Floor Statements

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

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

Let me say to my friend that this amendment strikes a very critical provision in this supplemental that provides for congressional notification 7 days before a determination is made under the procurement laws. Understand that we are dealing with a situation in Iraq where there is no electronic inventory system for supplies.

We are basically dealing with carbon paper inventory. Consequently, there is often no warning when supplies are depleted, where we need to act in a very fast manner.

Under the gentleman's amendment, we would not be able to go out and procure something that is needed without going out and finding additional bidders or waiting 7 days. Sometimes the situation does not allow for that.

Recently, it was discovered that the stock of baby formula in the country was gone, and it was not available anywhere in the country. Under the gentleman's provision, we would have had to wait 7 days before we could go out sole source, or we would have had to source it which could take up to a week or an even longer time than that.

In this particular case under the exemption, they would have been allowed to move ahead as they did, a contract was awarded using the exemption to the supplier who could provide immediate delivery. In the meantime, you would go out and source this and compete it for any longer period of time. This would be only for an emergency situation.

We had another situation where 2 days before the scheduled distribution of the new currency was to take effect, it was found there were not enough trucks or security to accomplish the distribution. You ask, how were we faced with that? Again, we are dealing not with an electronic inventory system in the country, but a carbon copy inventory. A contract was awarded very quickly using the urgency exemption to a company that could supply immediately the needed trucks and security guards for a limited, finite period. Only in those most exceptional cases should we allow sole sourcing. That is why we have agreed in our committee to a 7-day preaward notification for Congress in all but the most exceptional circumstances. But I think we are dealing with a wartime situation. There are times when you have to act and do not have time to go out and competitively compete for all the necessities you may need to fight a war. It is only in the most dire situations that we would allow this. The gentleman's amendment strikes even our ability to do that. That is why I oppose the gentleman's amendment, although, in principle, I think we are in agreement.

I think it is critical that the unusual and compelling urgency exemption in current law operate as intended in Iraq of all places where the situation is fraught with danger, and circumstances seem to change by the minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1828, a resolution that calls for an end to Syria's support for terrorism and an end to its occupation of Lebanon.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush stated that the gravest danger facing the United States in the war on terrorism is the acquisition by other countries of weapons of mass destruction, and that we must confront this danger. A senior Administration official recently testified before the Committee on International Relations that Syria remains a security concern as a supporter of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction proliferation.

I commend the Administration's efforts to reach a diplomatic solution with Syria. President Bush has consistently called on Syria to close its terrorist camps and to expel terrorist organizations. Secretary Powell has worked diligently with the Syrian government towards ending its occupation of Lebanon. Since 1990, the U.S. Congress has passed seven resolutions calling on the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon. Many members of Congress--including myself--have been to Syria and urged the Syrian government to work with the United States in the war against terrorism. And despite our diplomatic efforts, Syria has not fulfilled its pledge to work with us.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Syria continues to offer protection to terrorist groups such as Hizballah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Recently, Syria conducted efforts to acquire technology that could be applied to a nuclear weapons program. Syria has also undermined coalition efforts to bring stability to Iraq by allowing volunteers to cross the border and fight our service members. And as we all know, Syria has ignored numerous United Nations resolutions calling on Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon, a sovereign nation.

H.R. 1828 would hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East. This resolution would instruct the President to impose economic sanctions on Syria until the Department of State determines that Syria ceases to provide support to international terrorist groups, ceases the development and deployment of weapons, and withdraws all military forces from Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, despite our many attempts to reach a diplomatic solution, Syria continues to obstruct our efforts in the war against terrorism. I support H.R. 1828 and encourage my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3159) to require Federal agencies to develop and implement plans to protect the security and privacy of government computer systems from the risks posed by peer-to-peer file sharing, as amended.

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. 3159.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3159, the Government Network Security Act of 2003 closes a loophole in the Federal Government's efforts to protect the security and privacy of its computers. It requires executive branch departments and agencies to take steps to protect government computers and information from the risks that are posed by the use of peer-to- peer file sharing programs. Peer-to-peer file sharing programs are Internet applications that allow users to download and directly share electronic files from users on the same network. These programs are surging in popularity with millions of people trading music, images and documents over these networks at any given time.

While most of the news coverage on file sharing focuses on the abilities of users to illegally trade copyrighted music, movies and videos, another less-publicized dark side to this technology is the risk it poses to the security of computers and the privacy of electronic information. Few people recognize these risks.

At a hearing held by the Committee on Government Reform in May, members heard from computer security experts who discussed the privacy and security risks created by these programs. And through a couple of simple searches on one file-sharing program, committee staff easily obtained completed tax returns, medical records, confidential legal documents and business files. We learned that using these programs can be similar to giving a complete stranger access to your personal file cabinet.

Consequently, file sharing programs can create a number of risks for Federal departments at agencies if they are installed on government computers. The Federal Government uses and stores a wide variety of classified and sensitive information, including information vital to national security, vital to public health and the personal and financial records of U.S. citizens and businesses. Installing these programs on government computers can cause this sensitive information to be exposed to the public. Because files are shared anonymously on peer-to-peer networks, there is also the risk of the spread of viruses worms and other malicious computer files.

Mr. Speaker, both the House and the Senate have successfully taken steps to protect congressional computers through both technical and nontechnical means including firewalls and employee training. Unlike Congress, however, executive branch departments and agencies do not have similar policies. This legislation requires agencies to develop and implement such policies to protect government information and computers. File-sharing technology is not inherently bad and it may turn out to have a variety of beneficial implications. H.R. 3159 recognizes this by protecting the ability of Federal agencies to pursue innovations of peer-to-peer technology on government networks, as long as they do not put government information or computers at risk.

This bill takes a common sense approach to protect the computers and networks of the Federal Government and the valuable information they contain. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform, and his staff for their work on this bill, setting up the hearing, and really calling this to our attention. I also want to recognize all the 28 members of the Committee on Government Reform who have cosponsored this legislation. This bill is an excellent follow-up to the committee's bipartisan investigations into the risk of using file sharing programs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 3159.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3054) to amend the Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act to permit military service previously performed by members and former members of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, the Fire Department of the District of Columbia, the United States Park Police, and the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to count as creditable service for purposes of calculating retirement annuities payable to such members upon payment of a contribution by such members, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 3054.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3054, the District of Columbia Military Retirement Equity Act of 2003 is bipartisan legislation that will allow current and former police officers, firefighters, U.S. Park Police officers, and United States Secret Service employees in the District of Columbia to essentially buy back military service time to avoid costly reductions in their monthly benefit payment.

Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Department of the Treasury and the District of Columbia share responsibility for the D.C. police officers and firefighters retirement plan.

In conjunction with the District, the Treasury Department proceeded to audit the program and discovered a mistake in which individuals were concurrently receiving credit for their post-1956 military service while being eligible for Social Security. Treasury was then forced to reduce hundreds of annuitants' monthly benefits. Through no fault of their own, hundreds of retirees find themselves in the precarious position of having to buy back the military time or have a dramatic reduction in their annuity.

This reality is clearly unfair, was unintended, and must be corrected. I believe this House has an obligation to right this wrong for the benefit of those who selflessly protect our Nation's capital city, and this legislation gives us an opportunity to do just that. The D.C. Military Retirement Equity Act provides a fair mechanism for active duty retirees and retirees to buy back their military service time while it preserves their planned monthly annuity.

This legislation parallels the Civil Service Retirement Act. Federal employees who retired under the Civil Service Retirement Act were made aware of the post-1956 law and were permitted to buy the service credit by making payments equal to 7 percent of the military basic pay for the period in question. If the employee elected to buy back the service credit, it continued to be counted after the employee became eligible for Social Security. The current and former officers covered under this bill who have served our country not once but twice deserve the same opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 3054. I thank and congratulate my colleagues, the distinguished cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for their efforts on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank my friend for his remarks. Let me say that even today, our police officers and firefighters in the District of Columbia, our Secret Service agents put their lives on the line and one never knows what is around the corner in a job like this. It is difficult recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest for these positions; and to some extent, they look at how we treat current retirees when they decide to sign up and for retention or to join the Department in the first place.

In this particular case, a grave mistake was made at the time of the Balanced Budget Act. It had ramifications of basically taking thousands of dollars away from people who over the last generation laid their lives on the line for the safety of the citizens who run our Nation's capital, our law makers and government institutions.

This legislation is, I think, a modest attempt to try to right that wrong, and I hope that current officers and those that are thinking of going into this understand the high regard in which this Congress holds these individuals and honors the service that they gave this city and this government during their tenure. That is what this equity act is all about. That is why it has strong bipartisan support, and that is why I urge our colleagues in the House to support this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this point, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for his leadership and again the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is a cosponsor with me, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), of course our distinguished Delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). We thank all of them for helping to put this together as we hopefully pass this today, send this to the other body for what we hope will be fast consideration and a signature on the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back any remaining time I have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 234, a resolution that calls for the condemnation of prejudice and violence against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian- Americans, and Sikh-Americans, and which recognizes the contributions that these groups have made to American society. The resolution also calls upon Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and to investigate and prosecute such crimes vigorously.

Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, I introduced a similar resolution with Congressman David Bonior. H. Con. Res. 227 condemned bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, Muslim- Americans, and South Asian-Americans, and declared that the civil liberties of these and all other Americans should be protected during our efforts to bring the perpetrators and sponsors of the terrorist acts to justice.

I commend Representative Darrell Issa for introducing H. Res. 234. This resolution sends a strong and clear message that we will not condone prejudiced and violent crimes against any Americans. We must remember that many individuals in the Arab, Muslim, South Asian and Sikh-American communities came to the United States seeking freedom and democracy, and they fled oppressive regimes that lack freedom of speech and religion and in some cases support terrorism. I am pleased that the House of Representatives is once again taking a firm stand on this issue, which is so important to all Americans.

I strongly support H. Res. 234 and encourage my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to acknowledge Westminster at Lake Ridge Retirement Community as they celebrate ten years of community service on September 19, 2003.

The vision for Westminster started over 25 years ago when the late Myles Golbranson led a group of Presbyterians in creating a life-care community. Several years later, in 1989, Westminster was established and in January of 1993 it opened its doors as a continuing care community, making this vision a reality. Since then, Westminster has remained dedicated to its mission: to provide a continuum of housing, healthcare and related services to older adults that promote independence, dignity and personal fulfillment.

Westminster is a major Prince William County employer and provides a wealth of volunteer opportunities. The residents of Westminster have committed thousands of volunteer hours to local schools, hospitals, and civic and cultural events. For example, the Flying Fingers knit hundreds of caps and blankets each year for newborn babies at Potomac Hospital. Prince William County residents also give back to Westminster; Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and church groups make regular visits.

Today Westminster has grown to house 400 residents, and opens its doors to countless others involved in the Rotary Club, business networking meetings, support groups, community groups, and local Chamber of Commerce groups. Westminster also holds numerous special events including countywide blood drives, health fairs, and political forums.

For ten years, Westminster, in cooperation with the adult community of River Ridge, has provided invaluable living, volunteer, political and charity opportunities to the Prince William County community. In doing so, Westminster most certainly has fulfilled its mission.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Westminster at Lake Ridge Retirement Community as they celebrate their 10th anniversary. They have provided a quality retirement lifestyle for active senior citizens, and contributed greatly to the community at large. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating ten years of caring, volunteerism, and activism.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Reverend Won Sang Lee as he retires after 26 years as the Senior Pastor of the Korean Central Presbyterian Church in Vienna, Virginia. He has taken a lead role in providing a spiritual center for the Korean-American community in the 11th district of Virginia.

Reverend Lee has demonstrated the importance of education with his extensive studies, which began at KeiMyung University in Korea where he received a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy. He went on to complete three Master's degrees, first in Philosophy from KyungBook University, Korea, next in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and finally in Near Eastern Studies from the University of Pennsylvania. He was also awarded an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy from KeiMyung University, Korea.

During Reverend Lee's career, his focus has been community outreach, both local and international. The Reverend has made an impact globally by serving as the President of Seed International, which is a mission agency that provides support for missionary activities both home and abroad, and by holding a leadership position in the Korean World Mission Council for Christ.

On a national scale, Reverend Lee has served as the Moderator for the Coalition of the Korean Churches in the Presbyterian Church in America, and as Chairman of the Korean-American Food for the Hungry. Locally, Reverend Lee has been very involved in providing a bright future for children as Chairman of the Washington Youth Foundation. He also directed the Metro-Washington Council of Korean Churches as its President.

In November 2001, the Reverend's life long commitment to his fellow human beings was recognized when he received the Virginia Governor's Award for Outstanding Religious Institution. This award was granted in honor of his work in the Korean Central Senior Center, where he has served as the Chairman of the Board of Director's since 1994.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to applaud the efforts of Reverend Lee who has provided spiritual guidance to citizens all across the globe, and more importantly right here at home. I ask all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this great humanitarian.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to acknowledge the achievements of Joanne Amos, the President of Reflections Photography, as she celebrates 25 years in business.

Reflections, a photography firm that was founded in 1978 in Lexington, Kentucky, originally only catered to social events at nearby universities and the thoroughbred industry. Joanne Amos took the initiative to explore the possibility of expanding the business to begin covering political and corporate events. Since that decision, business has flourished and Reflections has risen to the top of the photography industry.

Over the years Reflections achieved many significant benchmarks, including serving as an official photographer for President Ronald Reagan's second inaugural ceremonies. Other major clients have included the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. In addition, Reflections has been chosen to provide photographic coverage at every National Convention since 1984.

Reflections has grown to cover over 400 events a year, including proceedings with governors, members of Congress, and the administration. While much of their business is related to politics, they also boast a clientele list that includes a host of Fortune 500 companies and celebrities, such as the Washington Redskins, Sylvester Stallone, and even the Queen of England.

As the firm grew they opened an office in Washington, D.C. and in 1992 the headquarters was relocated here. Joanne Amos now resides in the 11th district of Virginia; from this base she will be providing event photography for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. This contract was won on the sheer quality of Reflection's reputation and will grant them the opportunity to show they can coordinate nationwide media coverage. Reflections will make full use of their extensive network of photographers and web-based technology to keep pace with the aggressive schedule set by the President's campaign.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to applaud Joanne Amos on her outstanding guidance and leadership of Reflections photography. I call upon my colleagues to celebrate the success of this remarkable businesswoman and to wish Reflections Photography continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3034, the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry Reauthorization Act.

Today we are able to prolong hope for so many individuals waiting for a match to their bone marrow by reauthorizing the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry for another five years. For many people waiting for a transplant due to various illnesses, the task of finding a donor is a long and costly process. Each year two-thirds of patients awaiting bone marrow transplants are unsuccessful in finding a match within their family. This is why the establishment of a national registry was crucial.

About seventy percent of leukemia and other blood disorder patients do not find a match within their family. A match would be someone with certain white blood cells, called antigens, which are similar or identical to the patient's. These transplants enable patients the opportunity to live a full life, whereas without the transplant they would have little or no chance of survival.

From the organization of a donor registry through the United States Navy in 1986 to this current extension of the National Registry, it is clear that Congress takes this issue to heart. Each member of this House has someone in their district who has been touched by one of the debilitating diseases that need a bone marrow transplant, often as a last option.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Chairman Young for his leadership on the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry Reauthorization Act. Because of his family's own experience with the seriousness of bone marrow transplants, he has emerged as a leader in the issue and is committed to the cause. I urge all my colleagues to support this important reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder) for his leadership on this issue, as he has made a career of this since he came to Congress, and to his ranking member, (Mr. Cummings) of Maryland. I appreciate them working together. To my ranking member on the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), we appreciate his input here to reach this compromise we have here today.

Since its inception in 1988, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been the cornerstone of drug policy in America, improving the lives of all Americans by reducing the presence of drugs in our society. This office has been producing the results our Nation needs: Teen drug use is on the decline, and that is just one of many positive advancements which have been made by ONDCP in the last couple of years.

The many positive signs and trends that Director Walters reported in this year's National Drug Control Strategy clearly demonstrate the difference the office can make when strong and effective leadership is merged with sound policy.

Drug use and abuse is a national crisis that affects the health of our citizens and, in turn, our country. To win the war on drugs, we need to address the problem of drugs in our society from every angle. This legislation gives ONDCP the appropriate resources to stop drug use before it starts, to heal drug users, and disrupt drug markets.

We all know that drugs affect people from all walks of life. Rich, poor, whatever race, addiction does not discriminate. A strong national drug policy is in the interests of every American.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we bring to the floor today is bipartisan in the best sense of the word. It is the product of careful negotiation and strong bipartisan agreement. In crafting this important piece of legislation, we aimed to provide the best possible support for the administration and Director Walters in implementing the President's strategy. We sought to make ONDCP more efficient by reducing outdated reporting and structural requirements that are in the current law. We also gave significant attention to reforms of the Media Campaign and the HIDTA program to ensure that they are effective and true to their original aims. Both of these programs have grown in ways that were not originally intended, and the bill reflects the desire to ensure that the programs remain accountable and dedicated to their core purposes.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder) and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and my full committee counterpart, the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Waxman) for their leadership, dedication, and hard work on this authorization legislation. I am happy that we could reach a bipartisan agreement on this bill. It is too important to play politics with, and there is no place for partisanship in protecting our children against drugs. This bipartisanship was reflected in the unanimous vote to pass the bill out of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we have put together a cohesive, effective piece of legislation to maintain and provide ONDCP with the necessary tools to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, and drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences.

Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Henry Waxman and I are introducing the ``Government Network Security Act of 2003.'' This bill closes a loophole in the Federal Government's efforts to protect the security and privacy of its computers. It requires Federal departments and agencies to take steps to protect government computers and information from the risks posed by the use of peer-to- peer file sharing programs. Peer-to-peer file sharing programs are Internet applications that allow users to download and directly share electronic files from other users on the same network. These programs are surging in popularity with millions of people trading music, images and documents over these networks at any given time.

While most of the news coverage on file sharing focuses on the ability of users to illegally trade copyrighted music, movies, and videos, another less publicized dark side to this technology is the risk it poses to the security of computers and the privacy of electronic information. Few people recognize these risks. At a hearing held by the Committee on Government Reform in May, Members learned about the privacy and security risks created by these programs. Through a couple of simple searches on one file sharing program, Committee staff easily obtained tax returns, medical records, and confidential legal documents, and business files. Using these programs is similar to giving a complete stranger access to your personal file cabinet.

Needless to say, file sharing programs creates a number of risks for Federal departments and agencies if they are installed on government computers. The Federal Government uses and stores a wide variety of classified and sensitive information, including information vital to national security, defense, law enforcement, economic markets, public health, and the environment. Government computers also contain personal and financial information of U.S. citizens and businesses. Installing these programs on government computers can expose this sensitive information to the public. It also creates the potential for the spread of viruses, worms, and other malicious computer files. The files downloaded using file sharing programs can also consume valuable network resources, which could result in a degradation of network performance.

Both the House of Representatives and Senate have successfully addressed these risks through both technical and non-technical means including firewalls and employee training. This legislation would require the Executive Branch to take similar steps to protect its computers.

File sharing technology is not inherently bad, and it may turn out to have a variety of beneficial applications. However, as our committee has learned, this technology can create serious risks for users. This bill takes a common sense approach to protect the computers and networks of the Federal Government and the valuable information they contain.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize Major General Hawthorne Proctor as he prepares to retire after 35 years of distinguished military service.

Major General Proctor received his commission in 1968 as a distinguished military graduate from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, N.C. He then continued his education with a master's degree in Public Administration from Central Michigan University in 1976. His military schooling includes the Quartermaster Basic and Advanced Courses, the Command and General Staff College, the Army War College, and finally Executive Management Development Training at the University of California at Berkley.

Major General Proctor's military career began with his assignment to the 25th Infantry Division. From there he served as Chief Production Management Branch at the Defense Industrial Supply Center; and as a company grade officer he served as Platoon Leader and Assistant Brigade S-4 at Fort Ord, California.

As Major General Proctor rose through the ranks he held command posts all over the world from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Uijongbu, Korea and Bangkok, Thailand. He also held the prominent positions of Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and Operations, U.S. Army Material Command in Alexandria, Virginia and 46th Quartermaster General and Commander at the Quartermaster Center and School. Since July 2001 he has held the illustrious post of J-3, Chief of Logistics Operations at the Defense Logistics Agency.

Major General Proctor has been recognized many times for the excellence and professionalism with which he has performed his duties. He has been awarded the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, with three oak leaf clusters, and the Bronze Star Medal. Moreover, in recognition of his notable career Major General Proctor was inducted as a distinguished Member of the Quartermaster Regiment in 1994.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to commend Major General Proctor on his accomplishments for the dedication and distinction with which he served his country. I ask all my colleagues to join in congratulating the long and successful career of this great patriot.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to honor the Prince William Senior Center at Woodbridge as it reaches its 20th anniversary on September 14, 2003.

The Senior Center was first built in 1983 by Prince William County and renovated in 2002 to provide 10,000 square feet of space for its many classes and services. Throughout its existence the center has provided a gathering place for seniors from the tri-jurisdictional area of Prince William County, the City of Manassas, and the City of Manassas Park.

The center is operated by the Prince William Area Agency on Aging, a part of the Prince William County Government, and is one of the over 670 agencies in a national network of Area Agencies on Aging. The center provides many wonderful chances for seniors to connect with one another and their community, and helps them continue to lead active and entertaining lives. One such program is the Bluebird Bus tours the center sponsors. These trips include both educational and recreational destinations such as Washington area museums, Niagara Falls, and surprise locations on their ``mystery tours.''

The center also provides local residents with opportunities to volunteer and brighten the day of a senior citizen through programs that include Meals on Wheels, which provides nutritious, hot meals to homebound seniors, and Friendly Visitors Volunteers who visit once a week with seniors that may otherwise be socially isolated. The Loan Closet and Support Services for seniors are two undertakings of the center which provide home care aids and match seniors and family members to the applicable resources available to them.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the Prince William Senior Center at Woodbridge for being a comprehensive resource for the seniors and the community at large. The services provided to maintain the health and quality of life of seniors, the volunteer opportunities, and the educational and recreational programs sponsored by the center truly are an integral part of the life of the area's seniors. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding this exceptional and notable institution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on the eve of the anniversary of one of the darkest hours in our great nation's history, to honor the memory of twenty-two Prince William County residents who were victims of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001.

The horrible and senseless acts of random violence that took place two years ago in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have left an indelible mark on our nation and have forever changed the course of history. As we take this opportunity to reflect upon the catastrophic loss incurred by our country on that day, it is our duty to ensure that the memory of those who suffered the greatest loss of all not be forgotten.

I would like to take a moment to honor each citizen individually by name. Sergeant First Class John J. Chada, USA (Ret.) of Manassas; Storekeeper 3 Jamie L. Fallon, USN of Lake Ridge; Ms. Amelia V. Fields of Dumfries; Lieutenant Colonial Robert J. Hymel, USAF (Ret.) of Lake Ridge; Sergeant Major Lacey B. Ivory, USA of Woodbridge; Ms. Judith L. Jones of Dale City; Mr. David W. Laychak of Manassas; Mr. James T. Lynch, Jr. of Manassas; Mr. Robert J. Maxwell of Manassas; Ms. Molly L. McKenzie of Dale City; Ms. Diana B. Padro of Woodbridge; Ms. Rhonda S. Rasmussen of Lake Ridge; Mr. Edward V. Rowenhorst of Lake Ridge; Ms. Judy Rowlett of Woodbridge; Mr. Donald D. Simmons of Dumfries; Ms. Cheryle D. Sincock of Dumfries; Interior Communications Electrician Gregg H. Smallwood, USN of Woodbridge; Sergeant Major Larry L. Strickland, USA of Woodbridge; Ms. Sandra L. White of Dumfries; Mr. Jeff Simpson of Woodbridge; Mr. Gene Edward Malloy of Manassas; and Mr. Craig Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in saluting these Prince William County residents who we lost in the events of September 11, 2001. Through this tribute may our respect and remembrance, never fade.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, it basically strikes the new OMB circular A-76 and would be replaced by the old OMB circular A-76, which all the parties were complaining about prior to this time. So the question really before the House is, is the new circular which was met, after getting input from all of the stakeholders, with a number of unanimous agreements on how this should be changed and incorporated into this, after literally 700 comments were received in developing the guidelines, if this should be changed or should we go back to the old circular A-76.

Is that a correct understanding?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's position. To be sure, all of us who have dealt with these issues, and I have, for a number of years, there are concerns about the way the administration has gone about competitive sourcing. Two major problems that come in: One we have fixed with this bill, and that is when the administration goes to competitive sourcing, there is a cost to that because you have to hire people to evaluate it. There are costs of the government looking and revamping how they would produce a service. You are evaluating the private sector to see how they would provide the service. There are costs to that, and right now those costs are not currently recaptured.

We have put language into the underlying legislation here through our committee that will, for the first time, have the Federal Government report on those costs so that they can be adequately waived.

The second is issue is, I think in some cases the administration is moving too fast, doing too much competitive sourcing, more than they can adequately handle and evaluate. We have heard there have been a couple high-profile instances where the administration has come forward and the evaluations have probably not been appropriate, and I think they are biting off more than they can chew. But I do not think that goes to the base of the A-76 reasonable or reasonable. I like the new procedure, or if there are revamps, I would prefer not to do it through this process. I would rather go back and evaluate it in committees. We have held hearings and are continuing to look at this.

Remember, competitive sourcing is not the same as out-sourcing or privatization. Its purpose is neither to downsize the workforce or to contract jobs out. It is about harnessing the benefits of competition to produce superior performance for the taxpayer, regardless of who performs a service. And in almost every instance where competitive sourcing is applied, the government ends up with a savings. Sometimes this is done by the government employees and the government groups who have gotten together and have retooled the way they provide the service and do it more efficiently. Sometimes it is done by an outside party coming in and showing that they can do it better.

There is no way to measure efficiency in government when you are a monopoly. But if you can go out, occasionally, to the private sector and say, what can you perform, it gives us a standard of performance, a measurement of efficiency that we would not have otherwise.

Now, there is a problem with this that I readily concede, and it troubles me, and it is one that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I have wrestled with. And that is, who wants to come work for the Federal government and dedicate a career to civil service if your job is going to be up for evaluation every 5 years, which is what the guidelines in last year's bill called for. Twenty percent every year was going to be looked at, of inherently non-governmental services that the government is providing, and we would see if it could be competitively sourced. And, basically, that meant on average every 5 years a person's job would be evaluated, and that hurts our recruitment. It hurts our retention.

Now, the fact of the matter is, in most cases where the outside parties win, Federal employees are offered rights of first refusal. In fact, that is spelled out better in the new A-76 circular. That if, in fact, the government is displaced by an outside firm, jobs are offered to the Federal employee government to provide that service so they are not out of work. They are no longer Federal employees. They lose some benefits; they pick up some benefits in some particular cases. But to be sure, there are instances that we wrestle with.

Now on May 29, the OMB published its final revisions of the A-76 process. These revisions were the first major overhaul to the competitive sourcing process in 20 years. And this came after all parties, but particularly Federal employees, were complaining about the old system, a system that we return to if this amendment passes.

What we have now is a product of a 2-year effort that includes discussions and negotiations with all stakeholders including Federal employee groups, private sector companies. As I stated before, more than 700 comments were taken into account in developing these new guidelines. They also incorporated the core recommendations of the Commercial Activities Panel. This panel, headed by the Comptroller General, conducted a year-long review of the competitive sourcing process and issued recommendations, most of them unanimous, for comprehensive changes to process. And I think we have to give that revamped process a chance to work before we willy-nilly throw it out and go back to the old process, which everyone was complaining about.

I think the new process is, in many ways, fair. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I disagree. I will address more of this later. I urge that we oppose the Van Hollen amendment which would take us back to the days that everyone was complaining about and just were not working efficiently.

Mr. Chairman, again, my friend from Maryland and I have fought a lot of battles on behalf of Federal employees. I represent a lot of Federal employees, as he does. We disagree about this particular amendment. I also represent a lot of contractors, and I also represent taxpayers who at the end of the day should be the major beneficiary from this because competitive sourcing, I think, means not less government or more government, it means more efficient government, and that is the goal of this. I hope the gentleman understands that it is a question of how we get to that.

Let me make a couple of comments. I believe this is better for Federal employees in the sense that the new OMB circular A-76 allows the government instead of just providing cost estimates that are compared against competition among the private sector, it almost puts the government at a disadvantage. This allows them to compete on the same field. It allows them to be more innovative in competing with the outside companies, and I think, therefore, more likely to prevail. Government basically has a chance to respond to the private sector on the same grounds, something they do not get under the current A-76 circular and something in our hearings has been something they have complained about. That is thrown out the window with the gentleman's amendment.

Secondly, since OMB circular A-76 is not a regulation but it is simply an OMB circular, OMB can put out another provision tomorrow with minor revisions that we cannot touch. It could be worse, it could be better, but they do not have to go through the hearing process that they did by law to arrive at the conclusion they did here. So they could come back, issue a new circular tomorrow that would be very similar, could be more onerous, and we could not stop that, and that is also a fear I have.

Right now we are in a mode where we are working with them where they are communicating with us, where they are making changes and reacting to some of the results of our hearings and congressional input. I fear if this goes, that the executive branch will exercise their prerogatives and will move ahead in something that I think could be more disadvantageous to Federal employees.

Finally, this process is fair in the sense that if the private vector wins a competition, the contractor has to give any displaced Federal employees a right of first refusal for jobs. The process provides for a 10 percent cost evaluation adjustment to the incumbent services provider, Federal employees in most instances, and Federal employees offers do not have to comply with small business requirements or in many cases have their past performance evaluated. Private sector companies do.

This is not about campaign contributions. I would add to the gentleman on the other side, contributions from unions have gone to the people who are for this amendment and for other dissimilar amendments. There are interest groups on all side of this issue, but let us do what is right for the taxpayers, let us do what is right for this country. Let us defeat the Van Hollen amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know where to start with my friend from Florida on this. I guess we can compare endorsements of his position on this and mine. He has listed a group of unions, some of them Federal employee unions, some who have nothing to do with Federal employment who are interested, obviously, in protecting their membership. We understand that, and that is a noble purpose.

Our purpose here is not to protect contractors; it is not to protect employees. It is to protect the taxpayers. And that is what competitive sourcing is all about, and trying to do it in an appropriate way that does not destroy the Federal workforce. In some cases, as I have said before, I am not comfortable with every aspect of what the administration has done. But we are working hard and we have language in this underlying legislation that addresses some of those concerns.

The Aerospace Industries Association, the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, American Electronics Association, U.S. Chamber of Congress, American Institute of Architects, Associated General Contractors of America, Business Executives for National Security, Contract Services Association of America, Design Professionals Coalition, Electronic Industries Alliance, and I can go on and on with National Defense Industrial Council and the National Federation of Independent Businesses support and oppose the gentleman's amendment. So we have groups on both sides that add value to this, and our job is to try to synthesize this.

Last year, I was part of a group in the House that struck down the administration's quotas, their goals that they were going to go out and competitively source a certain percentage. I thought that was wrong. I thought that was an overreach. I thought they were biting off more than they could realistically chew and manage. And I think in some cases where they are today that issue can be addressed, but I do not think the gentleman's amendment addresses those concerns.

This would hamstring the Office of Management and Budget's new competitive sourcing process that was arrived at after weighing 700 comments, after going through the union recommendations of a council that included labor leaders and other government personnel.

Competitive sourcing, also known as public-private competition, is simply a process of determining if the government's commercial functions, like computer services, food services or maintenance, should be performed by Federal agencies or by private sector companies. Our job is to try to get the best services for the taxpayer, the best value, the lowest-cost value, the overall best value. One of the problems with the gentleman's amendment is it strikes at the heart of best-value determinations.

The Hastings amendment limits the agency's use of best value in determining whether a commercial function should be performed in-house or by the private sector. This does not make sense in my judgment, because under our acquisition system, the government buys its more sophisticated goods and services using this best-value method. It permits the government to consider quality as well as cost, and that helps Federal employees, because the quality element has to be clearly set forth in the solicitation. And cost, of course, has to be a factor, but value is not new. It has been used for decades by the government, and it makes no sense to limit its use here.

Our Federal employees ought to be able to use their experience and their expertise in high-quality performance to their advantage in public-private competition, and the gentleman's amendment takes that away. That is a concern. I think it is well meaning, but I think it takes away the advantage that incumbents who were performing this have in terms of quality. Commercial entities and private citizens would not buy services without considering the quality, so why should the government? And the gentleman's amendment strikes that.

Now is not the time to tinker with these revisions in this setting, in my opinion. Again, the revisions are the product of more than 2 years of efforts. Seven hundred comments were considered in the development of the new procedures. They incorporated the core recommendations of the Commercial Activities Panel. This panel, again, headed by the Comptroller General in a year-long effort, reviewed the competitive sourcing process, which was clearly flawed, and which all sides, from Federal employees to contractors to

taxpayers, everyone felt it was flawed and needed revamping. They issued recommendations, this panel did, for comprehensive changes to the process. These efforts resulted in the revisions to Circular A-76, which the gentleman now wishes to strike. It was issued on May 29.

We have held hearings on this. I have some concerns, as the gentleman does, about this as well; but I would rather not throw literally the baby out with the bath water, good things like competitive sourcing that come with this. We recently held a hearing to examine the recent revisions to the competitive sourcing A-76 process, and the Comptroller General testified that significant savings result no matter who wins the competition.

The Office of Management and Budget has just submitted a report to Congress on the methods used by the administration to measure agency progress in implementing the competitive sourcing initiative. OMB has pledged to keep Congress fully apprised of that progress and to conduct the initiative in an open and transparent manner. Let us give them a chance.

And, again, we have put some underlying language in this bill that puts some strict reporting requirements on the costs to the government of competitive sourcing so we can come back and properly evaluate this. This is something we did not have before.

The Hastings amendment derails the administration's efforts to increase the efficiency of government operations. You can say you are for efficiency, you can say you are against wasteful spending, but if you cannot compare how the government is providing a service to how someone else may be able to provide that same service, I do not know how you get at the waste, fraud and abuse. Because waste, fraud and abuse does not come in neatly tied packages in line items and budgets. It is marbled throughout the bureaucracy in the way we do business.

Competitive sourcing, particularly the new A-76 Circular, gives our government employees an opportunity to compete on an even basis under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, something they cannot do now. Right now they have to come up with projections and respond to competitive sourcing on the part of the private sector; the private sector winner is then compared against the government price. This allows them to compete even up, to be more innovative, and to, in many cases, improve the way employees deliver that service.

In my experience, I have found that some of the best savings and efficiencies we get do not come from the managers in the Federal Government or the higher-ups. They come from that employee out the window who is doing the job every day that may come up with that key idea or innovation in the way we can do this.

The new A-76 circular takes that into account and basically gives additional empowerment to that employee at the window to be able to come forward with their ideas and incorporate those into the government bid. Under the old circular, that was not really the case.

I understand the gentleman's frustration. I think all of us feel a frustration, as I have said before. Our concern is constant competitive sourcing can hurt the recruitment and retention abilities to develop a strong Federal workforce, and yet it is a useful tool that needs to be employed. I think perhaps it has been overemployed. There are probably costs that we are not aware of at this point, but we have tried to get at this with underlying language, but I think the gentleman's amendment goes too far.

We want to harness the benefits of competition to produce superior performance for the taxpayer, regardless of who performs the service because at the end of the day, our job is to make sure that taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar. The gentleman's amendment undermines our ability to do that, so I urge we vote against the Hastings amendment.