Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1366, introduced by the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building.'' The bill is cosponsored by the entire House delegation from California. Mr. Speaker, Hector Godinez had a distinguished 48-year career in the Postal Service. He climbed the postal ranks from mail carrier to southern California district manager. Prior to joining the Postal Service, he served with distinction as a tank commander in the U.S. Army under General George Patton. He earned a Bronze Star for bravery under fire in World War II and a Purple Heart for wounds received in battle. He also served as the national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens from 1960 to 1961. I would urge the House to adopt H.R. 1366.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me thank my friend from New York for offering this amendment, and although I always have some trepidation to accepting outright percentages in terms of a new program and how it is going to progress, I think she has worked hard on this and she has worked with our staff. She has been a strong proponent of small business, and I think that this in a way may be able to enhance the program. I intend to accept this amendment and vote for this amendment and advocate for it, and I just appreciate the effort she has put into this and the effort she has done working with our staff.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and once again I believe that the part of this amendment that speaks to training has a lot of merit, and I hope that we can take it up under the appropriate committee jurisdictions and move in this session of the Congress. Let me just address a couple of remarks made by my good friend from New York (Mrs. Maloney) about Mr. Ron Medford, the employee of the Consumer Products Safety Commission on the Federal payroll lobby. He could not have done any of these things under this legislation that is proposed today. The interesting thing is we have put more safeguards in there. He would have violated, in our opinion, 18 U.S.C. 201, which is incorporated as Federal bribery statutes; lobbying statute 18 U.S.C., section 205; financial conflicts of interests, section 18 U.S.C. 208; perhaps even 18 U.S. Code 606, intimidation of your office to be able to advance things as well. These are all prohibitions of our law that were not under the detail act that Mr. Medford operated under. We have tried to address these. Raising these specters I think is helpful because it shows what we do not want this act to become. But I think we have gone out of our way to put more restrictions on detailees under this legislation than we have under any legislation in national history, including the current IPA program which has been very successful and which has never been prosecuted by the Justice Department or found any wrongdoing to have come forward. So we have gone out of our way to try to address these, while at the same time recognizing that while you are bringing these employees into the IT areas, there is a lot of confidential information, a lot of proprietary information that they are going to have to work with. To eliminate that, as this amendments does, basically guts the legislation because it does not allow our Federal employees to come in and get the training at the highest and best areas where they can learn the most and be trained the most on the job. Those are my comments. I appreciate and thank the gentleman.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002 will help the Federal Government do a better job managing complex information technology projects. It sets up an exchange program that will allow Federal information technology managers to be detailed to the private sector, high-tech companies, and vice versa. The tech corps bill without this amendment will improve the skills of Federal IT managers by exposing them to cutting-edge management practices in the private sector and help Federal agencies recruit and retain talented IT managers by offering them a valuable career development tool, something that is not available to them today when we risk losing half of our key information technology workers in the government over the next 5 years. The bill will allow private sector IT managers to apply their skills to challenging information technology problems at Federal agencies. The amendment, while well-intentioned, can scuttle this whole program. It will prohibit private sector detailees from having access to proprietary information submitted to Federal agencies by the private sector. This will prevent them in many cases from working on virtually any major information technology programs involving private sector entities, which is exactly where they are the most needed. After the markups in both the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on the Judiciary, the tech corps has very strong protection from proprietary commercial information, including a lifetime ban against disclosure with criminal penalties, something that existing government contractors and something that existing Federal employees do not even have. We have gone to the mat on this to ensure there will be no violations. Plus, you have to trust the Federal managers to make the right call in terms of what these detailees are going to be exposed to. One key thing to keep in mind about this amendment is that it purports to protect the nonpublic information of other companies. If concerns about the tech corps' protection of proprietary information were well-founded, though, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, all the major high-tech companies that do business with the Federal Government would be opposed to this. They like this bill the way it is. They oppose this amendment. The high-tech community strongly supports this bill. Indeed, Harris Miller, the President of the Information Technology Association of America, which is composed of 500 small, medium, and large technology companies, says that the improved private sector training communication fostered by the tech corps will be a win-win for government and industry. ITAA believes that the bill, as revised, provides additional safeguards while still maintaining the attractiveness of the exchange program. Let us go through these ethics provisions for a minute. The strong ethics and revolving door protections that are currently in the bill include the Hatch Act; revolving door laws that ban lobbying former agencies; a lifetime ban on helping the private sector with matters worked on while on the detail; a ban from working on matters that affect personnel or employers' financial interests; a ban on acting as a lobbyist while on the detail, something that was addressed in an earlier concern after an article in the Wall Street Journal; a ban on receiving anything of value to influence an official act; a ban on representing private sector clients in front of agencies; a ban on disclosure of procurement information; plus felony penalties under the law, up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $50,000 in fines, for violations. The ethics provisions also include a lifetime ban on disclosing, publishing, divulging, or making known any trade secrets, business processes, operations, styles of work, statistics and data, and income profit or loss information of any other company, exactly the concerns raised from my friend, the gentleman from California. We go to a lifetime prohibition with criminal penalties. Interestingly, Federal employees, from the day they leave the Federal Government, can reveal all of this information, including trade secrets. They are not barred. The amendment does not touch them. If the concerns in this amendment are really about protecting nonpublic information, one would really think it might address both Federal employees, tech corps detailees, and government contractors. But I think it ends up gutting the bill. This amendment also proposes to create a new bureaucracy for government-wide IT training. No hearings on this broad-based effort have ever been held, although I will tell the gentleman from Texas I think it is a good idea and I tend to support it, and although I have indicated my willingness to work with the sponsors to try to bring this legislation to fruition. This portion of the amendment advocates having the Office of Personnel Management essentially create and control a new continuing education type of IT training. Janet Barnes, the chief information officer of OPM, testified at a technology and procurement hearing on March 21, and she said, ``What we are really trying to do is establish one stop, so there is a common place all Federal Government workers can go to access some of the best training programs already in existence. To the extent we need to, we can create new ones, but we really think there are a lot of good training programs already available. ``For IT employees, we are developing our road maps and detailed task plans. Part of every one of our 24 e-government initiatives is a communication, education, and training module.'' One of the problems is the first thing agencies cut when their budgets are on the chopping block is training. We have additional legislation we have proposed that will take money out of the GSA schedules and other schedules and put it into mandatory training, because that is where we are falling behind. We have outstanding Federal employees, but they need to be continuously trained.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, before rushing to create a new program that may be duplicative of what Mrs. Barnes said are the good training programs already available, we have to investigate what is available now. We should evaluate these programs as to whether degree-based training is effective. For example, we have spent a lot of money for a CIO University and for the National Security Administration's IT training consortiums. They have programs covering IT training for many agencies. We should be asking whether they work and how they can be improved. The manager's amendment to this legislation addresses these needs, and in my judgment, Mr. Chairman, this amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment accomplishes four things: First, it clarifies a misconception that the Tech Corps does not require employees on exchange to gain real training opportunities. In participating in the Tech Corps, employees will receive state-of-the- art training in how to manage complex information technology projects. This kind of project management is not something that one can learn from a degree program or a few hours in a study hall or continuing education classes. That is why the leading business schools in the country all require students to undertake intensive, on-the-job experience in the summer between their first and second years. Tech Corps provides workers with a chance to hone their skills and learn how other work cultures achieve their mission goals. But to make it absolutely clear that exchanges are for training purposes, the amendment requires agencies to consider how assignments can best be used to help meet the training needs of the employees. I hope this meets some of the concerns that have been raised by some of the opponents of this legislation. The second thing the manager's amendment accomplishes is that it requires agencies to ensure that small business concerns have full participation in the Tech Corps. I know an additional amendment is going to be offered later on that I think we are prepared to accept, but this amendment recognizes the Tech Corps, as viewed by OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, as a means to inject flexibility into how agencies meet their information technology training and skills needs. Small businesses fill some amazing niches in technology, and we want them to participate in the Tech Corps where it makes sense for them. Third, the manager's amendment prohibits charging of costs associated with the Tech Corps to contracts that companies receive from the government. Fourth, the amendment directs the Office of Personnel Management to report to Congress on the adequacy of existing IT training programs for government employees. Tech Corps is one way to improve training opportunities, but we are also spending a lot of money on information technology degree programs and continuing education courses in agencies. We should evaluate these programs and look for ways that they can be improved. This report will help the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy and the Committee on Government Reform to begin a reasoned look at proposals for reform, including the ranking member of the subcommittee, my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner's) legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commonsense leadership of the distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform on the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002. I also appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and Means in contributing to this legislation. The General Accounting Office added human capital management to its annual high-risk list in 2001. Governmentwide, we face significant human capital shortages that will only get worse as 34 percent of the Federal workforce becomes eligible to retire in the next 5 years. The numbers are even more startling in highly specialized fields where government recruiting is in direct competition with the private sector. Nowhere is this more evident than with the technology workforce. It is estimated that 50 percent of the government's technology workforce will be eligible to retire by the year 2006. Over the past decade, the Congress and the executive branch have worked together to bring about significant management reform. We have passed acquisition reform, information technology management reform, and government performance and results legislation. Unfortunately, no one has updated the laws and regulations governing the management of the government's single most valuable resource: our people. The private sector long ago made end-to-end review of human resources management a top priority. The private sector learned a lesson our government has yet to fully recognize: A company's value is only as strong as the people that come through the door every day, bringing knowledge, new ideas, and innovation. A recent KPMG report on human capital management within the Federal sector noted the government is operating with personnel tools utilized and developed in the 1950s and 1960s. The same study noted that industry undertook major capital management reforms in the 1980s and have continued reviews as often as three times a year. For the past decade, the government managed through minimum mandatory personnel ceilings and hiring freezes. Today we see the results in nearly every General Accounting Office report on government programs. Agencies have lost so many personnel that they face growing challenges in managing programs, acquisitions and logistics. At the Department of Energy, for example, there have not been enough personnel to oversee daily operations at sensitive nuclear facilities. And at NASA, downsizing has left the space shuttle team short of qualified personnel and launch activities. Unfortunately, there are many examples within the Federal Government. Today, I think we have to address this reality both in the long term and in the short term. It is my firm belief that the larger human capital management crisis will not be solved without the joint efforts of Congress, the administration, Federal employees and groups that represent Federal employees, and the private sector. We have to look to more immediate solutions to solve the workforce shortages in highly skilled technical areas of the government. Agencies should be able to effectively and efficiently perform their missions while enhancing service delivery to the taxpayers that are footing the bill. According to the National Academy of Public Administration, the primary barriers to recruiting new information technology workers are salary, the delays in hiring, and a lack of robust training opportunities so that IT workers can keep their skills current with changing technologies. We have significant work to do in order to obtain, train, and retain government workers. The Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002, H.R. 3925, is an effort to help both the training and retention aspects of our human capital management challenges. The Digital Tech Corps is an opportunity for government and private sector IT professionals to cross-pollinate best practices in IT management for a better government and a more productive private sector workforce. For government employees, the exchange offers emerging leaders the training ground to learn cutting-edge practices, and to bring those lessons back home. For private sector employees, the exchange is a rewarding opportunity for public service. Volunteers gain experience solving some of the world's most difficult IT programs while working for the world's largest employer. Tech Corps gives IT managers the opportunity to fulfill the President's call in the State of the Union address for every American to commit 2 years of service to our Nation. We found many positive by- products of 9/11's tragic attacks, including reinvigorating dedication to public service. Government employees, both civilians and military, are at the heart of the war on terrorism. Achieving change that will ensure our security will come only through the sustained efforts of professionals working within existing agencies. That is why Tech Corps gives mid-level IT workers the opportunity to learn best practices in the management of complex projects. Tech Corps is a new vision for public service in the 21st century. However, it is not one without extensive precedent. Indeed, the operations and the ethics provisions of this legislation comes from decades of experience with public-private exchanges, including the 30- plus years of success with the IPA program. IPA exchanges allows our cutting-edge research facilities, such as those at DARPA and the National Science Foundation to obtain unparalleled access to talent and expertise; the over 200 educational partnership agreements and training with industry exchange programs that the Department of Defense has between private sector organizations, academia and government labs; and the National Institute for Standards and Technology exchange program with industry scientists at the Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology. In terms of operation, the Digital Tech Corps Act provides for exchange of talented mid-level staff at the GS-11 to 15 levels, or the equivalents in the private sector. The time period for this exchange is limited to 6 to 12 months, with an optional 1 year extension. Federal employees working in private sector organizations are required to fulfill service commitments to their agencies like those that apply in the military. All participants must adhere to strict ethics rules. Employees retain the pay and benefits from their respective employers while on assignment. Thus, this legislation enables, we believe, a cost-effective, two-way transfer of talent. It will reap great rewards for the American people as the government starts to get an infusion of information technology talent to kick start e-government initiatives, and to help us fight the war on terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First let me just address a couple of issues raised by my good friend from California. In terms of corporate executives having unrestricted access to confidential data, we have the strictest antilobbying protections, antidisclosure protections in this legislation than has ever happened in any Federal legislation prior to that, to guard against that. I would remind my friend that currently Federal employees who are set to retire, not necessarily career employees, people who could be there for 1 or 2 years could take unrestricted information and walk across the street and share that with a private company that would hire them. In this particular case, there is a lifetime ban and criminal penalties that would prevent somebody from the private sector doing that, something that currently does not apply to Federal employees and currently does not apply to government contractors. Government contractors have the same kind of access under the current law that the gentleman is concerned about. That is why we put in stronger provisions in this particular legislation to make sure that the concerns of the gentleman from California are addressed. There was the allegation that this is written on the assumption that everybody does the proper thing. We like to think that the Federal managers who are managing this will do the proper thing, but we have a lot of safeguards in this legislation that go over and above current disclosure laws, including lifetime prohibitions and criminal penalties against disclosure of secrets that they may encounter while in government. So I think we have gone the extra mile. This is certainly not corporate welfare, either. I think that all we are offering is training in the best, most innovative corporations in the world to Federal employees. Keeping them up to date on the most current, innovative practices is critical for retention of quality employees. That is what this does. When the work order comes out and the Federal manager allows that employee to go out into these areas, they will be able to make the call. They will make the discretionary call in terms of is this going to enhance that employee's value to the Federal government when they return or will it be corporate welfare. I trust the Federal managers to make those decisions, but we have an amendment that we are going to offer that I think ensures that training is the number one priority in these transfers. The gentleman brought up the case of Ron Medford at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That, of course, was not under this act and the acts that Mr. Medford was alleged to have done in the Wall Street Journal article could not have happened without several legal violations under the legislation we have provided. But I appreciate the gentleman bringing that forward for discussion because that is exactly the kind of thing we all want to avoid. We may differ as to the best way to get to that, but I think we can point out here that that is the kind of thing we want to avoid. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me just add you have the Hatch Act; you have got revolving doors banning lobbying; you have the lifetime bans we discussed; a ban from working on matters that affect a person or employee's financial interests. The penalties go to 5 years in jail under the statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, fines up to $50,000. So they are very severe at this point for any violations.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia Beach, Virginia (Mr. Schrock).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just again thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for the inclusion of his thoughts in this. We will continue to debate this issue, but I think it has been very educational for all of us. As we identify problems, we are trying to reach an agreement on some of these. Some we may just have to vote up or down. The gentleman has identified some issues that I think are making this bill a stronger bill. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my ranking member on the subcommittee. I appreciate his efforts, as well, in bringing this to floor. I just note once again that we have worked very closely with Dr. Kelman at Harvard, the Clinton administration's procurement czar over at OMB. This is a bipartisan piece that has been crafted and thought out through the years. I appreciate everyone's efforts to try and better this.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 377) recognizing the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and commending the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 377 recognizes the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and commends the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations. The National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations represents more than 5 million people and serves as an umbrella group for more than 250 organizations. Those groups span the spectrum of ethnic heritage, culture and religion. The mandate of the Coalition is to preserve ethnic diversity, promote equality and tolerance, combat injustice and bring about harmony and unity among all people. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor was established by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations in 1986. It honors the many groups who have struggled and sacrificed to help build this great Nation. Past medal winners include six Presidents: Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon. Senators, Congressmen, and Nobel Prize winners are also among the 1,500 people who have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor celebrates the richness and diversity of American life. The award honors more than just individuals. It honors the pluralism and democracy that have enabled our ancestry groups to maintain their identities while becoming integral parts of American life. By honoring these individuals, we honor all those who share their origins. We acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to our country. The 2002 Ellis Island Medals of Honor will be awarded on May 11. They will honor those individuals from different ethnic groups who contributed to the rescue and recovery efforts stemming from September 11. They will also honor those involved in the war against terrorism and the enhancement of our Nation's homeland security. I congratulate this year's honorees. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their sponsorship of this resolution and for their support of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, for helping to bring this important resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, our diversity and our tolerance are two uniquely American values that make this country great. During these troubled times of ethnic strife all around the world, these values are worth reflecting on and honoring in this country. I commend the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations. I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 the resolution under consideration.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3921) to amend the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 to extend until January 1, 2005, a program applying simplified procedures to the acquisition of certain commercial items, and to require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress a report regarding the effectiveness of such program.

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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership of the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform on this important legislation, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3921, the Acquisition and Streamlining Improvement Act of 2002. This bill extends for 2 years the Clinger- Cohen Act's successful pilot program for streamlined acquisitions of commercially available items. The landmark Clinger-Cohen Act recognized the value of these streamlined procedures in its pilot program. They provide the foundation for establishing commercial-like responsiveness in this government when it buys commercial items. The streamlined procedures apply for purchases of $5 million or less when a contracting officer reasonably expects that offers in response to a solicitation will only include commercial items. They permit the use of shorter deadlines, fewer burdensome government-unique requirements, and minimized administrative costs. In sum, they give contracting officers greater discretion to select the most advantageous offer for the government and to do so in a business-like manner. This program has been very useful in a number of different areas. For example, the Pentagon recently used this authority to expedite repairs after the tragic terrorism attack on September 11. DOD set a goal of having the Pentagon restored by this fall, the 1-year anniversary of the attack. That is a very aggressive goal for such a complicated job. If one step in the process falls through, the entire project can fail. One significant step at the Pentagon has been the effort to quickly restore what DOD calls the critical pathway to the damaged wing. DOD used the Clinger-Cohen pilot program authority to buy routers and switches to reestablish the communications grid. Using conventional procurement procedures to buy this equipment would have added extra months and would have jeopardized the whole project's timely completion by the 1-year anniversary. The Clinger-Cohen pilot program helped DOD cut through the red tape of this critical pathway and on many other projects in the reconstruction. It also provides strategic management tools that the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies need to establish key acquisition projects in the wake of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, unless we act now, this important pilot program will expire at the end of this year. Governmentwide, we see Federal agencies continuing to grapple with barriers to buying the best value in the goods and services they need. Agencies need better management approaches and improved purchasing tools, including the Clinger-Cohen pilot program authority, to help acquisition managers meet their agency goals. Indeed, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy's survey of procurement executives showed that the streamlined acquisition authority in the Clinger-Cohen pilot has had a positive impact on the Federal procurement process. These procurement executives recommend continuing the program. The Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, which I chair, and the Committee on Government Reform, under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), have encouraged the development of commonsense approaches to acquisition policy. I have also been working in the subcommittee with the minority and with the administration for broader acquisition reform. I recently introduced H.R. 3832, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, SARA, which directs the Federal Government to adopt management reform techniques modeled after those of the private sector. I have also introduced H.R. 3426, the Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my good friend, Senator John Warner and Senator Fred Thompson. This legislation came about after we were contacted last year by Governor Ridge and the Homeland Security Office about many of the ongoing barriers Federal agencies are experiencing in accessing the tools necessary to fight the war on terrorism. This legislation will provide agencies with the tools necessary to immediately access the latest commercial technologies, products and services to combat terrorism. The bill before us today, H.R. 3921, the Acquisitions Streamlining Improvement Act of 2002, allows agencies to continue to use the Clinger-Cohen pilot program streamlined procedures for the purchase of commercial items. Mr. Speaker, if an item is available commercially and at a competitive price, the government should not have to go through a long, drawn-out procurement process. Where there are several competitors in a marketplace, and this competition is keeping prices in line, then streamlined acquisition procedures make sense, and save time and money. They make the government run smoother. In closing, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who introduced this legislation. I thank the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), for working with us to make good suggestions in moving this legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform (Mr. Waxman) for helping bring this bill to the floor. I think this bill is going to continue to improve acquisition responsiveness on the part of the Federal Government so that we can meet our goals, save the taxpayers money, and get the best value. I urge the adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Central American Security Act (CASA). This legislation has strong bi- partisan support, and would give Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans the same opportunity to adjust their immigration status that Congress extended to Nicaraguans and Cubans in 1997. In 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) which offered drastically different immigration relief for Nicaraguans and Cubans than it did for Salvadorans and Guatemalans, despite similar political situations in El Salvador, Guatemala,'and Honduras. Immigrants arriving here from these countries were all fleeing similar circumstances. As a result of this disparity in treatment, there are many undocumented Central Americans in the United States today who are hard-working, taxpaying, long-term residents with no way to regularize their immigration status. Our bill would resolve the contradiction. While there are strong equity and fairness arguments to provide ``parity'' to Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans, we are equally interested in the key U.S. foreign policy and national security interests in Central America that are served by the proposal. After suffering through a string of brutal civil wars, these countries now have moderate, democratically-elected governments. They have made great progress in respecting human rights and the rule of law. These are pro-American, multi-party democracies where political violence has been largely eliminated. Yet, these emerging democracies remain fragile, ravaged by natural disasters and beset by economic hardship. We must do what we can to help and nurture them. Hard-working Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans in the United States send billions of dollars home to their families every year. These funds strengthen democratic institutions and provide for basic human needs. They amount to significantly more than we could ever hope to provide in foreign aid. Cutting off these remittances would renew economic and political instability in the region, undermine efforts to combat terrorism and drug trafficking, and generate massive new migration to the United States. According to the INS, as many as 8 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. today. This is a situation profoundly affecting our national security, and we should make every effort to change it for the better. While we do not have the resources to find and identify all of the undocumented aliens in our country, we must give them some incentive to come forward and identify themselves. CASA would provide that incentive to bring some of these aliens out of the shadows and encourage them to register with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, it is in our best interest to enhance domestic security efforts and to ensure the economic and political stability of Central America. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this fair and equitable legislation.