Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4200, ``The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005''. I would like to start off by commending Chairman Duncan Hunter and the entire Committee on Armed Services for all of the hard work on this legislation. A bill of this magnitude requires an enormous bi-partisan effort. The result here is legislation that will provide the resources necessary for U.S. military forces to protect and defend this country both at home and abroad. I am concerned, however, with several provisions in this bill affecting the acquisition system. The first provisions interfere with the Department of Defense's competitive sourcing program. The second group of provisions represent an ill-considered attempt to protect domestic jobs. We can all agree that the Federal government should do as much as it can to support jobs in America. However, tacking on onerous provisions to the acquisition system to protect a handful of jobs is not the right approach. It costs money--taxpayers' money. The acquisition system's purpose is to procure the best value goods and services with taxpayers' dollars, not to protect jobs. Most important, we have learned time and time again that provisions restricting our ability to tap the resources of the global market in the name of saving jobs result in retaliation from our trading partners, costing us more jobs in the long run. First, we have the provisions of the Langevin amendment included in the Committee mark. These provisions, if enacted, would require sweeping changes to the Administration's critical competitive sourcing program and hamstring the Defense Department's ability to manage its programs and workforce. Our economy is based on a free market system where competition is essential to maintaining vibrancy and productivity. Who can argue with the idea that a little competition is needed to spur efficiency in Government? The problem is that, despite having considerable input into the revised OMB Circular A-76 that provides the procedural framework for the competitive sourcing program, its opponents have mounted an attack on competitive sourcing. They equate ``competitive sourcing'' with ``outsourcing'' or ``privatization,'' or at least they say they do. But words matter, and competitive sourcing is simply not the same as outsourcing or privatization. Outsourcing assumes up front that the private sector can perform activities better, cheaper, and/or faster than a government organization. Competitive sourcing does not assume the private sector is the preferred provider. Its purpose is not to downsize the government workforce. It uses competition to decide. Opponents argue that competitive sourcing takes jobs away from Federal employees. This is simply untrue. In most cases, the Federal employees involved in the competition either retain their jobs if the agency team wins or are rehired if the private sector wins. In fact, according to agency data from a recent GAO report, in-house teams win most of the competitions, retaining almost 76 percent of the positions competed. The key point is, public-private competitions result in substantial savings in the activity competed, regardless of who wins the competition. The Langevin language would cripple the competitive sourcing program at the Department of Defense. It would, for example, prevent the Department from making reasoned management decisions for the benefit of our Armed Forces and the American taxpayer by prohibiting the Defense Department from making any reorganization of a function so that it would be performed by 10 or fewer employees unless it conducts a public/private competition. Think about this: under this provision, the Secretary of Defense is prohibited from paring his office staff from 12 people to 9. Further, the Langevin amendment unfairly tilts public-private competitions toward the Federal employees and introduces into private businesses' right to offer their employees a total compensation package by prohibiting the A-76 cost comparison from including any savings that could be attributable to a businesses' use of a worker health plan that is different than that provided to Federal government employees. This would establish a Federal mandate to private industry and cripple the ability of small businesses to participate in this program. That, Mr. Chairman, is not good government. The Langevin provision also would require the Department of Defense to establish a pilot program to conduct an arbitrary number of public/ private competitions for new work and work currently performed by contractors. This would mandate that the Department expend resources so that Federal workers can compete with the private sector to perform new commercial work. Don't our Federal workers have enough to do in fulfilling their current responsibilities? Interestingly, the requirements would not extend to any work to be performed by a contractor whose workers are represented by a private-sector labor union. Finally, the Langevin amendment imposes a mass of reporting and tracking requirements, which in a number of cases duplicate requirements that are currently in chapter 146 of title 10. The only point of these is to gum up the competitive sourcing program. A number of these mandates would apply whenever a service contract is awarded by the agency, whether or not as the result of a competitive sourcing study. So not only are the Langevin supporters interested in hamstringing the competitive sourcing program but also in reversing the recently passed reforms in service contracting. Secondly, section 811 of the bill, titled Defense Trade Reciprocity, would prohibit DoD from purchasing any defense article or service from any company in a country (including our NATO allies, our coalition partners, and Israel) that within one year does not have an offset policy toward U.S. companies that is comparable to U.S. offset policy. This provision is ill advised, would severly limit the ability of the Department of Defense to cooperate with our allies and operate overseas, and would undercut the ability of our defense industry to compete in selling to our allies. Last fall, the Congress passed two provisions dealing with offsets. In the extension of the Defense Production Act, we asked the Commerce Department to complete a study by this August on the impact of offsets on the supplier base and required the Administration to discuss with our trading partners ways to reduce the ``adverse'' impacts of offsets. Congress is to receive periodic reports on how such discussions are progressing. In last year's Defense Appropriations Act, we required the Department of Defense to prepare a report by March 1 on the impact of offsets on the defense industrial base and make any appropriate recommendations. We ought to at least wait for the results of the actions we demanded of the Executive Branch only a few months ago before taking premature actions on offsets. In fact, while offsets distort international defense trade, concern about the impact of offsets is overblown. The annual Commerce Department review of offsets that is required by a provision of the Defense Production Act consistently concludes that defense sales that have associated offset provisions produce approximately 30,000 U.S. jobs, and the offsets reduce that figure by about 9,000 jobs, for a net gain to the U.S. of 21,000 jobs. Any actions that jeopardized those sales could result in a net loss of jobs and an erosion of the U.S. defense industrial base. The U.S. currently enjoys a trade balance in defense exports of 6-1 in its favor with respect to Europe and around 12-1 with respect to the world. In a time when we worry about ballooning trade deficits, the U.S. aerospace industry delivers the largest export surplus of any sector in the economy with over a $25 billion trade surplus in 2003. Policies that restrict the ability of U.S. companies to continue making such sales will hinder interoperability with our allies, reduce U.S. jobs, and undercut the supplier base. The simple fact is that restrictive provisions such as this are self- defeating, Cold War anachronisms that cripple our participation in the Global Market and jeopardize defense exports--one of the major sectors of our economy. Finally, the Manzullo amendment, to be considered on the floor, would add the creation of jobs in the U.S. as one of the instances that the Secretary of Defense could use in a determination under 10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1) to exclude a source to establish or maintain alternative sources of supply. The 10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1) is seldom used and it is discretionary, but it could be used to justify a sole-source contract award under the guise that it created jobs. Moreover, the amendment would add ``the creation of jobs'' to the list of required evaluation factors for all negotiated acquisitions under 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A). This would mandate that the creation of jobs be a factor in the selection of the winning offeror in a competitive acquisition. The problem here is that we would be requiring the consideration of a factor that has nothing whatever to do with the merits or cost of the proposal. Again we are burdening our acquisition system with a requirement that is not related to the acquisition of best value goods and services for the government. Additionally, I am concerned with Chairman Hunter's amendment that adds money for the Patriot missile and uses a $48 million cut to the KEI program as one of the offsets. The KEI program will play a crucial role in our Nation's security by providing enemy ballistic missile defense. Any cut in funding will hinder this program's advances in the area of anti-ballistic missiles. I also want to offer my support to the Wamp amendment, which makes improvements to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. The amendment addresses statutory problems that have created significant bottlenecks for thousands of claims being made under this important DOE program. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to again commend Chairman Hunter for this bill in its entirety, despite my opposition to some of its specifics.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I ask this question for myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I note on Wednesday, March 31, with 299 votes, the House passed House Resolution 581 regarding pay comparability for Federal employees. That language is not included in the resolution. Is it the gentleman's understanding that the language of that resolution is the position of the House?

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There can be little question that sometime in the last decade, the United States entered a new and very different phase of its economic history. In this new phase of global competitiveness, this Nation is being challenged to step up once again and set new standards for innovation and efficiency. At the outset, it should be said that this country welcomes this challenge and we are confident that we have the tools necessary to succeed in this new economy that was largely created at our insistence. The Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act of 2004 is designed to give Congress the tools it needs to respond to the challenge of a global open economy. This bill was originally sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and is the result of 4 years of ongoing and consistent oversight by his Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs under the leadership of the gentleman from California. Oftentimes this work has been done with little fanfare, but his consistent hard work has borne great fruit. So before I say anything about the bill, I want to commend the gentleman from California for his commitment and dedication to great legislative oversight. There is no doubt that the Nation's regulatory regime can achieve a great deal of good in the areas of environmental protection and worker health and safety. Beyond that, government has a legitimate need to know a great deal about the corporate and, to a degree, even the personal financial activity of the Nation. Consequently, there will always be paperwork and regulatory demands. However, when we look at the vast system of paperwork and regulatory demands that exist today, we see that this system is biased in favor of the good we hope to achieve and against the cost of achieving that good to society. Every rule or reporting requirement has a cost, but Congress is severely hampered in its efforts to understand these costs. We in the Congress have grown comfortable throwing around huge statistics listing millions of hours to describe the paperwork burden government places on the Nation. But we seem to forget that these hours are spent one by one. It is as if we cannot see the forest for the regulatory trees. We may be numb to the burden we have created, but individuals and businesses are not. When an American businesswoman spends several hours filling out a tax form, that is time she is not spending on her family or her clients. When a business has to hire an environmental specialist to complete an overly complicated, required report, that revenue is not spent in research and development or expansion of the business and hiring more people. These millions of hours are not just hours taken out of the business day; they are hours taken out of people's lives, and the loss of these hours should be taken seriously. In the decades before the open global economy, Congress could lay these new burdens, one over the other, on the American worker with little concern about what the overall effect would be. But those days are gone. As the world has gradually opened its markets, this country has asked our workers to compete head to head on a global basis with highly skilled and motivated workers from all around the world. This is a good thing. This competition will require our corporate community to be as efficient and as competitive as ever. But global competition requires our government to be more efficient as well. If we are going to ask the workers of this Nation to compete globally, then we must free them to be as competitive as possible. Congress has an obligation to do the hard work to understand the costs of regulation as realistically as possible. This bill will give us some of the tools we need to make better decisions on the paperwork and regulatory burdens we place on our workers and businesses. The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to submit a report to Congress identifying specific actions that the Internal Revenue Service can take to reduce the tax paperwork burden on small businesses. It assists Congress in its review of agency rules by establishing a permanent analytical function in the General Accounting Office to review proposed and final rules for consistency with congressional intent and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of agency accompanying analyses. Lastly, the bill requires a study to determine the feasibility of regulatory budgeting as a better way to manage regulatory burdens on the public. The gentleman from California, the subcommittee chairman, has put in many years working on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to manage that time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, please include the attached exchange of letters between Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the Committee on Agriculture, Chairman Jim Nussle of the Committee on the Budget and myself in the Congressional Record at the end of the debate on H.R. 2432 under general leave. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. Hon. Tom Davis, Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This correspondence is in regard to H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act of 2003. As you are aware, the Committee on Agriculture was granted a sequential referral of H.R. 2432 because of its jurisdictional interest in agriculture commodity programs created and reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Section 4 of H.R. 2432 amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) by eliminating provisions that were inserted to ensure the farm bill programs and payments would apply to the crops of the 2002 crop year. Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation, I will discharge H.R. 2432 from further consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the understanding that by discharging the bill the Committee on Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over this or similar measures. In addition, in the event a conference with the Senate is requested on this matter, the Committee on Agriculture reserves the right to seek appointment of conferees, if one should become necessary. Thank you very much for your courtesy in this matter and I look forward to continued cooperation between our Committees as we deal with these issues in the future. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We had a very similar measure at the committee markup and defeated it there. The amendment is supposed to create an expert commission to study the politicization of science and make recommendations for how to protect science in the regulatory process from political and ideological manipulation and interference. The problem with a commission like this is it is designed to find a problem and highlight it. Whether the problem is real or serious the commission fails if it finds nothing at all. This is the kind of unfair fishing expedition that can only harm and destroy public faith in the Federal rulemaking process. Even worse than being unnecessary, the commission is expensive and duplicative, and its powers are questionable. It will cost $5 million. The commission will also duplicate the work of the permanent congressional office of regulatory affairs the base bill creates. And, the commission would have the authority to enter into contracts, but it is unclear if such contracts could be awarded without any competition. Certainly my colleague didn't intend to provide sole source authority to the commission. There is no question that the Bush administration is surpassing previous administrations in its commitment to good science. Under this administration, OMB has issued the first information quality guidelines that establish rigorous quality standards for using science when developing regulations. Mr. Chairman, it does not make sense to fund an unneeded commission with a predetermined finding that will misrepresent the good work of this administration. I'm opposed to this amendment and I ask that all Members vote to defeat it.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2432 and to include extraneous material thereon.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Rose Lambert for over 16 years of dedicated service to the Mount Vernon community. Ms. Lambert has been a pivotal member of the Mount Vernon community for many years, both as an employee of the Mount Vernon District Supervisor and as an active citizen in her neighborhood. Until recently, Rose lived in the Mount Zephyr community where she was active in the Citizens' Association, acting as president a number of times. In the Mount Vernon District Supervisor's Office, Ms. Lambert has played an important role in a number of high-profile issues, including the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Improvement Study, Richmond Highway Revitalization efforts, and recently, the campaign to save Mount Vernon Hospital. Ms. Lambert is most well-known in the northern areas of the Mount Vernon District where she has worked tirelessly on many significant projects. She has been instrumental in the successful completion of many community improvement projects, including the Huntington, Mount Zephyr, Fairhaven, and New Alexandria communities. Ms. Lambert continues to push for projects that will improve the quality of life for Mount Vernon citizens. As Hyland's Chief Aide, Ms. Lambert has been the lead point of contact for county staff, and has had the responsibility of attending the Board of Supervisors meeting in Fairfax. Furthermore, she has represented Supervisor Hyland at countless meetings and has played an active role in the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Ms. Lambert for 16 years of service to Mount Vernon District. Her contributions and efforts are much appreciated and will be greatly missed. Her service is an exemplary example of an ideal citizen and model employee. I wish her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to support H. Res. 613, recognizing and honoring the tenth anniversary of Vietnam Human Rights Day. Vietnam Human Rights Day serves as an important commemoration of the extensive struggle the Vietnamese people have endured for many years in their ongoing fight for basic human rights and freedom. Ten years ago, the United States ended its trade embargo with Vietnam and normalized relations with Hanoi. While the U.S. continues to open diplomatic relations with Vietnam, we must remember that many issues remain unresolved, including human rights violations, lack of religious freedom, and government corruption. I traveled to Vietnam in 1998 to learn about these issues firsthand, as well as to raise these concerns with high-level officials. In addition, the large Vietnamese-American community in the 11th district, which I represent, continues to update me on continuing concerns. As a member of the Vietnam Caucus, I am dedicated to promoting awareness and public policy debates among the U.S. Congress, the American public, and the international community about the greater need for fundamental human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. House Resolution 613 recognizes the important contributions made by Nguyen Dan Que, the author of the Manifesto of the Non-Violent Movement for Human Rights, and uncounted numbers of innocent Vietnamese for their nonviolent struggles for freedom and human rights. Dr. Que is one of the most vocal advocates for freedom, democracy, and human rights in Vietnam. Since 1975, Dr. Que has refused to leave Vietnam, and he has turned down an offer to resettle in the United States or to live in exile. He has consciously chosen to stay in Vietnam to speak out and defend human dignity and the rights of all Vietnamese people. He is a profile of courage. The Vietnamese Communist government has arrested Dr. Que three times for his unrelenting pursuit of human dignity and freedom. He has been imprisoned off and on for nearly 20 years, beginning in 1978 through the present. During Dr. Que's captivity, he was imprisoned without trial, tortured, beaten, and put into solitary confinement in chains, accused of trying to overthrow the government, charged with espionage, and is now being held in strict incommunicado. Undaunted, during his time he remained the strongest voice inside Vietnam for equality and dignity. On May 11, 1990, Dr. Que founded the Nonviolent Movement For Human Rights, issuing a manifesto that appealed to individuals and groups inside Vietnam and throughout the world for support of his moderate, nonviolent struggle to establish human rights for all Vietnamese people. The arrests of Dr. Que, along with many others, demonstrate the ongoing human rights abuses and lack of religious freedom in Vietnam. We must continue to bring attention to these issues, generate pressure on Vietnamese officials, and hold the Vietnamese Government accountable. It is only through the hard work and effort of individuals such as Dr. Que and the support of the international community that we can bring an end to human rights abuses and religious persecution in Vietnam. My resolution urges all Americans to share in the commemoration of Vietnam Human Rights Day and to have a greater appreciation of the role it has played in helping to defend and further the liberties and freedom of all Vietnamese people. I am hopeful H. Res. 613 will serve as a small stepping stone towards the ultimate liberation and freedom of the Vietnamese people. However, at the least, I believe it will bring much needed additional awareness to the atrocities committed by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam every day on its own citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in the passage of this important resolution.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of this resolution condemning the abuse of prisoners held in United States custody. We've all seen the disturbing images of the unconscionable conduct carried out by a handful of our men and women in uniform. A swift and thorough investigation is needed, and needed now. For those responsible, justice must be swift and strong. Their conduct directly contradicts and undermines our mission in Iraq. The world is awaiting our response. We must do everything possible to reassure the world community that all those things we take as self-evident--the honor of our military, our intentions in Iraq, our respect for human rights--remain as strong as ever. The vast majority of our troops, who perform heroically every day, are the best evidence of these tenets. In the wake of this crisis, let us not lose sight of the fact that there are 138,000 Americans in uniform who uphold the highest standards of professionalism every day. They do so in the face of extreme danger and hardship. We should not let the egregious acts of a very small group overshadow the integrity of our soldiers nor deter our Nation from its overall objective of developing a democratic Iraq.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Camelot Neighborhood Watch Program (CNWP) of Fairfax County, Virginia. In the 25 years since its inception, the CNWP has achieved great success, helping lower the general crime rate in its community. As former Fairfax County Supervisor from the Mason District, I can personally attest to the program's accomplishment. The CNWP boasts the largest number of volunteers in Northern Virginia. These volunteers selflessly have committed themselves to informing local police of suspicious activities. While it is financially and logistically impossible to place a police officer on every street corner, the CNWP has provided Fairfax County with an effective alternative. CNWP volunteers have become the eyes and ears of local police, deterring crime and saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Those who take the time to cast a watchful eye on their surroundings ensure a safer, friendlier place to live. Through committed neighborhood watch, CNWP participants have proven that community involvement can make a difference. It is important to note that the CNWP has embraced neighborhood diversity. Participants have bridged culture and language gaps in the name of collective security. By recognizing shared community values, the CNWP has facilitated improved understanding and relations between individuals from a variety of backgrounds. One of the greatest assets of the CNWP is its ability to bring neighbors together. In that spirit I am proud to recognize: Mr. Paul Cevey, CNWP founder and Coordinator for the first 12 years; Mr. Dave Shonerd, his successor who for the next 11 years continued to mold the program into the great success it is today; and Mr. Frank Vajda, who continues the great CNWP tradition. Years of CNWP success have merited several notable accolades. The Fairfax County Mason District Police Department has recognized the CNWP as one of the most effective crime reduction units in the county. The Virginia Crime Prevention Association has recognized the CNWP as the Best Neighborhood Watch in Virginia. The CNWP is the oldest, continuously active Neighborhood Watch in the United States. This highly accomplished neighborhood program serves as an impressive model for other organizations across the nation. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the Camelot Neighborhood Watch Program for 25 years of dedicated service to its community. Programs like the CNWP are vital in our efforts to combat crime. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the CNWP's past accomplishments and in wishing the program continued success in the many years to come.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moran and I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Mount Vernon-Lee Chamber of Commerce (MVLCC) located in Fairfax County, Virginia. Since 1954, the MVLCC has provided dedicated service to southeast Fairfax County, working tirelessly to promote business development and success. The chamber has effectively created an environment in which both well-established and new businesses can thrive. With regard to public policy, the MVLCC has powerfully advocated local business priorities, working with local, state, and federal officials on economic, transportation, and public safety issues. In addition, the MVLCC plays an active role in local tourism, providing helpful information on hotels, restaurants, and points of interests to visitors in the area. Recently, the chamber contributed greatly to the community-based efforts responsible for bringing the National Museum of the United States Army to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Over the years, the MVLCC has demonstrated great commitment to the entire Mt. Vernon-Lee area. Having recognized the importance of education to a strong community, the MVLCC grants scholarships to six graduating high school students each year. The MVLCC and its members run a weekly Meals on Wheels delivery route to provide warm and friendly meals to home-bound members of the community. Since its inception in 1954, the MVLCC has proven an invaluable asset to the Mt. Vernon-Lee community, helping make southeastern Fairfax County a great place to live, learn, work, do business, and visit. We greatly appreciate the chamber's notable contributions to Northern Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we would like to commend and congratulate the MVLCC on fifty years of success. They have served the interests of both their members and their community well, truly meriting recognition. We call upon our colleagues to join us in applauding the MVLCC's past accomplishments and in wishing the chamber 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 the life of Toni Winters McMahon, who passed away on January 21, 2004. Born Catherine Antoinette Winters in Keene, New Hampshire, Mrs. McMahon was a music graduate of Tufts University, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She then pursued graduate study in public administration at George Mason University. In Northern Virginia, Mrs. McMahon became involved in her community as a school activist. She served as president of the Fairfax County Council of PTAs and started projects to encourage high school seniors to volunteer at the county's various human services agencies. In 1981, she raised over $100,000 to save the Claude Moore Colonial Farm at Turkey Run in McLean when the National Park Service withdrew funding. Several years later in 1984, she was named the Fairfax County Citizen of the Year, an award cosponsored by the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations and The Washington Post. Since 1984, Mrs. McMahon served as president/CEO of the Arts Council of Fairfax County, overseeing events such as the International Children's Festival at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts. While in this position, she fully committed herself to fund-raising, grant-writing, board development, and long-range planning. In 1999, Mrs. McMahon received the Jinx Hazel Arts Citizen of the Year Award from the Arts Council of Fairfax County. Mrs. McMahon always will be remembered for her dedicated efforts on behalf of the arts. She is a remarkable individual who played an integral role in making the arts in Fairfax County what they are today. At the time of her death, her board memberships included the George Mason University Center for the Arts, the Lorton Arts Foundation, and the Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington. Her survivors include four children: Dr. Doug McMahon of Medford, Oregon; John W. McMahon of Warrenton, Virginia; and Toni L. McMahon and Norwood McMahon, both of Fairfax, Virginia; and three grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the life and work of Mrs. McMahon and express my deepest condolences to all who knew and loved her.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Albert J. Boudreau for over 12 years of dedicated service to the town of Vienna, Virginia, as a member of the Vienna Town Council. A native of New York City, Mr. Boudreau graduated from the University of Maryland and served in the United States Air Force during the Korean conflict. He has been a resident of Vienna for 45 years and first was appointed to the Vienna Town Council in January of 1992 to fill an unexpired term. Later that year, he won election and has served with honor and distinction ever since. During his tenure on the Vienna Town Council, Mr. Boudreau has held a number of regional and statewide leadership positions. He has served as vice president and president-elect of the Virginia Municipal League, as well as on the league's Executive Committee and Effective Government Committee. Additionally, he has been a member of the Northern Virginia Community Appearance Alliance, the Northern Virginia Transportation Coordinating Council, and the Virginia Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Boudreau also is the first president of the newly formed Virginia Local Government Finance Corporation, jointly sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Cities and Counties. His dedication to Northern Virginia extends beyond public service. For years, Mr. Boudreau has been incredibly active throughout his community. He enthusiastically has supported and volunteered for numerous community programs such as the Southeast Vienna Civil Association, the Vienna Woods Swim Club, the Vienna Little League, the Cub Scouts, the Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts. Mr. Boudreau has proven an invaluable asset to the town of Vienna, and while his retirement is well deserved, I know that he will be greatly missed. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Albert J. Boudreau for all of his efforts on behalf of Northern Virginia. He has served his community well, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Mr. Boudreau's past accomplishments and in wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I just ask what the purpose of the modification is?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the LaTourette amendment. First, let me say to my friend from Ohio, the domestic steel industry has no stronger advocate in the Congress than the gentleman from Ohio. He has been a leader in this area, but on this particular amendment I take issue with it and disagree. This amendment would require that more than 60 percent of the components and subcomponents of manufactured products used for construction projects be of United States origin. Of course, this means that, instead of going to the lowest bidder, the taxpayers getting their best bang for the buck, it could raise costs conceivably as much as 15 percent on a project with its components. That means that there is less money to build more roads with, to buy additional rail cars, to build intersections that are needed, and it means fewer people can become employed because we may be paying more money just to buy domestically. This would constitute a radical and in my judgment harmful expansion of the current law. There is already in my judgment a very wrongheaded 50 percent ceiling on non-U.S. components. I have serious concerns about raising it another 10 percent. I think we ought to be going in the other direction, and I think that this amendment makes bad policy even worse. We need to beware the law of unintended consequences. Domestic source restrictions such as this one may indeed be well intentioned, but they only serve to increase the cost of our critical transportation projects by reducing competition available for Federal contracts and raising the cost to the taxpayers. These restrictions are often self-defeating as they can well lead to reprisals from overseas trading partners. We often lose much more business than we gain. Restrictions such as those proposed here could possibly provide some immediate short-term benefits to some American companies, but in the long run, in my judgment, they hurt the overall economy. We cannot maintain our global leadership in manufacturing by artificially propping up industries that are not able to compete in the global marketplace. Mr. Chairman, we are here today touting the job creation potential of this reauthorization bill, so I have to ask this question: Have we considered the counterproductive, anticompetitive consequences of restrictionist amendments like this one? How many jobs could be created with the dollars firms will have to spend to comply with these government-unique restrictions? Our goal should be to ensure that we have access to open world markets so that we can get the best deal on the best goods available, regardless of their location. The American taxpayer deserves nothing less. This again allows us to spend more money from this transportation bill on transportation products, which means we can employ more people than these restrictions would otherwise give us. I cannot overstate the potential harm posed by such economic isolationist restrictions, harm to our critical transportation infrastructure, because by paying more we end up being able to do less; harm to our Nation's place in the global economy; and harm to our job creation agenda. We have to remember a couple of things. First of all, the details of the certification contained in this bill in my judgment means that if there is not availability of U.S. parts then we are going to need waivers. Waivers are going to have to be obtained. In these waivers, of course, it takes more time, which delays transportation projects. Secondly, it could have the unintended consequences of allowing by these waivers more foreign products in the U.S. than you may get otherwise in some instances. Thirdly, and most important, this can invite retaliation from foreign countries who, as we restrict the ability of their goods to get into markets, they retaliate against us. What does this mean? It could be retaliation against agricultural products, information technology, even other manufactured products. It is anticompetitive, and it is antijobs, in my opinion, as it is currently constructed. I rise in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. LaTourette

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say on this amendment, this may expand the Buy America for steel, but it shrinks Buy America in other areas, other manufactured areas, perhaps agriculture, perhaps information technology, because of this kind of action that basically invites retaliation from foreign countries. America is only 5 percent of the world's consumers. If we want to succeed from a manufacturing standpoint and economically around the world, we need to expand those markets. This goes in the opposite way. We ought to be reducing the Buy America requirements, reducing the certification process that does nothing but invite waivers which delays transportation projects; and we ought to put our transportation dollars into getting as much road money, as much money to buy rail cars, to lay track and move America as we can. This raises the cost of doing that with this legislation. It is for that reason that I oppose this and urge opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. This makes a bad amendment better. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the gentleman is aware that the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act calls on the Federal Salary Council every year to make recommendations in terms of what the Federal employees would make. We could put a chart up here that would show that every year we have failed to come close to what the Federal Salary Council has recommended under the existing law of the land which is FEPCA, the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act. This year, they have recommended a 25.73 locality rate for 2005. Congress has a long history on this issue. This resolution merely reiterates the sense of the House. Annual pay adjustments for civil employees and military members provided through the appropriations process have been identical in nearly every year over the last two decades. In addition, language to this end was included in the budget resolution for fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004. In 1999, the last time the Senate held a freestanding vote on this issue, the Senate voted 94-6 in favor of an amendment expressing the same sense of Congress that we do here today. I used to work for a billion-dollar company out in Fairfax, Virginia. Our greatest asset was not our building. It was not our computers. It was not the land. It was our employees. They walked out the door every night, and we did what we had to to make sure they came back the next day. In an information age, people are the number one asset of any organization. The same is true with the Federal Government. We are in danger of losing in the procurement force over 60 percent of our qualified workers over the next 5 years. These are people that can walk across the street to the private sector and make more money than they are making for the Federal Government and leave with their full retirement. These kind of minor incentives in a 3.5 percent pay raise that I do not think anybody except maybe the gentleman opposing this resolution would call a gargantuan pay raise or a huge pay raise, this is in line with what we are seeing in many cases in the private sector and in State and local governments and in my own counties that I represent in Congress. We have to be able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest to fulfill the policies that this Congress passes and sends on. To do that, pay comparability is important, and we continue to lag significantly in that respect. The Federal Government may never be able to compete with the private sector dollar for dollar, but we have to ensure that we do not fall further behind in the war for talent. While wages are not the only factor in our recruitment and retention efforts, what employer can hope to succeed in a labor market where it is offering salaries so far below the average? This is not a cost-of- living allowance as some have argued, saying it is too generous. The purpose is to assist the Federal Government in providing salaries comparable to those in the private sector. This is achieved through annual pay adjustments based on the change in private sector wages and salaries, not the cost of living. That is the fundamental precept behind the Federal Pay Comparability Act. This is achieved through our annual pay adjustments. The fact remains that Federal pay is not competitive. It is also important to note that providing a higher annual adjustment would not result in any budgetary increase. As they have over the last two decades, agencies pay for all their salaries, including these annual adjustments, with discretionary funds from their salaries and expense accounts. This does not score under CBO. I think we can all agree that both armed services and the Federal civilian workforce are integral to fulfilling the role of government in America and both must be compensated accordingly. In the coming fiscal year, parity and pay adjustments remain the vehicle to help achieve comparability between the public and the private sectors on the issue of pay so that the government can continue to perform. This resolution is integral to this effort. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the issue today is of the utmost importance to our Federal employees, the Federal Government, and the American taxpayer. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, FEPCA, of 1990, Public Law 101-509, sought to help achieve comparability through annual pay adjustments based upon the change in private sector wages and salaries. Despite our efforts, the Bureau of Labor Statistics currently estimates a 32 percent pay gap and a 10 percent gap between the military and the private sector. In order to deliver what was promised, the Federal Salary Council recommends a 25 percent locality pay for 2005. There is clearly much work to do to fulfill the intent of Congress, and the resolution here before us is a step in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my colleague and coauthor of this resolution, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and myself.