Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, two sections of this, on page 47 and page 55, lines 19 through 23, there are two sections here that are basically legislating on an appropriations bill over which our committees has jurisdiction. We have discussed these sections with the gentleman from Virginia and have come to an agreement that we will not at this point exercise a point of order, but want to work with the committee in the future as they draft these bills to work with our committee so that we can craft appropriate language to meet our mutual goals. Is the gentleman in agreement?

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any points of order in this section.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Can I strike the last word?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of order, on page 47.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve points of order.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard. Let me just say this also falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. I was coming over to also offer our objection to this section because this was put in without consultation with our committee, and this is under our jurisdiction. However, after listening to the gentleman from Virginia explain the rationale put forward by both the Federal Communications Commission in defending the policy and looking at the wide array of special interest trips that have been paid for by special interests to employees of the FCC, this is probably an appropriate vehicle to try to stop that process and try to raise the regulatory regime there to make it freer from interest group influence. Obviously, if somebody goes on a paid-for trip, is put up in a hotel, gets their golf game paid for, and it is paid for by an interest group that is regulated by the FCC, we should stop it. So we are not going to exercise a motion to strike on this. I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate him bringing this forward. I hope he will work with us during the next year as we craft these together so that we can keep these jurisdictionally a little bit clearer.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask the amendment be adopted. The Buy American Act applies to supplies costing more than $2,500 and establishes a preference for domestic supplies that are manufactured in the U.S. Generally, it applies to acquisitions below the $177,000 Trade Agreements Act of 1979, TAA threshold. Commercial firms are required to certify compliance with the Buy American Act, potentially exposing them to civil false claims and other sanctions, even if they have made a good faith effort to comply with the Government-unique requirements. This creates significant financial and legal burdens for industry, given that more and more information technology and goods so critical for the Government's needs being sourced in our global economy from around the world. Some companies have responded to Buy American Act restrictions by establishing costly, labor-intensive product tracking systems that are not needed in their commercial business, to ensure that products being sold to the Government meet the government-unique requirements. In a few cases, companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the federal marketplace, denying access to some of the latest, more cost-effective products. The Buy American Act imposes financial and legal burdens on the taxpayers and the commercial companies that sell to the Government. This restriction on the Government's ability to obtain needed technology goods from the World market is a cold war anachronism. Given our growing reliance on information technology and other advanced products--and the current global nature of industry, the Government's ability to get the goods it needs at reasonable prices will be crippled by this restrictive provision. Therefore, I ask support of my amendment.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 20th anniversary of the Lake Ridge Fellowship House of Woodbridge, Virginia this Saturday, July 19, 2003. Located on the southernmost edge of Virginia's 11th congressional district, this affordable housing development opened its doors in June 1983. Serving over 100 seniors on fixed incomes, Lake Ridge Fellowship House has grown into a vibrant example of community activism. Four out of five of these seniors are women, many of whom are widows who have lost a breadwinner's pension and a lifelong companion. Lake Ridge fills a unique niche in the Woodbridge area by supplying elderly residents with a safe environment in which they can enjoy recreational, educational and community-oriented activities. Lake Ridge is one of only four privately owned fellowship houses in Virginia that are operated by the Fellowship Square Foundation, a subsidiary of the Lutheran Church. Sponsored by the Lutheran Lay Fellowship organization, it is a shining example of how the power of faith is used to fulfill a wide range of needs in our communities. Lake Ridge provides affordable housing to both independent and mobility-impaired individuals. It provides secure and stable residences for seniors, thereby safeguarding citizens who might otherwise be unable to fully fend for themselves. In addition, Lake Ridge hosts arts and crafts, social activities, and boasts quiet reading alcoves. To better assist its mobility-impaired residents, the fellowship house makes available transportation to and from local shopping areas. Among the most critical services Lake Ridge provides is an around-the-clock emergency call system. Mr. Speaker, Lake Ridge Fellowship House is more than mere housing; it is the foundation of a rich and meaningful way of life for hundreds of senior citizens. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Lake Ridge Fellowship House for providing twenty years of selfless commitment to Northern Virginia, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating their 20th anniversary.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me make a couple of comments. First of all, the underlying language in the bill gives me concern because it stops all competitive sourcing in the Department of Interior. I think the current administration plans are probably an overreach. I think there are a lot of concerns that are expressed over the current A-76 circular, and I get concerned sometimes that they may be biting off more than they can chew, moving a little faster and competitively sourcing too many things at one time and not exercising the appropriate oversight. But I think banning it in its entirety from this or any other agency is probably ill-conceived because, after all, this is one of the pillars of the administration's management policies, of their agenda. This provision constitutes really an unprecedented intrusion in the executive management discretion. Having said that, I do want to express a couple of concerns about the President's agenda on this issue. One is that we need to be concerned about Federal employees who enter for career service and will have their jobs uped every 5 years. And I think for competitive sourcing in terms of their being able to look at the appropriate career path, particularly in some of these areas, we have talked to a number of Members on this, and if we could get some kind of reading where the President would have some kind of flexibility in this area, I think we could move ahead. I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), offering this amendment. I think it is the right way to go when you get overreaching amendments like this on there, and I certainly support his efforts.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentleman's comments on the Park Service. The difficulty with this amendment is it was Department-wide throughout the Department of the Interior. Hopefully, we can come up with some satisfactory language that will satisfy the gentleman's concerns and ours as well.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. Boehlert asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, and it makes them more likely to be involved in this process. We think that all of these amendments, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for working with us as well, have been agreed to by the majority and the minority on the various committees; and they are part of the bill that we are considering today. Since our markup, we have continued to work on this bill in a bipartisan fashion. This issue is really too important to play party politics with. We have worked out language to ensure that the rights of contractors with respect to payment are protected in the event they are terminated for convenience. This is a good bill and deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, I would have the time yielded to the Committee on Government Reform in addition to the time yielded to me by the Committee on Energy and Commerce?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act. This bill provides the government with the necessary tools to develop and purchase vaccines and other drugs to protect Americans in the event of a bioterrorist attack. The President first announced this proposal during his 2003 State of the Union address. It is the cornerstone of the administration's strategy to prepare our Nation against the possibility of a bioterrorist attack. The bill we are considering today was introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and was referred to the committee, as well as the Committee on Government Reform which I chair, and the Select Committee on Homeland Security. It is a good bill which serves a compelling national interest. As we tragically learned during the fall of 2001, our Nation is vulnerable to biological terrorism. Letters laced with anthrax caused the deaths of five individuals and thousands more had to be treated. The death toll could have been higher if there had not been an effective countermeasure to treat that form of anthrax. Unfortunately, there has been little progress in treatment for other deadly diseases, like smallpox, Ebola and plague, which effect few, if any, Americans. The reality is that there is little manufacturer interest in developing necessary treatments for these diseases because there is no significant commercial market existing outside of government. The absence of financial incentives has provided drug companies with little reason to make the substantial investment that would be required to develop treatments for these deadly diseases. Should the United States be attacked with any of these deadly pathogens, the needs for vaccines, tests and treatments would be great, and it would be immediate. H.R. 2122 is designed to ensure that our country is prepared. The bill provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with a number of flexible acquisition tools based on existing streamlined procedures to promote research and development and procurement of necessary drugs and vaccines. These tools are instrumental to the success of the BioShield program. For example, the bill increases the simplified acquisition threshold for research and development projects from the current level of $100,000 to $25 million. This increase will help the Secretary promote sophisticated research and development projects by streamlining the acquisition process. The bill also authorizes the procurement of biomedical countermeasures, again using tailored, flexible acquisition tools for inclusion in the Nation's stockpile using a special reserve fund. The Secretary would also have expedited authorities to award research grants and hire technical experts and consultants. During national emergencies, the bill would permit the government to make available new and promising treatments prior to approval by the Food and Drug Administration. The Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, held a hearing to examine the BioShield proposal on April 4, 2003. Witnesses from the government, academia, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies were supportive of the bill. They all recognize the need to create incentives for manufacturers to develop biomedical countermeasures. Our committee favorably reported the bill on May 22. Working in a bipartisan fashion with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), we unanimously adopted some amendments to ensure greater accountability in the acquisition process and to clarify the circumstances when biocountermeasures can be processed. Specifically, the amendments we approved permit the use of simplified acquisition procedures only when the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines there is a pressing need for the procurement of specific countermeasures. The bill commits decisions about research and development projects to the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. However, we approved an amendment which preserves a limited right for companies to appeal to the General Accounting Office contracting decisions made by the Secretary, but appeals could not be used to stall the research and development procurement process. We also made some technical changes that seek to clarify the circumstances when the Secretary could use other than fully competitive procedures for research and development and production contracts.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2396) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, as the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office''.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1761, introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building. All members of the Kansas congressional delegation have cosponsored this legislation. Garner Shriver represented the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas in this House for 8 terms, from 1961 to 1977. He was a lifelong resident of the Sunflower State; he spent nearly his entire adult life working for other Kansas residents, first as the State legislator and later as a U.S. Representative. This legislation is a fitting commemoration of his service to his home State and to the entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, Garner Shriver was born in Towanda, Kansas, July 6, 1912. He and his family moved to Wichita in 1925, and he graduated from the University of Wichita in 1934. Following his college graduation, he enrolled in the Washburn School of Law and received a law degree in February, 1940. After he was admitted to the bar, he entered into public service for the first time by enlisting in the U.S. Navy. He spent 3 years as an officer in the Navy; and after being honorably discharged, he chose to run for public office. He was elected to the Kansas State House where he served 2 terms. In 1951, he left the State House to run successfully for the Kansas Senate, which he served from 1953 to 1960. Finally, in the fall of 1960, the voters of the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas sent Garner E. Shriver to Washington for the first of 8 distinguished terms in the House of Representatives. In Congress, he was an influential member of the Committee on Appropriations. He accomplished much during his 16 years in the House, but he fought extra hard for his fellow veterans, particularly working to secure health and education benefits for his peers when they completed their duties with the U.S. Armed Forces. Moreover, even when he left the House in 1977, he stayed in Washington to fight for veterans by moving a few blocks north and becoming the staff director for the Committee on Veterans Affairs. He worked in the Senate for 5 years before returning home to Kansas in 1982 to practice law. Garner E. Shriver passed away on March 1, 1998, at the age of 85. He was a remarkable American who succeeded at everything he tried in life, and I know the citizens of Kansas still feel very grateful to him for his years of dedication. Congressman Shriver preceded the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) as the representative of the fourth district, and I congratulate my colleague for his work on this measure. I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 1761 that honors the life and service of Congressman Garner E. Shriver. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 1761.