[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.
____________________