Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Montclair Lions Club No. 36563, located in Prince William County, Virginia.

The International Lions Club is the world's largest service club organization with 1.4 million members in 46,000 clubs in 193 nations. Since 1917, the International Lions Club has been able to touch the lives of countless individuals across the globe. The club's motto, ``We Serve'' demonstrates the tremendous effort, desire and willingness of volunteers worldwide to better the lives of others through humanitarian efforts. In 1990, Lions established SightFirst, a $143.5 million global initiative to fight the major causes of preventable and reversible blindness.

Since 1979, the Montclair Lions Club has provided dedicated service to Prince William County, working tirelessly to further the welfare of the community. In its first 25 years the club raised well over a quarter of a million dollars through a wide variety of fundraisers including citrus sales, White Can Day donations, White House Christmas Ornament sales, and food sales. The club has held a golf tournament fundraiser annually with the majority of the proceeds being donated to the Dale City Boys and Girls Club and Action in the Community Through Service.

Montclair Lions Club members donate their time to community service projects including Safety Break, Montclair Property Association events, Habitat for Humanity and many others. These hours of service have enriched innumerable lives in Prince William County and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate the Montclair Lions Club on 25 years of success. They have served the interests of their community well, truly meriting recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the Lions Club's past accomplishments and in wishing the club continued success in the many years to come.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order.

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

Section 502.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Merle McDougald Werner, a correspondent who filed one of the first reports of the D-Day invasion in 1944. Mr. Werner died May 19, 2004 at his home in Falls Church, VA at the age of ninety-one.

Mr. Werner was born January 28, 1913, in Bladen, Nebraska. He attended the University of Nebraska and received a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Missouri in 1934. During the years 1934 to 1937, Mr. Werner worked for several newspapers in Nebraska and Wyoming when he became employed with the United Press, a precursor of United Press International located in Des Moines. In 1941, Mr. Werner transferred to United Press' Washington bureau and was appointed as a war correspondent based in London where he worked with Walter Cronkite.

Surrounded by gunfire and deep cold waters, Werner stepped onto Utah Beach four hours after the beginning of the attack in which 156,000 Allied troops took part. He pulled out his typewriter and began an account of the day from a foxhole that was dug for his protection. Mr. Werner's account became one of the first of the invasion to reach Americans in the states.

During World War II, Werner also covered the German bombing of London, the liberation Paris in August 1944, the U.S. occupation of Berlin in 1945 and the Potsdam Conference.

Additionally, Mr. Werner's recollections of his D-Day experiences are on display in a current online issue of the Newseum, a museum dedicated to journalism. He is also believed to be the last surviving journalist of those who accompanied the invasion forces.

Mr. Werner was viewed as a calm and stoic man who considered himself to be very fortunate to have not only survived the war, but also to have participated in covering the biggest news event of his generation.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Merle McDougald Werner for his service to his country. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Mr. Werner's past accomplishments and remembering him for his dedication to his country and fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, please include the attached exchange of letters between Chairman Michael G. Oxley of the Committee on Financial Services, Chairman John A. Boehner of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and myself in the Congressional Record at the end of the debate on H.R. 3797 under general leave.

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2004.

Hon. Tom Davis,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Tom: On February 26, 2004, the Committee on Government

Reform ordered reported H.R. 3797, the 2004 District of

Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act. As you know, the

Committee on Financial Services was granted an additional

referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the

Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the

House of Representatives over banks and banking. Section 8 of

the bill addresses the regulation of banks chartered by the

District of Columbia by the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

Because of your willingness to consult with my committee

regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill

by the Financial Services Committee. By agreeing to waive its

consideration of the bill, the Financial Services Committee

does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 3797. In addition,

the Committee on Financial Services reserves its authority to

seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within

the Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction during any

House-Senate conference that may be convened on this

legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by

the Committee on Financial Services for conferees on H.R.

3797 or related legislation.

I request that you include this letter and your response as

part of your committee's report on the bill and the

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation

on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I raise points of order against section 512, subsections (b) and (c), section 514 and section 525 on the grounds that these provisions change existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and therefore are legislation included in a general appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this with the gentleman from Tennessee. We are uncomfortable, as the gentleman knows, with the reporting requirements just through appropriations. We would want to include the committee which has jurisdiction over Buy- America, which is ours. We cannot rewrite this, but I pledge to work with the gentleman as we move forward on these issues.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 526(b) of H.R. 4567 on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, and therefore is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is section 526(b).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I agree with them.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let me just respond to my friend from Wisconsin who has raised this issue.

I have struck for the second year in a row these so-called corporate inversion amendments. The appropriate time to take this up in my opinion would have been before the procurement moved forward. Several committees of this House held hearings on the US-VISIT contract. I think if this had been part of the initial contract, then we would not have gone through this process, companies would not have spent millions of dollars, and we could have addressed this earlier in the process.

The difficulty now is that we would delay this process up to 2 years further, and I think it is a needed program.

We have kept the language in section (a) under this going forward for future contracts in the spirit of compromise with the gentleman, but I understand his concerns. I have other substantive concerns with what the gentleman has said, but I think in the spirit of compromise we have tried to get an appropriate balance and allow the contract to move forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The gentlewoman is entitled to her strong opinion but not her own facts. She notes that troops overseas need help. The reality is if her amendment passes, this will have to be recompeted and it will push back protecting our borders another 2 years.

A lot of companies invested money in this. Homeland Security invested money in going through these. This will have to start again. The bids of the losers in this particular case will be made public. Everyone will have a starting place. This pushes the outcome to protect our homeland 2 years. So this does not do anything to protect the homeland, number one.

Number two, Accenture, to my understanding, pays an effective tax rate for fiscal year 2004 of 34.8 percent. The two competitors in this pay, in their recent 10-K filings, 31.3 percent and 28 percent respectively.

I ask the gentlewoman where is the tax advantage if they are paying a higher percentage of their taxes? Does she know?

There is no tax advantage.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously it is the usual subterfuge on this. As a primer, they pay taxes on profits. They do not pay taxes on their losses.

But we are talking here about an effective tax rate, not the tax rate itself, which of course would be equal for U.S. income.

All work performed on this contract is performed in the United States. They were awarded this contract and the experts, the career civil servants who looked at this, decided this was the best procurement to protect the homeland. What they would have us do, the author of this would say let us not take the best defense we can get for the homeland, let us take something else. Let us pay a little more, let us get a little bit less because we want to settle the score because the parent company of the U.S.-based company that won this procurement somehow should be punished, even though all the work will be performed in the United States. And Accenture LLP led the SMART Border Alliance, which represents 31 U.S. companies employing 330,000 people in 50 States. Again, the US-VISIT program led the source of selection process here and chose this as the most effective means, not just cost effective but technically effective means, to protect the homeland, and they want to throw that out the window and say we will take second best for some other reason.

The time to address this, frankly, was at the time of the procurement. Congress held hearings on this. We had an opportunity on this procurement before it was let to do something on that in the hearings.

As I noted before, they do not receive a competitive advantage on this. Accenture is not a corporate inversion. This was a global partnership and all of their U.S.-based work of course they pay taxes on in the United States.

The thing I worry about most, though, is retaliation. Right now in information technology we are running an $8 billion trade surplus. This jeopardizes that surplus by inviting retaliation from other countries in the globe where we currently maintain a trade surplus with retaliation against U.S. companies doing business in those different countries, and I think that would be a disaster for the U.S. economy, something that my district in Northern Virginia knows something about, being one of the leaders in this. I do not think we should reduce the safety and security of the U.S. to settle a political score in this particular case.

Why should U.S. taxpayers pay more money and take, in the opinion of the career civil servants, a secondary technical solution to protect our homeland?

I also want to note no jobs are being outsourced. All the work on this contract is being performed in the United States. Accenture I do not even believe has any employees in Bermuda. Every cent of taxes that is earned on this will be paid here. The CEO of Accenture lives in Texas. Their Chief Financial Officer lives in Texas. And the idea that somehow they are not employing Americans or these jobs are going offshore or any intimation of that is patently false.

Let us take a look at the procurement itself because I think it is important. It is creating a nationwide entry and exit tracking system for foreign nationals visiting the United States. This amendment delays that for 2 years. I do not think our homeland needs that. I do not think the security in this country needs that. I urge defeating the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this is about the best technology to defend the borders. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States made up of American companies in opposition to this amendment. I have a letter from the Professional Services Council made up of American companies in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, there are 330,000 American jobs in the contract that is currently being let to Accenture and its American corporate subsidiaries. But the other side would just delay those jobs at least 2 years and the creation of those jobs as they rebid this contract and recompete this contract and keep our borders less safe.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me correct a couple of statements made. First of all, this is not a company that ever left America. This is a global partnership at one point that as they looked at the new business model, they looked at a place globally in the partnership that had worked across the world.

I will yield on your time. Do you have the time, or are you just trying to interrupt me so I cannot get a stream of thought? You have ample opportunity to rebut me on the time allotted to you.

So they were never an American company, and this is not a corporate inversion under the current law, and the gentleman knows that, and the author of this amendment knows that.

Secondly, Bermuda is a British territory. Britain is a member of the World Trade Organization. To say they are not is fallacious, and I think we ought to at least keep this on a factual level. We have differing opinions, which I respect on this; but let us at least argue from the same basis of facts.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, although I am defending the committee's position in this particular case, my understanding is I do not have the right to close because I am not a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is unfortunate. First of all, you are picking on only one homeland security contract where there are literally dozens, more than that, that go to companies that are foreign based. They have singled out one. Perhaps there is a bidder in their State that did not get it. But retaliation on Federal contracting is really not a good thing to be doing on the House floor.

Secondly, we need to be aware that this will cost the government additional money in termination costs, and they are likely to go through this, and delay implementation of this procurement for up to 2 years which means that securing our border and getting the U.S. VISIT program up and running will be delayed. This is a homeland security bill. This is an anti-homeland security amendment in that case.

It is important, once again, to note that the winner of the contract is an American corporation, but their parent is a global company that has a headquarters in Bermuda. They were a global partnership prior to doing that. Although the majority of their stock, I understand, is American-owned, certainly the bulk of their employees are here. But they are global in nature as are so many companies in a changing global economic world, a fact of the matter that some of my colleagues do not want to face up to.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Well, this throws the procurement basically up in the air and out the window and delays it, I think, at a minimum a couple of years. Worst of all, we know under this contract, Texas gets 35,000 jobs. Those jobs, if this amendment becomes law, are out the window. They may get some back. They may not get any back. We know, for example, in Massachusetts 13,000 jobs come under this. Those jobs are out the windows if this is it. Maybe they will get it under some other bidding, but there is no assurance of that at all.

We know for example in Florida, 14,000 jobs; California, 30,000 jobs; Illinois, 11,000; Arizona, 12,000, on and on; 330,000 jobs at a time when people profess to want job creation. Basically what they are saying is let us put these jobs off 2 years because we do not like the headquarters where the parent company that is putting this together of the winning company, which is an American company, lives. Even though all of the jobs will be performed in the United States, appropriate security clearances will be cleared by American citizens to perform this work.

I would note once again, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of

companies around the globe that are doing business with the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, that are foreign based. If we cut this off, we are indeed, as one speaker noted, cutting off our nose to spite our face. Because, after all, this is a global economy; and after all, in this particular area we are running an $8 billion trade surplus, trade surplus. And what the proponents of this amendment would do is say, we do not care about a trade surplus in this particular area. We want to settle some other scores. We do not like the global economy. We want to use American dollars only to compete with American companies, only to use American companies even if it may be an inferior technology, even if it may cost taxpayers more.

That is what they are saying, and it is very poor precedent, in my opinion, for protecting the homeland.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

It clearly has to be recompeted, and we will be wrought with protests.

I urge that this amendment be soundly defeated and we send the signal here that we want to protect the homeland first. This is a homeland security bill. It ought to stay that way.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the interior appropriations bill contains a number of legislative provisions within the Committee on Government Reform's jurisdiction. I believe that in the past few days, we have established lines of communication and a good working relationship on these matters. I expect that as this bill moves forward to the other body in conference, we will continue this relationship and work together to make sure that these provisions are appropriate.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I am particularly concerned with section 333 regarding the implementation of the E- Government Act. I understand the department's frustration with the funding of this initiative. I would like to work with the gentleman from North Carolina to find a way to properly implement e-government at the department rather than stopping this important program altogether.

I thank the gentleman and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4568.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Sergeant Allen O'Reilly, UMC.

Allen O'Reilly was born November 7, 1980 near Chicago, IL. At the age of 18, he dedicated his life to the service of his country by enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Due to Allen's intelligence and potential, the Marine Corps selected him to be an avionics technician. After boot camp at Parris Island, SC, Allen went on to complete the academically challenging training required for this specialty at Pensacola Naval Air Station and the Marine Corps Air Station at Camp Pendleton, CA.

As is so common with Marines, Allen spent a great deal of time participating in numerous training exercises around the globe. He was also called to duty against a hostile enemy, participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, spending long months away from family, friends, and the comforts of home.

Mr. Speaker, Allen was sadly taken from us last month. However, the memory of his service and dedication lives on. The medals he was awarded are a testament to his abilities and his accomplishments as a faithful Marine. I rise before my colleagues today to commend Sergeant O'Reilly--one willing to sacrifice so much of himself to protect the life of freedom and liberty all Americans enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of President Reagan over the weekend. My thoughts and prayers go out to Nancy and to the Reagan family and friends. This is an extraordinarily difficult time for any family, but I hope they can find some comfort in the joy and inspiration that President Reagan brought to so many around the globe.

Ronald Reagan was a true American original, a Midwestern boy of humble beginnings who chased his dreams of stardom in Hollywood and evolved into one of the foremost political leaders of the 20th Century.

His legacy is so profound and pervasive that it's easy to take for granted. But we should not forget that it was Ronald Reagan who restored strength to the Office of the President. It was Ronald Reagan who reshaped the federal government and ushered in two decades (and counting) of lower taxes and economic growth. It was Ronald Reagan who bolstered America's strength as a world military power. And it was Ronald Reagan who reminded us that America was indeed that ``shining city on the hill,'' and we had bountiful reasons to be proud to be Americans.

His love of country was a guiding force throughout his life and his political career--he knew America was great because America was free, and his sought to shine the light of freedom on corners of the globe darkened by the stain of totalitarianism. His demand for Mikhail Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall'' is not only a seminal moment in Cold War history, but a reminder that America's democratic ideals are ultimately stronger than any barriers erected by forces of oppression.

Quite simply, President Reagan's words and actions helped change the world for the better. And I can't think of a greater accomplishment than that.

We lost more than a man on Saturday, when President Reagan ended his long journey into the sunset.

We lost a true giant, and a great American.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Annandale High School as it prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary.

Since its establishment in 1954 when President Eisenhower's ``Atoms for Education'' program lent its name to the school's mascot, the Annandale Atoms, Annandale High School has committed itself to lofty standards of academic and extracurricular excellence. Over the years, as the Annandale area has expanded

and diversified, Annandale High School has followed the community's example. The school boasts such a great diversity that it recently received national attention. During his second term, President Clinton publicly recognized Annandale as a ``model school for diversity'', commenting on the fact that Annandale's student body represents over 80 countries and more than 40 native languages.

To this day, Annandale High School remains a distinguished and greatly lauded school in all aspects from sports to the arts to academics. Annandale High School has won six state football championships and many other state-level recognitions. In addition, the band program, accompanied by the choral department, has won multiple awards in national competition and has performed in concerts at the Kennedy Center. This summer, a select choir will participate in the second part of an international exchange program with Germany. Furthermore, Annandale High School has taken the initiative to pioneer the International Baccalaureate program within the Fairfax County Public School System. This program, which allows students to take accelerated, honors courses that count towards an internationally recognized diploma, is one that other schools throughout the county remain reluctant to adopt due to its rigorous nature.

Annandale High School plays an instrumental role in shaping its students into kind, considerate, and generous individuals devoted to helping others and improving their community. Most recently, three sisters, all students at Annandale, founded Wash America, a car wash initiative designed to provide financial support to families of the victims of the September 11th attacks.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Annandale High School faculty and staff for the immeasurable contributions that they have made to the community by shaping today's youth and tomorrow's future. I congratulate the High School on its successes over the last 50 years and I wish it more successful years in the future. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this outstanding and distinguished institution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Adult Rehabilitation Center of the Salvation Army in Alexandria, Virginia.

The Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC), is a social service organization dedicated to saving people from addiction, dysfunction, poverty, incarceration, and homelessness. It provides support to those who suffer from social and emotional needs and enables them to provide for themselves.

An impressive 600-person turnout at the dedication ceremony on January 29, 1984 revealed both a need and support for the work of the ARC in Northern Virginia.

The ARC provides adequate housing, therapy and employment in an orderly and nourishing environment. ARC focuses on the physical and spiritual needs of participants to facilitate re-entry into society through gainful employment. Frequently those who are rehabilitated experience a normal lifestyle.

ARC is also unique in that its programs are self supporting. Items such as clothing and household items are brought to the salvation centers, repaired and refurbished and then resold to the public in the Salvation Army Thrift Stores.

Finally, ARC does not discriminate based on race, color or religious belief and is open to all men with a treatable handicap. Because of these distinct and honest characteristics, the Salvation Army is very successful. Since its inception ARC has provided an invaluable asset to the Northern Virginia community. Its services are greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate the Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center of Alexandria on 20 years of successful service. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding their efforts to prepare individuals in body, mind and spirit for active useful roles in society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 612, which recognizes and honors the firefighters, police, public servants, civilians, and private businesses who responded to the devastating fire in Richmond, Virginia, on March 26, 2004.

On March 26, 2004, a destructive fire swept through Virginia Commonwealth University and the Carver Community of Richmond, Virginia. The size of this blaze quickly grew out of control such that local Richmond firefighters called for assistance from fire stations throughout the region. The quick response and valiant united effort of firefighters, police, public servants, and civilians extinguished the blaze and averted further destruction of property. Additionally, public, private and civic organizations provided shelter, food and comfort to those affected by the fire. This is a further example of the amazing courage and perseverance required on a daily basis by fire and rescue personnel across the country. These citizens don the uniforms of service to protect and provide for our communities and for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution honors the firefighters, police, public servants and private businesses who responded to this emergency with swiftness and courage, working together to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Claire Luke for over 13 years of dedicated service to the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce as the Executive Director.

Ms. Luke first served the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce (CFCC) as Events Coordinator in 1989. At that time, chamber membership was comprised of 250 businesses, and the group held only two events per month. Since then, largely due to Ms. Luke's dedicated efforts and impressive organization, membership has increased to over 850 businesses. Today, 3,500 area business people are able to participate in 7-10 events per month.

For years, Ms. Luke has worked tirelessly on the chamber's behalf. She successfully has overseen coordination of seminars, breakfasts, luncheons, mixers, and 12 active committees. Additionally, she skillfully has directed special events such as the Regional Business Showcase, the Taste of Fairfax, Fall Family Festival, and a golf tournament.

Under Ms. Luke's guidance, the CFCC scholarship, awarded annually to a select number of deserving high school seniors, has gained great recognition. Ms. Luke further contributes to local education by serving on the board of directors for the Margaret Kilpatrick Adams Scholarship Fund.

Ms. Luke also has been incredibly involved in the annual Chocolate Festival, which the CFCC sponsors. She was a member of the founding board for this event and has served on this committee for 14 years. For the past two years, she has served as committee chairman.

Throughout her accomplished career, Ms. Luke has received numerous awards, among them the 1999 ATHENA Award honoring her efforts in fostering business leadership and assistance. Ms. Luke was also admitted into the DECA (Distributive Education Clubs of America) Hall of Fame for her assistance to Robinson Secondary School with their National Projects. Furthermore, in 1998, Ms. Luke's high standards and extensive contributions led to her selection as the Rotarian of the Year, and also as a Paul Harris Fellow in 1996.

Not only a dedicated community servant, Ms. Luke also is a loving wife and mother of two. While raising her family, she was able to make time to serve on the Family Services Board of Directors, as President of the Officers' Wives Club, and as a volunteer in the Red Cross during her husband's military career in the Air Force.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my best wishes to Ms. Luke on her retirement from the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce. While I know that she will be greatly missed, her retirement is well deserved. Her significant contributions are much appreciated and greatly admired. I congratulate her on a job well done. I call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Luke and in wishing her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sophie R. Hoffman for over two decades of dedicated service to the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington, including 2 years as their president.

Sophie R. Hoffman has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Jewish community, advocating Jewish interests, strengthening public support for Israel, building ties with other faith, minority, and ethnic groups and establishing a framework for social action.

While serving the Jewish community, Ms. Hoffman has enhanced the quality of life for those around her. She played a key role in securing over $2 million in grants for Jewish social service agencies, which provide for vulnerable citizens throughout Greater Washington.

For years, Ms. Hoffman has committed herself to strengthening public support for Israel. Her duties included presenting Cardinal McCarrick with a menorah to honor the heroes and martyrs of the Holocaust. This was then permanently placed on the campus of the Catholic University of America.

Furthermore, the Council has established and developed public school literacy programs under Ms. Hoffman's guidance. She has also been incredibly involved in preserving the principles of religious freedom in public schools and working to nurture a positive environment for the children. Her remarkable organization efforts have helped to create a framework for social action.

Throughout her accomplished career as a dedicated public servant, Ms. Hoffman has continuously demonstrated her vitality and commitment towards the Greater Washington community. Due to her contributions of time and talent, the diverse society is able to maintain its beauty while evolving to keep pace with the rapidly changing region.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my best wishes to Ms. Hoffman on her retirement from the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington. Her significant contributions are much appreciated and greatly admired. I congratulate her on a job well done. I call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Hoffman and in wishing her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Colonel Frank S. Vajda on winning the Mason District Council of Civic Associations' Man of the Year award. This special honor is truly well- deserved.

Colonel Vajda first relocated to Fairfax County following his retirement from the United States Air Force after 28 years. He quickly became active in both volunteer and community activities, demonstrating a strong commitment to improving Fairfax County. Currently a member of the Court of Camelot Civic Association, Colonel Vajda has also served the organization as president. Moreover, Colonel Vajda founded and continues to orchestrate Camelot's annual holiday charity fund drive in support of the Children's Hospital.

With community safety as a top priority, Colonel Vajda has served on the Camelot Neighborhood Watch Group for the past 15 years. As the organization's current coordinator, Colonel Vajda has tirelessly upheld the highest standards of care in the nation's oldest continuously active watch group. Furthermore, he organized and promoted the first park watch group at Pine Ridge, a local neighborhood park. Stemming from Mr. Vajda's efforts, the Park Authority, the Fairfax County Police, and the Rose Purple have effectively established the county- wide PARKWATCH system.

Since 1997, Colonel Vajda has notably contributed to the Friends of Mason District Park as a member of the Steering Committee. His other efforts include acting as a park volunteer for the Mason District Park Festival, the Spring Egg Hunt, and the Spotlight by Starlight summer concert series. Colonel Vajda's actions have ensured that all of these events were carried out in a safe and secure environment.

In 1998, Colonel Vajda was selected as the Mason District Representative to the Public Safety and Park Bond Referendum Committee. On this committee, his duties included speaking commitments informing county voters as to the purpose of the bonds during many speaking commitments. In 2001, Colonel Vajda extended the scope of responsibilities upon his appointment to the Park Authority Board. He continues to maintain the highest standards of service and dedication to this group.

Throughout his accomplished career of service, Colonel Vajda has received numerous awards including the 1998 Elly Doyle Park Service Award on the Pine Ridge Park Green Team.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Colonel Vajda for his extensive service to the Mason District. His contributions and efforts are much appreciated and greatly admired. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating Colonel Vajda on his award and in wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

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.