[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1162-H1180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DIGITAL TECH CORPS ACT OF 2002

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 380

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3925) to establish an exchange program between 
     the Federal Government and the private sector in order to 
     promote the development of expertise in information 
     technology management, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Government 
     Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary also printed in 
     the bill. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule 
providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech 
Corps Act of 2002. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill and provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member 
of the Committee on Government Reform.
  The rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform now 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendments recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment.
  Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record, and provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  H. Res. 380 is an open and fair rule. It allows any Member who wishes 
to offer an amendment every opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, this 
bill is aimed to bring a bit of common sense to the Federal Government, 
and heaven knows there is not a lot of that going around these days.
  It would allow IT managers in the Federal Government and the private 
sector to essentially exchange information in order to see how the 
other side works and learn from it. Federal workers would be exposed to 
the private industry's best practices management, while the private 
employees would get the opportunity to see the challenges that Federal 
workers face.
  Currently, the Federal Government lacks the ability to compete with 
the high-paying jobs of the private sector. The government is 
constantly struggling to recruit and retain employees with the 
expertise and the latest and

[[Page H1163]]

newest information technologies. So the inevitable is happening.
  The government keeps losing some of the best and the brightest to the 
cushiest and the highest-paying private sector jobs. Unless this is 
addressed, the technology gap will continue to grow and the Federal 
Government will continue to be on the losing end.
  However, if this bill passes, the private sector will win as well. 
These employees will get to see firsthand how the government operates 
and the challenges its IT managers deal with on a routine basis.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, as I said, hopefully we can learn from one another. I 
commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for recognizing 
this problem and crafting this bill to ensure that the Federal 
Government can be as efficient as it possibly can. I urge my colleagues 
to support this rule and to support the commonsense legislation it 
underlies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Let me say at the outset that I commend the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Tom Davis) for bringing this legislation to the House. The Digital 
Tech Corps Act creates an exchange program under which Federal agencies 
and private sector companies may exchange information technology 
managers. Assignments under the program could last from 6 months to 2 
years. Participants in the program would continue to receive their pay 
and benefits from their original employer, not their host.
  A Federal employee who participates in the program would be required 
to return to the civil service for a time equal to the duration of his 
or her assignment following the completion of the exchange. If an 
employee fails to return to the civil service, that person would have 
to repay the Federal Government for all expenses, including salary, of 
the assignment. There will be some interesting amendments offered. I 
know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Velazquez) have amendments that are 
going to be of critical import to the overall membership.
  H.R. 3925 subjects the private sector employees who participate in 
the program to the same ethics rules that govern Federal employees. To 
ensure that none of the private sector employees that participate are 
able to unjustly enrich themselves or their companies, strict 
guidelines have been put in place.
  The bill requires the Office of Personnel Management to submit a 
semiannual report to Congress summarizing the program. The report would 
include descriptions of assignments, including their duration and 
objectives. The OPM would also be required to submit two additional 
reports. The first, due no later than 1 year after enactment of the 
bill, would identify and detail existing exchange programs. The second 
report, due no later than 4 years after enactment of the bill, would 
evaluate the effectiveness of the program established by this bill and 
recommend whether it should be continued or permitted to lapse.
  This bill allows for a productive exchange of not only individuals 
between the Federal Government and the private sector, but ideas, 
cultures, and management styles. The intention is that this kind of 
cross-fertilization will benefit American government and American 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill begins a discussion of new and 
innovative ways that the Federal Government can recruit and retain the 
most talented people in their respective fields. The private sector is 
far ahead of the government in its efforts to do the same. I encourage 
my colleagues to examine the programs the private sector has fashioned 
to locate, recruit, and retain talented young individuals. If we are to 
streamline government, ensure the cost-effective expenditure of the 
American people's tax dollars, and create a more efficient bureaucracy, 
we have no choice but to duplicate such efforts. I do believe that the 
rule is a fair one as offered, allowing Members to come forward as they 
see fit.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 
380 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3925.

                              {time}  1035


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3925) to establish an exchange program between the Federal 
Government and the private sector in order to promote the development 
of expertise in information technology management, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Sweeney in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commonsense leadership of the 
distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Government Reform on the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002. I also 
appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Ways and Means in contributing to this legislation.
  The General Accounting Office added human capital management to its 
annual high-risk list in 2001. Governmentwide, we face significant 
human capital shortages that will only get worse as 34 percent of the 
Federal workforce becomes eligible to retire in the next 5 years. The 
numbers are even more startling in highly specialized fields where 
government recruiting is in direct competition with the private sector. 
Nowhere is this more evident than with the technology workforce. It is 
estimated that 50 percent of the government's technology workforce will 
be eligible to retire by the year 2006.
  Over the past decade, the Congress and the executive branch have 
worked together to bring about significant management reform. We have 
passed acquisition reform, information technology management reform, 
and government performance and results legislation.
  Unfortunately, no one has updated the laws and regulations governing 
the management of the government's single most valuable resource: our 
people. The private sector long ago made end-to-end review of human 
resources management a top priority. The private sector learned a 
lesson our government has yet to fully recognize: A company's value is 
only as strong as the people that come through the door every day, 
bringing knowledge, new ideas, and innovation.
  A recent KPMG report on human capital management within the Federal 
sector noted the government is operating with personnel tools utilized 
and developed in the 1950s and 1960s. The same study noted that 
industry undertook major capital management reforms in the 1980s and 
have continued reviews as often as three times a year.
  For the past decade, the government managed through minimum mandatory 
personnel ceilings and hiring freezes. Today we see the results in 
nearly every General Accounting Office report on government programs. 
Agencies have lost so many personnel that they face growing challenges 
in managing programs, acquisitions and logistics. At the Department of 
Energy, for example, there have not been enough personnel to oversee 
daily operations at sensitive nuclear facilities. And at NASA, 
downsizing has left the space

[[Page H1164]]

shuttle team short of qualified personnel and launch activities. 
Unfortunately, there are many examples within the Federal Government.

  Today, I think we have to address this reality both in the long term 
and in the short term. It is my firm belief that the larger human 
capital management crisis will not be solved without the joint efforts 
of Congress, the administration, Federal employees and groups that 
represent Federal employees, and the private sector. We have to look to 
more immediate solutions to solve the workforce shortages in highly 
skilled technical areas of the government. Agencies should be able to 
effectively and efficiently perform their missions while enhancing 
service delivery to the taxpayers that are footing the bill.
  According to the National Academy of Public Administration, the 
primary barriers to recruiting new information technology workers are 
salary, the delays in hiring, and a lack of robust training 
opportunities so that IT workers can keep their skills current with 
changing technologies. We have significant work to do in order to 
obtain, train, and retain government workers.
  The Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002, H.R. 3925, is an effort to help 
both the training and retention aspects of our human capital management 
challenges. The Digital Tech Corps is an opportunity for government and 
private sector IT professionals to cross-pollinate best practices in IT 
management for a better government and a more productive private sector 
workforce.
  For government employees, the exchange offers emerging leaders the 
training ground to learn cutting-edge practices, and to bring those 
lessons back home. For private sector employees, the exchange is a 
rewarding opportunity for public service. Volunteers gain experience 
solving some of the world's most difficult IT programs while working 
for the world's largest employer.
  Tech Corps gives IT managers the opportunity to fulfill the 
President's call in the State of the Union address for every American 
to commit 2 years of service to our Nation. We found many positive by-
products of 9/11's tragic attacks, including reinvigorating dedication 
to public service. Government employees, both civilians and military, 
are at the heart of the war on terrorism. Achieving change that will 
ensure our security will come only through the sustained efforts of 
professionals working within existing agencies. That is why Tech Corps 
gives mid-level IT workers the opportunity to learn best practices in 
the management of complex projects.
  Tech Corps is a new vision for public service in the 21st century. 
However, it is not one without extensive precedent. Indeed, the 
operations and the ethics provisions of this legislation comes from 
decades of experience with public-private exchanges, including the 30-
plus years of success with the IPA program. IPA exchanges allows our 
cutting-edge research facilities, such as those at DARPA and the 
National Science Foundation to obtain unparalleled access to talent and 
expertise; the over 200 educational partnership agreements and training 
with industry exchange programs that the Department of Defense has 
between private sector organizations, academia and government labs; and 
the National Institute for Standards and Technology exchange program 
with industry scientists at the Center for Advanced Research in 
Biotechnology.
  In terms of operation, the Digital Tech Corps Act provides for 
exchange of talented mid-level staff at the GS-11 to 15 levels, or the 
equivalents in the private sector. The time period for this exchange is 
limited to 6 to 12 months, with an optional 1 year extension.
  Federal employees working in private sector organizations are 
required to fulfill service commitments to their agencies like those 
that apply in the military. All participants must adhere to strict 
ethics rules. Employees retain the pay and benefits from their 
respective employers while on assignment.
  Thus, this legislation enables, we believe, a cost-effective, two-way 
transfer of talent. It will reap great rewards for the American people 
as the government starts to get an infusion of information technology 
talent to kick start e-government initiatives, and to help us fight the 
war on terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) for his work on this Digital Tech Corps Act. The Committee on 
Government Reform has been quite diligent in trying to improve the 
information technology of the Federal Government, and this exchange 
program which allows private sector employees to come into government 
agencies and also allows government employees to go into the private 
sector for the purpose of exchanging information and knowledge, 
expanding the ability of the Federal Government to understand and to 
implement information technology improvements, is certainly a wise and 
important step in our efforts to improve the information technology 
capability of our Federal employees and our Federal agencies.
  This legislation adopts a number of suggestions that have been made 
by the minority. There are three in particular I would like to mention. 
One, the bill includes stronger ethics provisions, as suggested by the 
minority. It also requires reports periodically from the Office of 
Personnel Management to advise the public as to who is participating in 
this program. We think this sunshine provision is very important to 
maintain the integrity and the credibility of this exchange program.

                              {time}  1045

  At our suggestion, the legislation is also sunsetted after 5 years 
and requires the General Accounting Office to submit to the committee 
an evaluation of the success of the program. Finally, the bill makes it 
clear that the cost of the employee from the private sector going into 
the government agency will be borne solely by the private sector and 
that the cost of that employee coming into government will in no way 
directly or indirectly be borne by the taxpayers.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
ranking Democrat of our committee, for his strong interest in this 
legislation. I share his concern that this bill did not go even further 
in improving the information technology training of our Federal 
workers. We certainly had hoped that we could see a full-fledged 
training program put in place in the Federal Government that would 
allow for a comprehensive training curricula to be offered to all 
information technology workers in the Federal Government, to be able to 
run effective training programs, and also to improve our recruitment of 
Federal IT workers. This was not able to be included in this bill. We 
hope that we will have that opportunity by way of amendment or separate 
legislation. But we commend the efforts of my subcommittee Chair, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), in trying to move us forward 
in the area of improving the information technology capabilities of our 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat of our committee.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some serious reservations about H.R. 3925, the 
Digital Tech Corps Act, in its current form. But before I explain my 
objections, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) 
for his efforts to work with us and other members of the minority on 
this legislation. Although I ultimately have a different view about the 
merits of this bill than the gentleman from Virginia, he tried to 
accommodate our concerns in several areas and did adopt many of the 
suggestions that the minority made. I thank him very much for that. I 
want to, in addition, thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for 
all his hard work to improve this bill.
  Unfortunately, as the bill stands, it blurs the line that should 
exist between the government and the private sector. When we fail to 
draw a clear line between the public and the private sectors, we invite 
abuse and conflicts of interest. There has been an attempt to deal with 
these problems by applying Federal ethics rules to the private sector 
employees who enter the Federal workforce. But I am not sure that rules 
alone will prevent abuses.

[[Page H1165]]

  As it is currently drafted, this bill allows technology executives 
from drug companies, oil companies, and other sectors of corporate 
America to work in the Federal Government for up to 2 years. During 
that time, these corporate executives can have unrestricted access to 
sensitive government databases. Under this bill, a technology executive 
from Merck could gain access to the confidential data on drug prices 
that Pfizer and other drug companies are required to submit to the 
Department of Health and Human Services. Or a technology executive from 
Monsanto could gain access to confidential data on pesticides 
maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  There is a reason we have and need a vigorous Federal workforce. The 
Federal Government is a repository of an enormous amount of sensitive 
information. We can trust this information to career civil servants who 
have dedicated their lives to public service, but can we trust this 
information to corporate executives on loan from the private sector? 
This bill is written on the assumption that everybody will be honorable 
and no one will try to take advantage of the system. But after all we 
have seen, and I want to refer to the Enron scandal, is it a reasonable 
assumption to make that everybody is going to do the proper thing and 
we can simply trust people?
  I have also grave concerns about the precedent of sending Federal 
employees who are paid by the taxpayers to work for private sector 
employers for up to 2 years. I think this is a new and potentially 
egregious form of corporate welfare.
  Congress has enacted tax breaks for corporations worth billions of 
dollars, direct subsidies worth billions more, and special interest 
deregulation initiatives. Under this bill as written, we will have a 
new type of Federal subsidy for industry: Federal employees, paid with 
taxpayers' money, can be sent to private corporations for up to 2 years 
to help those corporations with their information technology work.
  Let me share with you one story. The Wall Street Journal reported on 
March 1, this year, 2002, about an obscure Federal program that allowed 
a fellow named Ron Medford, an employee of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, to work as a lobbyist for Segway, a private company, while 
still remaining on the Federal payroll. According to the Wall Street 
Journal, and I quote, ``There was good news for the Segway team: Mr. 
Medford was so impressed by their handiwork, he took a taxpayer-funded 
sabbatical to assist with a massive lobbying effort aimed at persuading 
States to pass special laws favoring Segway.''
  Is this how we should be spending our constituents' tax dollars? Does 
it really make sense for the taxpayers to be paying for Mr. Medford to 
lobby for the Segway company? Yet this is what this bill does. It would 
send hundreds of Federal employees to work for private companies for up 
to 2 years at taxpayers' expense. Indeed, not only would the taxpayers 
be forced to pay the salary of these Federal employees during the time 
they are working for private corporations, the taxpayers could also be 
expected to pay a daily per diem to cover the costs of their housing 
and meals.
  Some of my colleagues have said that this is not a serious problem 
because the bill calls for an exchange of private sector workers for 
Federal workers, so the cost of sending public workers to the private 
sector is offset by the benefit of having private workers serve the 
public sector. But the problem is that there is no requirement for a 
one-to-one exchange in the bill. In fact, there are no limits at all on 
the number of Federal workers who can be sent to the private sector. My 
colleagues have also suggested that sending Federal workers to the 
private sector makes sense because they will receive good training. 
But, again, there is no such requirement in the bill. I think the whole 
idea of the bill, as I have heard it described, of a digital tech 
corps, is to have people learn from the private sector and those in the 
private sector to learn and be trained in government practices so both 
can be improved.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a well-intentioned bill, but it is an 
imperfect one; and in its current form it does not protect confidential 
government information, and it does not protect the taxpayer. I will be 
offering an amendment when we get to the amendment part of the process 
in the consideration of this legislation. My amendment will prevent 
corporate executives from having access to trade secrets or other 
sensitive government information. This to me is a commonsense 
amendment. Further, we will ensure that any placement of a Federal 
worker in a private sector company will accomplish a legitimate 
training objective; and we will make sure that we have standards for a 
training program, not simply a blank check to send government-
subsidized, paid-for employees to do the work for private corporations. 
It may not even have any resemblance to what they are doing for 
training them or benefiting the taxpayers, which seems to me the 
ultimate reason for ever using taxpayers' dollars. I urge all Members 
to support this important amendment when we get to it.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia for 
their leadership on this legislation. I hope we can continue to work 
together on it and make it a better bill.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  First let me just address a couple of issues raised by my good friend 
from California. In terms of corporate executives having unrestricted 
access to confidential data, we have the strictest antilobbying 
protections, antidisclosure protections in this legislation than has 
ever happened in any Federal legislation prior to that, to guard 
against that.
  I would remind my friend that currently Federal employees who are set 
to retire, not necessarily career employees, people who could be there 
for 1 or 2 years could take unrestricted information and walk across 
the street and share that with a private company that would hire them. 
In this particular case, there is a lifetime ban and criminal penalties 
that would prevent somebody from the private sector doing that, 
something that currently does not apply to Federal employees and 
currently does not apply to government contractors. Government 
contractors have the same kind of access under the current law that the 
gentleman is concerned about. That is why we put in stronger provisions 
in this particular legislation to make sure that the concerns of the 
gentleman from California are addressed.
  There was the allegation that this is written on the assumption that 
everybody does the proper thing. We like to think that the Federal 
managers who are managing this will do the proper thing, but we have a 
lot of safeguards in this legislation that go over and above current 
disclosure laws, including lifetime prohibitions and criminal penalties 
against disclosure of secrets that they may encounter while in 
government. So I think we have gone the extra mile.
  This is certainly not corporate welfare, either. I think that all we 
are offering is training in the best, most innovative corporations in 
the world to Federal employees. Keeping them up to date on the most 
current, innovative practices is critical for retention of quality 
employees. That is what this does. When the work order comes out and 
the Federal manager allows that employee to go out into these areas, 
they will be able to make the call. They will make the discretionary 
call in terms of is this going to enhance that employee's value to the 
Federal government when they return or will it be corporate welfare. I 
trust the Federal managers to make those decisions, but we have an 
amendment that we are going to offer that I think ensures that training 
is the number one priority in these transfers.
  The gentleman brought up the case of Ron Medford at the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission. That, of course, was not under this act and 
the acts that Mr. Medford was alleged to have done in the Wall Street 
Journal article could not have happened without several legal 
violations under the legislation we have provided. But I appreciate the 
gentleman bringing that forward for discussion because that is exactly 
the kind of thing we all want to avoid. We may differ as to the best 
way to get to that, but I think we can point out here that that is the 
kind of thing we want to avoid.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).

[[Page H1166]]

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan 
legislation, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002. I commend Chairman 
Davis and Ranking Member Turner for their leadership in making this a 
bipartisan bill. That always produces good work. I also want to commend 
my friend and colleague who I was elected with and have served with the 
last 7 years for his leadership as a Member of the House of 
Representatives in working to bring the Federal Government's 
procurement and administration policies into the 21st century, of 
course, which we are now serving in.
  The Digital Tech Corps Act helps solve so many of the challenges that 
we face today in government, particularly the ability to apply the 
latest leading-edge solutions, the latest leading-edge information 
technology and technology solutions to the challenges that we face.
  One of the challenges we have had in government is keeping up, 
keeping up with the fact that we have a harder time competing with the 
pay scale of the private sector, we have a hard time retaining folks 
who have skills because they get hired away, and at the same time 
sometimes a little frustration with the Federal employees who are loyal 
and want public service and devote themselves to public service but 
they want the skills that only the private sector has to offer. The 
Digital Tech Corps helps solve that, by providing an exchange program 
between the private sector and the Federal Government modeled on, 
really, legislation which has been so successful, the 1970 
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, legislation that has been in place 
over 30 years, laws allowing for this type of exchange which has proven 
very successful.
  I respect the opinion of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). 
Again I would note, his strongest point was regarding whether or not 
there is a risk of sensitive information. Again, there are protections 
in this legislation already which provide for elaborate procedures to 
protect proprietary commercial information and government information 
including a lifetime ban against disclosure with criminal penalties. 
Tougher legislation, tougher law is being proposed today than is 
currently the law regarding other exchange programs.
  Again, here is what this bill accomplishes. It improves the skills of 
Federal information technology managers by exposing them to cutting-
edge management trends in the private sector. It helps Federal agencies 
recruit and retain talented IT managers by offering them a valuable 
career development tool, the opportunity to have that exchange, to work 
in the private sector as well as have private sector folks work 
alongside them.

                              {time}  1100

  It also allows private sector IT managers to apply their skills to 
challenging IT problems at the Federal agencies.
  What is our goal today? Let us bring the Federal Government into the 
21st century. The Digital Tech Corps works in that direction. It is 
good legislation; it has overwhelming bipartisan support. I urge 
opposition to the Waxman amendment because we already addressed the 
issues he raised. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and commend the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for his leadership.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to give my strong support to 
H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act 2002. The legislation supports an 
important priority, establishing an exchange program between the 
Federal Government and the private sector in order to promote the 
development of expertise in information technology management.
  The Digital Tech Corps Act is a much needed bill. There is great need 
for high-skilled workers in the Federal Government. Unless action is 
taken soon, there will be a crisis in the government's ability to 
deliver essential services to the American people. An August 2000 poll 
found that 75% of the public expects the Internet to improve its 
ability to get information from federal agencies, and 60% expect e-
government to have a strong positive effect on overall government 
operations.
  The Tech Corps gives government IT employees the opportunity for 
intensive, on-the-job training in how to manage complex IT projects. 
Too many of government's complex IT procurements continue to fail 
because of improper management. This exchange will give them insight 
and experience in how the best companies in the world are successfully 
managing IT so they can bring this knowledge back.
  The Tech Corps also gives private sector IT employees the opportunity 
to volunteer for rewarding public service. In tackling some of the 
world's toughest IT problems, they can return to their companies 
understanding the challenges facing the world's largest employer.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the hard work of Chairman Davis and urge my 
colleagues to support this good legislation.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I again yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat on 
the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify why we do not, as 
submitted to us, have elaborate protections for information that 
private sector employees might have access to if they come here to work 
at the Federal Government level.
  We are told we have protections because there is a lifetime ban from 
disclosing this information. Well, the fact of the matter is, that is 
practically unenforceable. Someone comes and works at the Department of 
Health and Human Services from a pharmaceutical company, from a private 
pharmaceutical company, and they see the database which is kept 
confidential about the lowest prices. We prohibit them from going back 
to their previous job and giving them that information.
  How are you going to enforce it? It would be far better not to have 
them have access to it. They can do other things at the Federal level 
without having access to that kind of confidential information.
  The same would be true with the Environmental Protection Agency. If 
you come from a chemical company and the EPA has data on chemicals, it 
may well put a private sector corporation at a financial advantage if 
their employee comes back and gives them that information.
  So the Committee on the Judiciary insisted on a restriction against 
disclosure. What I think we need is to have a restriction on the access 
to that information.
  The bill purports to address a lot of these concerns about conflicts 
of interest by saying, at least the proponents of the bill, by saying 
we can simply rely on the ethics rules for Federal employees; that is 
good enough. We say when a private sector employee comes to work for 
the Federal Government, that they have all the ethics rules apply to 
him or her.
  Well, these ethics rules are very narrowly drafted. They are narrowly 
drafted with the expectation we are talking about Federal employees. 
But even as drafted for Federal employees, they are so narrow that they 
become fairly ineffective.
  Let me give an example. Carl Rove, who works at the White House, was 
able to meet with Enron executives about energy policy while he held 
stock in the company. The White House counsel said that the Federal 
ethics rules permitted that. I think that is quite remarkable. But that 
is the standard we are now going to hold for people who are coming from 
the private sector, where they clearly can get an advantage and they 
more obviously have a potential conflict of interest.
  The gentleman from Virginia submitted that this is the same, that we 
have the same procedures for Federal contractors. Well, it really is 
different when you have a Federal contract. If you have a Federal 
contract, you have an understanding in the agreement that they cannot 
disclose information, they cannot have a conflict and because of that 
conflict use information that they get at the Federal level for their 
own private gain.
  That is enforceable. You can go after a contractor for violation of 
the contract. You are never going to be able to go after an individual 
for disclosing information to his former and then subsequent employer 
in the private sector, because you will really never quite know what 
was said by that individual. You would be able to know what a 
contractor does if a contractor engages in a violation of the ethics 
rules, and then you have a party you can go after for failure to live 
up to the contract.
  So I think that the proposal we are going to be offering by way of an 
amendment helps this legislation. It narrows the potential for abuse, 
and it protects the taxpayers, to make sure if we are sending a Federal 
employee to

[[Page H1167]]

go work in the private sector, that there is a genuine training program 
and simply not a new form of corporate welfare where our taxpayer 
dollars and our constituents' tax dollars are going to be used to pay 
for somebody to go just work for somebody in the private sector so they 
do not have to pay for that individual. I think that would be a real 
abuse of tax dollars.
  So I wanted to clarify that I think these amendments are very much 
needed, and we will be offering them shortly, and I hope Members will 
support them.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I share some of the concerns that 
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has. We have 
seen on some of the health agency advisory committees some conflicts of 
interest which are very disconcerting and concern a lot of us.
  But there are ways to police that. When we have contributor lists 
that we do not want somebody else to use, we do what is called 
``salting'' them, where we put different names in there that are 
fictitious, and if somebody illegally uses that list, you find out very 
quickly. There are severe criminal penalties for people that break its 
law.
  In fact, I would like to yield to my colleague, the author of the 
bill, to illuminate and illustrate some of these criminal penalties 
imposed if people do break the law.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me just 
add you have the Hatch Act; you have got revolving doors banning 
lobbying; you have the lifetime bans we discussed; a ban from working 
on matters that affect a person or employee's financial interests. The 
penalties go to 5 years in jail under the statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, fines 
up to $50,000. So they are very severe at this point for any 
violations.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for that information.
  Let me just say, the biggest industry in America is the Federal 
Government. It is bigger than Chrysler, it is bigger than General 
Motors, it is bigger than any company, Big Blue; and yet we have 
agencies that cannot talk to each other through their computer 
technology. It is an absolute tragedy. Billions and billions of dollars 
of taxpayer money is wasted because this lack of communication takes 
place on a daily basis, and that is why we ought to use the examples of 
the private sector in the Federal Government.
  Now, how do you do that? The only way you can do that is to take 
Federal employees who do not yet have that kind of knowledge and allow 
them to go to the private sector and learn the tricks of the trade, so 
to speak, so that they can bring that technology back to the Federal 
Government so we can coordinate our agencies to make sure this 
technology is used properly. If we do that, it is going to streamline 
it, it is going to make the government more efficient for every 
American, and it is going to make sure it is going to save us a lot of 
money.
  So I would just like to say I think this is a very, very important 
piece of legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis), the chairman of the subcommittee, for sponsoring this 
legislation and being so farsighted with it, as well as his ranking 
member.
  Let me end up by saying this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I 
would like to say that the Republicans should take credit for it, but 
this idea came from the Clinton administration, with which I took issue 
on a number of occasions. A fellow who worked for OMB under President 
Clinton, Steve Kelman of Harvard University, came up with this idea. So 
we cannot embrace it as our own; but we can say it is a good idea, and 
we should say with bipartisan support, it should pass overwhelmingly.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia Beach, Virginia (Mr. Schrock).
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
Waxman amendment. I agree it is well-intentioned, but the issues it 
attempts to address are already addressed in the legislation. If this 
amendment is successful, it will cripple the legislation, and make it 
impossible to fulfill its purpose.
  The legislation in its current form has strong protections to prevent 
the release of proprietary information and harsh penalties for anyone 
who releases this information. The high-tech community would have 
spoken out if they felt these requirements were not sufficient, but 
they support the legislation in its current form.
  To prevent detailees from having access to private sector information 
would prevent them from working on most government IT projects. This 
would turn a program that is valuable for the government, private 
sector, and the employees into a program that does little to foster any 
development among high-tech IT professionals.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment creates an illusion that government 
employees are in control of thousands of private industry trade secrets 
just awaiting theft by a corporate crook. The fact is that trade 
secrets are no longer secrets if they are disclosed to the government. 
The Waxman amendment would destroy this legislation, rendering it into 
a program that does little to train government employees or private 
sector IT managers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act. This 
bill provides a creative solution to a looming problem involving the 
Federal Government and the private sector, and I think we all should 
express our appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) 
for offering this bill.
  Congress has provided the resources for law enforcement and other 
government entities to improve their technology. We have also updated 
criminal laws to reflect new technology. This bill goes further to 
provide an incentive to promote the development of expertise in 
information technology management among Federal workforce personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, the GAO has found that the Federal Government faces a 
substantial shortage of high-tech workers. In fact, 50 percent of the 
government's technology workforce is eligible to retire by the year 
2006. This bill addresses the shortage by creating an employee exchange 
program between the Federal Government and the private sector. This 
will allow government employees to receive intensive on-the-job 
training at companies dealing with high-tech issues. The experience 
they gain can then be brought back to work for the government.
  Conversely, this bill will also give private sector employees the 
opportunity to gain valuable training at the government. Their 
understanding of government operations can then be brought back to 
their private sector companies.
  Mr. Chairman, information technology is essential to our national 
security, law enforcement efforts, and our economy. This exchange 
program will expose Federal employees to more leading-edge information 
technology and make Federal service more attractive.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and once again 
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for 
offering it.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would again like to express my support for the 
legislation. Of course, as the Chair has heard, there are amendments 
that will be offered to hopefully strengthen the legislation. But, 
again, the concept of trying to improve the information technology of 
our Federal workers, their training, and to provide some type of 
exchange program is a concept which I support.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis)

[[Page H1168]]

for his efforts and thank him for the sections of the bill that he has 
included that have been suggested by the minority, as well as the 
amendment that the gentleman will offer, which, though it does not 
fully address the concerns shared by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), does address some of the concerns that have been talked about 
among us over the last several days.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just again thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for the inclusion of his 
thoughts in this. We will continue to debate this issue, but I think it 
has been very educational for all of us. As we identify problems, we 
are trying to reach an agreement on some of these. Some we may just 
have to vote up or down. The gentleman has identified some issues that 
I think are making this bill a stronger bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner), my ranking member on the subcommittee. I appreciate 
his efforts, as well, in bringing this to floor. I just note once again 
that we have worked very closely with Dr. Kelman at Harvard, the 
Clinton administration's procurement czar over at OMB.
  This is a bipartisan piece that has been crafted and thought out 
through the years. I appreciate everyone's efforts to try and better 
this.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the House floor today to 
support the goals of H.R. 3925 and the amendment offered by 
Representative Waxman. The underlying bill creates an innovative 
technology expert exchange between the private sector and Federal 
agencies. This will help the agencies increase their capacity to manage 
their information technology efforts through training and recruitment. 
I support this effort to assist the agencies in addressing their 
information technology management challenges through a creative new 
program.
  While the basic principles of this bill are sound, I have concerns 
about language in this bill that blurs the line between the public 
sector and creates unnecessary conflicts of interest. As the bill is 
written, a private-sector employee, while working in the Federal 
Government, will still have access to trade secrets of competitors and 
other sensitive commercial information. In fact, the bill expressly 
allows the private-sector employee to disclose those trade secrets 
after just 3 years. Representative Waxman's amendment resolves this 
problem by prohibiting private-sector employees assigned to an agency 
from having access to trade secrets or other sensitive nonpublic 
information that affects their private-sector employer.
  Additionally, the bill does not have any requirements that the 
assignment accomplish any specific training objective or that the 
Federal worker do any work that would benefit the Federal Government. 
Instead, H.R. 3925 sends Federal workers, at taxpayer expense, to serve 
the private sector for free and with little accountability. Again, 
Representative Waxman's amendment corrects this problem by establishing 
a comprehensive training program for information technology workers, 
run by the Office of Personnel Management, which can assure that the 
exchange programs work within the context of the overall training needs 
of the Federal Government's IT workforce.
  I support the premise of the underlying bill and encourage my 
colleagues to vote for the correcting amendment offered by 
Representative Waxman.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Government Reform printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendments recommended by the Committee on the 
Judiciary also printed in the bill, is considered an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 3925

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Tech Corps Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) unless action is taken soon, there will be a crisis in 
     the government's ability to deliver essential services to the 
     American people;
       (2) by 2006, over 50 percent of the Federal Government's 
     information technology workforce will be eligible to retire, 
     creating a huge demand in the Federal Government for high-
     skill workers;
       (3) despite a 44 percent decrease in the demand for 
     information technology workers in the private sector, the 
     Information Technology Association of America reported in 
     2001 that employers will need to fill over 900,000 new 
     information technology jobs and will be unable to find 
     qualified workers for 425,000 of those jobs;
       (4) to highlight the urgency of this situation, in January 
     2001, the General Accounting Office added the Federal 
     Government's human capital management to its list of high-
     risk problems for which an effective solution must be found;
       (5) despite efforts to increase flexibility in Federal 
     agencies' employment practices, compensation issues continue 
     to severely restrain recruitment for Federal agencies; and
       (6) an effective, efficient, and economical response to 
     this crisis would be to create a vibrant, ongoing exchange 
     effort designed to share talent, expertise, and advances in 
     management between leading-edge businesses and Federal 
     agencies engaged in best practices.

     SEC. 3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part III of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

         ``CHAPTER 37--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE PROGRAM

``Sec.
``3701. Definitions.
``3702. General provisions.
``3703. Assignment of employees to private sector organizations.
``3704. Assignment of employees from private sector organizations.
``3705. Application to Office of the Chief Technology Officer of the 
              District of Columbia.
``3706. Reporting requirement.
``3707. Regulations.

     ``Sec. 3701. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `agency' means an Executive agency, but does 
     not include the General Accounting Office; and
       ``(2) the term `detail' means--
       ``(A) the assignment or loan of an employee of an agency to 
     a private sector organization without a change of position 
     from the agency that employs the individual, or
       ``(B) the assignment or loan of an employee of a private 
     sector organization to an agency without a change of position 
     from the private sector organization that employs the 
     individual,
     whichever is appropriate in the context in which such term is 
     used.

     ``Sec. 3702. General provisions

       ``(a) Assignment Authority.--On request from or with the 
     agreement of a private sector organization, and with the 
     consent of the employee concerned, the head of an agency 
     may arrange for the assignment of an employee of the 
     agency to a private sector organization or an employee of 
     a private sector organization to the agency. An eligible 
     employee is an individual who--
       ``(1) works in the field of information technology 
     management;
       ``(2) is considered an exceptional performer by the 
     individual's current employer; and
       ``(3) is expected to assume increased information 
     technology management responsibilities in the future.

     An employee of an agency shall be eligible to participate in 
     this program only if the employee is employed at the GS-11 
     level or above (or equivalent) and is serving under a career 
     or career-conditional appointment or an appointment of 
     equivalent tenure in the excepted service.
       ``(b) Agreements.--Each agency that exercises its authority 
     under this chapter shall provide for a written agreement 
     between the agency and the employee concerned regarding the 
     terms and conditions of the employee's assignment. In the 
     case of an employee of the agency, the agreement shall--
       ``(1) require the employee to serve in the civil service, 
     upon completion of the assignment, for a period equal to the 
     length of the assignment; and
       ``(2) provide that, in the event the employee fails to 
     carry out the agreement (except for good and sufficient 
     reason, as determined by the head of the agency from which 
     assigned) the employee shall be liable to the United States 
     for payment of all expenses of the assignment.

     An amount under paragraph (2) shall be treated as a debt due 
     the United States.
       ``(c) Termination.--Assignments may be terminated by the 
     agency or private sector organization concerned for any 
     reason at any time.
       ``(d) Duration.--Assignments under this chapter shall be 
     for a period of between 6 months and 1 year, and may be 
     extended in 3-month increments for a total of not more than 1 
     additional year, except that no assignment under this chapter 
     may commence after the end of the 5-year period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this chapter.
       ``(e) Assistance.--The Chief Information Officers Council, 
     by agreement with the Office of Personnel Management, may 
     assist in the administration of this chapter, including by 
     maintaining lists of potential candidates for assignment 
     under this chapter, establishing mentoring relationships for 
     the benefit of individuals who are given assignments under 
     this chapter, and publicizing the program.

[[Page H1169]]

     ``Sec. 3703. Assignment of employees to private sector 
       organizations

       ``(a) In General.--An employee of an agency assigned to a 
     private sector organization under this chapter is deemed, 
     during the period of the assignment, to be on detail to a 
     regular work assignment in his agency.
       ``(b) Coordination With Chapter 81.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, an employee of an agency assigned to 
     a private sector organization under this chapter is entitled 
     to retain coverage, rights, and benefits under subchapter I 
     of chapter 81, and employment during the assignment is deemed 
     employment by the United States, except that, if the employee 
     or the employee's dependents receive from the private sector 
     organization any payment under an insurance policy for which 
     the premium is wholly paid by the private sector 
     organization, or other benefit of any kind on account of the 
     same injury or death, then, the amount of such payment or 
     benefit shall be credited against any compensation otherwise 
     payable under subchapter I of chapter 81.
       ``(c) Reimbursements.--The assignment of an employee to a 
     private sector organization under this chapter may be made 
     with or without reimbursement by the private sector 
     organization for the travel and transportation expenses to or 
     from the place of assignment, subject to the same terms and 
     conditions as apply with respect to an employee of a Federal 
     agency or a State or local government under section 3375, and 
     for the pay, or a part thereof, of the employee during 
     assignment. Any reimbursements shall be credited to the 
     appropriation of the agency used for paying the travel and 
     transportation expenses or pay.
       ``(d) Tort Liability; Supervision.--The Federal Tort Claims 
     Act and any other Federal tort liability statute apply to an 
     employee of an agency assigned to a private sector 
     organization under this chapter. The supervision of the 
     duties of an employee of an agency so assigned to a private 
     sector organization may be governed by an agreement between 
     the agency and the organization.

     ``Sec. 3704. Assignment of employees from private sector 
       organizations

       ``(a) In General.--An employee of a private sector 
     organization assigned to an agency under this chapter is 
     deemed, during the period of the assignment, to be on detail 
     to such agency.
       ``(b) Terms and Conditions.--An employee of a private 
     sector organization assigned to an agency under this 
     chapter--
       ``(1) may continue to receive pay and benefits from the 
     private sector organization from which he is assigned;
       ``(2) is deemed, notwithstanding subsection (a), to be an 
     employee of the agency for the purposes of--
       ``(A) chapter 73;
       ``(B) sections 201, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 603, 606, 607, 
     643, 654, 1905, and 1913 of title 18;
       ``(C) sections 1343, 1344, and 1349(b) of title 31;
       ``(D) the Federal Tort Claims Act and any other Federal 
     tort liability statute;
       ``(E) the Ethics in Government Act of 1978;
       ``(F) section 1043 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 
     and
       ``(G) section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act; and
       ``(3) is subject to such regulations as the President may 
     prescribe.

     The supervision of an employee of a private sector 
     organization assigned to an agency under this chapter may be 
     governed by agreement between the agency and the private 
     sector organization concerned. Such an assignment may be made 
     with or without reimbursement by the agency for the pay, or a 
     part thereof, of the employee during the period of 
     assignment, or for any contribution of the private sector 
     organization to employee benefit systems.
       ``(c) Coordination With Chapter 81.--An employee of a 
     private sector organization assigned to an agency under this 
     chapter who suffers disability or dies as a result of 
     personal injury sustained while performing duties during the 
     assignment shall be treated, for the purpose of subchapter I 
     of chapter 81, as an employee as defined by section 8101 who 
     had sustained the injury in the performance of duty, except 
     that, if the employee or the employee's dependents receive 
     from the private sector organization any payment under an 
     insurance policy for which the premium is wholly paid by the 
     private sector organization, or other benefit of any kind on 
     account of the same injury or death, then, the amount of such 
     payment or benefit shall be credited against any compensation 
     otherwise payable under subchapter I of chapter 81.

     ``Sec. 3705. Application to Office of the Chief Technology 
       Officer of the District of Columbia

       ``(a) In General.--The Chief Technology Officer of the 
     District of Columbia may arrange for the assignment of an 
     employee of the Office of the Chief Technology Officer to a 
     private sector organization, or an employee of a private 
     sector organization to such Office, in the same manner as the 
     head of an agency under this chapter.
       ``(b) Terms and Conditions.--An assignment made pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the same terms and 
     conditions as an assignment made by the head of an agency 
     under this chapter, except that in applying such terms and 
     conditions to an assignment made pursuant to subsection (a), 
     any reference in this chapter to a provision of law or 
     regulation of the United States shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the applicable provision of law or regulation of 
     the District of Columbia, including the applicable provisions 
     of the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit 
     Personnel Act of 1978 (sec. 1-601.01 et seq., D.C. Official 
     Code) and section 601 of the District of Columbia Campaign 
     Finance Reform and Conflict of Interest Act (sec. 1-1106.01, 
     D.C. Official Code).
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `Office of the Chief Technology Officer' means the office 
     established in the executive branch of the government of the 
     District of Columbia under the Office of the Chief Technology 
     Officer Establishment Act of 1998 (sec. 1-1401 et seq., D.C. 
     Official Code).

     ``Sec. 3706. Reporting requirement

       ``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management 
     shall, not later than April 30 and October 31 of each year, 
     prepare and submit to the Committee on Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a semiannual report 
     summarizing the operation of this chapter during the 
     immediately preceding 6-month period ending on March 31 and 
     September 30, respectively.
       ``(b) Content.--Each report shall include, with respect to 
     the 6-month period to which such report relates--
       ``(1) the total number of individuals assigned to, and the 
     total number of individuals assigned from, each agency during 
     such period;
       ``(2) a brief description of each assignment included under 
     paragraph (1), including--
       ``(A) the name of the assigned individual, as well as the 
     private sector organization and the agency (including the 
     specific bureau or other agency component) to or from which 
     such individual was assigned;
       ``(B) the respective positions to and from which the 
     individual was assigned, including the duties and 
     responsibilities and the pay grade or level associated with 
     each; and
       ``(C) the duration and objectives of the individual's 
     assignment; and
       ``(3) such other information as the Office considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Publication.--A copy of each report submitted under 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall be published in the Federal Register; and
       ``(2) shall be made publicly available on the Internet.
       ``(d) Agency Cooperation.--On request of the Office, 
     agencies shall furnish such information and reports as the 
     Office may require in order to carry out this section.

     ``Sec. 3707. Regulations

       ``The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall 
     prescribe regulations for the administration of this 
     chapter.''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall 
     prepare and submit to the Committee on Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the operation 
     of chapter 37 of title 5, United States Code (as added by 
     this section). Such report shall include--
       (1) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program 
     established by such chapter; and
       (2) a recommendation as to whether such program should be 
     continued (with or without modification) or allowed to lapse.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for part III of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to chapter 35 the following:

``37. Information Technology Exchange Program...................3701''.

     SEC. 4. ETHICS PROVISIONS.

       (a) One-year Restriction On Certain Communications.--
     Section 207(c)(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) assigned from a private sector organization to an 
     agency under chapter 37 of title 5.''.
       (b) Disclosure of Confidential Information.--Section 1905 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 
     being an employee of a private sector organization who is or 
     was assigned to an agency under chapter 37 of title 5,'' 
     after ``(15 U.S.C. 1311-1314),''.
       (c) Contract Advice.--Section 207 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Contract Advice by Former Details.--Whoever, being an 
     employee of a private sector organization assigned to an 
     agency under chapter 37 of title 5, within one year after the 
     end of that assignment, knowingly represents or aids, 
     counsels, or assists in representing any other person (except 
     the United States) in connection with any contract with that 
     agency shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this 
     title.''.
       (d) Restriction on Disclosure of Procurement Information.--
     Section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 423) is amended in subsection (a)(1) by adding at 
     the end the following new sentence: ``In the case of an 
     employee of a private sector organization assigned to an 
     agency under chapter 37 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     addition to the restriction in the preceding sentence, such 
     employee shall not, other than as provided by law, knowingly 
     disclose contractor bid or proposal information or source 
     selection information during the three-year period after the 
     end of the assignment of such employee.''.

     SEC. 5. REPORT ON EXISTING EXCHANGE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Exchange Program Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``exchange program'' means an executive 
     exchange program, the program under subchapter VI of chapter 
     33 of title 5, United States Code, and any other program 
     which allows for--
       (1) the assignment of employees of the Federal Government 
     to non-Federal employers;
       (2) the assignment of employees of non-Federal employers to 
     the Federal Government; or
       (3) both.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this

[[Page H1170]]

     Act, the Office of Personnel Management shall prepare and 
     submit to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate a report identifying all existing exchange 
     programs.
       (c) Specific Information.--The report shall, for each such 
     program, include--
       (1) a brief description of the program, including its size, 
     eligibility requirements, and terms or conditions for 
     participation;
       (2) specific citation to the law or other authority under 
     which the program is established;
       (3) the names of persons to contact for more information, 
     and how they may be reached; and
       (4) any other information which the Office considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Amendments to Title 5, United States Code.--Title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3111, by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the head of 
     an agency may accept voluntary service for the United States 
     under chapter 37 of this title and regulations of the Office 
     of Personnel Management.'';
       (2) in section 4108, by striking subsection (d); and
       (3) in section 7353(b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Nothing in this section precludes an employee of a 
     private sector organization, while assigned to an agency 
     under chapter 37, from continuing to receive pay and benefits 
     from such organization in accordance with such chapter.''.
       (b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code.--Section 209 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(g)(1) This section does not prohibit an employee of a 
     private sector organization, while assigned to an agency 
     under chapter 37 of title 5, from continuing to receive pay 
     and benefits from such organization in accordance with such 
     chapter.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `agency' 
     means an agency (as defined by section 3701 of title 5) and 
     the Office of the Chief Technology Officer of the District of 
     Columbia.''.
       (c) Other Amendments.--Section 125(c)(1) of Public Law 100-
     238 (5 U.S.C. 8432 note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) an individual assigned from a Federal agency to a 
     private sector organization under chapter 37 of title 5, 
     United States Code; and''.

                              {time}  1115

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


          amendment no. 1 offered by mr. tom davis of virginia

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
       At the end of section 3702 of title 5, United States Code 
     (as contained in section 3(a) of the bill), add the 
     following:
       ``(f) Considerations.--In exercising any authority under 
     this chapter, an agency shall take into consideration--
       ``(1) the need to ensure that small business concerns are 
     appropriately represented with respect to the assignments 
     described in sections 3703 and 3704, respectively; and
       ``(2) how assignments described in section 3703 might best 
     be used to help meet the needs of the agency for the training 
     of employees in information technology management.
       At the end of section 3704 of title 5, United States Code 
     (as contained in section 3(a) of the bill), add the 
     following:
       ``(d) Prohibition Against Charging Certain Costs to the 
     Federal Government.--A private sector organization may not 
     charge the Federal Government, as direct or indirect costs 
     under a Federal contract, the costs of pay or benefits paid 
     by the organization to an employee assigned to an agency 
     under this chapter for the period of the assignment.
       Insert after section 5 of the bill the following new 
     section (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOVERNMENTWIDE 
                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2003, the Office 
     of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Chief 
     Information Officers Council and the Administrator of General 
     Services, shall review and submit to the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate a written 
     report on the following:
       (1) The adequacy of any existing information technology 
     training programs available to Federal employees on a 
     Governmentwide basis.
       (2)(A) If one or more such programs already exist, 
     recommendations as to how they might be improved.
       (B) If no such program yet exists, recommendations as to 
     how such a program might be designed and established.
       (3) With respect to any recommendations under paragraph 
     (2), how the program under chapter 37 of title 5, United 
     States Code, might be used to help carry them out.
       (b) Cost Estimate.--The report shall, for any recommended 
     program (or improvements) under subsection (a)(2), include 
     the estimated costs associated with the implementation and 
     operation of such program as so established (or estimated 
     difference in costs of any such program as so improved).

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

[[Page H1171]]

sector. The amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
closes a loophole by prohibiting Federal contractors from billing back 
to the government the cost of their employee's salary or benefits under 
existing contracts. So it provides assurance that the Federal 
Government will not inadvertently be paying for the cost of a private 
sector worker detailed to a Federal agency. So I do appreciate the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) including the closing of that 
loophole in this amendment.
  I also appreciate the provision of the amendment that asks the 
General Accounting Office to do a study of the need for information 
technology training programs within the Federal Government. As I 
mentioned earlier, it was our interest to have included in this bill a 
strong information training program for Federal IT workers. We were 
unable to accomplish that within the confines of the time limitations 
and the subject of this legislation, but the provision in the Davis 
amendment that calls for the General Accounting Office to do a study 
will be a good first step toward moving us to a good, strong 
information technology training program for Federal workers.
  So I support this amendment. I am glad to join in support of it, even 
though, as I said, it perhaps does not go far enough in the minds of 
some to address some of the concerns that have been expressed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate or discussion on this 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Waxman:
       In the last sentence of section 3702(a) of title 5, United 
     States Code (as contained in section 3(a) of the bill), 
     strike the period and insert the following: ``, and 
     applicable requirements of section 3705 are met with respect 
     to the proposed assignment of such employee.''.
       In section 3702(d) of title 5, United States Code (as 
     contained in section 3(a) of the bill), strike ``Assignments 
     under this chapter'' and insert ``An assignment described in 
     section 3704'', and strike ``, except that no'' and insert 
     ``. No''.
       In section 3704(b) of title 5, United States Code (as 
     contained in section 3(a) of the bill), strike ``and'' at the 
     end of paragraph (2), redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4), and insert after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) may not have access to any trade secrets or to any 
     other nonpublic information which might be of commercial 
     value to the private sector organization from which he is 
     assigned; and''
       In chapter 37 of title 5, United States Code (as contained 
     in section 3(a) of the bill), insert after section 3704 the 
     following new section (and make the appropriate conforming 
     amendments):

     Sec. 3705. Federal Information Technology Training Program

       ``(a) Establishment.--In consultation with the Federal 
     Chief Information Officer, the Chief Information Officers 
     Council, and the Administrator of General Services, the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall 
     establish and operate a Federal Information Technology 
     Training Program (in this section referred to as the 
     `Training Program').
       ``(b) Functions.--The Training Program shall--
       ``(1) analyze, on an ongoing basis, the personnel needs of 
     the Federal Government related to information technology and 
     information resource management;
       ``(2) design curricula, training methods, and training 
     schedules that correspond to the projected personnel needs of 
     the Federal Government related to information technology and 
     information resource management; and
       ``(3) recruit and train Federal employees in information 
     technology disciplines, as necessary, at a rate that ensures 
     that the Federal Government's information resource management 
     needs are met.
       ``(c) Authority To Detail Employees to Non-Federal 
     Employers.--The Training Program may include a program under 
     which a Federal employee may be detailed to a non-Federal 
     employer. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall prescribe regulations for such program, including the 
     conditions for service, length of detail, duties, and such 
     other criteria as the Director considers necessary.
       ``(e) Curricula.--The curricula of the Training program--
       ``(1) shall cover a broad range of information technology 
     disciplines corresponding to the specific needs of Federal 
     agencies;
       ``(2) shall be adaptable to achieve varying levels of 
     expertise, ranging from basic non-occupational computer 
     training to expert occupational proficiency in specific 
     information technology disciplines, depending on the specific 
     information resource management needs of Federal agencies;
       ``(3) shall be developed and applied according to rigorous 
     academic standards; and
       ``(4) shall be designed to maximize efficiency through the 
     use of self-paced courses, online courses, on-the-job 
     training, and the use of remote instructors, wherever such 
     features can be applied without reducing training 
     effectiveness or negativity impacting academic standards.
       ``(e) Participation Encouraged.--Subject to information 
     resource management needs and the limitations imposed by 
     resource needs in other occupational areas, agencies shall 
     encourage their employees to participate in the occupational 
     information technology curricula of the Training Program.
       ``(f) Agreements.--Employees who participate in full-time 
     training at the Training Program for a period of 6 months or 
     longer shall be subject to an agreement for service after 
     training under section 4108 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(g) Coordination Provision.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this chapter, no assignment described in section 3703 may be 
     made unless a program under subsection (c) has been 
     established, and the assignment meets the requirements of 
     such program.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall by regulation establish any procedural or 
     other requirements which may be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Office of Personnel 
     Management for developing and operating the Training Program, 
     $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses two serious flaws 
in H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act. The first part of the 
amendment protects the integrity of trade secrets and other sensitive 
government information. The second part of the amendment protects the 
Federal taxpayer.
  The first part of the amendment prohibits corporate executives from 
having access to trade secrets and other sensitive commercial 
information when on detail in the Federal Government. This amendment is 
needed because the bill blurs the line between Federal functions and 
private sector functions. Without this amendment, private sector 
technology executives can gain unrestricted access to Federal 
databases, including databases containing trade secrets.
  The Department of Health and Human Services maintains a database 
containing confidential data on the lowest prices that drug companies 
charge their best customers. Under the bill, an information technology 
executive from Merck could gain access to this database to learn the 
lowest prices charged by Pfizer and other Merck competitors. Does this 
really make sense?
  We have the Federal Civil Service because our system of government 
recognizes there are certain functions that need to be performed by 
career civil servants who have only the interests of the public in 
mind. One of these core functions is handling sensitive government 
information. Allowing private executives to have access to these 
databases is an invitation for abuse and conflicts of interest.
  The bill purports to address these concerns, but it does not succeed. 
It applies the Federal conflicts-of-interest laws to the private sector 
executives while they work in the Federal Government, but these laws 
are so porous they have become virtually meaningless. For example, the 
White House counsel has ruled that the Federal ethics laws allowed Karl 
Rove at the White House to meet with Enron executives about energy 
policy while he held stock in that company.
  The Committee on the Judiciary added language to the underlying bill 
which prohibits private sector workers from disclosing trade secrets 
that they came to know when on detail to the Federal Government. Well, 
this is an important symbolic gesture, but it is virtually 
unenforceable. There is no practical way to police what the Merck 
executive tells his colleagues after he returns to the private sector.
  We cannot unscramble an egg in the same way we cannot guarantee that 
confidential information is not abused once it is made available to 
those with a financial stake in the information. That is why my 
amendment is needed. It protects against abuse and conflicts

[[Page H1172]]

of interest by saying that the private sector executives cannot have 
access to trade secrets and similar commercially sensitive information 
while working for the Federal Government.
  The second part of the amendment establishes a comprehensive training 
program for IT workers and ensures that any outplacement of Federal 
employees makes sense in the context of the overall training needs of 
the government. The bill's purported purpose is to train the Federal 
workforce. However, the bill does not have any requirement that the 
assignment accomplish any training objective or that the Federal worker 
do any work that would benefit the Federal Government. The bill is a 
blank check to send Federal workers, at taxpayers' expense, to serve 
the private sector. The only precondition is that there be a request 
from the private sector.
  Well, this is a brand-new form of corporate welfare. It surpasses tax 
breaks and corporate subsidies. Under this bill, we are creating a 
system where the Federal taxpayer will be paying the salaries of people 
who are working for private companies.
  And here is a little known fact: Not only does the taxpayer have to 
pay the salary and benefits of these employees, but they can also get a 
per diem of $200 or more a day to cover their food and housing expenses 
while working for the private sector.
  My amendment addresses this flaw. It establishes a comprehensive 
training program for information technology workers run by the Office 
of Personnel Management. This training program is a well thought-out 
training program that is taken directly from H.R. 2458 which was 
introduced by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technology and 
Procurement Policy, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). The only 
change I made to the Turner proposal is to add a provision that says 
explicitly that outplacements in the private sector can be included as 
part of the training program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not prohibit 
outplacements of Federal workers to the private sector, but it does 
ensure that any such outplacements accomplish a training objective and 
a cost-effective way to improve the training of Federal employees.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment enjoys the support of the American 
Federation of Government Employees, AFGE; the National Treasury 
Employees Union, and the AFL-CIO. Bobby Harnage, President of the AFGE, 
stated ``The Waxman amendment manages to both eliminate opportunities 
for conflicts of interest and help agencies to develop the in-house 
capabilities they need to manage their information technology programs 
and contracts.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think the Waxman 
amendment is well intentioned, and I know he has given this a lot of 
thought. Unfortunately, it has two problems, in my opinion. First, it 
goes too far; and, second, it addresses a problem that does not appear 
to be very serious.
  This bill requires private sector employees who go to Federal 
agencies to comply with every single ethics rule that Federal employees 
have to follow, and then some. This bill has financial disclosure 
requirements and postemployment restrictions and conflict-of-interest 
protections. This bill may have more ethical safeguards than any bill 
that has ever passed this Congress.
  What the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is concerned about is 
that private sector employees may go to a Federal agency, learn some 
trade secret of a competitor, and go back to their company and share 
that information, or government information. Well, guess what? This 
bill has a lifetime ban on disclosing that kind of information, with 
criminal penalties if it is violated. It has a lifetime ban, not 7 
years, like the statute of limitations on several other law violations. 
If someone taking part in this program discloses secret information 20 
or 30 years after they see it, they could go to jail.
  I am a little concerned that we may have gone too far already. We may 
have placed so many restrictions on this program that we may scare 
people away from participating in it, and that would be a real shame.

                              {time}  1130

  We have bent over backwards to satisfy everyone's concerns.
  But the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) would 
go even further. Private sector employees would be barred from seeing 
any proprietary information while they are at the Federal agency. What 
that means in practical terms is that they would not or could not work 
on any major modernization program because those programs all involve 
private vendors. That would basically shut them out of doing any 
meaningful work while they are at that agency.
  The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Is it worth it? Will 
trade secrets of private companies be jeopardized by this program? If 
that was the case, then I think all of the major high-tech companies 
would be opposing this bill. But guess what, they all support it. I 
have a letter here from the Information Technology Association of 
America, and I have another letter from the Information Technology 
Industry Council. They represent hundreds of high-tech companies. They 
support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record these letters.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

                                            Information Technology


                                       Association of America,

                                                    April 9, 2002.
     Hon. Dan Burton,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Burton: On behalf of the 500 corporate 
     members of the Information Technology Association of America 
     (ITAA), I am writing in strong support of H.R. 3925, The 
     Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002, which would create an 
     executive exchange program for information technology 
     managers between Federal agencies and private companies.
       ITAA has long supported the concept of a ``Digital Tech 
     Force''--an exchange program to benefit government and 
     private sector IT workers. The program in H.R. 3925 would 
     allow government employees to receive technology experience 
     without leaving their government posts, and provides industry 
     with first-hand knowledge of the needs of government 
     customers. The improved public-private training and 
     communications fostered by the proposed program would be a 
     win-win for government and industry. ITAA believes that the 
     bill, as revised by the full Government Reform Committee, 
     provides additional safeguards while still maintaining the 
     attractiveness of the exchange program.
       ITAA continues to believe that this program, if enacted by 
     Congress, could be used as one of a series of initiatives 
     that could improve the understanding of both industry and 
     government and promote the necessary partnerships that will 
     be required for the success of future IT projects.
       We look forward to working with you and Chairman Tom Davis 
     to support this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Harris N. Miller,
     President.
                                  ____

                                            Information Technology


                                             Industry Council,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 2002.
     Hon. Dan Burton,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of ITI, the 
     Information Technology Industry Council, to express our 
     support for H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002. We 
     believe that this legislation will help address the critical 
     need for greater technical expertise within the federal 
     government.
       It is no secret that the federal workforce is shrinking. 
     With an increasing number of experienced employees reaching 
     retirement eligibility or choosing to leave the government 
     for the private sector, federal agencies are following 
     industry's lead by increasing their reliance on information 
     technology (IT) in order to continue to fulfill their 
     missions. In order to realize the maximum benefit of its 
     technology assets, however, the federal government, like 
     industry, will need to attract and retain a pool of skilled 
     employees expert in IT management. This has turned out to be 
     a significant challenge, as it places government in intense 
     competition with private sector demand for the same skill 
     sets.
       H.R. 3925 takes an innovative approach to addressing this 
     challenge by creating an exchange program that will enable 
     businesses under certain conditions to `loan' their IT 
     expertise to federal agencies. This program will enable the 
     government to share rather

[[Page H1173]]

     than compete for critical management expertise, while at the 
     same time helping industry gain a greater understanding and 
     appreciation of the challenges agencies face in meeting the 
     growing demand for government services. While this approach 
     is not without risks, we are confident that sufficient 
     safeguards have been incorporated into the legislation to 
     protect business interests and ensure the integrity of the 
     process
       ITI applauds your and Representative Tom Davis' leadership 
     in addressing this critical issue, and look forward to 
     continuing to work with you on matters of mutual interest and 
     concern.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rhett Dawson,
                                                        President.

  So if the companies that own this supposedly confidential information 
are not worried about it, maybe we are going too far with this 
amendment. We have a real opportunity to do something good: to help 
Federal agencies manage their information technology better.
  As I said before in my previous remarks, this will save the taxpayer 
billions of dollars, because many of these agencies cannot even 
communicate with each other because they do not have the same 
technology and they do not know how to apply it.
  So let us not blow this by going overboard. This bill has every 
ethical safeguard that I can imagine in there, so let us not lard on so 
many restrictions that the program simply cannot work.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
is very well-intentioned, but I believe it goes too far. It addresses a 
problem that is not a serious one. So I ask my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and support the bill.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment, 
because it includes a provision that I think is very important to 
strengthening the information technology capability of our Federal work 
force.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) mentioned, the section 
of his amendment entitled ``Federal information technology training 
program'' comes from a bill that I introduced, and it has also been 
introduced and passed out of a committee in the Senate, that sets up a 
strong Federal IT training program.
  Obviously, the purpose of the exchange program contained in the 
digital tech bill is to improve the training of Federal employees and 
to strengthen our ability to improve the Federal work force. The bill 
itself makes reference to the fact that in making assignments from the 
Federal agencies to the private sector, that the agency heads should 
consider training.
  But really, training is the primary purpose that I see behind this 
legislation. I believe it would be a significant strengthening of this 
bill if we could proceed at this point in time with the establishment 
of a strong IT training program within the Office of Personnel 
Management.
  This amendment that is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) provides a strong training curriculum requirement, it provides 
a very strong and very vigorous effort to try to establish training 
programs throughout the government for IT workers, and it places 
greater emphasis than we have currently upon the recruitment of IT 
workers.
  In our committee, we have had countless numbers of Federal officials 
come before our committee and say to us that we have an information 
technology work force crisis in the Federal Government.
  We had a very interesting bit of testimony before our committee a few 
weeks ago from a head of a major information technology company who 
pointed out to us that if we looked at the tragedy that occurred on 
September 11, that the information that was available to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies, that if it could have been brought 
together in a single location, that we perhaps could have prevented 
that tragic event.
  That message said to me that we have a long way to go in the Federal 
Government in utilizing information technology, and one of the key 
elements of improving information technology is a strong and vigorous 
IT training program.
  Some of our witnesses before our committee have shared with us from 
time to time the percentage of their company budgets that are devoted 
to IT training, in some cases 5, 6, 8 percent. The Federal Government 
expends approximately 1 percent of its budget on training.
  What we need to do is not only emphasize training in general, but we 
need to focus in on information technology training. The Waxman 
amendment, under the section entitled ``Federal information technology 
training program,'' establishes that very needed program. For that 
reason, I would urge the adoption of the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002 will help the 
Federal Government do a better job managing complex information 
technology projects. It sets up an exchange program that will allow 
Federal information technology managers to be detailed to the private 
sector, high-tech companies, and vice versa.
  The tech corps bill without this amendment will improve the skills of 
Federal IT managers by exposing them to cutting-edge management 
practices in the private sector and help Federal agencies recruit and 
retain talented IT managers by offering them a valuable career 
development tool, something that is not available to them today when we 
risk losing half of our key information technology workers in the 
government over the next 5 years.
  The bill will allow private sector IT managers to apply their skills 
to challenging information technology problems at Federal agencies.
  The amendment, while well-intentioned, can scuttle this whole 
program. It will prohibit private sector detailees from having access 
to proprietary information submitted to Federal agencies by the private 
sector. This will prevent them in many cases from working on virtually 
any major information technology programs involving private sector 
entities, which is exactly where they are the most needed.

  After the markups in both the Committee on Government Reform and the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the tech corps has very strong protection 
from proprietary commercial information, including a lifetime ban 
against disclosure with criminal penalties, something that existing 
government contractors and something that existing Federal employees do 
not even have. We have gone to the mat on this to ensure there will be 
no violations.
  Plus, you have to trust the Federal managers to make the right call 
in terms of what these detailees are going to be exposed to. One key 
thing to keep in mind about this amendment is that it purports to 
protect the nonpublic information of other companies.
  If concerns about the tech corps' protection of proprietary 
information were well-founded, though, as the gentleman from Indiana 
pointed out, all the major high-tech companies that do business with 
the Federal Government would be opposed to this. They like this bill 
the way it is. They oppose this amendment. The high-tech community 
strongly supports this bill.
  Indeed, Harris Miller, the President of the Information Technology 
Association of America, which is composed of 500 small, medium, and 
large technology companies, says that the improved private sector 
training communication fostered by the tech corps will be a win-win for 
government and industry. ITAA believes that the bill, as revised, 
provides additional safeguards while still maintaining the 
attractiveness of the exchange program.
  Let us go through these ethics provisions for a minute. The strong 
ethics and revolving door protections that are currently in the bill 
include the Hatch Act; revolving door laws that ban lobbying former 
agencies; a lifetime ban on helping the private sector with matters 
worked on while on the detail; a ban from working on matters that 
affect personnel or employers' financial interests; a ban on acting as 
a lobbyist while on the detail, something that was addressed in an 
earlier concern after an article in the Wall Street Journal; a ban on 
receiving anything of value to influence an official act; a ban on 
representing private sector clients in front of agencies; a ban on 
disclosure of procurement information; plus felony penalties under the 
law, up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $50,000 in fines, for 
violations.
  The ethics provisions also include a lifetime ban on disclosing, 
publishing, divulging, or making known any trade

[[Page H1174]]

secrets, business processes, operations, styles of work, statistics and 
data, and income profit or loss information of any other company, 
exactly the concerns raised from my friend, the gentleman from 
California. We go to a lifetime prohibition with criminal penalties.
  Interestingly, Federal employees, from the day they leave the Federal 
Government, can reveal all of this information, including trade 
secrets. They are not barred. The amendment does not touch them.
  If the concerns in this amendment are really about protecting 
nonpublic information, one would really think it might address both 
Federal employees, tech corps detailees, and government contractors. 
But I think it ends up gutting the bill.
  This amendment also proposes to create a new bureaucracy for 
government-wide IT training. No hearings on this broad-based effort 
have ever been held, although I will tell the gentleman from Texas I 
think it is a good idea and I tend to support it, and although I have 
indicated my willingness to work with the sponsors to try to bring this 
legislation to fruition.
  This portion of the amendment advocates having the Office of 
Personnel Management essentially create and control a new continuing 
education type of IT training. Janet Barnes, the chief information 
officer of OPM, testified at a technology and procurement hearing on 
March 21, and she said, ``What we are really trying to do is establish 
one stop, so there is a common place all Federal Government workers can 
go to access some of the best training programs already in existence. 
To the extent we need to, we can create new ones, but we really think 
there are a lot of good training programs already available.
  ``For IT employees, we are developing our road maps and detailed task 
plans. Part of every one of our 24 e-government initiatives is a 
communication, education, and training module.''
  One of the problems is the first thing agencies cut when their 
budgets are on the chopping block is training. We have additional 
legislation we have proposed that will take money out of the GSA 
schedules and other schedules and put it into mandatory training, 
because that is where we are falling behind. We have outstanding 
Federal employees, but they need to be continuously trained.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, before rushing to create a 
new program that may be duplicative of what Mrs. Barnes said are the 
good training programs already available, we have to investigate what 
is available now. We should evaluate these programs as to whether 
degree-based training is effective.
  For example, we have spent a lot of money for a CIO University and 
for the National Security Administration's IT training consortiums. 
They have programs covering IT training for many agencies. We should be 
asking whether they work and how they can be improved.
  The manager's amendment to this legislation addresses these needs, 
and in my judgment, Mr. Chairman, this amendment ought to be rejected.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman amendment. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has offered a commonsense 
amendment to the digital tech corps bill, the underlying bill. By 
ensuring that the private sector cannot access trade secrets and other 
sensitive data, and by establishing a comprehensive training program 
for IT workers in this new program, the Waxman amendment addresses two 
very serious problems in the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, last month the Wall Street Journal ran a story that I 
believe illustrates the problem in the underlying bill that can be 
addressed or that is addressed by his amendment, and this story in the 
Wall Street Journal is very much of a cautionary tale.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the article I have mentioned.
  The article referred to is as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 1, 2002]

   Rolling along: Lobbying Campaign Could Determine Fate of a Hyped 
                                Scooter


  It Is Illegal on Most Sidewalks, But Maker Has Influence; Will the 
                              Segway Sell?

                 (By David Armstrong and Jerry Guidera)

       Manchester, NH.--Last May, Ron Medford, a senior federal 
     engineer, visited here to inspect the Segway Human 
     Transporter, the much-ballyhooed new motorized scooter with 
     gyroscopic steering. He like it a lot.
       In August, Mr. Medford's bosses at the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission, relying in part on his analysis, handed 
     the Segway a critical regulatory win. The CPSC defined the 
     big-wheeled device as a ``consumer product,'' a big step in 
     its ambitious quest to overturn local laws banning motorized 
     scooters from sidewalks. And there was more good news for the 
     Segway team: Mr. Medford was so impressed by their handiwork 
     he took a taxpayer-funded sabbatical to assist with a massive 
     lobbying effort aimed at persuading states to pass special 
     laws favoring the Segway.
       After one of the most hyped launches of any recent product, 
     the Segway is now locked in a lobbying battle that will help 
     determine the fanciful cantraption's fate. ``The bad news is 
     if you read any [local] regulation to the letter of the law, 
     it says we don't belong on the sidewalk,'' says its inventor, 
     Dean Kamen. Existing municipal ordinances that ban motorized 
     conventional scooters from sidewalks also would apply to his 
     invention.
       That's why Segway LLC, the company Mr. Kamen set up to 
     market his device, has delayed sales to the general public 
     until the fall, while an army of lobbyists blanket the 
     country, pushing for the new state laws permitting Segways on 
     sidewalks. Company officials concede it is unlikely the 
     transporter will appeal to consumers if it is limited to 
     roads, where people would fear accidents with cars and 
     trucks.
       There are other potential roadblocks, as well. Mr. Kamen 
     plans to sell the consumer version of his device for $3,000--
     a steep premium over the $200-to-$600 prices of less-fancy 
     motorized scooters already on the market. The size of that 
     market is also in question. Data on motorized-scooter sales 
     are sparse, but industry leader Zap says it sold only 
     25,000 last year. An $8,000 commercial version of the 
     Segway is available, but manufacturers so far haven't 
     bought a single one. Last year, Mr. Kamen's business 
     partner, Robert Tuttle, forecast that 50,000 to 100,000 
     Segways would sell in 2002.
       And while Segway's lobbying campaign is making discernible 
     headway at the federal and state levels, local officials' 
     skepticism in some places remains strong. The device moves at 
     up to 12.5 miles an hour and weights 65 pounds--a combination 
     of speed and mass similar to that of conventional motorized 
     scooters. For the protection of pedestrians, both modes of 
     transport are now banned from sidewalks of cities ranging 
     from tiny Sebastapol, Calif., to New York.
       If a Segway ``hits a pedestrian, there will be serious 
     damage,'' says Charles Trainor, chief traffic engineer in 
     Philadelphia, where the Segway also wouldn't be allowed on 
     sidewalks. ``I would not be in favor of changing the law,'' 
     he adds.
       The Segway's December introduction couldn't have been 
     splashier. With Mr. Kamen aboard, it rolled across the stage 
     of ABC's ``Good Morning America.'' On NBC's ``Tonight Show,'' 
     host Jay Leno, rock star Sting and actor Russell Crowe took 
     test drives. Mr. Kamen's lofty promise: the Segway would 
     revolutionize transportation by curbing car use and relieving 
     urban congestion.
       Known before its launch by the code name ``Ginger,'' the 
     transporter has won enthusiastic endorsements from high-tech 
     superstars Steven Jobs of Apple Computer Inc. and Jeff Bezos 
     of Amazon.com Inc. Investors include Xerox Corp. Chairman 
     Paul Allaire and Vernon R. Loucks Jr., the former chairman of 
     medical products-maker Baxter International Inc. Some of the 
     excitement over the Segway reflects Mr. Kamen's roster of 
     commercially successful inventions. These include the cardiac 
     stent, a device that reduces artery blockages in heart 
     patients, the portable insulin pump for diabetes sufferers 
     and the iBot wheelchair that climbs stairs.
       Mr. Kamen is a 50-year-old college dropout who combines a 
     boyish enthusiasm for science with the confidence--and 
     lifestyle--of a successful entrepreneur. The Segway is vastly 
     different and safer than electric scooters, he asserts. In 
     fact, he and his team refuse to call their device a scooter. 
     ``It's more like a set of magic sneakers,'' Mr. Kamen says.
       The inventor and his 100-employee company are based in 
     Manchester, where his office in a former brick mill is filled 
     with pictures of Albert Einstein. In the boardroom hangs a 
     life-size portrait of Mr. Kamen. He sometimes pilots his 
     helicopter to work and flies his personal jet around the 
     country. He has a 17,867-square-foot home in New Hampshire 
     and vacations on a small island he owns off of Connecticut.
       The Segway, for which he has raised at least $92 million in 
     seed money from the likes of venture capitalists Kleiner 
     Perkins Caufield & Byers, uses a system of computer chip-
     driven gyroscopes and sensors to mimic the movements of its 
     rider. Standing on a small platform gripping a handlebar, the 
     rider leans forward or backward to move in the desired 
     direction. The device, about four feet tall, has no brake 
     or accelerator. It stops when the user stands straight.

[[Page H1175]]

       Unlike scooters on the market today, the Segway stops 
     gently when it runs into something and then rolls back 
     slightly, Mr. Kamen says. The damage from a collision with a 
     pedestrian would be no greater than if two people collided at 
     a comparable speed, he says. But the company says it hasn't 
     done any crash testing to support this claim and has only 
     recently begun doing pilot tests under city conditions.
       These pilot tests include the company's efforts to build 
     what marketing director Gary Bridge calls ``moral authority'' 
     for the device by getting police and postal officials in 
     several cities to take highly advertised test drives. In 
     Boston, for example, police officials tooled around downtown 
     at press events staged in early December and on New Year's 
     Eve.
       Long before the December launch, Segway officials realized 
     that safety restrictions could pose a problem. A major worry 
     was having the federal government designate the device a 
     ``motor vehicle.'' That would automatically bar using it on 
     sidewalks nationwide. Instead, the company wanted the Segway 
     defined as a ``consumer product,'' which would help make 
     sidewalk use permissible, depending on state and local law. 
     To improve his chances with regulators, Mr. Kamen hired Eric 
     Rubel, a former general counsel of the CPSC now with the 
     major Washington law firm Arnold & Porter.
       At Mr. Kamen's behest, Rep. Charles Bass, a Republican from 
     Segway's headquarters state of New Hampshire, arranged 
     separate meetings last summer in his Capitol Hill office 
     between Segway representatives and officials from the 
     commission and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration. The meetings came after Rep. Bass had failed 
     to make much progress on legislation he introduced that would 
     mandate a consumer-product designation.
       On Aug. 3, NHTSA announced that it had accepted Segway's 
     argument that its device is similar to those of motorized 
     wheelchairs. Since ``this agency does not consider motorized 
     wheelchairs to be `motor vehicles,' '' NHTSA said, the Segway 
     wouldn't be subject to its vehicle regulations. NHTSA 
     officials say they made this determination without seeing the 
     machine in person or having access to its technical details.
       The CPSC in May had sent its team, led by the engineer, Mr. 
     Medford, to inspect the Segway in Manchester. ``It's an 
     extraordinary place,'' Mr. Medford says, referring in an 
     interview to Mr. Kamen's company. On July 20, Mr. Medford 
     sought his sabbatical to work with Segway. Thereafter, he 
     says, he recused himself from all government work related to 
     the company. On Aug. 14, the commission announced that 
     because the Segway was designed for personal enjoyment, it 
     fit the definition of a consumer product and would be 
     regulated by the CPSC.
       Mr. Medford says he hopes his 10-month leave, which began 
     Oct. 25, will let him ``learn a little bit about what 
     companies do to bring products to market.'' He will continue 
     to collect his federal salary under a little-used government-
     wide program allowing senior federal career employees to 
     sample corporate life. Segway is paying housing costs in New 
     Hampshire for Mr. Medford, who is 53 and has worked for the 
     CPSC for 23 years.
       The sabbatical--the first ever awarded to a CPSC employee, 
     according to the commission--troubles some consumer 
     advocates. They worry Mr. Medford will favor Segway when he 
     returns to his job in Washington later this year. ``It's 
     unusual in that he's working for a company that's going to be 
     regulated by his agency,'' says Mary Ellen Fise, general 
     counsel of Consumer Federation of America, a Washington-based 
     advocacy group. Mr. Medford says he will have nothing to do 
     with the Segway when he returns to the government.
       Generally, consumer advocates are taking a cautious stance 
     on the Segway. Beyond studying where the device should be 
     used, they say government officials should consider mandating 
     lighting and reflectors, potential minimum and maximum age 
     restrictions for riders and even licensing. ``There are still 
     some major safety considerations, but I don't think they 
     outweigh the potential benefits of these machines,'' says Ann 
     Brown, former CPSC chairwoman.
       Segway officials are trying to make the most of their 
     interaction with the CPSC. They say in interviews that the 
     company has undergone a successful ``safety review'' by the 
     commission and has adopted improvements recommended by the 
     CPSC.
       But that assertion draws a rebuke from the commission. ``We 
     made it clear to the company that neither the CPSC nor the 
     staff was endorsing the product, and we cautioned them 
     against suggesting otherwise,'' says commission spokeswoman 
     Becky Bailey. The CPSC made only ``informal'' safety 
     suggestions to the company, she adds.
       Mr. Medford is helping the company gather data for its 
     campaign for special state laws permitting Segways on 
     sidewalks, Mr. Kamen says. The company says it has so far 
     hired lobbyists in all but five states. This legion operates 
     under the direction of Segway employee Brian Toohey, a former 
     U.S. Department of Commerce official and telecommunications 
     lobbyist.
       The lobbying drive comes at a time when dozens of states 
     and municipalities have been stiffening restrictions of 
     existing motorized scooters in reaction to an increase in 
     injuries. Conventional scooters resemble a skateboard with a 
     steering stick and began appearing in numbers about three 
     years ago. Suburbs around Chicago have led the way in 
     enacting ordinances that ban them from all public areas. 
     California passed a law that went into effect in 2000 
     forbidding them from sidewalks.
       The number of scooter-related injuries treated in emergency 
     rooms more than tripled to 4,390 in 2000--the most recent 
     full year for which results are available from the CPSC. 
     In August, the commission issued a warning urging scooter 
     riders to use caution and protective equipment.
       Arguing that their device is more stable and safer, 
     Segway's lobbyists have already persuaded the company's home 
     state of New Hampshire and New Jersey, to enact laws 
     approving of the transporter's use on sidewalks. These laws--
     and versions proposed elsewhere--are supposed to apply only 
     to the Segway and refer to allowing ``electric personal 
     assistive mobility devices'' that are ``self-balancing.''
       Legislation favoring the company is advancing in a number 
     of other states, including Alabama, Indiana, Virginia, 
     Vermont, Nebraska and Washington. Some of these laws would 
     prevent a city or county from passing its own ordinance 
     banning Segways from sidewalks. Even in states such as New 
     Hampshire and New Jersey, which allow for local restrictions, 
     statewide enactments could give the company extra punch in 
     opposing any hostile action. ``All we're trying to do in any 
     of these legislative efforts is to ensure the day we sell 
     these to consumers they're able to use them in the proper 
     way,'' says Mr. Toohey.
       In Alabama, state Sen. Gerald Dial says he sponsored pro-
     Segway legislation after his ``good friend,'' Segway lobbyist 
     Jimmy Samford asked him to. ``I told him I would be glad to 
     hot rod it,'' says Sen. Dial. Already approved by the Senate, 
     his bill is before the House and is considered a good bet for 
     enactment. The legislation wouldn't let municipalities 
     supersede the permissive state rule. Sen. Dial says he isn't 
     worried about the Segway's safety, but he does fret that some 
     people who should be walking to exercise will ride a 
     transporter instead.
       In Virginia, House Transportation Committee Chairman Jack 
     Rollison says he introduced his pro-Segway bill at the behest 
     of Phil Abraham, a lobbyist and attorney who has served as an 
     adviser to past Govs. Charles Robb and Gerald Baliles. 
     Delegate Rollison says Mr. Abraham was ``very helpful in 
     drafting the legislation.'' The Virginia House and Senate 
     have passed the bill, which is awaiting action by Gov. Mark 
     Warner. The legislation would let localities add some 
     restrictions but not ban the Segway.
       The pressure to pass pro-Segway legislation alarms Fred 
     Zwonechek, the administrator of the Nebraska Office of 
     Highway Safety. There, a bill allowing the Segway on 
     sidewalks and some roads has been approved by a committee of 
     the one-house Nebraska legislature. The bill's sponsor, 
     Speaker Doug Kristensen, says he expects it to receive final 
     legislative approval in the next two months. The bill would 
     allow localities to set their own rules.
       Mr. Zwonechek says he wishes there would be more ``testing 
     and evaluation [to] see how these things work in the real 
     world.'' Nebraska's city streets are already chaotic, he 
     adds. ``You think we have road rage now?'' he warns. ``I see 
     all kinds of scenarios where'' use of the Segway could lead 
     to collisions and confrontations.
       Speaker Kristensen, in contrast, says a company-provided 
     videotaped demonstration of the Segway persuaded him that the 
     device is safe. In particular, he praises its ability to 
     pivot quickly, making it easier to navigate than bicycles or 
     existing electric scooters.
       Mr. Kristensen says he sponsored the bill after being 
     approached by Segway lobbyist Bill Mueller, whom he has known 
     for years. The lobbyist warned him that if Nebraska didn't 
     pass pro-Segway legislation, residents could be ``frozen 
     out'' when the device hit the consumer market because the 
     company would be less likely to sell here, Mr. Kristensen 
     recalls. Mr. Mueller declined to comment.

  Mr. Chairman, the article outlines a very disturbing story. An 
employee of the Consumer Products Safety Commission was detailed to a 
New Hampshire company called Segway, LLC, which builds motorized 
scooters.
  During this public employee's 10-month assignment and while the 
employee is there, he will be on the Federal payroll and able to lobby 
for the private company as it seeks special State laws allowing the 
motorized scooter. What they are requiring is to see if the Segway, 
this motorized scooter, it travel on sidewalks. Meanwhile, the Federal 
employee paid by the taxpayers is lobbying for the private company.
  According to the Wall Street Journal, this worker is, and I quote 
from the Wall Street Journal, ``helping the company gather data for its 
campaign for special State laws permitting Segways or motorized 
scooters on sidewalks.'' It goes on further to say that the creator of 
this particular scooter did not even think it should ever be on 
sidewalks. It points out this is, it calls it ``a tremendous taxpayer-
funded boondoggle, plain and simple''.
  Really, to the point, we should not dramatically expand the number of

[[Page H1176]]

Federal employees who can be detailed to work for private companies at 
taxpayer expense without strict safeguards that they will not then be 
lobbying the department they come from, or State laws, as in this 
particular case.
  My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has put 
forward a very commonsense amendment that will stop this, restrict 
this. It is supported by all the good government groups, every 
commonsense American taxpayer, all the unions. Simply put, why in the 
world should we, or rather taxpayers, fund Federal employees to go to 
work for private companies, to have them then lobby State governments 
or city governments or the Federal Government on behalf of the private 
company? It is absolutely plain wrong.

                              {time}  1145

  I commend the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for 
coming forward with a plain, commonsense amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join in supporting the 
Waxman amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I have to rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman). I do so today not because I necessarily oppose his proposal 
for developing a coordinated training program for information 
technology employees. In fact, I want to applaud the gentleman from 
California for his interest in improving the training opportunities 
available to Federal IT workers. However, as a member and former 
chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over 
Federal employee training programs, I believe this proposal, I believe 
it is very important, in fact, that this proposal go through the 
regular committee process. And that is important before we establish a 
new multimillion-dollar training program. And it is also important, I 
believe, that we consult with the administration and other interested 
parties to develop a clear picture of exactly what training is now 
being conducted.
  I think it is also vital and important that we work with the 
administration to solicit their views on how best to structure an IT 
training program in light of various agency needs. Frankly, Mr. 
Chairman, I also question whether the program the amendment establishes 
would be able to quickly keep up enough with the current fast pace of 
developments in the information technology sector.
  I know the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency 
Organization of the Committee on Government Reform and other members of 
the subcommittee would be glad to work with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) in trying to craft the best possible proposal. 
I look forward to working with all parties interested in addressing 
this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his remarks, and once again I believe that the part of this amendment 
that speaks to training has a lot of merit, and I hope that we can take 
it up under the appropriate committee jurisdictions and move in this 
session of the Congress.
  Let me just address a couple of remarks made by my good friend from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) about Mr. Ron Medford, the employee of the 
Consumer Products Safety Commission on the Federal payroll lobby. He 
could not have done any of these things under this legislation that is 
proposed today.
  The interesting thing is we have put more safeguards in there. He 
would have violated, in our opinion, 18 U.S.C. 201, which is 
incorporated as Federal bribery statutes; lobbying statute 18 U.S.C., 
section 205; financial conflicts of interests, section 18 U.S.C. 208; 
perhaps even 18 U.S. Code 606, intimidation of your office to be able 
to advance things as well.
  These are all prohibitions of our law that were not under the detail 
act that Mr. Medford operated under. We have tried to address these. 
Raising these specters I think is helpful because it shows what we do 
not want this act to become. But I think we have gone out of our way to 
put more restrictions on detailees under this legislation than we have 
under any legislation in national history, including the current IPA 
program which has been very successful and which has never been 
prosecuted by the Justice Department or found any wrongdoing to have 
come forward.
  So we have gone out of our way to try to address these, while at the 
same time recognizing that while you are bringing these employees into 
the IT areas, there is a lot of confidential information, a lot of 
proprietary information that they are going to have to work with. To 
eliminate that, as this amendments does, basically guts the legislation 
because it does not allow our Federal employees to come in and get the 
training at the highest and best areas where they can learn the most 
and be trained the most on the job.
  Those are my comments. I appreciate and thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of this Digital Tech Corps 
and to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for introducing 
the idea of assigning private sector information technology 
professionals for a 6-month to 2-year work assignment in the Federal 
Government.
  We cannot emphasize enough that there is a looming crisis in the 
Federal workforce. Over the next few years, more than 1 out of 2 
Federal employees and fully half of Federal IT personnel are going to 
be eligible for retirement. If we do not come up with a solution for 
this problem today, in the near future we are going to be faced with a 
very severe shortage of workers in the Federal workforce. So, by 
enabling an exchange of mid-level information technology professionals 
between public and private sectors for up to 2 years and allowing these 
volunteers to retain their pay and benefits from their respective 
employers, this legislation constructively addresses this potential 
problem. It also provides Tech Corps volunteers with a rewarding 
opportunity for public service. And I think it is going to generate a 
greater understanding and respect for the work of so-called Federal 
bureaucrats.
  This bill is not unprecedented. It is very similar to the 
Governmental Personnel Mobility Act that has provided the opportunity 
for an up to 2-year exchange of Federal employees with nongovernmental 
organizations, universities, and associations for the last 30 years.
  One of the best features of this bill is that it provides an 
opportunity for government leaders and private sector professionals to 
cross-pollinate best practices and innovative ideas.
  Each year the Federal Government spends over $50 billion on 
information technology. That is a lot of money by anyone's estimate. 
Unfortunately, despite all of this money, too many of the government's 
complex IT projects fail because of a lack of effective IT management.
  Finding innovative ways to recruit, to train, and retain a quality 
information technology workforce has to be a priority for us today. The 
Digital Tech Corps Act will give talented professionals the opportunity 
for knowledge transfer while helping to solve some of the world's most 
difficult information technology problems in both the public and 
private sectors.
  I think the next amendment on putting 20 percent of the placements in 
small business makes sense, too.
  This is a good bill and it deserves our support.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) 
amendments, but I think he offers it in good stead. And the reason is 
that so often the public sector is fraudulent, it is wasteful, it is 
abusive. And we found, time after time, that most of the innovations do 
come from the private sector. And I think a blending of the private 
sector and the public sector benefits both. And I think if we inhibit 
the private sector from interfacing and collating the information from 
the public service, then I think we are deficient.
  There is a code of ethics that is involved. Every day we use foreign 
military with our military. Maybe it is a bad analogy, but we benefit 
from our interaction with foreign military. But,

[[Page H1177]]

yet, we also know there are some very classified things that are 
involved that are protected.
  When we have a program like this, we also have certain safeguards. 
One of those is called a code of ethics and what one can dispose of and 
what one can gather and what one can transfer to one's our own private 
company. But every day we public employees have the basic information 
from the private sector that they use every day, and the standard 
should be the same for public as it is for private.
  I laud the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I think his intent 
is good, but I think the reaction is bad.
  I would recommend to my colleagues on both sides, a nonpartisan 
little pamphlet, one of the best I have ever read. It is called, 
``Reflection on a Millennium'' by Alonzo McDonald. He was the president 
of Bendix. It goes through where we have been in this past millennium 
and where we are headed. One of those is technology and the benefit of 
technology to our society and how we can benefit. He also talks about 
the inhibitors to technology. Whether it is onerous rules and 
regulations, whether it is tax increases instead of tax cuts, whether 
it is unions, whatever it happens to be, it is what we can do to 
benefit technology until the future.
  I think the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) amendment would 
inhibit that technology growth. I know that my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle support this growth in the high-tech field.
  I want to laud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his 
bill, and I think it is good legislation, and I ask for the defeat of 
the Waxman amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       In section 3703 of title 5, United States Code (as 
     contained in section 3(a) of the bill), insert after 
     subsection (d) the following:
       ``(d) Small Business Concerns.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of each agency shall take such 
     actions as may be necessary to ensure that, of the 
     assignments made under this chapter from such agency to 
     private sector organizations in each year, at least 20 
     percent are to small business concerns.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `small business concern' means a business 
     concern that satisfies the definitions and standards 
     specified by the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration under section 3(a)(2) of the Small Business 
     Act (as from time to time amended by the Administrator);
       ``(B) the term `year' refers to the 12-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter, and 
     each succeeding 12-month period in which any assignments 
     under this chapter may be made; and
       ``(C) the assignments `made' in a year are those commencing 
     in such year.
       ``(D) Reporting requirement.--An agency which fails to 
     comply with paragraph (1) in a year shall, within 90 days 
     after the end of such year, submit a report to the Committees 
     on Government Reform and Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Governmental Affairs 
     and Small Business of the Senate. The report shall include--
       ``(A) the total number of assignments made under this 
     chapter from such agency to private sector organizations in 
     the year;
       ``(B) of that total number, the number (and percentage) 
     made to small business concerns; and
       ``(C) the reasons for the agency's noncompliance with 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Exclusion.--This subsection shall not apply to an 
     agency in any year in which it makes fewer than 5 assignments 
     under this chapter to private sector organizations.

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, no one doubts the importance of the 
information and communications technology revolution in shaping our 
economy today. Many small businesses led the changes that put a PC in 
half of our homes and the Internet in almost every office. Their impact 
has been great. Internet usage and presence has grown at an astonishing 
rate of 50 percent each year.
  Today there are almost 2.1 billion different Web sites on the 
Internet, and e-commerce is the fastest growing sector of the Internet. 
Americans now spend $3.5 billion on line. That averages out to 13.5 
million households spending $263 dollars per person per year. And it is 
estimated that the Internet commercial activity could reach $3 trillion 
by the year 2003.
  It is clear that if small businesses are not part of the new digital 
economy they will soon be out of business. But despite small business 
leadership in this sector, far more small businesses are hampered in 
their effort to expand into the digital marketplace by a great and 
growing dearth in high-tech workers to help them. Less than half of the 
900,000 information technology jobs created last year were actually 
filled.
  Since American small businesses create 75 percent of all new jobs, we 
should focus the legislation before us in order to benefit these 
dynamos of our economy.
  This bill is designed to grow the high-tech workplace. But our 
amendment will ensure that small businesses fully participate in that 
growth. After all, small businesses make up half of our economy. They 
employ almost half of our workers. They create three-fourths of all new 
jobs, and are an entryway to the workforce of 6 of every 10 working 
Americans. However, they do not fully participate in the digital 
economy. According to the Department of Commerce, small businesses on 
average invest far less in information technology than their corporate 
counterparts. They are far less likely to buy or sell merchandise over 
the Internet, and their employees are less likely to use a computer 
regularly.
  I am convinced one of the great contributing factors to this digital 
divide is that the small businesses simply cannot attract and retain 
skilled high-tech labor. If they cannot get the workers to build and 
maintain a company Web site, they will be unable to enjoy the benefits 
of e-commerce.
  The Velazquez-Manzullo amendment proposes to bridge this small 
business tech gap by requiring that 20 percent of Federal employees 
detailed to the private sector under the provision of H.R. 2935 are 
detailed to small businesses across the country.

                              {time}  1200

  With 99 percent of all American enterprise comprised of small 
businesses, I believe this is the reasonable proposal to help the great 
majority of them benefit from high tech and e-commerce.
  This amendment is designed with another goal in mind as well. Through 
this placement program we want to help small businesses contract with 
the Federal Government. By learning more about how the Federal 
Government operates through Federal workers detailed to them, we want 
to encourage greater contracting opportunities with the government.
  This is a very important goal, given the fact that in the year 2000 
the Federal Government failed for the first time to meet any of its 
statutorily set goals for contracting with small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Velazquez-Manzullo 
amendment. It has received strong support from the 65,000 members of 
National Small Business United, the oldest small business group in the 
country, and thousands of small businesses like them. We know small 
businesses want to reap the benefit of this great technological 
revolution with skilled people working for them and showing them the 
way. They also want and deserve a fair shot at Federal contracts. Put 
together in this amendment, we can be assured that the company we help 
today could be the Intel of tomorrow.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Velazquez-Manzullo amendment.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Let me thank my friend from New York for offering this amendment, and 
although I always have some trepidation to accepting outright 
percentages in terms of a new program and

[[Page H1178]]

how it is going to progress, I think she has worked hard on this and 
she has worked with our staff. She has been a strong proponent of small 
business, and I think that this in a way may be able to enhance the 
program.
  I intend to accept this amendment and vote for this amendment and 
advocate for it, and I just appreciate the effort she has put into this 
and the effort she has done working with our staff.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that the new digital economy is leading the 
way, is a necessity for economic success of American businesses and 
particularly small businesses. We are concerned deeply that many small 
businesses lack the adequate resources to participate fully in the 
digital revolution. I see many minority-owned small businesses in my 
district, the Eighth District of New Jersey, that have particular 
concerns. In order to keep up, they cannot afford to fall back and to 
play catch up.
  Today, there is almost 2.1 billion different and publicly accessed 
Web sites on the Internet, a larger percentage of them being 
commercial, business-operated sites. Current figures show that 
Americans have already spent $3.5 billion online, which averages out to 
13.5 million households, spending $263 per person.
  It is clear that if small businesses are not part of the new digital 
economy, they will soon be out of business. The private sector will 
need to fill, as my colleagues have already heard, 900,000 new 
information technology jobs. Right now, we can only fill half of those 
jobs.
  We need to be especially concerned about the impact of this data on 
the business sector that accounts for 75 percent of the net new jobs; 
and if we can make the change in the legislation that will benefit 
small businesses, we should; and that is the very purpose of the 
Velazquez-Manzullo amendment, that 20 percent of the Federal high-tech 
workers must be placed with small businesses under this amendment, 
which fully 99 percent of all employers are small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the adoption of this amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I too want to rise in support of the Velazquez-Manzullo amendment. An 
analysis of the Web by both private and public concerns has shown that 
Internet usage and presence has grown by an outstanding rate of 50 
percent per year.
  E-commerce is the fastest growing sector of the Internet. According 
to Forrester Research, an e-commerce research company, e-commerce 
activity will reach $3 trillion by the year 2003. It is, therefore, 
clear that if small businesses are not a part, as both my colleagues 
have said, of this new digital economy, they will soon be out of 
business.
  Therefore, the Velazquez-Manzullo amendment is an important amendment 
to ensure that the needs of small businesses are met. The amendment 
requires that a mere 20 percent of Federal high-tech workers be placed 
with small businesses under this amendment, when fully 99 percent of 
all employers are small businesses. Surely this is the least that 
Congress can do to assist our small businesses in becoming 
technologically capable.
  This help from the Federal Government is especially important, Mr. 
Chairman, in light of the fact that in fiscal year 2000 the Federal 
Government met none of its small business contracting goals. This 
amendment has received strong support from the National Small Business 
United, a small business association with 65,000 members.
  I want to also commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) 
for her leadership and her hard work on this amendment, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the Velazquez-Manzullo amendment to H.R. 3925.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise too in support of the Velazquez-Manzullo amendment to H.R. 
3925. This bill attempts to facilitate the exchange of technological 
talents between the Federal and private sectors in order to respond to 
evolving opportunities being created as a result of digital technology.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Empowerment 
and Government Programs, I recognize how important this provision is 
because it requires that 20 percent of the employees detailed to the 
private sector be detailed to small businesses. Small businesses will 
benefit directly from the loan of Federal employees with specific 
technological expertise who will use that expertise to assist small 
businesses to improve and expand their businesses.
  Small businesses constitute the core of the emerging and flourishing 
digital economy known as the Internet. E-commerce is the wave of the 
future, and for many businesses it is the standard method by which they 
do business. Therefore, it is critical that we enable small businesses 
and emerging small businesses to be able to compete in this evolving 
arena.
  In order for this to happen, Mr. Chairman, many small businesses need 
to conduct business online. They will need the technical expertise that 
can be provided to them via detailed Federal employees. One of the 
biggest obstacles to small business participation online is the 
prohibitive costs for training and hiring the staff necessary. This 
amendment will help to defray some of those costs.
  Obviously, Mr. Chairman, this last week I gave a congressional 
hearing in my district regarding technology and small businesses, and 
this amendment serves the purpose which many of the small businesses 
mention they need to have to flourish.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of new jobs are being created by 
small businesses. Minority- and women-owned businesses will benefit 
immeasurably from this provision. So I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment and thank our chairman and the ranking member for their 
leadership.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my strong support 
for the amendment put forth by my friend and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Small Business, Ms. Velazquez, which I chair.
  I join with Ms. Velazquez in offering this amendment because it will 
strengthen an already good bill by requiring that 20 percent of the 
federal workers be placed with small businesses in the private sector. 
Under current law, 23 percent of federal procurement must be awarded to 
small businesses. Given that, it is entirely reasonable that 20 percent 
of the federal workers should be placed with small businesses. 
Moreover, the high tech field is overwhelmingly dominated by small 
businesses. It not only makes sense that at least 20 percent of the 
government workers taking part in this exchange should be assigned to 
this sector. This is not a burdensome provision.
  This amendment will further allow government workers the opportunity 
to experience the private sector and fully understand particularly the 
most dynamic-charged entrepreneurial spirit which fuels our economy--
our nation's small businesses. It will afford federal employees the 
prospect to view first-hand the impact of government regulations upon 
business.
  This amendment will provide federal workers the rare chance to ``walk 
in another's shoes'' and see a totally different perspective. Congress 
has repeatedly passed legislation that mandates that the government 
review the impact of legislation and the promulgation of regulations 
upon small business. This amendment would provide another vehicle to 
protect small businesses from our government by ensuring that federal 
workers understand the unique position that our entrepreneurs are in.
  Please join me in supporting the Velazquez amendment that will only 
improve and strengthen the Digital Tech Corps Act.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I have an inquiry for my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis).
  At section 3704(b)(2) of the proposed bill, it states that an 
employee of a private sector organization assigned to an agency is 
deemed an employee of the agency for purposes of section 208 of title 
18.
  Section 208 makes it a crime for a Federal employee to take any 
action in their official capacity if they have a personal financial 
interest in the matter or if an organization in which they are serving 
as an employee has a financial interest in the matter.
  I have no doubt that the authors of H.R. 3925 intended to make 
detailees

[[Page H1179]]

fully subject to this requirement. However, because the bill considers 
detailees employees of the agency, there is some ambiguity over whether 
they will be permitted to work on matters that have financial impact on 
their private organizations.
  Is it the gentleman's understanding that section 208 will prohibit 
detailees from working on such matters? I think it should be clear for 
the record that, while detailees are considered employees of the 
agency, subject to subsection 208, they are also employees of their 
private organization that are prohibited from working on matters that 
affect the financial interests of their company.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, that is certainly my 
understanding. I would say to my friend from California, as this moves 
through and to conference, I would be happy to work with her to further 
clarify that if we get the opportunity to do so; but that is clearly 
the intention of this legislation.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman calling it to our attention.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis) for his response, and I think actually if we made it clear 
here in the Record, no further action would be necessary.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII 
proceedings will now resume on amendment No. 3.
  The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment 
No. 3 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 219, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blagojevich
     Greenwood
     LaHood
     Lantos
     McKeon
     Peterson (MN)
     Pryce (OH)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Towns
     Traficant

                              {time}  1239

  Mrs. KELLY and Messrs. BALLENGER, PORTMAN, BRADY of Texas, and GILMAN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3925) to establish an exchange program between the Federal Government 
and the private sector in order to promote the development of expertise 
in information technology management, and for other purposes, pursuant 
to House Resolution 380, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the

[[Page H1180]]

third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________