Date: 2006-06-14
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. and lets make no mistake: Much of the work that is performed under contracts that would be banned under this amendment are performed in the United States by American citizens. and we are taking these peoples jobs and eliminating them. It is an illconsidered amendment. While targeted tax provisions to address the issue of corporate tax policy is appropriate. penalizing companies by prohibiting them from participating in Federal Government contracting harms both the United States Government and its citizens. The government should be able to purchase the best goods and services of worldclass companies wherever they are located. absent compelling national interests. We should be able to get the best bulletproof vests. the best body armor. the best armor for our APCs that are going around. wherever the companies happened to be headquartered. The prohibition makes no sense. We are also banning companies from doing business for activities that were legal at the time they made these corporate decisions. This is like an ex post facto ban. Do we want the best. technology and premier information technology service. or dont we? That is the question. This amendment is a wonderful way to ensure that we dont. I can understand if this amendment applied to Iran or Syria or North Korea. but Panama. Bermuda. the Cayman Island. they pose no threat to the United States. Preventing successful firms from participating in the Federal marketplace just because they happen to be incorporated outside the United States rejects the free market principles underlying our full and open competitive Federal acquisition system. Obtaining full and open competition from all firms who wish to participate in our Federal market is the keystone of our acquisition system. ensuring that taxpayers get the most value for their tax dollar. - Domestic source restrictions - like this are simply counterproductive. and. I might add. they invite retaliation. Americans are only 4 percent of the worlds consumers. When we start putting bans on countries that we are not going to contract with. they put up similar bans. The end result is instead of our ability to expand marketplaces for American companies and American jobs. we end up restricting it to the 4 percent of the worlds consumers that happen to live in the United States. Also. the substance of this amendment is not necessary because Congress addressed the issue of corporate. inversion in the JOBS Act. the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new section to the Tax Code. section 7874. which treats U.S. companies that complete a corporate inversion transaction after March 4. 2002 as domestic U.S. corporations for tax purposes. So we have addressed this issue. This is penalizing compahies who make decisions prior to that time. Critics could argue that companies that have engaged in corporate inversions priorto March 4. 2002 should be coveredby the JOBS Act. but Congress shouldnt. ban companies from competing for government contracts because of legal transactions they performed more than 2 years ago. at the same time denying American servicemen and the American Government the ability to get the best acquisition products that we can for America. In recent years. the House has consistently rejected contracting ban amendments. I urge a "no" vote on the DeLauro amendment.