out the window. They may get some back. They may not get any back. We know, for example, in Massachusetts 13,000 jobs come under this. Those jobs are out the windows if this is it. Maybe they will get it under some other bidding, but there is no assurance of that at all. We know for example in Florida, 14,000 jobs; California, 30,000 jobs; Illinois, 11,000; Arizona, 12,000, on and on; 330,000 jobs at a time when people profess to want job creation. Basically what they are saying is let us put these jobs off 2 years because we do not like the headquarters where the parent company that is putting this together of the winning company, which is an American company, lives. Even though all of the jobs will be performed in the United States, appropriate security clearances will be cleared by American citizens to perform this work. I would note once again, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of companies around the globe that are doing business with the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, that are foreign based. If we cut this off, we are indeed, as one speaker noted, cutting off our nose to spite our face. Because, after all, this is a global economy; and after all, in this particular area we are running an $8 billion trade surplus, trade surplus. And what the proponents of this amendment would do is say, we do not care about a trade surplus in this particular area. We want to settle some other scores. We do not like the global economy. We want to use American dollars only to compete with American companies, only to use American companies even if it may be an inferior technology, even if it may cost taxpayers more. That is what they are saying, and it is very poor precedent, in my opinion, for protecting the homeland.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is section 526(b).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)